Why would you automate a test? What benefits do we get with test automation?
Regularly when individuals get included in automated testing, their principle center movements from outlining great tests to guaranteeing that the automated code can really execute and run the test.
Amid the sprint when colleagues are underweight to convey the stories in a constrained time allotment, there is normally insufficient time to test all the arranged situations, not to mention composing automated test scripts to test the new usefulness.
We can get hindered with the points of interest of the work, coding, evaluating, executing and disregard the fundamental motivation behind why we really robotize a test!
Why do we automate a test?
This is one of the inquiries I approach when I talk with a possibility for a test automation part and shockingly, many applicants appear to miss the fundamental and most essential motivation to robotize a test. A portion of the appropriate responses I get from hopefuls are very tenable, yet at the same time not the appropriate response that I'm searching for. A portion of the appropriate responses I get to the above question are:
Increment Test Coverage
This answer is very legitimate, yet how would we characterize scope? On the off chance that we have 100 tests, how might we gauge the rate scope? With a develop test automation rehearse set up, you could run several tests in a generally brief timeframe.
Along these lines, we can make more experiments, more test situations and test with more information for a given component and in this way acquire certainty that they framework is filling in not surprisingly.
Be that as it may, in testing and particularly test automation, more tests don't generally mean better quality or more shot of discovering bugs.
Spare Time
This answer is additionally valid as you can invest important energy doing fascinating exploratory testing while the automated tests are running. Be that as it may, for a shiny new component that has been created, it could really take more time to compose automated scripts than to test the element physically in the main moment.
In this way, it is imperative to note that to spare time from automated tests, it requires an underlying expanded exertion in scripting the automated tests, ensuring they are code looked into, and that there are no hiccups in the execution of automated tests.
Discover More Bugs
This answer stresses me now and again as I have never observed any measurements that propose there were a bigger number of bugs found via automation than manual/exploratory testing. Automated tests by and large check for any relapse in the framework after new code has been executed.
There is constantly more shot of discovering bugs in new components than in existing usefulness. Moreover, there are different reasons why automated tests neglect to discover absconds.
Supplant Manual Testers
This is likely the most noticeably awful answer I have heard with respect to why we automate a test. There is an unmistakable qualification between what a manual analyzer does and what automated test checks. Automated testing is not trying, it is checking of truths.
With a specific end goal to have the capacity to automate a test, we need to know the normal result so we can check for the legitimate or invalid result. This is the thing that gives us genuine or false, positive or negative, pass or fizzle.
Testing then again is an examination work out, where we outline and execute tests all the while. Numerous things can act diversely where just an attentive human analyzer can take note.
Great manual analyzers will dependably be required as a result of the distinctive attitude and the capacity to scrutinize the framework.
Enhance Quality
Albeit automated tests are fit for giving us snappy input and alarm us about the soundness of an application, with the goal that we can return any code change that has broken the framework, automated testing all alone does not enhance quality. Because we have a develop test automation set up does not ensure that no bugs escape into creation.
All in all, what is the principle reason we automate a test?
The short answer is repeatability. We automate a test since we have to execute similar tests again and again. Would you need to automate a test in the event that you were just going to run it once and forget about it? Obviously not! The time and exertion that you spend on automating the test, you could have executed it physically.
Presently, by definition, we automate repeatable tests, i.e. relapse tests, that we have to execute much of the time.
Things being what they are, next time, when you need to automate a test, make a stride back and think how frequently would you say you are probably going to execute this test? Is it truly justified regardless of the push to automate the test?
