User acceptance testing is your last line of defence before each release, which sounds like a good reason to take UAT seriously. But is this reason good enough to warrant investing time and effort into UAT automation?
This can help to identify issues early on and ensure that software is always in a releasable state. The process is critical for ensuring that the software meets the requirements of the users and is fit for its intended purpose. There are several benefits of automated UAT testing, some of which include:
- Increased Efficiency: Automated UAT testing can significantly increase the efficiency of the testing process. This can save a significant amount of time and resources, allowing teams to focus on other important tasks.
- Improved Accuracy: Automated tests are less prone to errors than manual tests. They are not subject to human error, such as misinterpreting test instructions or accidentally skipping steps. This improves the accuracy of the testing process and reduces the likelihood of bugs being missed.
- Increased Consistency: Automated UAT tests can be designed to run the same way every time they are executed. This ensures that the tests are consistent and that the results can be easily compared between runs. This can be particularly useful when trying to identify trends or patterns in software behaviour.
- Reduced Costs: Automated testing can also help to reduce costs. This can save money on development costs and reduce the need for expensive bug-fixing efforts later on.
- Improved Test Coverage: Automated testing can cover a much larger number of test cases than manual testing. This can help to identify issues early on and reduce the likelihood of bugs being missed.
- Better Test Reporting: Automated UAT testing can also generate more detailed test reports than manual testing. The reports can include information on the test cases that were run, the results, and any issues that were identified. This can provide valuable information to developers, testers, and stakeholders, helping them to understand the status of the software.
- When recording a test, the platform automatically determines optimal waiting time for complex page loading scenarios and automatically identifies UI regions with dynamic content. When comparing new UI samples with their baselines, Screenster can distinguish between visual and content-related changes, and it lets your easily integrate expected changes into your suites.
In conclusion, automated UAT testing is a powerful tool that can help organizations to improve the efficiency, accuracy, and consistency of their software testing process. It can also help to reduce costs, improve test coverage, and generate more detailed test reports. With the benefits of automated UAT testing, it is worth considering incorporating it into the software development process.
So what is wrong with automated user acceptance tests and what can we do about it? Based on what I’ve seen in a good dozen of teams, working with code-based solutions is what turns UAT into a headache for most people. To prove this, let’s take a deep dive into user acceptance testing and how people automate it.
Actually, the right approach to UAT doesn’t come down to a choice between manual and automated acceptance tests. Automation is possible in ~99% of cases, but the question is how to make automation work for your project.
Moreover, Opkey is a popular tool for automated User Acceptance Testing (UAT) that offers several benefits for organizations looking to improve their software testing process. Its no code test automation platform can help automate software testing within few hours rather than months.
Basically, manual user acceptance testing is a false economy that far too many testers buy into without considering its long-term consequences. Actually, the right approach to UAT doesn’t come down to a choice between manual and automated acceptance tests. Automation is possible in ~99% of cases, but the question is how to make automation work for your project.
The good news is lots of things have changed in record-playback testing in the past years. Modern visual testing solutions have ditched cumbersome desktop apps in favor of lightweight web-based platforms. What’s more, these platforms offer a more robust and pain-free test maintenance paired with rich visual testing functionality.
I’m sure you’ve seen teams where a part of QA-related tasks falls on the shoulders of product owners and product managers. This makes a lot of sense with UAT where the tester has to focus on user-facing functionality.
Moving from hand-coded to recorded tests can make automated UAT work for you — if you have the right tool. If your project revolves around a web application, our very own solution Screenster can become the tool that will help you fix UAT automation.
To make things worse, up to 30% of initial requirements typically change mid-process as your project evolves, increasing the test maintenance burden. Knowing this, no wonder that so many teams choose not to automate the acceptance testing process in the first place. But are they right in taking this route?
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings