What is our automation test coverage?

- What is our automation test coverage?
- 42
- What is “42”?
- What is automation test coverage?

Asking about test coverage you have to be ready to have such conversation. In general the question about test coverage is very slippery. The person who is asking it has to realize all issues related to testing:
Testing can be endless if it is not limited. It can be limited by time frame (Session based exploratory testing) or by cutting the scope (scripted testing). You can cut the scope by limiting the number of features to be tested or by using test design techniques.
Due to the fact that we cannot automate exploratory testing the definition of automation test coverage will be treated to the scripted testing and it will show the percentage of automated manual tests.

Let’s look at one small example:

There is a simple application consists of a couple of pages, forms, linked between each other entities, functions and so on (I'm not talking about infrastructure). To perform testing very close to the full (exhausting) testing we will need days, weeks, months.

Cut the scope of testing by using the well-known test design techniques (equivalent partition, boundary value analysis, state flow control and etc.) leaving only the most critical data sets and scenarios. Having this we are getting coverage on the level of "a drop of water in the sea". Thereby on the question about automation test coverage you can answer that we have for example 50% of all automated manual tests what corresponds to undefined percentage from the full test coverage (which we are not going to do). In the result it means that our automation test coverage equals to “42”.

In case, if you limit testing by time frame where you don’t have manual cases the answer “42” will also be valid since the scope of performing testing anyway infinitesimal relative to the scope of full testing.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Organizing UI automation testing

In recent years it is becoming less and less companies where you can meet dedicated test teams working with different development teams under the same product. This is most likely due to financial reasons because there are not so many companies who can afford to keep a team dedicated exclusively to testing and everything related to it. Nowadays a majority of software development companies work using Agile & Scrum, where all team members (software engineers, architects, programmers, analysts, QA experts, testers and etc.) are sitting together and doing their best to meet the goals of the sprint. In such projects testers, in principle, may know nothing about work of their colleagues from other teams because their areas of responsibilities intersect not very often or do not intersect at all. It can work fine until we are not starting talking about organizing automation testing and everything related to it: planning, design, implementation of frameworks and tests, support. I
Read more

QA Chapter

There are different point of view on organising a QA chapter. As a QA manager, I see it in the following way. If you ask me ` How  should  QA Chapter look like?` , I would suggest the following structure: Chapter Lead: Person taking final responsibility for decisions Mandatory: 3 QA engineers, 1 BE engineer, 1 FE engineer Optional: Product Owner, Architect, DevOps engineers NOTE: It is very important for me to have representatives of different roles in the chapter, since everyone sees how to improve quality and where to apply improvements differently.  If you ask me ` What  are  QA Chapter  areas of responsibility ?`, I will answer that the agenda of QA Chapter meetings should be based on the following areas: Product quality: Quality of Development Quality of Testing Quality Control Quality of Delivery Visibility of QA work If you ask me ` How are you going to make your QA Chapter performing well?` , I will answer that we will need to define a set of rules and constantly monitor tha
Read more

Why do you write automated tests?

Why do you write automated tests? Many people say "to find bugs" but it is not true. Tests are not looking for bugs. They just verify correspondence of actual and expected results. - So? Where is the “looking for bugs” here? -No, I haven’t seen. Some time ago I had a conversation about unit and integration tests with one of our developers. In the result we've come to conclusion that they are writing tests to verify contracts between components for convenience, access, usage of the defined data types and some other aspects. When you are writing a new code the test will be your first client. If it is easy and comfortable it means that everything is fine.When you are writing test on existing code but facing issues all the time and have to write a lot of workarounds it means that existent code is crap and it requires improving it. The same is applicable for other automation tests written by testers. You are writing them on the framework which works with the application
Read more