In Agile/DevOps, as new products emerge, new companies appear, and new features are delivered faster. Regular testing is essential, but it requires several steps, consuming much time needed for Exploratory Testing or Monkey Testing.
If you want to know more about Codeless/Low-Code testing, please refer to this article where we discussed a heuristic approach called “training everyone to code”. Some employees will have no desire to be trained in this new approach; others will adapt. Companies are not seeing a significant improvement in automation testing.
Instead of forcing testers to become automated testers, as many already mentioned, testing proves bugs’ existence. I would like to upgrade that definition into the following: testing helps companies deliver products according to customer requirements. So, how can we help accomplish that? We need to help testers deliver top-quality results quickly and eliminate negative factors that cause a desire to change roles.
Codeless/Low-Code testing could help them, but we need to consider some important factors, organizations need to take a leap of faith.
First, software testers must become familiar with Codeless/Low-Code testing tools, understand tool features, and record and play specific testing scenarios. Codeless/Low-Code testing tools mostly use UI and visual elements. As this technique relies on the native identification of the web elements, testers do not have to write codes while building test cases. However, I do encourage them to learn how to read code.
Once software testers have mastered the Codeless/Low-Code tool, the team must prioritize and select repetitive tests/scenarios. Functional testing involves many repetitive tests such as login as X role and see X action available or validate X dropdown with X, Y, and Z values. The main activities here are collecting these flows and running them automatically.
Testers need to design our flows correctly, follow recording instructions, capture step-by-step actions, and keep an eye on validations. The most prominent pitfall while recording tests cases is forgetting a validation (for example, expected would be equal to the actual value). Also, remember to include multiple test scenarios to uncover more bugs.
After creating tests using our Codeless/Low-Code tool and ensuring they are running perfectly, we can add a new title to our current role as a tester: Codeless/Low-Code superstar! However, as members of a team, we cannot work in isolation. Software testing involves a process of testing early, testing often, and testing everywhere. Stay connected, try to share with other teams in your organization, and ask for feedback!
Perhaps you are familiar with some Codeless/Low-Code tools, maybe your team is using them, but if not, you can examine the following Codeless/Low-Code tools comparison table:
Future Improvements on Codeless/Low-Code Tools
We already discussed the necessity of releasing faster and reducing potential failures in our final Products/Features and how Codeless/Low-Code testing is a great approach to do so. That said, here are a few areas we think Codeless/Low-Code testing could improve:
Reusability and Maintainability – This area is critical. if we keep adding tests, we could end with a lot of the redundancies, and maintaining those would be an impossible task. Codeless/Low-Code tools may add some assistance through reusable artifacts and smart selectors (auto-healing features, for example), but it is important that the tester’s design flows correctly from the start.
Debugging – Debugging becomes challenging when we accumulate design errors or mistakes in our flows. Codeless/Low-Code tools must provide some debugging mechanisms. Flow diagrams are excellent, and the model-based test helps a lot. Still, perhaps they can include user-friendly inspection features to quickly identify and resolve any possible failure in our Codeless/Low-Code tests.
Training – This area could be resolved with detailed documentation. Many people enjoy having tutorials, tips, and hints readily available. Onboarding training could be beneficial, and this is important to see if the Codeless/Low-Code tool is a success in our organizations.
Some software testers are not programmers, and the supply of automation engineers capable of the job is limited. Codeless/Low-Code testing tools require minimal programming skills as a starting point, and those can help testers achieve higher quality in less time.
Human intervention is still necessary. Some areas need the human touch, but we need to remove those repetitive checks and focus on uncovering bugs. At the end of the day, we need to make the testing process cost-effective. Finally, if we want to make Codeless/Low-Code testing reality in our organization, we need to consider that Codeless/Low-Code testing requires a new mindset and exceptional leadership.
Happy bug hunting! – Enrique A. Decoss