16 July 2024 Leave a comment QA
Automated testing is a critical component of modern software development, ensuring that new changes do not disrupt existing functionality. However, there is a common adage that “automated tests don’t find new bugs.” This statement can be misleading and warrants a deeper exploration to understand its nuances and exceptions.
Automated Tests as a Barrier
When implemented correctly, automated tests act as a barrier to prevent new bugs from being introduced into code that is already working and tested. The primary role of these tests is to catch defects as soon as they are introduced, ideally within a single development cycle. This process allows developers to address issues promptly, maintaining the integrity of the codebase.
However, the effectiveness of automated tests in finding new bugs diminishes over time. Once a test is created and the initial bugs are fixed, the test primarily serves to ensure that these bugs do not reappear. This does not mean that automated tests never find new bugs, but their primary role shifts to maintaining ongoing confidence in the code’s stability.
Exploratory and Manual Testing
While automated tests are excellent for regression testing, they free up testers to focus on more exploratory and manual testing activities. These activities are where many new bugs are often discovered. Exploratory testing, in particular, involves testers actively probing the software for unexpected behaviors, which automated tests may not cover.
Fuzzing and Randomized Inputs
Automated exploratory testing methods, such as fuzzing and randomized inputs, can indeed find new bugs by running tests that were never explicitly designed. These methods generate a wide range of inputs to uncover unexpected exceptions, hangs, or crashes. However, fuzzing is more commonly used in security testing rather than general software testing due to its inefficiency compared to other methods like equivalence partitioning and boundary testing.
The Pesticide Paradox
A concept known as the Pesticide Paradox explains why automated tests may become less effective over time. If a test suite repeatedly executes the same tests without variation, it will only catch the bugs it was designed to find. To extend the bug-finding effectiveness of automated tests, it’s crucial to introduce variability in the tests. This can be achieved by using test data generators or modifying non-critical aspects of the test scenarios.
Balancing Automated and Manual Testing
In practice, a balanced approach that combines automated and manual testing is often the most effective. Automated tests provide a quick and reliable way to ensure that existing functionality remains intact, while manual testing allows for more creative and thorough exploration of the software. The key is to determine which aspects of the testing process are worth automating and which are best left for manual exploration.
Enhancing Your Testing Strategy with Repeato
For teams looking to streamline their testing processes, tools like Repeato can be invaluable. Repeato is a no-code test automation tool for iOS and Android that helps you create, run, and maintain automated tests for your apps. Its ease of setup and use, combined with its ability to quickly edit and run tests, makes it an excellent choice for maintaining a robust test suite. Additionally, Repeato’s use of computer vision and AI allows for more dynamic and flexible testing, helping to uncover bugs that might be missed by traditional automated tests.
For more insights into effective testing strategies and tools, explore our blog and documentation.
