4 ms·
I naturally think about (Or pencil.) what elements should be in a page, and how they should behave. That is easier to translate to browser tests. Also, even if
by budhajeewa 5y ago
I naturally think about (Or pencil.) what elements should be in a page, and how they should behave. That is easier to translate to browser tests.
Also, even if I write feature or unit tests to invoke some class methods, there's no guarantee that they'd be executed when a user performs some action in the page. To do that, I'd either have to manually check it (Bad, because its not repeatable.), or write browser tests anyway.
Edit: Typo
- PaulHoule 5y agoI do it the other way around. If the framework is correct in design and implementation then you can change something superficial and the odds are good that the change is superficial and it works. If you are starting from the outside and working in it might seem easy to get started but you will fall behind in productivity compared to people who do the opposite. I have frequently worked with testers and frequently those testers have chosen to automate their work and I am all for that; a dev doing the same might catch some errors that way but they may also encode conceptual mistakes.
- budhajeewa 5y agoWhat if it is a single person project, or a small team with only devs having to manually test each other's work?
- PaulHoule 5y agoAll the more reason you can't afford browser-based automation testing and have to build quality in from the beginning. See https://www.amazon.com/Quality-Free-Art-Making-Certain/dp/0451625854 https://www.amazon.com/Quality-Free-Art-Making-Certain/dp/04...