4 ms·
Agree, no-code seems to optimize for a large number of people being somewhat effective, but with less control over the output (increasing fragility, rework) Co
by nhoughto 5y ago
Agree, no-code seems to optimize for a large number of people being somewhat effective, but with less control over the output (increasing fragility, rework)
Code is more upfront effort but more control and thus less fragility but more maintainable over time (if done right).
I imagine there are some/many situations where throwing many people at a problem is the “best” way and this would suit that quite well I guess.
- franciscassel 5y agoIn my experience, many orgs that work with Selenium and its derivatives have described that (coded) approach as flaky / brittle (i.e., fragile). Of course, until automation gets to be as clever of humans, any test automation approach is going to have some flavor of brittleness.
- ukd1 5y agoAgreed; also, even with human testing, their nuance can be a double-edge sword. Testing, and specifically QA is hard - as today it's mostly about the "assurance" part; does one feel assured enough to ship this, which is subjective.
- sumedh 5y agoYou should try out Cypress, its really good and its just works out of the box.
- cebert 5y agoPlaywright is excellent too. Playwright is much more forgiving with tests that need to high different origins (common with Enterprise apps) and multiple browsers in the same test (to verify collaborative editing etc). If you're considering Cypress, I'd highly recommend also giving Playwright a look (https://playwright.dev https://playwright.dev )