We're sorry but this page doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.
Feedback

Assertions considered Harmful

Formale Metadaten

Titel
Assertions considered Harmful
Untertitel
recheck your test automation
Serientitel
Anzahl der Teile
94
Autor
Lizenz
CC-Namensnennung 4.0 International:
Sie dürfen das Werk bzw. den Inhalt zu jedem legalen Zweck nutzen, verändern und in unveränderter oder veränderter Form vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen, sofern Sie den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen.
Identifikatoren
Herausgeber
Erscheinungsjahr
Sprache

Inhaltliche Metadaten

Fachgebiet
Genre
Abstract
Testing has been voted THE major pain point in the development life cycle by a recent Forrester research. And for good reason. Test automation (regression testing) is essentially not working—many teams are discarding efforts and people talk about the ROI of deleting tests. Especially on the UI-level, tests tend to be brittle and incomplete, yet a huge effort to create and maintain—reflected in the famous test pyramid. This is a stark contrast to current trend topics, like CI/CD, DevOps and shift-left. So how can we solve that problem? Assertions are the go-to checking mechanism in unit tests. However, when applied to testing interfaces, specifically GUIs, I consider them to be toxic. It is hard, but still feasible, to achieve a certain level of separation on the unit level. On the interface level, where integration is inevitable, it is outright impossible. And practice shows exactly that. But there are alternatives. From ApprovalTests to TextTest to various pixel-comparison tools, Golden Master Testing is a viable option. I give a short overview about them, together with some practical example when to apply what.