Download as ODP, PPTX
Uploaded byGayathri Mohan
Anti-patterns in Your Test coverage
The document discusses anti-patterns in test coverage, focusing on the test pyramid and its advantages, such as reduced test running time and maintenance costs as one moves down the pyramid. It identifies two main anti-patterns: the ice cream cone, which leads to slower regression cycles and extended defect detection times, and the cupcake, which increases build time and delivery costs while risking missed non-functional requirements. Suggested solutions include enhancing collaboration within teams and regularly reviewing the test pyramid.
More Related Content
Similar to Anti-patterns in Your Test coverage
![[QaOps] Continuouss Integration | Pipeline strategy](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/pipelinestrategy-200601222821-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Anti-patterns in Your Test coverage
- 1. Anti-patterns in yourTest Coverage - Test Pyramid - Advantages of Test Pyramid - Ice cream cone anti-pattern - Cup cake anti- pattern - Quick Fix
- 2.
- 3. Advantages • Test runningtime, setup time is less as you come down the pyramid • Test writing, setup and maintenance cost is less as you come down the pyramid • Defect detection cycle time is less as you come down the pyramid • Stability goes high as you come down the pyramid • Overall saves time and resources
- 4. Typical Project TestCoverage
- 5. Anti-pattern Type 1 -Ice Cream Cone
- 6. Ice Cream Cone– Effects / Symptoms • Increase in Regression cycle time. Probably 100% slower. • Hence delay in release cycles. • Application grows delivery time increases. • Defect Detection cycle is longer . Nightly regression vs build time detection • Loss of trust in automation suite. • Blame game
- 7. Anti-pattern Type 2- Cup Cake
- 8. Cup Cake –Effects / Symptoms • Increase in build time and release cycle time. • Wastage of man hours which could have focussed on getting new features delivered. • Cost of delivery of a small feature is higher. • Possibility of missing key non functional requirements.
- 9. Quick Fix ● Increasein Collaboration / Team Work – Three Amigos process / Story kick-off. ● Constant re-look at your pyramid ● Tools like TTA can be integrated into build.
- 10. Quick Fix ● Increasein Collaboration / Team Work – Three Amigos process / Story kick-off. ● Constant re-look at your pyramid ● Tools like TTA can be integrated into build.
Editor's Notes
- #3 Pyramid Structure - Pyramid can be co-related to Depth of application Components in the Pyramid - UI – End to End GUI Tests using Selenium, sahi. - Service/Integration tests – One level below, subcutaneous tests at an api level - Unit Tests – Code level, Nunit - Typical Example: Login scenario in IRCTC , Train Search Availability
- #5 - Unit test at JS/web layer level not only at backend level - UI tests – 1.08 min Unit – 0.0005 Atleast a 100 times faster - Total build time – 23 minutes
- #6 - Usual trap - Enterprise applications – not enough stubbing/ mocking skills - Pressure of delivery. - Isolated automation teams
- #8 Extreme opp to prev case - Enthusiastic devs, testers and automation testers. - Ex: Login failure scenarios in UI - Usually due to lack of colloboration - Org structure to have isolated dev team, manual team and automation team - Possibility of wrong scenarios automated sometimes by each team.