A Look At The "Test Automation" Pyramid

Summary

In this engaging video discussion, Rich and John Stevenson explore the evolution of the Test Pyramid, originally conceptualized by Mike Cohen to highlight the costs of test automation. They address the shift from a focus on automation to a more holistic view of testing, including the misrepresentation of manual testing. Rich introduces his innovative 'ice cream cone' model, emphasizing the integration of manual and automated testing throughout the software development lifecycle. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding these models and their historical context to improve testing strategies in various environments.

Takeaways

• 😀 The test automation pyramid originated from Mike Cohen, focusing on the cost-effectiveness of automated tests, emphasizing more unit tests at the bottom and fewer UI tests at the top.
• 😀 Over time, the pyramid evolved from a focus on automation to a broader model of test life cycle, incorporating manual testing at the top, which led to confusion about its intended use.
• 😀 The model originally aimed to highlight the costs of automation, showing that unit tests are cheaper and more valuable than UI tests, but this focus on automation was eventually lost.
• 😀 Manual testing was misrepresented in the evolved pyramid, with some models suggesting that manual testing only occurs at the top, which was a significant misinterpretation.
• 😀 An anti-pattern called the 'ice cream cone' model emerged, suggesting that there should be testing throughout the entire process, not just at higher levels of automation or UI testing.
• 😀 Rich introduced the 'ice cream cone' model to depict testing as being core to automation, emphasizing that automation efforts are incomplete without proper testing beforehand.
• 😀 Automation is tool-assisted, and it's not just about automated checks but also the supporting tools and techniques that help with the entire testing process.
• 😀 The integration of manual and automated testing is crucial for effective software testing, as both work together to achieve comprehensive test coverage.
• 😀 The test pyramid needs to be contextualized, as it may not always fit every testing environment or product, and it depends on the specific needs of the platform or stack.
• 😀 Rich and John are planning to continue the discussion, focusing on new models and adaptations that will provide further clarity on the role of manual and automated testing in software development.

Q & A

What is the primary focus of the original test automation pyramid?

The original test automation pyramid, created by Mike Cohen, emphasized the need for more unit tests compared to service and UI tests, highlighting the cost implications of different testing levels.

How did the test automation pyramid evolve over time?

Over time, the term 'automation' was dropped from the pyramid's name, transforming it into a general 'test pyramid' that now included manual testing at the top, thus changing its original focus.

What issues arose from the changes made to the test pyramid's structure?

The changes led to confusion by mixing manual testing and automation within the same framework, resulting in a misrepresentation of where manual testing fits within the testing lifecycle.

What is the significance of the ice cream cone analogy in testing?

The ice cream cone analogy illustrates that testing is integral to automation; you can't write effective automated tests without prior testing, emphasizing that testing and automation should work together.

What role do tools play in the current understanding of automation in testing?

Tools assist in automation, helping to facilitate testing processes rather than being the sole focus of testing efforts, indicating that good testing requires a combination of manual and automated approaches.

How does the context of a project affect the relevance of the test pyramid?

The effectiveness of the test pyramid can vary depending on the project's environment, such as whether it involves mobile development or a UI-heavy stack, which may require more UI tests compared to unit tests.

What potential adaptations of the test pyramid were discussed in the video?

The video discussed adaptations like the inverted pyramid model and the ice cream cone model, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that integrates both automated checks and manual testing.

Why is it important to maintain a focus on the original purpose of the test pyramid?

Maintaining focus on the original purpose of the test pyramid helps ensure that the value of automation is highlighted and that testers understand the costs associated with different testing levels.

What does the speaker suggest about the integration of checking and testing?

The speaker suggests that checking and testing are tightly integrated processes and that effective testing strategies should not treat them as separate but as parts of a unified approach to quality assurance.

What future topics are hinted at for subsequent videos?

The video hints at further exploration of John's model for testing, indicating that the next video will delve deeper into new adaptations of the testing pyramid.