Table of Content
Delivering a product your users love requires setting up the right processes to ensure the high quality of each release. There are various testing strategies to choose from for your specific testing needs. As with any significant decision, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each approach is vital. This article delves into the essential aspects of different testing strategies for your product.
TL;DR
Quality assurance (QA) is crucial for product development, demanding well-informed testing strategies. Options include in-house QA, manual testing, automation through code or no-code/low-code tools, hiring QA contractors, or collaborating with managed QA partners. Smaller teams might begin with manual QA, but scaling up can be an issue. As the product scales, software teams turn to test automation to meet their testing needs. Code-based test automation options require significant time and cost investments in specialized skills and infrastructure. No-code/low-code tools are easy to use but might have limited support for handling complex test cases. Hiring QA contractors offers flexibility but can introduce conflicts. Managed QA partnerships provide efficiency and expertise.
In an ideal scenario, quality assurance should be a team effort involving coordination among technical and non-technical team members. However, in fast-paced agile companies, time and resources are often limited, making it challenging to allocate adequate time to QA, despite its undeniable importance. In such situations, we recommend working with a specialist QA partner who can assume this responsibility, guaranteeing a high-quality product delivery.
In-House Quality Assurance (QA)
An in-house QA team is typically responsible for crafting test plans, formulating test cases, executing tests, and reporting bugs and other identified issues during the testing phase.
The In-house QA strategy can offer substantial value to your organization when executed effectively. By combining their testing expertise and tools proficiency with their grasp of your product, business objectives, and customer base, the QA team assists the development team in shipping better quality code and aids in delivering a top-notch user experience. An in-house QA team typically comprises manual QA, test automation engineers, or a combination. Let's explore these options in detail.
Manual QA
Many teams start with in-house manual QA. This strategy works well for smaller teams with less complex products that are relatively straightforward to test. However, this approach becomes challenging to scale as your product grows and evolves. As the product's scope expands, manual QA becomes overwhelming, with insufficient time to thoroughly test all facets of the product with every release.
Pros
- Well-suited for smaller teams with products that are relatively straightforward to test
- Benefits from in-house product expertise
Cons
- Ineffective at scale
- Long testing cycles
As a product scales, teams often shift focus towards automation to fulfill growing testing needs.
Test automation using Code-Based Solutions
This is a popular choice amongst teams who have strong engineering management. Engineering teams are often keen on retaining full control and building solutions from the ground up. Popular tools, including Selenium, Cypress, and Playwright, are employed to construct an in-house suite of test automation.
The responsibility of writing the test automation code falls on either the developers or test automation engineers who are specifically hired for the job. Let's explore these options separately.
Developers Writing End-to-End Automation Tests
Pros
- Close familiarity with code and testing requirements
- No need to hire additional resources for writing automated tests
- Tailored infrastructure catering to your testing needs
Cons
- Slows development pace due to additional code-writing demands on developers
- Complex and costly infrastructure setup; you may need to hire an infrastructure expert to manage the test environments.
- Potential oversight due to proximity to code and lack of a different perspective
- Non-technical team members such as customer support, business analysts, and product managers don't have clear visibility of what is getting tested and can't utilize automation to test their critical use cases.
Dedicated QA Automation Engineers Writing End-to-End Automation Tests
Pros
- Accelerates development speed as developers focus on shipping features on the product roadmap
- Dedicated resources for writing and maintaining automation tests
- Tailored infrastructure catering to your testing needs
Cons
- Requires hiring for a specialized skill set, increasing time and cost investments
- Complex and costly infrastructure setup; you may need to hire an infrastructure expert to manage the test environments.
- Non-technical team members such as customer support, business analysts, and product managers don't have clear visibility of what is getting tested and can't utilize automation to test their critical use cases.
Test automation using No-Code/Low-Code Solutions
As the name suggests, no-code/low-code solutions are tools that any team member can use to create and execute automated tests, regardless of their coding skills. These tools are quick to set up and often involve a minimal or non-existent learning curve. Many tools employ record and replay solutions, which are relatively easy for anyone to use when creating and executing automated tests.
However, tests created using no-code/low-code tools can often be unreliable, as they heavily depend on the underlying DOM elements or CSS to identify the components they need to interact with in the user interface. This often results in flaky tests, especially when the UIs change frequently. Some tools use AI-healing techniques to address this issue, which means they examine multiple locators to counter small changes in the UI and use AI to estimate the probability of interacting with the correct element. This is a significant improvement, but this approach is not entirely free of flakiness.
Additionally, many of these tools may not be able to support complex scenarios, such as sending and verifying the content of emails, downloading and testing the contents of a file, multiuser testing, and more.
Pros
- Quick set up
- User-friendly for various skill levels
- Easy to involve both the technical and non-technical members in testing
Cons
- Limited for complex use cases
- A limited number of test runs and parallel run options
- Possibility of vendor lock-in
Hiring an hourly QA contractor
QA contractors are typically remote professionals who assist you with your testing needs. They can do manual testing as well as create automated tests based on your requirements, execute them according to a predetermined schedule, and share the reports with you.
Since they charge by the hour, you can employ them only when needed, which presents a cost-effective solution for on-demand testing.
However, it's crucial to consider the potential conflict of interest between your requirements and those of the QA contractor. You would want your tests to be automated as quickly as possible with high quality to minimize maintenance. However, this conflicts with the interests of the QA contractors, who get paid by the hour. Also, even if you change your QA contractor, the cost to switch might be high depending on the complexity of your product.
Pros
- Budget-friendly entry
- Flexibility to hire as needed
Cons
- Potential conflict of interest
- Complex and costly infrastructure setup; you may need to hire an infrastructure expert to manage the test environments.
- Non-technical team members such as customer support, business analysts, and product managers don't have clear visibility of what is getting tested and can't utilize automation to test their critical use cases.
Managed QA Partnerships
Managed QA services alleviate your testing responsibilities. Quality Assurance as a Service is an emerging segment with substantial benefits to your organization. These services provide assured levels of test coverage, test infrastructure to support parallel runs, test planning, writing, ongoing maintenance and triage, and bug reporting.
Pros
- Trustworthy QA partnership
- No infrastructure investments
- Eliminates the need for specialized hires
- Accelerates development velocity as developers focus on shipping features on the product roadmap
Cons
- Requires careful partner selection: A few things to consider when selecting a QA partner include guaranteed test coverage levels, maintenance and reporting commitments, infrastructure support, testing frameworks, and vendor lock-ins.
- Non-technical team members such as customer support, business analysts, and product managers don't have clear visibility of what is getting tested and can't utilize automation to test their critical use cases.
Shaztra advantage
Shaztra is both a service and a platform that helps your team deliver high-quality code faster by managing your QA. Our unique English-based approach to automated testing gives your entire team, including non-technical members, visibility into what we are testing and the flexibility to use automation for testing their specific critical use cases. You can find more details about how Shaztra integrates with your team here or schedule a call with us to learn more.
Conclusion
Determining the right QA strategy to achieve comprehensive end-to-end test automation for your team can be a perplexing experience. With an array of testing strategies at your disposal, the choice becomes a balancing act between the scope of your product and the resources at hand. Whether opting for in-house manual QA, harnessing the power of automation, or seeking partnership with managed QA experts, the ultimate goal remains unchanged: to deliver a product that not only meets but exceeds expectations.
So, as you navigate the exciting journey of product development, remember that choosing the perfect testing strategy isn't just a choice – it's your secret weapon for delivering a product that delights your customers.
%20Framework.png)