Numerous supervisors are enticed by the charm of record and playback testing, yet don’t make these free record and playback automation tools the focal point of your test automation procedures unless you have an extraordinarily static UI and codebase. The tests these record and playback tools create are regularly outdated in a few weeks, relying on how frequently you update your code. Testing teams attempt to make these record and playback tools for testing helpful by either re-recording frequently or recording and editing.
The record and playback testing have been a noteworthy element of most test automation tools, and it still is today. The record and playback software records and logs your manual testing, including each record and playback mouse clicks and keystrokes or screen captures also gives you a chance to replay them later. It soothes the dullness of manual testing, particularly when you need to perform regression tests, yet it can be restricted in its scope.
Record and Playback testing tools look misleadingly basic, and in the event that you take after guidelines, you can most likely begin in two or three hours. In any case, sooner or later, you will probably reach a stopping point, which will be difficult to climb.
When you first take a look at record and playback tool, it would appear that an awesome choice. It enables your testers to make automation without having to know how to code. The record and playback automation testing tools are normally simple to utilize and you can begin getting comes about the very first moment. Given these advantages, it is no big surprise such huge numbers of tasks fall into the record and playback trap.
Here are the advantages and disadvantage of record and playback in automation testing:
What’s wrong with record and playback?
High support cost
These record and playback test tools regularly store procedural advances or make procedural code. Procedural tests are an issue as even minor changes can require that all of your tests should be refreshed or rerecorded.
These open source record and playback testing tools generally don’t coordinate well with your SDLC procedure. They ordinarily have their own particular interface and test sprinters. This frequently implies you have to manually commence tests.
Feature-rich choices are generally costly. Numerous require yearly renewals and are attached to particular people. Alongside being costly they regularly require higher technical skill to utilize them efficiently, largely defeating the point of running with a record and playback tool. There are free choices, yet they ordinarily have extremely constrained features.
Restricted test scope
The primary concern to understand about the record and playback testing is that they normally follow the exact steps you recorded, no more, no less. That implies these tests commonly do minimal more than fundamental navigational testing.
When you run with a record and playback it can be difficult to change to another tool. Switching typically means starting from scratch.
At the point when may record and playback be a decent alternative?
- Gets organizes/names of items.
- Some automation tools offer object-based recording.
- Causes tester to understand the code of an application.
- Quick and easy keywords tests.
- Structure and syntax.
The main issue is, you may begin utilizing a record and playback test automation and at first see great improvement. In any case, sooner or later, you are probably going to hit a brick wall that is difficult to climb. This will be trailed by lots of disappointment, trailed by the rejection of the tool as a toy, trailed by a budget fight before you finally can get a new beginning utilizing a superior approach.
Thus, it has its place in the plan of automated testing, yet should be a curse if you totally depended upon. Or maybe, it should be a boon if utilized to supplement automation efforts.
We, at TestOrigen, mainly use all latest automation testing tools to automate our testing procedures and providing best software testing services all over the world.