I think that there is an illusion in the industry that automated testing will replace manual testing. Likewise, another illusion is that everyone can be skilled at all levels of test automation. I like how this is laid out indicating that there are different skill sets needed at different levels for software testing.
Personally, I find myself bridging all three. I come from, initially, a primarily manual testing background with all the paperwork/documentation that goes along with it, working within a SCRUM/KanBan structure to execute those tests. But I've also taken those manual test cases and adapted them to fit into the automated testing framework at my company, also within the same organizational structure. And, at the same time, I've done the framework development as well, building code structures so that folks can fit their test cases into the overall framework. And I will guarentee it takes an entirely different skill set at each level.
Preference? I like being what this powerpoint describes as being an Automation Specialist as well as an Automation Engineer. Both pieces feel comfortable to me and are a lot of fun to do.
Hi again tristaanogre ;)
Thanks for sharing your feedback.
It seems like you already made a real transformation from being manual tester to (a mixture of) Automation Specialist/ Automation Engineer. I am sort of in the transformation process myself, actually.
However, I think a good programmer will never be a good test engineer, will never be a good programmer (all is relative of course). I think it relates to what you also mentioned 'different skill sets'.
As for manual testing, I think it won't become unnecessary or even disappear.. classic structured manual testing will make a transformation to ad hoc exploratory testing. Not because it's better! I personally feel 'classic' structured manual testing based on high-quality requirements is still a very decent approach to getting insight in quality, but (unfortunality) companies, business keep setting higher and higher demands on faster and more deliveries... in these newly shaped climates there is no time for classic structured, formalised manual testing: there is no time for manual testing an application for couple of days, as the new release is planned for the next day.
I'm kind of on the fence between Specialist & Engineer as well.
I came from a manual testing background. But go back further than that and I did programming and development at university. That's what moved me from manual to automated testing. I very, very, seldom do manual testing now. Most of the time spent on automation is framework and test fixture related for me now. With some time spent converting manual tests to automated ones. Using the framework I built. My focus is mostly on desktop applications these days, but I do still have some large legacy web based suites still in use.
Our manual test guys are slowly moving over to using my framework. So they only have to fill in the data driver sheets. This requires no programming skills on their behalf. But a lot of our web related tests have moved over to a Selenium based model. For this, the devs have written the framework, and the test guys (manual test guys) us the provided framework to "write" their own tests using Visual Studio. But this is pretty high level stuff. They don't write the fixtures, just write short scripts which make calls to them.
While I'm OK with this. I think this is where the distinction between devs, testers (manual ones) and automation specialists comes in. Some of their web based (Selenium) tests, I'm not convinced are robust enough. For instance, while my version of a test for an overlay on a web field will check: existence, visibility, colour and opacity level, theirs may only check existence and/or visibility. It's just down to getting into the habit of understating that the test knows nothing. It only knows what you tell it to do. So you tend to have to be A LOT more thorough than with manual tests. If the opacity was wrong in a overlay, the field would be unreadable. If you only check that the overlay is present, you'd miss that. It's obvious to a manual tester, of course, they probably wouldn't even have to think about it. But unless you tell an automated test to check things like this, it won't. Seems obvious, but it's amazing how many people miss it ....
I also can't see manual testers being got rid of any time soon. Some automation tests take time to develop. And some are not practical to develop. (ie. - it's not worth spending 3 months writing a super-complex automated test you'll only ever run once! When it would only take a couple of days to do it manually ...)
I even said at my interview for my current job ... "It's not a silver bullet. I know fine well you can't automate EVERYTHING." I think that's the answer they were hoping for. If you think you can automate absolutely everything and make manual testing/testers just "vanish" completely, I think you're deluding yourself.
