Last month, we host a webinar about Automated Mobile Testing at Gilt. Matt Isaacs, package developer at Gilt, told us all about how Gilt Groupe use Appium to automated their mobile examination. He discussed previous mobile testing answer, issues his team encountered and answer they found. You can chance the recording of the webinar, and the slides below. We also have a Q & amp; A of questions from the webinar below.

Q&A

Q: What are some of your bad experiences/bugs that swarm you to automatize testing?

Nothing really stands out over the time that I ’ ve been with Gilt. There are two big issues that are motivating our get-up-and-go for automation: First off, our Release + QA process has some serious defect which we ’ re test to deal with before they result in the kind of incubus experiences that you ’ re ask around. Second, the bugs that cause the most pain for us are of the elusive and hard to reproduce miscellanea. These are the sorts of matter that are most effectively served by manual QA, but don ’ t get enough attention because too much of our manual QA time is spent on saneness tryout and fix verifications.

For autonomous testing across multiple user personas, check out SUSATest — it explores your app like 10 different real users.

Q: Do you have thoughts on a working compromise between automating (and preserve) UI test and performing them manually?

The obvious candidate for automation will be your daily, repetitious QA tasks. For us, it ’ s a set of sanity tests that insure that users are able to log in or file a new account, browsing items, add them to the handcart or waitlist, and insure out successfully. These need to be done whenever we test a build to ensure that development work hasn ’ t broken any existing, crucial functionality. Automating the Steps To Reproduce for persistent/recurrent bugs can be worthwhile too, but the emphasis here is on recurrent. I wouldn ’ t really advise proceed too far beyond this just yet. Some may differ hither, but following a standard TDD approach of writing UI tests before implementing UI feature is probably go to turn into a gigantic clip investment. It really bet on what kind of user interaction are involved in navigate your app, as good as the app & # x27; s state of accessibility. This isn ’ t about 100 % machine-driven test reportage, but rather about maximizing the effectiveness of our manual QA clip. Q: make your squad work together with the QA squad in order to assure that all elements can be easily accessible with Appium? For now, no. The reason being that our QA squad is not yet responsible for publish machine-controlled tests.

Q: Matt, how do you address with & quot; waits & quot; to transfer between screens?

We ’ re still experimenting with manner to handle waits dependably. The Page Objects pattern has truly helped us out here. During Page Object creation, you ’ ll typically do checks to confirm that the craved page is charge and visible. I think its better to cover waits here. We do something similar to to ScalaTest ’ s Eventually (http: //doc.scalatest.org/2.0/ # org.scalatest.concurrent.Eventually), but you could also increase your driver ’ s implicit wait timeout at this point, perform your page checks, and so set it backward to its original value.

Thanks to Matt & amp; Gilt Groupe for lots of great info. Stay tuned for more outstanding webinars.