Do a quick search on Google about finding the best test case management software, and you’ll get a wide range of options, from open-source, free to paid software—based on several various expectations. One outcome suggests that you need a GUI-based test tool that doesn’t need scripting, while another argues that automatic tests are code, and a third is more interested in test tooling as illustrations and documentation that appear to be interactive.
Just because a new manager had familiarity with a particular testing tool at his previous software testing companies, or just to conserve costs and look much better on the budget list, companies often add or swab test case management software.
Not testing to see if the tool really solves the challenges the team is trying to fix is a big failure.
Testing Tool choice is often dependent on less-than-ideal parameters. So, which ones are the best? When selecting a functional testing tool, keep the following factors in mind.
Classes of defects
What are the show-stopping glitches, and where do they show up? That’s a simple question to ask; most bug tracker teams will find the solution in a lunch break. This type of investigation could lead to the discovery of a bulk quantity of bugs in the core functionality, data model, or graphical user interface (GUI).
If the most critical bugs are in the GUI, unit tests didn’t contribute many benefits to the test automation of the core functionality. It’s unlikely to be the first spot you look.
This could be the first question, but it may also be the last. Return to this issue after you’ve chosen a tool.
Examine the most recent bugs that were found, both in test and in development, and determine whether the testing tool will realistically capture those kinds of flaws. If the conclusion is “possibly not” or worse, the tool selection process should be restarted.
Language of software and dev environment
If the tool has a programming language, there are 2 options: code in the same language as the development programmers or choose an extremely powerful high-level language that is simple to understand, such as Ruby.
It could be necessary to miss the commit and get the programmers to patch the error if the test is composed in the same language as the compiled code and runs and during continuous integration (CI) run. Better still, the testing software could operate as a plug-in inside the programmer’s optimized programming framework (IDE), reducing the amount of switching required.
The right fit for the team
“Who would do the automating?” is perhaps the next concern. If programmers or programmers/testers would be doing the automation, the platform could most likely be a programming library or kit. Similarly, if the testing software has a record/playback front end, a group of nontechnical testers would be more at ease.
Some tools generate code by recording activities, while others create a graphic front end that enables programmers to “drop-in” and sees the code behind the simulation. These products combine the best of both worlds.
The biggest problem is that those who are supposed to master the tool must be willing and capable of doing so, as well as having the time to do so.
Assigning testers to master a new tool will bring work to the evaluation process, delaying the software development process even further.
If running regression tests takes days or weeks, automating them, particularly from the front end, will calm them down even further, causing a backlog of work until they reach a break-even point. Also after reaching the break-even stage, where the instrument no longer slows down the testers, the old backlog must be removed.
These complaints do not occur if the project is new or if the organization plans to employ a new employee to work on the test tool. So, think about how the tool will be integrated into the team, what it will affect, and who will be in charge of the work.
So, think about how the tool will be integrated into the team, whether it will disrupt, who will do the job, and whether or not those people have the resources and time to do so.
A test management software is a waste of money if it doesn’t provide useful reports. Dashboards and graphs could be useful tools, but only if the team intends to export the data to a system of clearer reports.
Tracking test runs overtime is also a useful function. Stakeholders at various levels are concerned with various types of outcomes. Executives at a high enough level might be more interested in patterns than pass/fail ratios. Mid-level administrators tend to see how the mechanism works. Technical people will like to get into the specifics of what went wrong on a particular exam, preferably by viewing a recording of the execution.
It may seem apparent, but if the testing software cannot run on any of the platforms and levels that the team supports (online, mobile web, iOS native, Android native, API, device, and so on), the team would have to cover that danger in a different manner, requiring more support.
Therefore, only select a tool that can support all the supported platforms on which your team is working or intend to work on in the near future.
Examine the challenges that the team is attempting to tackle. Then check out a tool that solves those threats, fits with the team’s skillset, and blends with the job process and technology stack. If you can, try a few tools to stay as far away from lock-in as possible.
In a few months, the tool will be integrated into the job routine, so make sure you’re with the one you want, otherwise, you’ll get to love the one you’re with, to paraphrase rocker Stephen Stills.