At my company for new projects we have been using codeception with gherkin to do UI acceptance testing and it has been great. It is very similar to what is presented here just but instead of defining steps in code, you define them in gherkin. Anything to make UI testing easier is awesome. Unfortunately I have found that UI still needs some human touch to fully test.
Yea you still do need some check things by eye, there are things like whether or not there's a red outline around erroreous input fields are hard to write automated checks for. I find that really good testers can point out not just what's not working, but what's doesn't feel right for the user in terms of UX.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
At my company for new projects we have been using codeception with gherkin to do UI acceptance testing and it has been great. It is very similar to what is presented here just but instead of defining steps in code, you define them in gherkin. Anything to make UI testing easier is awesome. Unfortunately I have found that UI still needs some human touch to fully test.
Yea you still do need some check things by eye, there are things like whether or not there's a red outline around erroreous input fields are hard to write automated checks for. I find that really good testers can point out not just what's not working, but what's doesn't feel right for the user in terms of UX.