Difference between revisions of "Failure Patterns"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| <span style="font-size: 16px">[[ FRAMEWORK COMPETITION]]</span><br /> | | <span style="font-size: 16px">[[ FRAMEWORK COMPETITION]]</span><br /> | ||
| − | ! <span style="font-size: 16px | + | ! <span style="font-size: 16px text-align:left;">Different teams build different automation frameworks and are not able or willing to consolidate them</span><br /> |
|- | |- | ||
| <span style="font-size: 16px">[[ GOING FOR THE NUMBERS]]</span><br /> | | <span style="font-size: 16px">[[ GOING FOR THE NUMBERS]]</span><br /> | ||
Revision as of 13:49, 6 July 2018
Failure patterns show how behaviours that start well can end up as costly failures. These kind of patterns help recognize if an automation project is heading in the wrong direction at a time when countermeasures can still enable a turnaround. Failure patterns are also called "anti-patterns", since they are things that you shouldn't do. In this wiki, they could also be Issues. The table below gives a list of the Failure patterns with a short description.
[1] Failure Patterns introduced by Michael Stahl
| Failure Patterns [1] |
Description |
|---|---|
| FRAMEWORK COMPETITION |
Different teams build different automation frameworks and are not able or willing to consolidate them |
| GOING FOR THE NUMBERS |
The automation team is pushed into automating as many tests as possible while disregarding test robustness |
| THE NIGHT TIME FALLACY |
Targeting "Night runs" can lead to inefficient automation |
| TOOL MUSHROOMING |
Test tools developed in-house evolve from useful utilities to large and unwieldy automation frameworks |