Elevate Code Review: Automated Test With 15% Efficiency Gain!

 

Writing code for test automation requires writing code, yet its authors and reviewers often refer to test automation code as being of second-class citizenship and its development without customer delivery being more informal than its application within an organization.

We have recently conducted numerous code reviews; each weekday, we spend about an hour reviewing other team members on our team as a reviewer or author of reviews for them.

All reviews cover end-to-end test automation: new tests, old fixes, configuration updates and framework upgrades.

We insist that test automation code be subjected to equal scrutiny as the product code it tests; after all, it is a product and must abide by best practices like anything else in the software development process. Furthermore, we seek out any issues which appear more prevalent within test automation than elsewhere in software.

What is code review? It is essential because it's often neglected in formal education courses.

While you might learn programming languages or project management theory in school, code review must grow over time as organizations mature.

---

Why Are Code Reviews Necessary?

 

1. Improving Code Quality & Maintainability: Code reviews allow another developer to examine or suggest improvements for code that is being altered, helping identify any bugs and errors before reaching production, thus guaranteeing high-quality code that can be more easily maintained by future developers who will work on it.
2. Fostering Knowledge Sharing And Collaboration: Code reviews facilitate collaboration and knowledge-sharing within development teams.

   Reviewers can offer feedback, suggest alternative approaches or share expertise, ultimately promoting team learning and growth.

3. Establishing Coding Standards: Code reviews assure compliance with coding standards and best practices within an organization, team, or developers.

   Reviewers can check that code adheres to predefined guidelines - making the code more readable, maintainable and consistent while helping developers suggest improvements and receive feedback more efficiently.

---

How Do Code Reviews Complement Test Automation?

 

Test automation and code reviews can work hand-in-hand to enhance software quality. Here's how code reviews complement test automation:

1. Basic Understanding: Code reviews can assist in making sure the code is easy for people to comprehend and adheres to standard coding practices, which facilitates automated test development and identification of issues during testing tools use.
2. Deciphering Sophisticated Issues: Code reviews can also help identify complex issues that would otherwise go undetected through automated tests, such as incorrect assertions or configuration problems.

   Experienced reviewers can offer insightful suggestions to enhance code quality further.

3. Ensuring Consistent Design and Implementation: Code reviews can be invaluable tools in ensuring code meets project requirements, reducing regression testing issues while raising overall quality levels in software products.
4. Improving Automation and Quality Assurance: Feedback gathered during code reviews can help enhance the codebase's testability, leading to more successful automated integration testing initiatives.

---

What Are The Approaches To Code Review?

 

---

Manual Code Review

Manual code review involves human reviewers carefully inspecting code to detect possible bugs. It can take place through various means, including:

1. Pair programming occurs when two developers work simultaneously on the same code base, providing immediate feedback and quickly detecting any potential errors as they arise.
2. Informal Code Review: Reviewers examine code to see potential problems, bugs or enhancements needing attention.

   This approach requires fewer formalities, such as discussions or code walkthroughs, for optimal performance.

3. A structured approach where multiple developers review code changes in an organized fashion.

   Checklists, documented processes and specific roles (such as moderator or designated reviewer) may all be employed for this process.

Get a Free Estimation or Talk to Our Business Manager!

---

Automated Code Review

 

Code review practices for automated tests involve inspecting software code using special tools that analyze it for any possible bugs or errors using static analysis software to spot potential and recognize common mistakes quickly.

Automated code review tools offer rapid feedback on any potential coding issues and assist with consistently enforcing standards. Conversely, manual reviews may be more appropriate when handling complex or context-specific problems.

Both manual testing and automated code review approaches possess advantages that make them viable tools to optimize code review effectiveness.

While manual reviews offer human insights and contextual understanding, automation tools detect common issues quickly. Your approach will depend on project requirements, team dynamics and available resources.

---

Code Review Levels

 

1. Typos and style issues (the initial target for code reviews).

   These items should be automated out of this process for optimal effectiveness.

2. There are problems with names, functions, classes, folders, and files.
3. The location of code within your project, for instance, whether or not a file or class exists; also, whether this class exists within its designated folder and at its appropriate place within your project.
4. It should also be determined if writing this code is necessary - perhaps its functions already exist, but people simply don't realize their existence; alternatively, it might be better to utilize an already available library that solves this problem instead of writing new code from scratch.
5. Algorithms and methods: When seen as a principle, your approach fits seamlessly within the system; however, take time to critically review its implementation or design to gain a broader insight into what's occurring.

---

The Following Are Some Flaws To Look Out For During Code Review

 

1. No Proof Of Success Exists In Automation Script Reviews: To pass, these must run successfully and include some evidence (log file or screenshot) as proof for review purposes.
2. Typos And Poor Formatting: Typos and poor formatting demonstrate carelessness, cause frustration, and damage your reputation.

   These errors are especially detrimental in behavior-driven development frameworks.

3. Hard-Coded Values Often Signal Hasty Development: Though their presence doesn't need to be considered detrimental, hard-coded values limit flexibility within an automation code base.

   They should, therefore, be treated as potentially problematic elements.

4. Lack Of Test Coverage: Unfortunately, it can be surprising how common it is for an automation script not to cover all intended test steps; missing steps in a procedure could occur, or asserted claims could turn out false positives and sometimes not even happen.

   When reviewing tests and looking out for gaps in coverage - keep the original procedure handy to review tests carefully, keeping an eye out for cracks that require attention.

5. Uncertain Comments: Many reviewers leave unclear feedback to authors regarding any necessary modifications to promote dialogue; however, explicit comments must also be included to create space for discussion and facilitate dialoguing on this matter.
6. Automation Projects Often Expand Rapidly As More New Code: Including page objects and data models, is added to continuous integration alongside tests.

   An excellent and organized structure is critical to project scalability and teamwork: test cases must be organized by feature area with quality standard code from each test extracted into shared libraries; framework-level code such as inputs and logging should remain separate from test-level regulation - incorrect placement can make finding and reusing code challenging as well as result in dependency nightmares (non-web tests should avoid depending in particular); check to ensure all newly added codes is correctly placed before the functional testing process starts.

7. Bad Configuration Changes: In general, all configuration changes should be submitted for code review separately from other changes and complete with an explanation as to why such modifications are necessary.
8. Design Ignored: Many reviewers need to pay more attention to design considerations when reviewing automation scripts; instead, focusing solely on functionality and usability testing can obscure their role within an overall system and how well the automation script integrates.
9. Duplication In Test Automation Is By Far Its Most Significant Obstacle: Since many testing procedures repeat themselves.

   Engineers may quickly copy-paste code blocks instead of searching existing methods or adding helpers; in a large codebase, it may also be hard to locate parts meeting immediate requirements swiftly - however, good code reviews should detect redundancies and suggest alternative solutions.

---

Conclusion

At times, in automation testing and quality assurance processes, code review is undervalued. We believe testers working within an iterative development automation framework should make time to familiarize themselves with pull requests in addition to reviewing requirements; review from team members was vital for our code review test automation.

Code reviews go beyond finding errors; they also cultivate team learning. Encourage knowledge sharing between reviewers and developers alike and use the feedback received during review to enhance coding practices for future issues that might reoccur.