My Thoughts on ‘Self-Healing’ in Test Automation
Automated UI tests frequently fail due to GUI changes that are invisible to the product, such as label updates or dynamic IDs, creating flaky tests and inflated maintenance costs. Self‑healing test frameworks promise AI‑driven fixes by guessing the intended element when a locator breaks, offering quick patches but relying on probabilistic decisions. The author argues these tools act as band‑aids, obscuring the real issue: insufficient communication and awareness of UI changes within development teams. Addressing collaboration gaps and establishing stable test contracts delivers more reliable quality assurance than automated patching.
The ‘Valuable’ in Valuable Feedback, Fast
The article breaks down the phrase “valuable feedback, fast,” explaining why test automation must deliver timely, high‑impact information. It argues that feedback is only valuable when it matters to stakeholders, covers critical product behavior, is trustworthy, and is actionable. The...
Writing Tests with Claude Code - Part 1 - Initial Results
The author used Claude Code to auto‑generate a suite of 23 REST Assured/JUnit tests for a simple Spring Boot banking API. Within minutes Claude produced passing tests that achieved 95% line coverage and 91% mutation coverage according to PIT. A...
Refactoring the RestAssured.Net Code with Claude Code
The author used Claude Code’s Opus 4.6 model to refactor the large ExecutableRequest class in the RestAssured.Net library, creating a new RequestBodyFactory and consolidating arguments into a RequestBodySettings object. Guardrails such as excluding test files, manual code review, and incremental...