Script Testing and Revision

A few years back, I found myself in a challenging situation – reviewing an automation project that was struggling in its early stages. The team, in their haste to kick-start, had neglected a crucial part: analyzing the test cases. The frustration was real, but it was also a catalyst for change. We had to go back to basics. We revamped our test cases, ensuring they were complete with detailed steps and verification points. We built in application configurations and settings into each test case. By calling out data dependencies, we enabled the test case to run with various data sets. Compliance-critical steps were marked as 'Evidence Required', ensuring necessary screenshots were captured. Perhaps most importantly, we broke down test cases into smaller, independent functions, enhancing their reusability across different tests. This seemingly frustrating phase led to an important learning: taking the time to optimize your test cases is not wasted, but rather invested. It drastically improves the reliability and quality of your automation scripts, ensuring the success of your project. Remember, the struggle you're in today is developing the strength you need for tomorrow. Have you faced similar struggles in your projects? How did you overcome them? #testautomation #softwaretesting #qualityassurance

As a literary manager and script consultant, I pride myself on being one of the best people in the business at giving helpful script notes. Here's the framework I use: 1. Ask the writer what their professional goals are for the script. 2. Ask the writer what their creative goals are for the script. 3. What has been the development process/reception so far? 4. Ask about specific challenges and struggles. What questions do they have about this draft? Are there any areas that they are wondering about/struggling with personally? Once you understand the kind of feedback they're looking for, here are the next steps: 5. Put your own tastes aside. By now, you should know what kind of story the writer wants to tell. If this isn't the kind of story you would watch, that doesn't matter. The goal is to help the writer achieve their objective for the script. Not make the script into something you would personally like. 6. Ask questions instead of making assumptions. When I first read a script, I write down who I think the main character is, what I think the Central Dramatic Question is, and what I think the intended plot points are. Then, during the notes process, I ask the writer about each of these. Sometimes I will think someone is the main character and then the writer gives me a different answer. That's a problem! But now that we have identified it, we can get into the discrepancies and figure out what changes can resolve them. 7. Identify points in the story that made you less interested. This is always important because you want your audience to be interested from beginning to end. This is helpful data to a writer. 8. Identify points in the story that did not align with the writer's intended goals. If I had an experience that clashes with the experience the writer wanted me to have, this is important! Now we can talk about what to change to make those experiences align. 9. Talk about any logical issues in the story that were confusing. Emotional resonance is important, but it won't happen unless clarity around the mechanics of the plot is there. 10. Explain which elements of the script felt unearned or unsatisfying. This isn't about hitting specific plot points that every script needs. It's about revealing whether at any point your reader stopped caring or stopped buying in. However, the reason for this could be that the writer failed to hit a specific structural beat. Many writers push back at the recommendation to follow certain formulaic practices. But these formulas aren't necessary if the script is working from beginning to end. If the script *isn't* working, then it's time to consider whether a "formulaic" story point can help solve your problem. This is where the notes session ends if there are big, structural changes to be made. It is only when these structural needs are being satisfying throughout entire script that we can get into smaller notes later.

When we have a story that involves multiple steps, should our testing look at all the steps in the story together, or isolate them one at a time? What if we are scripting a check of these steps? Do you write one script to cover the whole sequence, or write a script per step to check each one individually? Or do you do both? The problem presents itself especially in automation where behaviors tend to be rigid and fixed. If a script covers all the steps in a story, then a single failure along the way prevents getting to the final target check at the end. If a script covers each step on its own, assuming that is possible, then bugs that arise from transition through the whole are missed. We may offer to cover it all, writing the union of every possible step on its own or combined into every sequence, partial and complete, but the explosion of cost and time on running and maintaining a monstrosity of code will likely overwhelm us. There is no magic formula. You have to make choices. You probably want to complement multi-step sequences with isolated steps. You probably want to create shortcut paths to important functionality so getting there is not impeded by steps along the way, but you want individual coverage for those steps as well. Automated suites tend to be more consistent in behavior the more isolated their coverage, but they tend to find fewer bugs that way as well. A good idea is to ask yourself what you are testing for and why. If you are writing automated suites, when will they be run, and for what reason? Solve for those purposes in mind. If you are looking for hard to catch bugs, you might favor longer sequences that cover more ground. If you are trying to quickly spot regressions, you might favor isolation. Other differences in purpose may guide different strategies. It is a judgment call that takes practice. #softwaretesting #softwaredevelopment #ialreadydidanaprilfirstjokepostsothisoneisreal

You saved the Playwright cheatsheet. Good. Now do the work the sheet can’t show — test design, data, and CI discipline. -> Short command summary 1) Actions: page.click, page.fill, page.keyboard.type, page.mouse.click 2) Locators: getByRole, getByLabel, getByTestId, locator() 3) Sync patterns: expect(...).toBeVisible(), waitForResponse, waitForLoadState 4) Context: browser.newContext(), context.newPage(), context.storageState() 5) Network: page.route(), route.fulfill(), request.post() -> What’s missing that breaks suites: 1) APIRequestContext usage: credentials, token lifecycles, and deterministic setup — not optional. 2) Fixture discipline: scoped fixtures, not global state; avoid beforeAll for mutable state. 3) Test naming & intent: each test must state the behavior and the acceptable delta. 4) Failure replay steps: standardised repro + required artifacts (trace, video, network log). 5) Contract/Schema checks: integrate OpenAPI validation into CI to catch contract drift before UI tests run. -> Practical next steps 1) Stop using UI for state setup — call APIs. 2) Add request/response specs into automation repo. 3) Enforce locator strategy by linting patterns and code review. 4) Collect traces by default on CI retries. 5) Add a “why this test” doc block above complex tests. Note -> Cheat sheet = syntax. Production = discipline. Ship the latter. -x-x- Learn & Implement Playwright typescript framework with UI & API Testing + Hybrid Automation: https://lnkd.in/gHYidnfr #japneetsachdeva

I used to spend 3 hours writing Playwright scripts. Now I spend 20 minutes. Same output. Same quality. Less time. Here's exactly how I do it: Step 1 — I describe the test scenario to AI Plain English. No code yet. Just what I want to test. Step 2 — AI generates the Playwright script Base code ready in seconds. Structure. Locators. Assertions. All there. Step 3 — I review with my QA brain This step never leaves. AI misses edge cases. I catch them. Step 4 — I refine and run Clean code. Faster execution. Better coverage. This is not magic. This is a QA professional knowing their craft deeply enough to use AI responsibly. AI didn't make me a better tester. 12 years made me a better tester. AI just gave me back my time. That's the combination nobody talks about enough. Domain expertise + AI = Unstoppable. #Playwright #AIinQA #TestAutomation #QualityEngineering #SoftwareTesting #QALeadership #2026Skills

[Imp SDET Interview Question] How Would You Design a Test Script to Validate a Login Page? Ans: My approach for effective, reliable test coverage: 1. Identify Basic Elements First, I will focus on elements like username, password fields, and login button. It's critical to ensure each element is uniquely identifiable, using stable locators (like IDs or CSS selectors) that won’t change frequently. 2. Valid Inputs Scenario Enter valid credentials and verify that the login is successful. I will check for the landing page, confirming it loads as expected. I will also add assertions for any welcome messages or redirects that are supposed to happen post-login. 3. Negative Test Cases Next, I will introduce scenarios where incorrect credentials are used: Blank fields: Verify that trying to log in with empty fields triggers the right error messages. Invalid Username/Password Combinations: Check for scenarios like invalid usernames, correct username with an incorrect password, and so on. 4. Boundary and Edge Cases Testing with inputs on the boundary is essential. I will include tests for: Max and min length: Ensure username and password fields enforce length limits. Special characters: Ensure inputs with special characters behave as expected. 5. Security Checks Security is always a top priority. I will add scenarios to ensure: SQL Injection Protection: Validate that the app does not accept SQL-like inputs. Brute Force Protection: Test for account lockouts after multiple failed attempts. Session Management: Ensure the user session remains secure and consistent. 6. Usability and Accessibility I will finish by validating usability and accessibility, checking that error messages are clear, fields have descriptive labels, and the UI handles edge cases gracefully. #Testing #SDET #QA #LoginPage #Automation #Python #Selenium

Yes, here I am again with a topic that everybody would rather forget: testing 🤓. But in practice, it happens way too often that a small change in one part of a Shiny app quietly breaks something else. A plot no longer updates, a button fails to respond, or that cute little functionality you built and hid away in a modal stops working. And that’s not cool. So yes: testing! You can test in various layers: 🔹 unit tests for checking small bits of logic (like functions) 🔹 integration tests for making sure parts work together (testing reactive behaviour or modules) 🔹 end-to-end (E2E) tests for walking through the whole app like a real user (literally open a web browser, click on buttons, change inputs, and check outputs) And I want to talk about the latter: E2E testing. Manually doing E2E testing after every change is slow, inconsistent, and just impossible 😬. So: automation it is ⚙️. And I could tell you it is easy peasy to write automated tests, but that would be a lie. Setting up these kind of tests take time and effort. Once you’ve written them, that’s when it gets easy peasy. For Shiny, you have a couple of options: 🔹 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝘆𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝟮 is the easiest to set up, especially if you're used to 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁. You can even use 𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚍_𝚝𝚎𝚜𝚝() launch your app and record interactions, which are saved as a test file 🍋. It uses snapshot testing: expected outputs are stored and compared after changes. But… snapshots are strict as even a tiny irrelevant change can trigger a failure, so that’s something to keep in mind (keep your tests scoped to get around this a bit!). shinytest2 runs on a headless Chromium browser. 🔹 𝗖𝘆𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 is a popular JavaScript-based testing framework with a great dev experience (good error messages, visual test runner, a debugger that actually helps you). It runs in Chromium, Firefox, and (in beta) WebKit (Safari). It’s easy to use in combination with a 𝗿𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗼 app 🦏: 𝚛𝚑𝚒𝚗𝚘::𝚝𝚎𝚜𝚝_𝚎𝟸𝚎() lets Cypress do its thing. You’ll need Node.js and some JS to write your tests. 🔹 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘄𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁, also a node.js lib, is developed by Microsoft and works with Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit. There’s a new R wrapper (𝗽𝘄 by Colin Fay) that works with 𝗴𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗺 apps, and Shiny for Python includes built-in helpers (𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝘆.𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘄𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁) to make integration easier. If you’re serious about E2E testing, this one is worth a look. And bonus: Colin’s giving an E2E workshop at Shiny in Production this October 👀 🔹 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 is the oldest (2004) and supports all browsers, including Safari. You might know it from 𝗥𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 for web scraping. But for testing Shiny apps, there’s very little written, and it feels... clunky 😅. Unless you already use it, I wouldn’t recommend it. Enough choices! Catch bugs before your users do. Happy users, happy you 🤗.

There's one thing that every screenwriter learns the hard way: writing is rewriting. The first draft of anything is rarely ever "great." Usually, it's just the blueprint, a detailed step up from your outline. The real magic occurs during the revision process. This is where you refine your structure, deepen your characters, tweak pacing, and sharpen dialogue. In a professional setting, a table read can be both essential and humbling. A lot of times, things that sound good in our heads fall flat when said aloud. Table reads can catch clunky dialogue, weird exposition, and slower pacing. If you're not in a professional setting, create your own table read with friends or family! Sometimes—especially during the revision process—you might need to kill your darlings. Do you have a clever line or a perfectly crafted scene? Well, if it doesn't serve the story or a certain character, then you may need to get rid of it. It's a hard decision to make, I know, but emotional distance is key during revisions. A lot of times, the easiest course of revisions seems to be tweaking action and dialogue. It's so tempting because it's all right there, but tweaking your structure might be more impactful. During your revisions, you should look for the right kind of feedback. Notes from other collaborators who understand the story can be worth more than gold. But do be careful. Not every suggestion is a good one. Lastly, repeat whatever you need to repeat. It's not uncommon to go through 5-10 drafts minimum. I say this because the best scripts are tested, torn apart, put back together, and resculpted. Wishing you nothing but the best with your revisions. Good luck! #revisions #writingtips #screenwriting #RandallWallace #wednesdaywriting #tips

1 minute #Playwright tip to use accessibility locators in multi-language apps when i start talking about accessibility locators, i receive a similar question a ton. what to do when the application has different languages? most of the engineers panic because their trusted english text locators would break once they change the testing language. so they abandon accessibility locators and fallback to the dark ages of dom manipulation they start writing locators like this 🚩 page.locator('.form-group .btn.btn-primary .submit-btn') 🚩 page.locator('//div[@class="login-container"]/div[2]/form/button') this is how flaky pipelines are born. and the confidence in the testing is ruined a dev adds one extra wrapper div for a layout tweak and your entire test suite bleeds there is a much cleaner way to handle this in Playwright. your testing framework just needs a single source of truth keep it simple. load the correct language json file at runtime using an environment variable then you just pass that dynamic dictionary right back into your resilient playwright locators ✅ page.getbyrole('button', { name: i18n.submitBtn }) playwright inserts the correct string automatically. english, french, spanish, or whatsoever it does not matter you keep the user-centric accessibility locators and ditch the brittle dom paths do not compromise your architecture just because the text changes. smart systems adapt to the context adding additional language to the framework is done under a minute 💾 save this to audit your playwright framework later ♻️ repost to help another qa architect level up #QA #SoftwareTesting #TypeScript

Jab automation scripts baar-baar fail 🥹 ho rahe the, tab samjha — synchronization is not optional! Pehle mujhe lagta tha ki assertion hi sab kuch hai. Par automation journey mein ek turning point tab aaya jab baar-baar scripts flaky hone lage. Tab samjha: Synchronization is the real hero in automation. Specially jab Playwright, Selenium, ya koi bhi tool use karte ho. 🙌 Here’s how I fixed it: 1. Smart Waits Use Karo → Har element ke liye waitForSelector() ya explicit waits lagao. → Avoid static waits like Thread.sleep() — they’re time-wasters. 2. Page Load ke baad action lo → DOM load hone se pehle action doge toh failure pakka hai. 3. Retry Mechanism Add Karo → Flaky elements ke liye retry logic helpful hota hai. 4. Timeout ko customize karo → Default timeout har test ke liye sahi nahi hota. Since then… Flaky scripts? Almost zero. Confidence in CI/CD? 100%. Testing toh tool se hoti hai, but stable test runs sync mindset se aate hai! Tujhe bhi script stability ka struggle hai? Ping me here: https://lnkd.in/dUYHp9Af #AutomationTesting #Playwright #Java #TestStability #QAInsights #SDET #SoftwareTesting #Topmate