eGov Automation Code Internal Review Points, Implications required.
- Pundaleek H (Unlicensed)
Date: 25-01-2021 (Meeting Recording is attached)
Scope of improvement: Action Items In progress: Phase-1 Sprint-4 and Next Sprint.
Internal Review and Tarun findings (Common points):
Identify common Constant params across automation file system and mark to fetch data calls dynamic. Ex : https://github.com/egovernments/test-automation/pull/6/files#diff-ea737e3a692338e13d7664c7215c1b9e65232aa7d339d4a0e419856aa76cb018
Automation code Readability practice with proper documentation for re-usages, fixes understanding.
Tarun’s Review findings:
Focus required to transit automation code into platform independent (QA, UAT, Dev).
Avoid hard coding of data population and implement automation flow to clear data post automation runs
End to End work flows implication by extending action flow beyond end point request and responses. This requires efforts to make sure services and functionality work flows at API levels are tested.
Find and implement logic to auto populate test-data before we start test runs instead having it set of pre-filled data
Automation team Internal Reviews:
Rename with relevant naming for websCommonHeaders, oauthTokenHeader, karate-config, jsUtils
CONSTANTS, tags (@success_workflow) etc should we use camel case etc
Use Camel case for all tag names, service naming Uniformly across automation suite
4. Work flow Calls optimisation: