So You Need To Involve Manual Testers In Cucumber Automation?

Are you contemplating on using manual tester writing English-like Gherkin Syntax via tools like SpecFlow or Cucumber for conducting UI test automation? Let us elaborate on the right way to do so. We will also shed some light on the pros and cons of using various approaches.

It is evident that in the current times, it is not sufficient to merely push best practices on large organizations. Therefore, it is imperative that we at least talk about the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches. Henceforth, we will be referring to all Gherkin style, that is, BDD collaboration tools as Cucumber owing to its high popularity. However, keep in mind that the ideas remain the same across all boards.

We will be focusing explicitly on UI test automation and what we do with these tools the most. We are not that big a fan of using excessive UI test automation, but this is something we will discuss later.

Using manual testers in automation

It is quite possible that you know using manual testers for automation is not wise. However, you do not have any other option since this is what your management has ordered. Such situations are not uncommon. Let us first elaborate on the optimal strategy you can opt for in such a case via the Gherkin style framework.

Manual tester codes Cucumber scenarios

The primary goal is to use manual testers for writing Cucumber scenarios in the feature file. To make it clear, the following training needs to be given to manual testers.

• They need Light IDE training, which would make them understand how feature files are to be written. The process of naming the file and where they are put is also included in this training.
• Good Gherkin syntax training is also mandatory for all doing BBD.
• They need to be given training on how to use the framework. This will ensure that they are aware of how the tests are run, and tags are used. They will also learn how different environments are pointed out.