Blog

Locator Labs: A Practical Approach to Building Stable Automation Locators

by Rajesh K | Jan 2, 2026 | Automation Testing, Blog, Latest Post | 1 comment

Anyone with experience in UI automation has likely encountered a familiar frustration: Tests fail even though the application itself is functioning correctly. The button still exists, the form submits as expected, and the user journey remains intact, yet the automation breaks because an element cannot be located. These failures often trigger debates about tooling and infrastructure. Is Selenium inherently unstable? Would Playwright be more reliable? Should the test suite be rewritten in a different language? In most cases, these questions miss the real issue. Such failures rarely stem from the automation testing framework itself. More often, they are the result of poorly constructed locators. This is where the mindset behind Locator Labs becomes valuable, not as a product pitch, but as an engineering philosophy. The core idea is to invest slightly more time and thought when creating locators so that long-term maintenance becomes significantly easier. Locators are treated as durable automation assets, not disposable strings copied directly from the DOM.

This article examines the underlying practice it represents: why disciplined locator design matters, how a structured approach reduces fragility, and how supportive tooling can improve decision-making without replacing sound engineering judgment.

The Real Issue: Automation Rarely Breaks Because of Code

Most automation engineers have seen this scenario:

• A test fails after a UI change
• The feature still works manually
• The failure is caused by a missing or outdated selector

The common causes are familiar:

• Absolute XPath tied to layout
• Index-based selectors
• Class names generated dynamically
• Locators copied without validation

None of these is “wrong” in isolation. The problem appears when they become the default approach. Over time, these shortcuts accumulate. Maintenance effort increases. CI pipelines become noisy. Teams lose confidence in automation results. Locator Labs exists to interrupt this cycle by encouraging intent-based locator design, focusing on what an element represents, not where it happens to sit in the DOM today.

What Locator Labs Actually Represents

Locator Labs can be thought of as a locator engineering practice rather than a standalone tool.

It brings together three ideas:

• Mindset: Locators are engineered, not guessed
• Workflow: Each locator follows a deliberate process
• Shared standard: The same principles apply across teams and frameworks

Just as teams agree on coding standards or design patterns, Locator Labs suggests that locators deserve the same level of attention. Importantly, Locator Labs is not tied to any single framework. Whether you use Selenium, Playwright, Cypress, WebdriverIO, or Robot Framework, the underlying locator philosophy remains the same.

Why Teams Eventually Need a Locator-Focused Approach

Early in a project, locator issues are easy to fix. A test fails, the selector is updated, and work continues. However, as automation grows, this reactive approach starts to break down.

Common long-term challenges include:

• Multiple versions of the same locator
• Inconsistent naming and structure
• Tests that fail after harmless UI refactors
• High effort required for small changes

Locator Labs helps by making locator decisions more visible and deliberate. Instead of silently copying selectors into code, teams are encouraged to inspect, evaluate, validate, and store locators with future changes in mind.

Purpose and Scope of Locator Labs

Purpose

The main goal of Locator Labs is to provide a repeatable and controlled way to design locators that are:

• Stable
• Unique
• Readable
• Reusable

Rather than reacting to failures, teams can proactively reduce fragility.

Scope

Locator Labs applies broadly, including:

• Static UI elements
• Dynamic and conditionally rendered components
• Hover-based menus and tooltips
• Large regression suites
• Cross-team automation efforts

In short, it scales with the complexity of the application and the team.

A Locator Labs-style workflow usually looks like this:

• Open the target page
• Inspect the element in DevTools
• Review available attributes
• Separate stable attributes from dynamic ones
• Choose a locator strategy
• Validate uniqueness
• Store the locator centrally

This process may take a little longer upfront, but it significantly reduces future maintenance.

Locator Lab Installation & Setup (For All Environments)

Locator Lab is a tool and is available as a browser extension, a Desktop application, and NPM Package.

Browser-Level Setup (Extension)

This is the foundation for all frameworks and languages.

Chrome / Edge

Found in Browser DevTools

Desktop Application

Download directly from LocatorLabs website.

Npm Package

No installation required; always uses the latest version

Ensure Node.js is installed on your system.

Open a terminal or command prompt.

Run the command:

npx locatorlabs

Wait for the tool to launch automatically.

Open the target web application and start capturing locators.

Setup Workflow:

• Right-click → Inspect or F12 on the testing page
• Find “Locator Labs” tab in DevTools → Elements panel
• Start inspecting elements to generate locators

Multi-Framework Support

LocatorLabs supports exporting locators and page objects across frameworks and languages:

This makes it possible to standardize locator strategy across teams using different stacks.

Where Locator Labs Fits in Automation Architecture

Locator Labs fits naturally into a layered automation design:

[Test Scenarios]
↓
[Page Objects]
↓
[Locator Definitions]
↓
[Browser DOM]

This separation keeps responsibilities clear:

• Tests describe behavior
• Page objects describe interactions
• Locators describe identity

When UI changes occur, updates stay localized instead of rippling through test suites.

Locator Strategy Hierarchy: A Simple Guideline

Locator Labs generally promotes the following priority order:

• ID
• Name
• Semantic CSS selectors
• Relative XPath
• Text or relationship-based XPath (last resort)

A helpful rule of thumb is:

*If a locator describes where something is, it’s fragile.
*If it describes what something is, it’s more stable.

This mindset alone can dramatically improve locator quality.

Features That Gently Encourage Better Locator Decisions

Rather than enforcing rules, Locator Labs-style features are designed to make good choices easier and bad ones more obvious. Below is a conversational look at how these features support everyday automation work.

Pause Mode

If you’ve ever tried to inspect a dropdown menu or tooltip, you know how annoying it can be. You move the mouse, the element disappears, and you start over again and again. Pause Mode exists for exactly this reason. By freezing page interaction temporarily it lets you inspect elements that normally vanish on hover or animation. This means you can calmly look at the DOM, identify stable attributes, and avoid rushing into fragile XPath just because the element was hard to catch.

It’s particularly helpful for:

• Menus and submenus
• Tooltips and popovers
• Animated panels

Small feature, big reduction in frustration.

Drawing and Annotation: Making Locator Decisions Visible

Locator decisions often live only in someone’s head. Annotation tools change that by allowing teams to mark elements directly on the UI.

This becomes useful when:

• Sharing context with teammates
• Reviewing automation scope
• Handing off work between manual and automation testers

Instead of long explanations, teams can point directly at the element and say, “This is what we’re automating, and this is why.” Over time, this shared visual understanding helps align locator decisions across the team.

Page Object Mode

Most teams agree on the Page Object Model in theory. In practice, locators still sneak into tests. Page Object Mode doesn’t force compliance, but it nudges teams back toward cleaner separation. By structuring locators in a page-object-friendly way, it becomes easier to keep test logic clean and UI changes isolated. The real benefit here isn’t automation speed, it’s long-term clarity.

Smart Quality Ratings

One of the trickiest things about locators is that fragile ones still work until they don’t. Smart Quality Ratings help by giving feedback on locator choices. Instead of treating all selectors equally, they highlight which ones are more likely to survive UI changes. What matters most is not the label itself, but the explanation behind it. Over time, engineers start recognizing patterns and naturally gravitate toward better locator strategies even without thinking about ratings explicitly.

Save and Copy

Copying locators, pasting them into files, and adjusting syntax might seem trivial, but it adds up. Save and Copy features reduce this repetitive work while still keeping engineers in control. When locators are exported in a consistent format, teams benefit from fewer mistakes and a more uniform structure.

Consistency, more than speed, is the real win here.

Refresh and Re-Scan

Modern UIs change constantly, sometimes even without a page reload. Refresh or Re-scan features allow teams to revalidate locators after UI updates. Instead of waiting for test failures, teams can proactively check whether selectors are still unique and meaningful. This supports a more preventive approach to maintenance.

Theme Toggle

While it doesn’t affect locator logic, theme toggling matters more than it seems. Automation work often involves long inspection sessions, and visual comfort plays a role in focus and accuracy. Sometimes, small ergonomic improvements have outsized benefits.

Generate Page Object

Writing Page Object classes by hand can be repetitive, especially for large pages. Page object generation features help by creating a structured starting point. What’s important is that this output is reviewed, not blindly accepted. Used thoughtfully, it speeds up setup while preserving good organization and readability.

Final Thoughts

Stable automation is rarely achieved through tools alone. More often, it comes from consistent, thoughtful decisions especially around how locators are designed and maintained. Locator Labs highlights the importance of treating locators as long-term assets rather than quick fixes that only work in the moment. By focusing on identity-based locators, validation, and clean separation through page objects, teams can reduce unnecessary failures and maintenance effort. This approach fits naturally into existing automation frameworks without requiring major changes or rewrites. Over time, a Locator Labs mindset helps teams move from reactive fixes to intentional design. Tests become easier to maintain, failures become easier to understand, and automation becomes more reliable. In the end, it’s less about adopting a new tool and more about building better habits that support automation at scale.

Frequently Asked Questions

Our test automation experts help teams identify fragile locators, reduce false failures, and build stable automation frameworks that scale with UI change.

Talk to an Automation Expert

TestComplete Tutorial: How to Implement BDD for Desktop App Automation

by Rajesh K | Dec 1, 2025 | Automation Testing, Blog, Latest Post | 0 comments

In the world of QA engineering and test automation, teams are constantly under pressure to deliver faster, more stable, and more maintainable automated tests. Desktop applications, especially legacy or enterprise apps, add another layer of complexity because of dynamic UI components, changing object properties, and multiple user workflows. This is where TestComplete, combined with the Behavior-Driven Development (BDD) approach, becomes a powerful advantage. As you’ll learn throughout this TestComplete Tutorial, BDD focuses on describing software behaviors in simple, human-readable language. Instead of writing tests that only engineers understand, teams express requirements using natural language structures defined by Gherkin syntax (Given–When–Then). This creates a shared understanding between developers, testers, SMEs, and business stakeholders.

TestComplete enhances this process by supporting full BDD workflows:

• Creating Gherkin feature files
• Generating step definitions
• Linking them to automated scripts
• Running end-to-end desktop automation tests

This TestComplete tutorial walks you through the complete process from setting up your project for BDD to creating feature files, implementing step definitions, using Name Mapping, and viewing execution reports. Whether you’re a QA engineer, automation tester, or product team lead, this guide will help you understand not only the “how” but also the “why” behind using TestComplete for BDD desktop automation.

By the end of this guide, you’ll be able to:

• Understand the BDD workflow inside TestComplete
• Configure TestComplete to support feature files
• Use Name Mapping and Aliases for stable element identification
• Write and automate Gherkin scenarios
• Launch and validate desktop apps like Notepad
• Execute BDD scenarios and interpret results
• Implement best practices for long-term test maintenance

What Is BDD? (Behavior-Driven Development)

BDD is a collaborative development approach that defines software behavior using Gherkin, a natural language format that is readable by both technical and non-technical stakeholders. It focuses on what the system should do, not how it should be implemented. Instead of diving into functions, classes, or code-level details, BDD describes behaviors from the end user’s perspective.

Why BDD Works Well for Desktop Automation

• Promotes shared understanding across the team
• Reduces ambiguity in requirements
• Encourages writing tests that mimic real user actions
• Supports test-first approaches (similar to TDD but more collaborative)

Traditional testing starts with code or UI elements. BDD starts with behavior.

For example:

Given the user launches Notepad,
When they type text,
Then the text should appear in the editor.

TestComplete Tutorial: Step-by-Step Guide to Implementing BDD for Desktop Apps

Creating a new project

To start using the BDD approach in TestComplete, you first need to create a project that supports Gherkin-based scenarios. As explained in this TestComplete Tutorial, follow the steps below to create a project with a BDD approach.

After clicking “New Project,” a dialog box will appear where you need to:

• Enter the Project Name.
• Specify the Project Location.
• Choose the Scripting Language for your tests.

Next, select the options for your project:

• Tested Application – Specify the application you want to test.
• BDD Files – Enable Gherkin-based feature files for BDD scenarios.
• Click ‘Next’ button

In the next step, choose whether you want to:

• Import an existing BDD file from another project,
• Import BDD files from your local system, or
• Create a new BDD file from scratch.

After selecting the appropriate option, click Next to continue.

In the following step, you are given another decision point, so you must choose whether you prefer to:

• Import an existing feature file, or
• Create a new one from scratch.

If your intention is to create a new feature file, you should specifically select the option labeled Create a new feature file.

Add the application path for the app you want to test.

This critical action will automatically include your chosen application in the Tested Applications list. As a result, it becomes remarkably easy to launch, close, and interact with the application directly from TestComplete without the need to hardcode the application path anywhere in your scripts.

After selecting the application path, choose the Working Directory.

This selected directory will consequently serve as the base location for all your projects. files and resources. Therefore, it ensures that TestComplete can easily and reliably access every necessary asset during test execution.

Once you’ve completed the above steps, TestComplete will automatically create a feature file with basic Gherkin steps.

This generated file fundamentally serves as the essential starting point for authoring your BDD scenarios using the standard Gherkin syntax.

In this TestComplete Tutorial, write your Gherkin steps in the feature file and then generate the Step Definitions.

Following this, TestComplete will automatically create a dedicated Step Definitions file. Importantly, this file contains the script templates for each individual step within your scenarios. Afterwards, you can proceed to implement the specific automation logic for these steps using your chosen scripting language.

Launching Notepad Using TestedApps in TestComplete

Once you have successfully added the application path to the Tested Applications list, you can then effortlessly launch it within your scripts without any hardcoded path. This effective approach allows you to capably manage multiple applications and launch each one simply by using the names displayed in the TestedApps list.

Adding multiple applications in TestApps

Begin by selecting the specific application type. Subsequently, you must add the precise application path and then click Finish. As a final result, the application will be successfully added to the Tested Applications list.

Select the application type

Add the application path and click Finish.
The application will be added to the Tested Applications list

What is Name Mapping in TestComplete?

Name Mapping is a feature in TestComplete that allows you to create logical names for UI objects in your application. Instead of relying on dynamic or complex properties (like long XPath or changing IDs), you assign a stable, readable name to each object. This TestComplete Tutorial highlights how Name Mapping makes your tests easier to maintain, more readable, and far more reliable over time.

Why is Name Mapping Used?

• Readability: Logical names like LoginButton or UsernameField are easier to understand than raw property values.
• Maintainability: If an object’s property changes, you only update it in Name Mapping—not in every test script.

Pros of Using Name Mapping

• Reduces script complexity by avoiding hardcoded selectors.
• Improves test reliability when dealing with dynamic UI elements.
• Centralized object management update once, apply everywhere.

Adding objects in name mapping using add object

Adding Objects to Name Mapping

You can add objects by utilizing the Add Object option, so follow these instructions:

• First, open the Name Mapping editor within TestComplete.
• Then, click on the Add Object button.
• Finally, save the completed mapping.

To select the UI element, use the integrated Object Spy tool on your running application.

TestComplete provides two distinct options for naming your mapped objects, which are:

• Automatic Naming – Here, TestComplete assigns a default name based directly on the object’s inherent properties.
• Manual Naming – In this case, you can assign a custom name based entirely on your specific requirements or the functional role of the window.

For this tutorial, we will use manual naming to achieve superior clarity and greater control over how objects are referenced later in scripts.

Manual Naming and Object Tree in Name Mapping

When you choose manual naming in TestComplete, you’ll see the object tree representing your application’s hierarchy. For example, if you want to map the editor area in Notepad, you first capture it using Object Spy.

Steps:

• Start by naming the top-level window (e.g., Notepad).
• Then, name each child object step by step, following the tree structure:
• Think of it like a tree:
• Root → Main Window (Notepad)
• Branches → Child Windows (e.g., Menu Bar, Dialogs)
• Leaves → Controls (e.g., Text Editor, Buttons)
• Once all objects are named, you can reference them in your scripts using these logical names instead of raw properties.

Once you’ve completed the Name Mapping process, you will see the mapped window listed in the Name Mapping editor.

Consequently, you can now reference this window in your scripts by using the logical name you assigned, rather than relying on unstable raw properties.

Using Aliases for Simplified References

TestComplete allows you to further simplify object references by creating aliases. Instead of navigating the entire object tree repeatedly, you can:

• Drag and drop objects directly from the Mapped Objects section into the dedicated Aliases window.
• Then, assign meaningful alias names based on your specific needs.

This practice helps you in two key ways: it lets you access objects directly without long hierarchical references, and it makes your scripts cleaner and significantly easier to maintain.

// Using alias instead of full hierarchy

Aliases.notepad.Edit.Keys(“Enter your text here ”);

Tip: Add aliases for frequently used objects to speed up scripting and improve readability.

Entering Text in Notepad

// ----------- Without adding namemapping ----------------------

    //var Np=Sys.Process("notepad").Window("Notepad", "*", 1).Window("Edit", "", 1)

    //Np.Keys(TextToEnter)

     

 // -----------Using Namemapping ---------------

    Aliases.notepad.Edit.Keys(TextToEnter);

Validating the entered text in notepad

// Validate the entered text


  var actualText = Aliases.notepad.Edit.wText;


  if (actualText === TextToEnter) {

    Log.Message("Validation Passed: Text entered correctly."+actualText);

  } else {

    Log.Error("Validation Failed: Expected '" + textToEnter + "' but found '" + actualText + "'");

  }

Executing Test Scenarios in TestComplete

To run your BDD scenarios, execute the following procedure:

• Right-click the feature file within your project tree.
• Select the Run option from the context menu.
• At this point, you can choose to either:
• Run all scenarios contained in the feature file, or
• Run a single scenario based on your immediate requirement.

This inherent flexibility allows you to test specific functionality without having to execute the entire test suite.

Viewing Test Results After Execution

After executing your BDD scenarios, you can immediately view the detailed results under the Project Logs section in TestComplete. The comprehensive log provides the following essential information:

• The pass/fail status was recorded for each scenario.
• Specific failure reasons for any steps that did not pass.
• Warnings, which are displayed in yellow, are displayed for steps that were executed but with potential issues.
• Failed steps are highlighted in red, and passed steps are highlighted in green.
• Additionally, a summary is presented, showing:
• The total number of test cases executed.
• The exact count of how many passed, failed, or contained warnings.

This visual feedback is instrumental, as it helps you rapidly identify issues and systematically improve your test scripts.

Accessing Detailed Test Step View in Reports

After execution, you can drill down into the results for more granular detail by following these steps:

• First, navigate to the Reports tab.
• Then, click on the specific scenario you wish to review in detail.
• As a result, you will see a complete step-by-step breakdown of all actions executed during the test, where:
• Each step clearly shows its status (Pass, Fail, Warning).
• Failure reasons and accompanying error messages are displayed explicitly for failed steps.
• Color coding is applied as follows:
• ✅ Green indicates Passed steps
• ❌ Red indicates failed steps
• ⚠️ Yellow indicates warnings.

Comparison Table: Manual vs Automatic Name Mapping

Real-Life Example: Why Name Mapping Matters

Imagine you’re automating a complex desktop application used by 500+ internal users. UI elements constantly change due to updates. If you rely on raw selectors, your test scripts will break every release.

With Name Mapping:

• Your scripts remain stable
• You only update the mapping once
• Testers avoid modifying dozens of scripts
• Maintenance time drops drastically

For a company shipping weekly builds, this can save 100+ engineering hours per month.

Conclusion

BDD combined with TestComplete provides a structured, maintainable, and highly collaborative approach to automating desktop applications. From setting up feature files to mapping UI objects, creating step definitions, running scenarios, and analyzing detailed reports, TestComplete’s workflow is ideal for teams looking to scale and stabilize their test automationBDD combined with TestComplete provides a structured, maintainable, and highly collaborative approach to automating desktop applications. From setting up feature files to mapping UI objects, creating step definitions, running scenarios, and analyzing detailed reports, TestComplete’s workflow is ideal for teams looking to scale and stabilize their test automation. As highlighted throughout this TestComplete Tutorial, these capabilities help QA teams build smarter, more reliable, and future-ready automation frameworks that support continuous delivery and long-term quality goals.

Frequently Asked Questions

Ready to streamline your desktop automation with BDD and TestComplete? Our experts can help you build faster, more reliable test suites.

Get Expert Help

Types of Hybrid Automation Frameworks

by Rajesh K | Nov 19, 2025 | Automation Testing, Blog, Latest Post | 0 comments

In today’s rapidly evolving software development landscape, delivering high-quality applications quickly has become a top priority for every engineering team. As release cycles grow shorter and user expectations rise, test automation now plays a critical role in ensuring stability and reducing risk. However, many organisations still face a familiar challenge: their test automation setups simply do not keep pace with the increasing complexity of modern applications. As software systems expand across web, mobile, API, microservices, and cloud environments, traditional automation frameworks often fall short. They may work well during the early stages, but over time, they become difficult to scale, maintain, and adapt, especially when different teams use different testing styles, tools, or levels of technical skill. Additionally, as more team members contribute to automation, maintaining consistency becomes increasingly difficult highlighting the need for a more flexible and scalable Hybrid Automation Frameworks that can support diverse testing needs and long-term growth.

Because these demands continue to grow, QA leaders are now searching for more flexible solutions that support multiple testing techniques, integrate seamlessly with CI/CD pipelines, and remain stable even as applications change. Hybrid automation frameworks address these needs by blending the strengths of several framework types. Consequently, teams gain a more adaptable structure that improves collaboration, reduces maintenance, and increases test coverage. In this complete 2025 guide, you’ll explore the different types of hybrid automation frameworks, learn how each one works, understand where they fit best, and see real-world examples of how organisations are benefiting from them. You will also discover implementation steps, tool recommendations, common pitfalls, and best practices to help you choose and build the right hybrid framework for your team.

What Is a Hybrid Automation Framework?

A Hybrid Automation Framework is a flexible test automation architecture that integrates two or more testing methodologies into a single, unified system. Unlike traditional unilateral frameworks such as purely data-driven, keyword-driven, or modular frameworks, a hybrid approach allows teams to combine the best parts of each method.

As a result, teams can adapt test automation to the project’s requirements, release speed, and team skill set. Hybrid frameworks typically blend:

• Modular components for reusability
• Data-driven techniques for coverage
• Keyword-driven structures for readability
• BDD (Behaviour-Driven Development) for collaboration
• Page Object Models (POM) for maintainability

This combination creates a system that is easier to scale as applications grow and evolve.

Why Hybrid Frameworks Are Becoming Essential

As modern applications increase in complexity, hybrid automation frameworks are quickly becoming the standard across QA organisations. Here’s why:

• Application Complexity Is Increasing
  Most applications now span multiple technologies: web, mobile, APIs, microservices, third-party integrations, and cloud platforms. A flexible framework is essential to support such diversity.
• Teams Are Becoming More Cross-Functional
  Today’s QA ecosystem includes automation engineers, developers, cloud specialists, product managers, and even business analysts. Therefore, frameworks must support varied skill levels.
• Test Suites Are Growing Rapidly
  As test coverage expands, maintainability becomes a top priority. Hybrid frameworks reduce duplication and centralise logic.
• CI/CD Demands Higher Stability
  Continuous integration requires fast, stable, and reliable test execution. Hybrid frameworks help minimise flaky tests and support parallel runs more effectively.

Types of Hybrid Automation Frameworks

1. Modular + Data-Driven Hybrid Framework

What It Combines

This widely adopted hybrid framework merges:

• Modular structure: Logical workflows broken into reusable components
• Data-driven approach: External test data controlling inputs and variations

This separation of logic and data makes test suites highly maintainable.

Real-World Example

Consider a banking application where the login must be tested with 500 credential sets:

• Create one reusable login module
• Store all credentials in an external data file (CSV, Excel, JSON, DB)
• Execute the same module repeatedly with different inputs

Recommended Tools

• Selenium + TestNG + Apache POI
• Playwright + JSON/YAML
• Pytest + Pandas

Best For

• Medium-complexity applications
• Projects with frequently changing test data
• Teams with existing modular scripts want better coverage

2. Keyword-Driven + Data-Driven Hybrid Framework

Why Teams Choose This Approach

This hybrid is especially useful when both technical and non-technical members need to contribute to automation. Test cases are written in a keyword format that resembles natural language.

Example Structure

The data-driven layer then allows multiple datasets to run through the same keyword-based flow.

Tools That Support This

• Robot Framework
• Katalon Studio
• Selenium + custom keyword engine

Use Cases

• Teams transitioning from manual to automation
• Projects requiring extensive documentation
• Organisations with diverse contributors

3. Modular + Keyword + Data-Driven (Full Hybrid) Framework

What Makes This the “Enterprise Model”

This full hybrid framework combines all major approaches:

• Modular components
• Keyword-driven readability
• Data-driven execution

How It Works

• Test engine reads keywords from Excel/JSON
• Keywords map to modular functions
• Functions use external test data
• Framework executes tests and aggregates reports

This structure maximises reusability and simplifies updates.

Popular Tools

• Selenium + TestNG + Custom Keyword Engine
• Cypress + JSON mapping + page model

Perfect For

• Large enterprise applications
• Distributed teams
• Highly complex business workflows

4. Hybrid Automation Framework with BDD Integration

Why BDD Matters

BDD strengthens collaboration between developers, testers, and business teams by using human-readable Gherkin syntax.

Gherkin Example

Feature: User login

  Scenario: Successful login

    Given I am on the login page

    When I enter username "testuser" and password "pass123"

    Then I should see the dashboard

Step Definition Example

@When("I enter username {string} and password {string}")
public void enterCredentials(String username, String password) {
    loginPage.enterUsername(username);
    loginPage.enterPassword(password);
    loginPage.clickLogin();
}

Ideal For

• Agile organizations
• Projects with evolving requirements
• Teams that want living documentation

Comparison Table: Which Hybrid Approach Should You Choose?

How to Implement a Hybrid Automation Framework Successfully

Step 1: Assess Your Requirements

Before building anything, answer:

• How many team members will contribute to automation?
• How often does your application change?
• What’s your current CI/CD setup?
• What skill levels are available internally?
• What’s your biggest pain point: speed, stability, or coverage?

A clear assessment prevents over-engineering.

Step 2: Build a Solid Foundation

Here’s how to choose the right starting point:

• Choose Modular + Data-Driven if your team is technical and workflows are stable
• Choose Keyword-Driven Hybrid if manual testers or business analysts contribute
• Choose Full Hybrid if your application has highly complex logic
• Choose BDD Hybrid when communication and requirement clarity are crucial

Step 3: Select Tools Strategically

Web Apps

• Selenium WebDriver
• Playwright
• Cypress

Mobile Apps

• Appium + POM

API Testing

• RestAssured
• Playwright API

Cross-Browser Cloud Execution

• BrowserStack
• LambdaTest

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Even the most well-designed hybrid automation framework can fail if certain foundational elements are overlooked. Below are the five major pitfalls teams encounter most often, along with practical solutions to prevent them.

1. Over-Engineering the Framework

Why It Happens

• Attempting to support every feature from day one
• Adding tools or plugins without clear use cases
• Too many architectural layers that complicate debugging

Impact

• Longer onboarding time
• Hard-to-maintain codebase
• Slower delivery cycles

Solution: Start Simple and Scale Gradually

Focus only on essential components such as modular structure, reusable functions, and basic reporting. Add advanced features like keyword engines or AI-based healing only when they solve real problems.

2. Inconsistent Naming Conventions

Why It Happens

• No established naming guidelines
• Contributors using personal styles
• Scripts merged from multiple projects

Impact

• Duplicate methods or classes
• Confusing directory structures
• Slow debugging and maintenance

Solution: Define Clear Naming Standards

Create conventions for page objects, functions, locators, test files, and datasets. Document these rules and enforce them through code reviews to ensure long-term consistency.

3. Weak or Outdated Documentation

Why It Happens

• Rapid development without documentation updates
• No designated documentation owner
• Teams relying on tribal knowledge

Impact

• Slow onboarding
• Inconsistent test implementation
• High dependency on senior engineers

Solution: Maintain Living Documentation

Use a shared wiki or markdown repository, and update it regularly. Include:

• Code examples
• Naming standards
• Folder structures
• Reusable function libraries

You can also use tools that auto-generate documentation from comments or annotations.

4. Poor Test Data Management

Why It Happens

• Test data hardcoded inside scripts
• No centralised structure for datasets
• Missing version control for test data

Impact

• Frequent failures due to stale or incorrect data
• Duplicate datasets across folders
• Difficulty testing multiple environments

Solution: Centralise and Version-Control All Data

Organise test data by:

• Environment (dev, QA, staging)
• Module (login, checkout, API tests)
• Format (CSV, JSON, Excel)

Use a single repository for all datasets and ensure each file is version-controlled.

5. Not Designing for Parallel and CI/CD Execution

Why It Happens

• Hard-coded values inside scripts
• WebDriver or API clients are not thread-safe
• No configuration separation by environment or browser

Impact

• Flaky tests in CI/CD
• Slow pipelines
• Inconsistent results

Solution: Make the Framework CI/CD and Parallel-Ready

• Use thread-safe driver factories
• Avoid global variables
• Parameterise environment settings
• Prepare command-line execution options
• Test parallel execution early

This ensures your hybrid framework scales as your testing needs grow.

The Future of Hybrid Automation Frameworks

AI-Driven Enhancements

• Self-healing locators
• Automatic test generation
• Predictive failure analysis

Deeper Shift-Left Testing

• API-first testing
• Contract validation
• Unit-level automation baked into CI/CD

Greater Adoption of Cloud Testing

• Parallel execution at scale
• Wider device/browser coverage

Hybrid automation frameworks will continue to evolve as a core component of enterprise testing strategies.

Conclusion

Choosing the right hybrid automation framework is not about selecting the most advanced option; it’s about finding the approach that aligns best with your team’s skills, your application’s complexity, and your long-term goals. Modular + data-driven frameworks provide technical strength, keyword-driven approaches encourage collaboration, full hybrids maximise scalability, and BDD hybrids bridge communication gaps. When implemented correctly, a hybrid automation framework reduces maintenance, improves efficiency, and supports faster, more reliable releases. If you’re ready to modernise your automation strategy for 2025, the right hybrid framework can transform how your team delivers quality.

Frequently Asked Questions

Discuss your challenges, evaluate tools, and get guidance on building the right hybrid framework for your team.

Schedule Consultation

Playwright 1.56: Key Features and Updates

by Rajesh K | Nov 11, 2025 | Automation Testing, Blog, Latest Post | 11 comments

The automation landscape is shifting rapidly. Teams no longer want tools that simply execute tests; they want solutions that think, adapt, and evolve alongside their applications. That’s exactly what Playwright 1.56 delivers. Playwright, Microsoft’s open-source end-to-end testing framework, has long been praised for its reliability, browser coverage, and developer-friendly design. But with version 1.56, it’s moving into a new dimension, one powered by artificial intelligence and autonomous test maintenance. The latest release isn’t just an incremental upgrade; it’s a bold step toward AI-assisted testing. By introducing Playwright Agents, enhancing debugging APIs, and refining its CLI tools, Playwright 1.56 offers testers, QA engineers, and developers a platform that’s more intuitive, resilient, and efficient than ever before.

Let’s dive deeper into what makes Playwright 1.56 such a breakthrough release and why it’s a must-have for any modern testing team.

Why Playwright 1.56 Matters More Than Ever

In today’s fast-paced CI/CD pipelines, test stability and speed are crucial. Teams are expected to deploy updates multiple times a day, but flaky tests, outdated selectors, and time-consuming maintenance can slow releases dramatically.

That’s where Playwright 1.56 changes the game. Its built-in AI agents automate the planning, generation, and healing of tests, allowing teams to focus on innovation instead of firefighting broken test cases.

• Less manual work
• Fewer flaky tests
• Smarter automation that adapts to your app

By combining AI intelligence with Playwright’s already robust capabilities, version 1.56 empowers QA teams to achieve more in less time with greater confidence in every test run.

Introducing Playwright Agents: AI That Tests with You

At the heart of Playwright 1.56 lies the Playwright Agents, a trio of AI-powered assistants designed to streamline your automation workflow from start to finish. These agents, the Planner, Generator, and Healer, work in harmony to deliver a truly intelligent testing experience.

Planner Agent – Your Smart Test Architect

The Planner Agent is where it all begins. It automatically explores your application and generates a structured, Markdown-based test plan.

This isn’t just a script generator; it’s a logical thinker that maps your app’s navigation, identifies key actions, and documents them in human-readable form.

• Scans pages, buttons, forms, and workflows
• Generates a detailed, structured test plan
• Acts as a blueprint for automated test creation

Example Output:

# Checkout Flow Test Plan

• Navigate to /cart
• Verify cart items
• Click “Proceed to Checkout”
• Enter delivery details
• Complete payment
• Validate order confirmation message

This gives you full visibility into what’s being tested in plain English before a single line of code is written.

Generator Agent – From Plan to Playwright Code

Next comes the Generator Agent, which converts the Planner’s Markdown test plan into runnable Playwright test files.

• Reads Markdown test plans
• Generates Playwright test code with correct locators and actions
• Produces fully executable test scripts

In other words, it eliminates repetitive manual coding and enforces consistent standards across your test suite.

Example Use Case:
You can generate a test that logs into your web app and verifies user access in just seconds, no need to manually locate selectors or write commands.

Healer Agent – The Auto-Fixer for Broken Tests

Even the best automation scripts break, buttons get renamed, elements move, or workflows change. The Healer Agent automatically identifies and repairs these issues, ensuring that your tests remain stable and up-to-date.

• Detects failing tests and root causes
• Updates locators, selectors, or steps
• Reduces manual maintenance dramatically

Example Scenario:
If a “Submit” button becomes “Confirm,” the Healer Agent detects the UI change and fixes the test automatically, keeping your CI pipelines green.

This self-healing behavior saves countless engineering hours and boosts trust in your test suite’s reliability.

How Playwright Agents Work Together

The three agents work in a loop using the Playwright Model Context Protocol (MCP).

This creates a continuous, AI-driven cycle where your tests adapt dynamically, much like a living system that grows with your product.

Getting Started: Initializing Playwright Agents

Getting started with these AI assistants is easy. Depending on your environment, you can initialize the agents using a single CLI command.

npx playwright init-agents --loop=vscode

Other environments:

npx playwright init-agents --loop=claude

npx playwright init-agents --loop=opencode

These commands automatically create configuration files:

.github/chatmodes/🎭 planner.chatmode.md
.github/chatmodes/🎭 generator.chatmode.md
.github/chatmodes/🎭 healer.chatmode.md
.vscode/mcp.json
seed.spec.ts

This setup allows developers to plug into AI-assisted testing seamlessly, whether they’re using VS Code, Claude, or OpenCode.

New APIs That Empower Debugging and Monitoring

Debugging has long been one of the most time-consuming aspects of test automation. Playwright 1.56 makes it easier with new APIs that offer deeper visibility into browser behavior and app performance.

These additions give QA engineers powerful insights without needing to leave their test environment, bridging the gap between frontend and backend debugging.

Command-Line Improvements for Smarter Execution

The CLI in Playwright 1.56 is more flexible and efficient than ever before.

New CLI Flags:

• --test-list: Run only specific tests listed in a file
• --test-list-invert: Exclude tests listed in a file

This saves time when you only need to run a subset of tests, perfect for large enterprise suites or quick CI runs.

Enhanced UI Mode and HTML Reporting

Playwright’s new UI mode isn’t just prettier, it’s more practical.

Key Enhancements:

• Unified test and describe blocks in reports
• “Update snapshots” option added directly in UI
• Single-worker debugging for isolating flaky tests
• Removed “Copy prompt” button for cleaner HTML output

With these updates, debugging and reviewing reports feel more natural and focused.

Breaking and Compatibility Changes

Every major upgrade comes with changes, and Playwright 1.56 is no exception:

• browserContext.on('backgroundpage') → Deprecated
• browserContext.backgroundPages() → Now returns empty list

If your project relies on background pages, update your tests accordingly to ensure compatibility.

Other Enhancements and Fixes

Beyond the major AI and API updates, Playwright 1.56 also includes important performance and compatibility improvements:

• Improved CORS handling for better cross-origin test reliability
• ARIA snapshots now render input placeholders
• Introduced PLAYWRIGHT_TEST environment variable for worker processes
• Dependency conflict resolution for projects with multiple Playwright versions
• Bug fixes, improving integration with VS Code, and test execution stability

These refinements ensure your testing experience remains smooth and predictable, even in large-scale, multi-framework environments.

Playwright 1.56 vs. Competitors: Why It Stands Out

Verdict:
Playwright 1.56 offers the smartest balance between speed, intelligence, and reliability, making it the most future-ready framework for teams aiming for true continuous testing.

Pro Tips for Getting the Most Out of Playwright 1.56

• Start with AI Agents Early – Let the Planner and Generator create your foundational suite before manual edits.
• Use page.requests() for API validation – Monitor backend traffic without external tools.
• Leverage the Healer Agent – Enable auto-healing for dynamic applications that change frequently.
• Run isolated tests in single-worker mode – Ideal for debugging flaky behavior.
• Integrate with CI/CD tools – Playwright works great with GitHub Actions, Jenkins, and Azure DevOps.

Benefits Overview: Why Upgrade

Conclusion

Playwright 1.56 is not just another update; it’s a reimagination of test automation. With its AI-driven Playwright Agents, enhanced APIs, and modernized tooling, it empowers QA and DevOps teams to move faster and smarter. By automating planning, code generation, and healing, Playwright has taken a bold leap toward autonomous testing where machines don’t just execute tests but understand and evolve with your application.

Frequently Asked Questions

Take your end-to-end testing to the next level with Playwright. Build faster, test smarter, and deliver flawless web experiences across browsers and devices.

Start Testing with Playwright

Design Patterns for Test Automation Frameworks

by Rajesh K | Nov 6, 2025 | Automation Testing, Blog, Latest Post | 1 comment

In modern software development, test automation is not just a luxury. It’s a vital component for enhancing efficiency, reusability, and maintainability. However, as any experienced test automation engineer knows, simply writing scripts is not enough. To build a truly scalable and effective automation framework, you must design it smartly. This is where test automation design patterns come into play. These are not abstract theories; they are proven, repeatable solutions to the common problems we face daily. This guide, built directly from core principles, will explore the most commonly used test automation design patterns in Java. We will break down what they are, why they are critical for your success, and how they help you build robust, professional frameworks that stand the test of time and make your job easier. By the end, you will have the blueprint to transform your automation efforts from a collection of scripts into a powerful engineering asset.

Why Use Design Patterns in Automation? A Deeper Look

Before we dive into specific patterns, let’s solidify why they are a non-negotiable part of a professional automation engineer’s toolkit. The document highlights four key benefits, and each one directly addresses a major pain point in our field.

• Improving Code Reusability: How many times have you copied and pasted a login sequence, a data setup block, or a set of verification steps? This leads to code duplication, where a single change requires updates in multiple places. Design patterns encourage you to write reusable components (like a login method in a Page Object), so you define a piece of logic once and use it everywhere. This is the DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) principle in action, and it’s a cornerstone of efficient coding.
• Enhancing Maintainability: This is perhaps the biggest win. A well-designed framework is easy to maintain. When a developer changes an element’s ID or a user flow is updated, you want to fix it in one place, not fifty. Patterns like the Page Object Model create a clear separation between your test logic and the application’s UI details. Consequently, maintenance becomes a quick, targeted task instead of a frustrating, time-consuming hunt.
• Reducing Code Duplication: This is a direct result of improved reusability. By centralizing common actions and objects, you drastically cut down on the amount of code you write. Less code means fewer places for bugs to hide, a smaller codebase to understand, and a faster onboarding process for new team members.
• Making Tests Scalable and Easy to Manage: A small project can survive messy code. A large project with thousands of tests cannot. Design patterns provide the structure needed to scale. They allow you to organize your framework logically, making it easy to find, update, and add new tests without bringing the whole system down. This structured approach is what separates a fragile script collection from a resilient automation framework.

1. Page Object Model (POM): The Structural Foundation

The Page Object Model is a structural pattern and the most fundamental pattern for any UI test automation engineer. It provides the essential structure for keeping your framework organized and maintainable.

What is it?

As outlined in the source, the Page Object Model is a pattern where each web page (or major screen) of your application is represented as a Java class. Within this class, the UI elements are defined as variables (locators), and the user actions on those elements are represented as methods. This creates a clean API for your page, hiding the implementation details from your tests.

Benefits:

• Separation of Test Code and UI Locators: Your tests should read like a business process, not a technical document. POM makes this possible by moving all findElement calls and locator definitions out of the test logic and into the page class.
• Easy Maintenance and Updates: If the login button’s ID changes, you only update it in the LoginPage.java class. All tests that use this page are instantly protected. This is the single biggest argument for POM.
• Enhances Readability: A test that reads loginPage.login(“user”, “pass”) is infinitely more understandable to anyone on the team than a series of sendKeys and click commands.

Structure of POM:

The structure is straightforward and logical:

Each page (or screen) of your application is represented by a class. For example: LoginPage.java, DashboardPage.java, SettingsPage.java.

Each class contains:

• Locators: Variables that identify the UI elements, typically using @FindBy or driver.findElement().
• Methods/Actions: Functions that perform operations on those locators, like login(), clickSave(), or getDashboardTitle().

Example:

// LoginPage.java
import org.openqa.selenium.WebDriver;
import org.openqa.selenium.WebElement;
import org.openqa.selenium.support.FindBy;
import org.openqa.selenium.support.PageFactory;
public class LoginPage {
WebDriver driver;
@FindBy(id = "username")
WebElement username;
@FindBy(id = "password")
WebElement password;
@FindBy(id = "loginBtn")
WebElement loginButton;
public LoginPage(WebDriver driver) {
this.driver = driver;
PageFactory.initElements(driver, this);
}
public void login(String user, String pass) {
username.sendKeys(user);
password.sendKeys(pass);
loginButton.click();
}
}

2. Factory Design Pattern: Creating Objects with Flexibility

The Factory Design Pattern is a creational pattern that provides a smart way to create objects. For a test automation engineer, this is the perfect solution for managing different browser types and enabling seamless cross-browser testing.

What is it?

The Factory pattern provides an interface for creating objects but allows subclasses to alter the type of objects that will be created. In simpler terms, you create a special “Factory” class whose job is to create other objects (like WebDriver instances). Your test code then asks the factory for an object, passing in a parameter (like “chrome” or “firefox”) to specify which one it needs.

Use in Automation:

• Creating WebDriver instances (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, etc.).
• Supporting cross-browser testing by reading the browser type from a config file or a command-line argument.

Structure of Factory Design Pattern:

The pattern consists of four key components that work together:

• Product (Interface / Abstract Class): Defines a common interface that all concrete products must implement. In our case, the WebDriver interface is the Product.
• Concrete Product: Implements the Product interface; these are the actual objects created by the factory. ChromeDriver, FirefoxDriver, and EdgeDriver are our Concrete Products.
• Factory (Creator): Contains a method that returns an object of type Product. It decides which ConcreteProduct to instantiate. This is our DriverFactory class.
• Client: The test class or main program that calls the factory method instead of creating objects directly with new.

Example:

// DriverFactory.java

import org.openqa.selenium.WebDriver;
import org.openqa.selenium.chrome.ChromeDriver;
import org.openqa.selenium.firefox.FirefoxDriver;

public class DriverFactory {

  public static WebDriver getDriver(String browser) {
    if (browser.equalsIgnoreCase("chrome")) {
      return new ChromeDriver();
    } else if (browser.equalsIgnoreCase("firefox")) {
      return new FirefoxDriver();
    } else {
      throw new RuntimeException("Unsupported browser");
    }
  }
}

3. Singleton Design Pattern: One Instance to Rule Them All

The Singleton pattern is a creational pattern that ensures a class has only one instance and provides a global point of access to it. For test automation engineers, this is the ideal pattern for managing shared resources like a WebDriver session.

What is it?

It’s implemented by making the class’s constructor private, which prevents anyone from creating an instance using the new keyword. The class then creates its own single, private, static instance and provides a public, static method (like getInstance()) that returns this single instance.

Use in Automation:

This pattern is perfect for WebDriver initialization to avoid multiple driver instances, which would consume excessive memory and resources.

Structure of Singleton Pattern:

The implementation relies on four key components:

• Singleton Class: The class that restricts object creation (e.g., DriverManager).
• Private Constructor: Prevents direct object creation using new.
• Private Static Instance: Holds the single instance of the class.
• Public Static Method (getInstance): Provides global access to the instance; it creates the instance if it doesn’t already exist.

Example:

// DriverManager.java

import org.openqa.selenium.WebDriver;
import org.openqa.selenium.chrome.ChromeDriver;

public class DriverManager {

  private static WebDriver driver;

  private DriverManager() { }

  public static WebDriver getDriver() {
    if (driver == null) {
      driver = new ChromeDriver();
    }
    return driver;
  }

  public static void quitDriver() {
    if (driver != null) {
      driver.quit();
      driver = null;
    }
  }
}

4. Data-Driven Design Pattern: Separating Logic from Data

The Data-Driven pattern is a powerful approach that enables running the same test case with multiple sets of data. It is essential for achieving comprehensive test coverage without duplicating your test code.

What is it?

This pattern enables you to run the same test with multiple sets of data using external sources like Excel, CSV, JSON, or databases. The test logic remains in the test script, while the data lives externally. A utility reads the data and supplies it to the test, which then runs once for each data set.

Benefits:

• Test Reusability: Write the test once, run it with hundreds of data variations.
• Easy to Extend with More Data: Need to add more test cases? Just add more rows to your Excel file. No code changes are needed.

Structure of Data-Driven Design Pattern:

This pattern involves several components working together to flow data from an external source into your test execution:

• Test Script / Test Class: Contains the test logic (steps, assertions, etc.), using parameters for data.
• Data Source: The external file or database containing test data (e.g., Excel, CSV, JSON).
• Data Provider / Reader Utility: A class (e.g., ExcelUtils.java) that reads the data from the external source and supplies it to the tests.
• Data Loader / Provider Annotation: In TestNG, the @DataProvider annotation supplies data to test methods dynamically.
• Framework / Test Runner: Integrates the test logic with data and executes iterations (e.g., TestNG, JUnit).

Example with TestNG:

@DataProvider(name = "loginData")
public Object[][] getData() {
  return new Object[][] {
    {"user1", "pass1"},
    {"user2", "pass2"}
  };
}

@Test(dataProvider = "loginData")
public void loginTest(String user, String pass) {
  new LoginPage(driver).login(user, pass);
}

5. Fluent Design Pattern: Creating Readable, Chainable Workflows

The Fluent Design Pattern is an elegant way to improve the readability and flow of your code. It helps create method chaining for a more fluid and intuitive workflow.

What is it?

In a fluent design, each method in a class performs an action and then returns the instance of the class itself (return this;). This allows you to chain multiple method calls together in a single, flowing statement. This pattern is often used on top of the Page Object Model to make tests even more readable.

Structure of Fluent Design Pattern:

The pattern is built on three simple components:

• Class (Fluent Class): The class (e.g., LoginPage.java) that contains the chainable methods.
• Methods: Perform actions and return the same class instance (e.g., enterUsername(), enterPassword()).
• Client Code: The test class, which calls methods in a chained, fluent manner (e.g., loginPage.enterUsername().enterPassword().clickLogin()).

Example:

public class LoginPage {

  public LoginPage enterUsername(String username) {
    this.username.sendKeys(username);
    return this;
  }

  public LoginPage enterPassword(String password) {
    this.password.sendKeys(password);
    return this;
  }

  public HomePage clickLogin() {
    loginButton.click();
    return new HomePage(driver);
  }
}

// Usage
loginPage.enterUsername("admin").enterPassword("admin123").clickLogin();

6. Strategy Design Pattern: Defining Interchangeable Algorithms

The Strategy pattern is a behavioral pattern that defines a family of algorithms and allows them to be interchangeable. This is incredibly useful when you have multiple ways to perform a specific action.

What is it?

Instead of having a complex if-else or switch block to decide on an action, you define a common interface (the “Strategy”). Each possible action is a separate class that implements this interface (a “Concrete Strategy”). Your main code then uses the interface, and you can “inject” whichever concrete strategy you need at runtime.

Use Case:

• Switching between different logging mechanisms (file, console, database).
• Handling multiple types of validations (e.g., validate email, validate phone number).

Structure of the Strategy Design Pattern:

The pattern is composed of four parts:

• Strategy (Interface): Defines a common interface for all supported algorithms (e.g., PaymentStrategy).
• Concrete Strategies: Implement different versions of the algorithm (e.g., CreditCardPayment, UpiPayment).
• Context (Executor Class): Uses a Strategy reference to call the algorithm. It doesn’t know which concrete class it’s using (e.g., PaymentContext).
• Client (Test Class): Chooses the desired strategy and passes it to the context.

Example:

public interface PaymentStrategy {
  void pay();
}

public class CreditCardPayment implements PaymentStrategy {
  public void pay() {
    System.out.println("Paid using Credit Card");
  }
}

public class UpiPayment implements PaymentStrategy {
  public void pay() {
    System.out.println("Paid using UPI");
  }
}

public class PaymentContext {

  private PaymentStrategy strategy;

  public PaymentContext(PaymentStrategy strategy) {
    this.strategy = strategy;
  }

  public void executePayment() {
    strategy.pay();
  }
}

Conclusion

Using test automation design patterns is a definitive step toward writing clean, scalable, and maintainable automation frameworks. They are the distilled wisdom of countless engineers who have faced the same challenges you do. Whether you are building frameworks with Selenium, Appium, or Rest Assured, these patterns provide the structural integrity to streamline your work and enhance your productivity. By adopting them, you are not just writing code; you are engineering a quality solution.

Frequently Asked Questions

Ready to transform your automation framework? Let's discuss how to apply these design patterns to your specific project and challenges.

Free Consult