Is Action Based Testing an Automation Technique?


Keyword-driven methodologies like Action Based Testing (ABT) are usually considered to be an Automation technique. They are commonly positioned as an advanced and practical alternative to other techniques like to “record & playback” or “scripting”.

To see ABT as an Automation technique is not incorrect. We do it ourselves at LogiGear in marketing. Some parts of ABT, and the supporting toolset TestArchitect, are very technical and would not fit in a manual process. However, in this article I want to show that the core ideas of ABT are not specifically about automation at all, they are merely a style of test design.

ABT as a Style for Writing a Test

Consider, for example, this small manual test instruction regarding a registration dialog (see Example 1). I found this instruction in one of our earlier projects:

Enter a user id that is greater than 10 characters in the user id field. Then enter proper information for all the other fields on the screen and click the ‘Continue’ button.

The following error message should be displayed below the screen: ‘A User Id must be less than 10 characters’.

Example 1 – Manual Test Instruction

At first glance, there does not appear to be a lot wrong with this instruction. It is a proper and very common instruction in a manual test suite. However, when examined more closely a few things can be noted:

  1. First, the input values mentioned in the instruction are “implicit”; they are circumscribed rather than explicitly specified. The text calls for “a user id that is greater than 10 characters” and “proper information”. This is not a big deal in most cases, but it is not always efficient. It calls for the tester to supply the actual values when the test case is executed, meaning:
    • The tester has to spend time and effort every time the test case is executed, while if the values had been specified as part of the test design this would have happened only once.
    • This test case execution effort happens typically near the end of a project, when not much time is left for the tester to be expending “extra” effort.
  2. Furthermore, an instruction like “click the ‘Continue’ button” is likely to be repeated for every test case related to this dialog. In this example that is not much of a problem, but in many test case descriptions I have seen instructions can be very detailed and extensive, and are repeated over and over again in each test case. This means:
    • A lot of work for the test designer to create these instructions and make sure they are correct.
    • The instructions are quickly rendered outdated if anything changes in the system under test. This means that the instructions either have to be modified, or, in many cases, they are simply left alone, being incorrect. After a number of maintenance cycles the test cases become obsolete, thus losing a valuable investment.

In general manual instructions tend to be verbose, voluminous, and hard to create and maintain. Executing manual instruction costs a lot of time and labor, often when a project is already under time pressure.

Using ABT the same test would be written in a spreadsheet, and typically look like this:

actionuser idmessage
check registrationaaabbbcccddUser Id must be less than 10 characters

Example 2 – ABT Test Instruction

Compared to the earlier version (Example 1) a number of differences can be seen:

  • The format of the instruction is much shorter, taking less time for the test designer to create.
  • The input value for user id is now specified explicitly. The tester no longer needs to come up with one.
  • Input values not relevant to the test (the “other fields”) are left to the action to use default values. This focuses on what matters for the test which increases readability and improves maintainability.
  • Other details, like the need to click on the “continue” button or where to find the error message, are also hidden in the action and equally guarded against changes in the system under test.

Notice that the action-based format used here does not assume Automation at all. It is just another way of writing a test. The test case can be executed equally well manually as it can be with Automation. An experienced tester, who is familiar with operating the system under test, can follow this instruction and execute the test case manually.

However, two considerations remain for use of the short action-based format for manual tests:

  1. The executing manual tester must be experienced, and experienced with the system under test. This is not always a valid assumption.
  2. Since they are not specified, the manual tester will still have to supply values for the other fields in the dialog during test execution.

The way around these limitations is to let the test designer spend time to define the “check registration” action in more detail, just like would be done when automating this test. And just like with Automation, this specification, which we call “action definition”, will only have to be done once, thus also improving maintainability. For a manual test this definition will be specified as template text, with place holders for the arguments for which the manual tester will need to supply the actual values. In TestArchitect we even have added a function that will do this automatically – it will generate a document in which all actions are re-placed with the template texts specified in their definitions, and the place holders replaced by the actual argument values.


What I hope I have illustrated in this article is that Action Based Testing, and keyword based methods in general, are not necessarily Automation techniques. They are most of all an economic way of describing tests. They are a style or a format for writing a test instruction.

Hans Buwalda

Hans leads LogiGear’s research and development of test automation solutions, and the delivery of advanced test automation consulting and engineering services. He is a pioneer of the keyword approach for software testing organizations, and he assists clients in strategic implementation of the Action Based Testing™ method throughout their testing organizations.

Hans is also the original architect of LogiGear’s TestArchitect™, the modular keyword-driven toolset for software test design, automation and management. Hans is an internationally recognized expert on test automation, test development and testing technology management. He is coauthor of Integrated Test Design and Automation (Addison Wesley, 2001), and speaks frequently at international testing conferences.

Hans holds a Master of Science in Computer Science from Free University, Amsterdam.

Hans Buwalda
Hans Buwalda, CTO of LogiGear, is a pioneer of the Action Based and Soap Opera methodologies of testing and automation, and lead developer of TestArchitect, LogiGear’s keyword-based toolset for software test design, automation and management. He is co-author of Integrated Test Design and Automation, and a frequent speaker at test conferences.

The Related Post

LogiGear Magazine – July 2011 – The Test Methods & Strategies Issue
Reducing the pester of duplications in bug reporting. Both software Developers and Testers need to be able to clearly identify any ‘Bug’, via the ‘Title’ used for the ‘Bug Report’.
March Issue 2020: Smarter Testing Strategies for The Modern SDLC
Creative Director at the Software Testing Club, Rob Lambert always has something to say about testing. Lambert regularly blogs at TheSocialTester where he engages his readers with test cases, perspectives and trends. “Because It’s Always Been Done This Way” Study the following (badly drawn) image and see if there is anything obvious popping in to ...
David S. Janzen – Associate Professor of Computer Science Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo – homepage LogiGear: How did you get into software testing and what do you find interesting about it? Professor Janzen: The thing I enjoy most about computing is creating something that helps people. Since my first real job ...
Internet-based per-use service models are turning things upside down in the software development industry, prompting rapid expansion in the development of some products and measurable reduction in others. (Gartner, August 2008) This global transition toward computing “in the Cloud” introduces a whole new level of challenge when it comes to software testing.
Introduction Software Testing 3.0 is a strategic end-to-end framework for change based upon a strategy to drive testing activities, tool selection, and people development that finally delivers on the promise of Software Testing. For more details on the evolution of Software Testing and Software Testing 3.0 see: The Early Evolution of Software Testing Software Testing ...
This article was originally featured in the July/August 2009 issue of Better Software magazine. Read the entire issue or become a subscriber. People often quote Lord Kelvin: “I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express ...
D. Richard Kuhn – Computer Scientist, National Institute of Standards & Technology LogiGear: How did you get into software testing? What did you find interesting about it? Mr. Kuhn: About 10 years ago Dolores Wallace and I were investigating the causes of software failures in medical devices, using 15 years of data from the FDA. ...
Think you’re up for a challenge? Print this word search out! See if you can find all the words and learn a few new software testing terms in the process. To see how you’ve done, check your answers in the answer key below. *You can check the answer key here.
Do testers have to write code? For years, whenever someone asked me if I thought testers had to know how to write code, I’ve responded: “Of course not.” The way I see it, test automation is inherently a programming activity. Anyone tasked with automating tests should know how to program. But not all testers are ...
Having developed software for nearly fifteen years, I remember the dark days before testing was all the rage and the large number of bugs that had to be arduously found and fixed manually. The next step was nervously releasing the code without the safety net of a test bed and having no idea if one ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Stay in the loop with the lastest
software testing news