Is No-Code Test Automation a Reality or Just a Fantasy?

While having those recording tools might sound appealing, they only really catch the most obvious issues. For example, they might notice if everything works smoothly, but they won’t help with odd bugs like crashes caused by specific user actions. It's a bit of a gamble, and if you're serious about quality, you might have to consider allocating some developer time to learn proper testing frameworks.

It sounds like your situation is tough, but the short answer is that no-code automated testing tools can indeed be quite limited. While they can create some tests by recording user actions, those often end up being fragile. If anything changes in your app, you’ll likely find yourself rebuilding those tests from scratch. A better approach might be to focus on creating a clear definition of done for your releases, which includes basic automated testing. Even just starting with integration tests can make a difference while your developers continue building features. Don't see testing as a slowdown; it can actually help ensure your features work as intended and prevent embarrassing bugs from slipping through.

Honestly, those no-code testing tools usually don't deliver the results they promise. Automation has a lot of nuances like proper selectors and timeouts that these tools can struggle to handle. It's great to aim for ease, but the reality is if you want high-quality testing, you will need maintainable tests, which generally means some coding is involved.

I agree that such tools have their limitations. They might work for the so-called 'happy path' scenarios, but you may miss edge cases and weird bugs. Plus, you'll likely find you need to invest effort into fixing tests when things change in your application. It can be more hassle than it's worth.