Saving 220+ Hours of Testing with Maestro Automation

As software development complexity is increasing, efficient and reliable testing are critical. Enter Maestro, a user-friendly development testing tool that streamlines testing processes, speeds up release cycles and enhances software quality.

This article explores our journey with Maestro, highlighting challenges, solutions, and benefits as we strive towards enhanced testing and continuous improvement.

Our main goal? To use testing time efficiently, moving repetitive tasks to automation, and freeing up engineering time for activities such as critical and manual testing of a new feature before they are automated or preparing automation for a new feature.

How do we do it?

We use Maestro to automate testing scenarios and flows in our mobile applications - this helps us bring on-demand test results faster, gives us a quick retest option, and saves time.

Even though initial setup and writing tests require time investment, while automation tests run, QA engineers can focus on tasks like manual testing of new features or preparing automation for new features.

Tests are written in YAML files in a semi-codeless manner, using commands like "tapOn" and "scroll". Tests can run on hardware devices or emulators/simulators, making them ideal for end-to-end smoke tests or regression tests during fresh releases.

‍

Time Savings with Automation

Example Scenario:

A hypothetical mobile app with login, logout, dashboard, 2 main features, and a user profile.

Manual Testing:

• Complete smoke test: 1 hour per device
• Development period: 6 months (18 sprints, 4 releases per sprint)
• 3 devices (current and 2 older OS versions)

Approach 1: Manual Testing (First Month)

• 3 sprints, 4 releases/sprint, 1 hour/release, 3 devices/release
• Total: 36 hours/month on manual smoke testing
• Remaining: 134 hours for other testing activities

Approach 2: Automated Testing (First Month)

• Initial setup: 4 hours, fixing: 3 hours
• 3 sprints, 4 releases/sprint, 45 minutes/release, 3 devices/release
• Automated testing time utilized for other activities
• Total: 7 hours (setup + fixing)
• Remaining: 163 hours for other testing activities
• Time saved: 19 hours (29 hours without buffer)

Simulating Growth (Sixth Month, Coefficient: 1.2 per month)

• Approach 1: Manual Testing
  • Total: 269.2 hours/month on manual smoke testing
  • Negative balance: -89.2 hours (not feasible)
• Approach 2: Automated Testing
  • Initial setup: 28.8 hours, fixing: 21.6 hours, writing: 28.8 hours
  • Total: 194.4 hours (automated testing time utilized for other activities)
  • Remaining: 119.6 hours for other testing activities
  • Time saved: 208.8 hours

Summary:

• First month: 19 hours saved with Maestro
• Sixth month: 208.8 hours saved with Maestro
• Automation maintains 100% test coverage and allows QA engineers to focus on critical tasks, ensuring product quality.

Maestro represents a solution to the often complex issue of mobile application automation testing, offering organizations the tools and capabilities needed to elevate their testing practices to new heights and deliver exceptional software products that exceed customer expectations.

TL;DR

As applications grow more complex, automation helps maintain comprehensive test coverage. Automation frees QA engineers to focus on tasks requiring human insight, ensuring quality doesn't suffer even with tight deadlines.

‍

As a startup founder, one of the most crucial decisions you will face is whether to build an in-house development team or hire an external agency. Having navigated this terrain myself, I believe that in the early stages, leveraging an agency can be a clever move. Here's why:

Immediate Access to Expertise

When you are just starting out, time is your most valuable resource. Hiring developers is a lengthy process fraught with uncertainties. Team dynamics, vital for productivity, can take months to establish. In contrast, an agency provides an immediate solution. They offer a cohesive team that has worked together effectively on various projects. This immediate access to a well-oiled machine can accelerate your development timelines by 30-40%.

Cost and Time Efficiency

For many startups, especially those without technical co-founders, the initial phase can be overwhelming. You might find yourself spending months trying to hire the right talent, all while burning through your limited funds. From my experience, it is more pragmatic to use an agency during this period.

Agencies bring the necessary expertise and resources without the long lead times associated with building an in-house team. While you focus on what truly matters—developing your product and refining your business model.

Time to Build Your Internal Team

While starting with an agency has clear advantages, it doesn't mean you should rely on them for everything indefinitely.

Having an internal product manager or CTO is essential to ensure that your vision and strategy are consistently implemented. As your startup grows, you should gradually build your in-house team. This allows you to benefit from the agency's expertise while creating a stable internal team, culture and knowledge base.

TL;DR

In conclusion, leveraging an agency in the early stages of your startup can provide the immediate expertise and efficiency you need to get off the ground. As you grow, transitioning to an in-house team while maintaining a strategic partnership with the agency for specific tasks can help you scale effectively. This approach ensures you can adapt to changing needs and continue to innovate and grow.

As a co-founder of Cleevio, I have seen firsthand the benefits of this approach. If you can't code and have limited time and resources, using an agency can save you crucial time and help you make significant strides in your startup journey.

‍

Choosing between stealth mode and overhyped marketing is crucial for any startup. As a founder, I faced early on whether to build my startup in stealth mode or embrace overhyped marketing. Both strategies offer unique advantages and disadvantages, and the right choice depends on your product, competition, and overall strategy. So, which one is better for you?

Developing in stealth mode allows you to refine your product without external pressure. During the pandemic, I launched an app that quickly started making $100k a month, completely bootstrapped. We operated in stealth mode, focusing solely on perfecting the app rather than seeking attention. Even after Apple removed the app, we had made significant money, and no one knew about it.

From my experience and observations, many successful projects operate quietly yet effectively. For instance, several companies in the Czech market, with teams of around 15 people, generate over $500k in monthly sales without any external funding. They remain relatively unknown in the broader startup community but are well-known in their niche markets.

This strategy minimizes pressure and allows them to focus on building their products. However, some PR is beneficial for hiring new talent. As a development company, we are always hiring new talents, and local PR helps us connect with potential employees.

TL;DR

Deciding between stealth mode and overhyped marketing depends on your startup's specific needs, goals and market size.

From my experience, operating in stealth mode while maintaining targeted PR efforts, especially for hiring, has been the right path. Sometimes, a hybrid approach offers the best balance, allowing for focused development initially and leveraging marketing benefits when the product is ready for the spotlight.

Still not sure what's best for your startup? Check out our Startup Program or book a call with us now to learn how you can supercharge your startup.

‍