What advice do you have for others considering UiPath Test Suite?

We have started using Agentic AI, and there are currently some proof of concepts (POCs) in progress. The primary problem statement that I am trying to address with Agentic AI automation is about external dependencies. To put it simply, how can we solve the issue of external dependencies with Agentic AI.That's the goal. How do we create contracts dynamically for resources that are not readily available? That's the question we're trying to answer. Reducing maintenance is one of the main goals, and while tools have the capability to reduce it, the challenge is that not everyone using the tool has the same level of familiarity. I would rate UiPath Test Cloud a nine out of ten.

I work in a cross-industry capacity with this product. I work for an enterprise company, and these are all enterprise clients who I believe are spending millions of dollars on the software each year, not just on UiPath but on the software we are testing. We use a combination of deployment models; we have done on-prem, hybrid cloud, and public cloud, with a trend towards more hybrid and full public cloud configurations. We typically use whatever cloud provider UiPath is using, sometimes opting for the provider's offerings, but we rarely provide our own cloud services specifically for the Test Cloud suite. While some newer AI testing software might appear to be one, two, or three in terms of list price, their true costs could be much higher due to potential failures. I rate UiPath Test Cloud a seven; it's a solid, really good tool that does exactly what it claims for the price it sets, though I foresee a potential drop to a five or six due to new entrants offering better value, keeping in mind that maintaining their current capabilities without raising prices can be challenging.

We have integrated UiPath Test Cloud with Jenkins, but we haven't used anything else for integration so far. It supports the page object model, allowing the creation of small reusable components that facilitate building test scripts across three applications. I would recommend following the approach of building small modular test cases as workflows and creating the test cases using those small workflows. UiPath Test Cloud does not have self-healing features, but I see that it is very stable. The approach we followed was creating small reusable components, making maintenance comparatively easy. We have implemented a page object model. Overall, I would rate UiPath Test Cloud a seven out of ten.

The overall rating I give to UiPath Test Suite is seven out of ten. The licensing model limits broader adoption by smaller companies despite its features. I recommend UiPath for medium to large enterprises that require extensive testing and can afford its licenses. Additionally, employing automation engineers to replace manual testing could be highly beneficial.

If there is a budget constraint, I would not recommend UiPath Test Suite, but if not, then I would definitely recommend it. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

It is a very good solution. People can learn it easily. It is the best solution if you want to automate repetitive tasks and manual operations. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I would rate UiPath Test Suite nine out of ten. As a support person in the UiPath environment, I've noticed that license expiration often triggers advanced email notifications, prompting password changes or license updates within specific timelines. Troubleshooting these issues revolves around effective communication, as automation must be handled in collaboration. It's essential to prioritize checking these aspects regularly. For business exceptions, I personally investigate any missed steps. However, application exceptions like URL errors or website crashes require application-level troubleshooting. I often attempt multiple approaches, but business exceptions typically necessitate personal intervention. Reporting is a crucial method for troubleshooting all issues. If UiPath or its Studio crashes, system maintenance, such as repairing or reinstalling the application with a refreshed license, can resolve the problem. I've encountered these troubleshooting challenges, and this approach has proven effective. I have primarily used the community version for the past six and a half years. However, I am aware that my organization uses the older paid version. For example, the enterprise version I used in my previous organization was 2022.10, while the community version is 2024.10 and later. Although the community version offers daily updates, there is a risk that features I implement may be modified in the future, leading to potential exceptions. For general tasks like running and testing, the community version is ideal. Therefore, I mainly use the community version for personal purposes but prefer the enterprise version for end-user applications. From a maintenance perspective, maintenance is the developer's responsibility. Their primary responsibility is to check the number of failed and successful tests. However, as an application exception, if a UiPath Test Suite Manager is not configured, the developer must report this to the tenant and request that the feature be enabled before it can be used. If a company is cost-conscious, it should consider alternative vendor applications like Automation Anywhere, Power Automate, or Kofax. These options are generally less expensive than UiPath Test Suite, especially for organizations with fewer than 500 employees. For example, UiPath licenses can start at around $2,300 USD, while Microsoft Power Automate can be obtained for as little as $230 USD. To effectively automate with UiPath, a foundational understanding of coding structures is essential. This knowledge empowers users to navigate the automation process more efficiently. With a solid coding base, learning UiPath may be easier. My personal experience, having started UiPath automation immediately after graduating, confirms the importance of coding skills. Many individuals without coding experience find automation jobs less appealing, focusing solely on tool usage. Therefore, I recommend prioritizing the development of coding skills before delving into automation. This approach ensures a more fulfilling experience and opens doors to other technical roles, such as data engineering or data analysis, for those with a strong coding background.

We are UiPath partners. While it depends on the scenario, for those who think automation testing is too complex, I'd say the framework provides a good automation opportunity. You can even do complex testing as long as there is good repetition. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Overall, I am satisfied with UiPath Test Suite. Anyone can learn how to use it. There are a few tutorials on the UiPath Academy. By using those tutorials, anyone can easily use UiPath Test Suite. I would rate UiPath Test Suite a 7 out of 10.

I rate UiPath Test Suite nine out of 10. My advice to prospective UiPath users is to try the solution first. They need to understand what process they plan to automate, evaluate the impact, and whether it supports their objective 100 percent. If it supports the business goals but requires hidden maintenance costs, it is not good for them. My suggestion is to first identify the proper end-to-end scenario or test case. Then, do a proof of concept and evaluate whether it is fully compatible with their tool or process.

I would rate UiPath Test Suite an eight out of ten. We haven't yet explored integrating Test Suite with other lifecycle tools and applications, specifically in the context of code pipeline management tools. However, I believe it presents a truly exciting opportunity for the platform. Imagine seamlessly connecting Test Suite to platforms like Git or DevOps, where code repositories reside. Every time a new version or release of code or workflow is created, we could integrate it with Test Suite and a code pipeline tool. This would automatically trigger the execution of regression test scenarios and only allow code to be pushed if it passes all tests. This eliminates the need for extensive manual documentation and testing, thereby providing greater assurance of code quality while expediting code delivery. We recognized the value of the UiPath Test Suite four weeks after its initial deployment. However, we needed to refine some of our existing scripts and test cases within the platform before we could achieve seamless execution and ensure the suite continued to perform as expected over time. Our project-specific workflows require ongoing maintenance. This means that changes to the underlying systems could impact the execution of our automated test scripts. Consequently, we need to regularly update and maintain these scripts to ensure their continued effectiveness. The key to effective testing lies in simplifying our objectives. Often, difficulties arise when we rely on subjective, poorly written test cases with unclear success criteria. Instead, focus on defining and simplifying objective criteria: so can we definitively tell if a workflow or test case is executing successfully. Once we have clear criteria, we can implement appropriate processes and automation to run the tests. For example, if the test generates a report, define the key aspects of that report that need to be verified to ensure it was not only generated but also generated accurately and contains all the correct and required information. Preparing to implement a solution like Test Suite involves evaluating how existing testing and documentation are currently structured and determining if they need improvement. The key to this is ensuring test cases are written clearly, concisely, and repeatably. This means anyone on the team should be able to pick up a test case and understand exactly what needs to be done. If existing manual testing scenarios lack this level of detail, automating them will be very challenging.

It's a great tool, and AI can continue to enhance it. For those worried that their automation testing is too complex, I'd advise them that it would not be with UiPath. You should just understand the testing process in Jira and the RPA process. The tool will ensure simplicity. As long as you know the fundamentals of the test, UiPath can automate. It's not hard. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Overall, UiPath is a good tool. I would definitely recommend it for automation over Tosca.

We are moving away from legacy technology. We consolidate everything into a single platform. I also like the tool's low-code benefits. UiPath has improved our collaboration and communication with developers. It has improved the turnaround time for test scripts and test sets. The solution has helped us reduce maintenance by leveraging libraries. The product has freed up our staff's time. The turnaround time for script development is faster now. We use UiPath to test various technologies like web and Java applications. There are fewer breaks in tester scripts and faster development time. The tool has reduced total testing costs. I rate the product a six out of ten.

We are a UiPath partner. The solution works well, even for complex processes. It's step-by-step and I can test across multiple scenarios. We can handle very complex scenarios with ease. If you have to do something complex manually, it can take hours. With Test Suite, you can handle complex scenarios within minutes. I'd recommend the solution to others. I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

We have not witnessed the solution reduce the total cost of testing. We haven't looked into that aspect. I'd rate Test Suite six out of ten. If we are trying to test code, we do it with Selenium. I'd recommend Selenium for that. It might be difficult to do with Test Suite.

I would rate UiPath Test Suite ten out of ten. UiPath is deployed across multiple departments, including IT departments, mobile application development, process management, and RPA development. We currently provide services to these departments, but not to our other lines of business. We have five test manager licenses, but only two people are currently using the test manager licenses. Sometimes we remove scenarios we have developed or identify points to manage testing more quickly or efficiently. We are doing some maintenance, but it is not required due to the way UiPath Test Suite works. UiPath Test Suite is really basic and easy to manage. I highly recommend the UiPath Test Suite. For people not familiar with UiPath tools, I suggest getting a demonstration.

UiPath Test Suite is a powerful tool for automated testing by non-technical QA analysts. However, its weaknesses in manual testing may make it unsuitable for having all testing (automated and manual) within one tool. We have adopted UiPath Test Suite for automated testing but continue to use Azure DevOps for manual testing. For teams that don’t have strict requirements for manual testing, UiPath Test Suite may be sufficient. Our QA team finds the features lacking in UiPath Test Suite, but our Process Automation Team uses Test Suite for the manual testing of our automations. It can be difficult to justify automated regression testing using traditional Cost Benefit Analysis (time and $ saved manually compared to automated) but in our case, finding issues with vendor releases earlier justifies the effort for creating automated regression tests. We are using Automation Hub to capture regression testing requests and compare the costs of manually running tests multiple times per month compared to automating the tests. Automation Hub provides a nice graphic showing the benefits which are supplemented with the intangible benefits of finding issues earlier. UiPath Task Capture is a valuable tool for regression testing as it can provide the basis for the automated test. The tool allows you to generate a document with step-by-step instructions including screenshots as well as an XAML with a blueprint for the automation. I highly recommend using Task Capture for starting your regression tests. Finally, I would recommend that you create a dashboard that indicates how many times regression testing found issues and report that to senior leadership to show the value that automated regression testing brings to the organization.

We implemented the solution because we didn't have a common test automation tool. We needed a common test automation tool that could go across a lot of applications. We can have various tools that may be used for UI, DB, or API, but we needed something that could go across a lot of applications. We use various UIs, Citrix, SAP, API calls, and database queries. The ability of Test Suite to automate tests from a wide range of technologies is very high. We haven't found anything we cannot do. We didn't do automation in the range we do now. We haven't integrated much. The tool can be integrated with CI/CD pipelines. There are some plugins available, at least for Jenkins, but we have tried to integrate with others without issues. We have also integrated with some pipelines in Jira. We haven't found issues when we tried to integrate with other tools. However, we haven't done that much. We find defects faster now. It's a very important part of automated tests. The faster we can find defects and bugs, the less cost or time it takes to resolve them. If a bug is introduced in any environment and we find it out after two weeks, it is quite difficult to find out what we did two weeks ago. If we get the response immediately after we have deployed something into an environment, we can understand it quickly. That's a very important part of automated tests. We are now running thousands of test cases every day. If we want to do that manually, we'll never get the money from management to do that range of testing. However, it's almost free when we get it automated. We cannot compare the two. We're not saving costs directly on testing. We are saving costs on faster feedback and faster delivery of new features. A big part of UiPath is robotics. If it is not available, we can develop it ourselves. We used RPA for many years. There are some differences. We need to have Test Suite to test things. It was not a big change for the organization and the resources needed. We cannot calculate ROI. We see benefits when we have fast feedback and probably fewer incidents in production. We didn't see time to value immediately. We saw time to value with Test Suite within half a year or one year. There are discussions about UiPath. They say that anybody can use UiPath. My recommendation would be to use well-educated developers. They must have some education or certification on UiPath. However, they are expensive. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

For those that worry their testing is too complex for UiPath, I'd advise them that UiPath can actually do pretty much anything. It offers end-to-end capabilities where users have everything in one place. They can maintain data and code. The reporting is there. For complex testing, having everything in one place is very, very important. Having direct integration and reducing coding is key to simplifying everything. UiPath helps reduce time in creating testing and frameworks. It makes everything very easy. Data and summary reports are all right there. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I've worked on a variety of automation solutions and uiPath has been the best in my experience. While there still needs improvements in terms of streamlining external connectors, it works quite well.

I rate UiPath Test Suite a nine out of ten. We started with Test Suite, but now that we have UiPath in place, we can also automate our processes. That's UiPath's advantage. It isn't simply a testing solution. We have the option to scale up our test cases or automate other processes. It's one of the benefits of using an RPA tool for testing. UiPath has a few minor areas that need improvement like mobile testing, but they are constantly adding features like AI-driven functionality. I'm optimistic about the platform's potential.