Test Automation & Framework Development

Usually Playwright with TypeScript for web UI automation — reliable, fast, actively maintained and pleasant to work in. But the tool matters far less than the architecture around it. A well-structured suite in a tool you would not have chosen will outlast a badly structured one in the perfect tool, because what makes suites fail is unstable selectors, shared test data and unclear failures rather than the runner. We also weigh what your team already knows: a framework your engineers can maintain in a language they use daily is worth more than a marginally better tool they will avoid touching after we leave.

Often, yes — we start with an assessment of the current suite and tell you honestly whether repair or rebuild is the better investment. Repair usually wins when the structure is sound and the problems are concentrated in selectors, waits or test data. Rebuild usually wins when tests depend on each other or on state left behind by earlier runs, because that is not a defect you can fix in place. Either way you get the reasoning rather than a verdict, including a rough sense of the effort each path costs. Recommending a rebuild is a bigger engagement for us, which is exactly why we show the working.

Your team, if you want to — and we set the engagement up so that is realistic. Training and handover are part of the scope, not an afterthought: your engineers write and maintain tests in the framework while we are still there to review them. The framework is documented, the conventions are written down, and adding a test to an existing flow should not require reading the whole codebase. If you would rather we continue to maintain and extend the suite, that is available as ongoing work. What we try to avoid is the third option, where the suite is technically yours but nobody feels able to change it.