In-Sprint Automation vs Automating Stable Tests: Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment / Software Automation Testing, Test Strategy / By
in-sprint-automation-vs-automating-stable-tests

In-Sprint Automation vs Automating Stable Tests

In agile teams, a hot topic is whether to automate as soon as story is created or let it stabilize first then automate. Let’s dig into both sides, explore criteria to decide, and have a little fun while we do it! 🎉

Approach 1:
✅ Automate as soon as story is created (In Sprint) : Pros and Cons

Pros of automate as soon as story is created 🚀

  • Immediate feedback – Automation is ready by the end of the sprint, catching regressions fast 

  • Shift‑left quality – Automation becomes part of SDLC early, reducing defects 

  • No automation backlog – Stories ship with automation as part of Definition of Done 

  • Better team collaboration – Developers and QA align on automation during development 

Cons of automate as soon as story is created 😬

  • Fragile scripts – Early automation breaks often as features evolve 

  • Increased sprint load – Automation takes time away from feature development, especially under tight timelines.

  • Requires stable frameworks – If automation tooling isn’t mature, early efforts cost more than they save 

  • Less exploratory testing – Focus on automation may reduce quality of manual exploration 

Approach 2:
🛠️ Wait till stable, then automate: Pros and Cons

Pros of waiting until story is stable

  • Stable feature, stable tests – Automating after stabilization reduces script churn 

  • Manual testing first – Exploratory testing surfaces unknown edge‑cases before automating

  • Lower immediate pressure – Development and QA aren’t juggle automation + manual + dev simultaneously.

  • Easier to prioritize automation backlogs – Automation can be scheduled with focus after manual test certifies quality.

Cons of waiting until stable

  • Delayed feedback loop – Bugs discovered later cost more and slow down release cycle 

  • Automation backlog risk – Tests may accumulate and be forgotten as teams move on 

  • Coverage gaps in new features – Without early automation, critical paths may remain untested until later.

  • Story not truly “Done” – Skipping automation delays full completion under Definition of Done standards 

🧭 But wait… why not a hybrid approach?

Many teams combine both:

  • Automate critical and stable tests in‑sprint (e.g. smoke, API test)

  • Delay complex E2E or UI automation until stability is confirmed.

That way, you get early feedback where it matters most, and avoid brittle scripts for evolving features

⚖️ Summary Table

StrategyProsCons
Automate as soon as story is createdImmediate feedback, shift‑left, no backlogFragile tests, sprint overload, requires maturity
Wait until stable then automateStable scripts, manual exploration firstDelayed feedback, backlog risk, missing coverage
Hybrid approachBalanced: critical tests early, stable laterRequires good triage and coordination

Conclusion 🎯

  • You can automate as soon as story is created when criteria like clear specs, change‑resistant, stable interfaces, and team readiness are met.

  • Waiting until stability ensures robust tests and exploratory coverage—but can delay feedback and cause automation backlog.

  • A hybrid approach often balances both, using in‑sprint automation for critical paths and delayed automation for evolving features.

  • Ultimately, automation strategy should align with your team’s maturity, tooling, and sprint rhythm.

  • 🧪 Use manual testing first to validate evolving features.

  • 🛠️ Automate high‑value tests upfront, but defer brittle tests.

📚 References

Reddit Discussions

Articles & Blogs

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Recent Posts

Leave a Comment