Hybrid Automated-Manual Testing for Enhanced DevOps Pipelines
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3991/jfse.v2i4.59235Keywords:
Software Testing, Semi-Automated Testing, DevOps Practices, Testing Automation, Quality Assurance (QA), Manual and Automated Testing, Software Delivery, DevOps Testing Challenges.Abstract
DevOps is a paradigm shift in software development today, aimed at the rapid delivery of software through a task-oriented approach to work and the integration of development and operations teams. Software testing is one of the most important and challenging steps in the DevOps pipeline because it should be effective and stable without being slow. To improve the process of software testing among DevOps professionals, this paper suggests a semi-automatic testing approach as a more viable solution between the extremes. The semi-automated methodology involves automation of processes that are tedious and time-consuming (such as unit testing, regression testing, and continuous integration), but human inspection in processes that require critical thinking, business domain knowledge, and exploratory insight (such as UI validation, business logic, and end-user behavior simulation). The combination creates the ability to do faster feedback loops, reduced test maintaining burden, improved test coverage, and quality assurance (QA) in general. The study utilizes a combination of case study evaluation, the implementation of the tools, and the reaction of the practitioner to the survey to gauge the performance of semi-automation in the DevOps context. The core performance indicators assessment of performance includes reduced test cycle time, defect leakage rate, productivity of the team, and the rate of deployment. The findings indicate that semi-automatic solutions result in radical improvements of test efficiency, scalability, and flexibility, especially in groups with dynamic codebases and limited automation budgets. The proposed study will integrate an affordable yet quality testing model that is dynamic enough to keep up with the DevOps and the advancement of the ideal balance between human judgment and automation. The method described here does not only enhance the effect of testing as an undertaking but also does the more universal DevOps objectives of quicker delivery, quality, and better teamwork.
References
[1] L. A. Ajao and S. T. Apeh, “Secure Edge Computing Vulnerabilities in Smart Cities Sustainability Using Petri Net and Genetic Algorithm-Based Reinforcement Learning,” Intelligent Systems with Applications, vol. 18, p. 200216, 2023.
[2] R. Mohan and L. ben Othmane, “Improving CI/CD pipelines using containerized test environments,” Int. J. Artif. Intell. Mach. Learn. Eng., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 87–95, 2020.
[3] M. Shahin, M. A. Babar, and L. Zhu, “Continuous integration, delivery and deployment: A systematic review on approaches, tools, challenges and practices,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 3909–3943, 2017.
[4] X. Wang, T. Räty, and A. Mäkilä, “Test automation process improvement in DevOps: A case study,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.04321, 2020.
[5] D. Auerbach, R. Green, and R. Warner, Continuous Testing: A New Mindset for a New Era, 2015.
[6] E. Alégroth, R. Feldt, and N. Kolstrup, “Maintenance of automated GUI tests: An empirical analysis of industrial cases,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 122, pp. 1–15, 2016.
[7] J. Mudadi and H. Lotriet, “Challenges in DevOps adoption: A South African case study,” S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 130–142, 2023.
[8] L. Pando and R. Dávila, “A systematic mapping study on software testing in DevOps,” Proc. Inst. Syst. Program. RAS, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 112–124, 2023.
[9] W. Cui, “An empirical study of DevOps practices in large enterprises,” IEEE Softw., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 33–41, 2024.
[10] M. Bahar, T. Zia, and F. Hussain, “Critical challenges in continuous integration and testing in DevOps: A systematic review,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. 178, no. 4, pp. 14–22, 2025.
[11] M. Sartaj, A. Khan, and F. Tariq, “Automated API testing for evolving IoT applications: A comparative analysis,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 196, p. 111460, 2024.
[12] M. Keshavarz and A. M. Rahmani, “An AI-based architecture for intelligent DevOps pipeline automation,” Future Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 148, pp. 453–466, 2024.
[13] N. Hasani, “TestOps: Integrating testing lifecycle management into DevOps pipelines,” Softw. Qual. Prof., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 55–67, 2024.
[14] M. Shahin, M. A. Babar, and L. Zhu, “Continuous integration, delivery and deployment: A systematic review on approaches, tools, challenges and practices,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07019, 2017.
[15] M. Yaseen, M. A. Nauman, and A. Bahar, “Critical challenges of continuous integration and testing (CI/CT) in DevOps: A systematic literature review protocol,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. 186, no. 68, 2025.
[16] DevOps Testing Practices and Their Impact on Software Testing, Master’s Thesis, HELDA Repository, University of Helsinki.
[17] H. Sartaj, S. Ali, and J. M. Gjøby, “REST API testing in DevOps: A study on an evolving healthcare IoT application,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12547, 2024.
[18] “DevOps and software quality: A systematic mapping,” ScienceDirect, 2024.
[19] N. Azad et al., “DevOps critical success factors: A systematic literature,” ScienceDirect, 2023.
[20] R. Eramo et al., “An architecture for model-based and intelligent automation,” ScienceDirect, 2024.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sammar Abbas, Samman Masood, Sidra Tahir, Muhammad Azhar, ahthasham Sajid, Sabitha Banu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
