Healthcare/Web Development
Telemedicine Solution for Online Doctor Consultations
Telemedicine platform for online consultations and patient care
View projectTest Automation
Client Challenges
Testing Gaps That Slow Releases And Increase Release Risk
Teams usually start looking at test automation after the product has grown faster than their ability to verify it manually. Regression cycles become longer, release risk increases, and existing automated checks may provide inconsistent feedback as the product continues to change.
A full manual regression cycle takes days and may need to be repeated whenever a release candidate changes. Release timing then depends on available QA capacity rather than only on product readiness. Finished features wait while the same critical checks are performed manually again.
Without sufficient regression coverage, a change in one area can affect behavior somewhere else without being detected before release. Production defects then create hotfixes, additional releases, support workload, and more pressure on the same QA process.
Earlier test automation solutions may already exist, but intermittent failures make it difficult to distinguish product defects from problems in the tests or environment. Engineers start rerunning failed jobs or ignoring individual failures, and the suite gradually loses its value as a release signal.
Tests that depend heavily on unstable UI details can break whenever the interface changes. Automation engineers then spend a growing share of their time repairing existing scripts instead of extending meaningful coverage. The number of tests may increase while the amount of reliable protection stays almost unchanged.
Service Overview
Test Automation Strategy And Pipeline-Ready Regression Suites
Solbeg’s test automation services can cover strategy, implementation, and reliable checks integrated into the delivery process. Work can begin with an assessment of an existing suite or with a product that does not yet have automation.
Test automation consulting that reviews current testing practices, release processes, existing test cases, and any automation already in place. The output is a prioritized automation scope based on product risk, maintenance effort, and delivery needs.
Design and implementation of the automation framework, including project structure, reusable components, test data handling, environment configuration, reporting, and conventions for maintaining test code.
Automated checks for critical user flows in web and mobile interfaces across the browsers, devices, and platforms included in the supported product scope.
Service-level checks for business rules, authorization, data validation, service communication, and third-party integrations. These tests can provide broader and faster feedback without depending on the user interface.
Connection of automated tests to the delivery pipeline with agreed quality gates and execution stages. Critical checks can prevent a build from progressing when the relevant acceptance conditions are not met.
Automated software testing services for existing automation suites, including stabilization of unreliable tests, removal of duplication, restructuring of test code, and updates required as the application changes.
Problem & solution
The problem
Automated tests are often added alongside delivery instead of becoming part of the delivery process
Many teams begin by converting manual test cases directly into automated scripts. This can result in a large suite dominated by end-to-end UI tests, with repeated setup and validation logic across scenarios. Because these tests depend on more layers of the application, they are typically slower and more sensitive to UI, environment, and timing changes.
Automation also requires dedicated engineering capacity. Developers are focused on product delivery, while manual QA specialists may not have the dedicated capacity required to design and maintain an automation framework. Automation then becomes a secondary initiative that loses priority whenever a release deadline approaches.
Even when automated tests exist, they may run too late in the delivery cycle or without clear ownership of failed results. If ownership of failure triage is unclear, it can become difficult to determine consistently whether a failure represents a product defect, test defect, data issue, or environment problem, and confidence in the suite can gradually decline.
Solbeg's approach
Automation is scoped by risk, engineered for maintainability, and connected to the delivery pipeline
Before writing tests, we identify business-critical flows, areas that change frequently, existing manual and automated coverage, and the consequences of defects escaping into production. We then determine which checks are best placed at the API, integration, component, or UI level. Software automation testing services structured this way avoid relying on end-to-end UI automation for every scenario.
Our QA automation services can include automation engineers responsible for the framework and test code as an engineering asset. Tests follow agreed conventions, go through code review, and are documented so the client’s developers and QA specialists can understand and extend the suite.
Suites are integrated into CI/CD at stages appropriate to their speed and purpose. Automation testing services can also include failure triage and stabilization. Failed runs are investigated as product defects, test defects, data problems, or environment issues, while unreliable tests are isolated and corrected rather than allowed to weaken trust in the entire suite.
When this service fits
When Test Automation Delivers The Most Practical Value
Test automation is most useful when it addresses a defined release, regression, integration, or quality-control problem. Different situations require different starting points and different automation testing solutions.
A delivery pipeline needs fast automated checks that provide feedback before a build moves through later stages. Without suitable test coverage, faster deployment can simply move defects through the process more quickly. Initial automation often begins with smoke and service-level checks before broader regression coverage is added.
Changing an older application can be risky when important behavior is represented mainly in existing code and operational knowledge. Automated characterization and regression tests can establish a safety net around business-critical behavior before major restructuring or migration begins.
A web application, mobile apps, administration interfaces, and other clients may share backend services while following different release schedules. Manual verification effort grows with every supported browser, operating system, and device configuration. Automation can repeatedly check selected scenarios across the combinations that matter most.
Payment providers, CRMs, logistics platforms, identity services, and other third-party APIs change independently of your release cycle. Testing automation services focused on integrations can detect contract or response changes before they affect users, while mocks or stubs can support testing when an external sandbox is unavailable or unreliable.
As regression scope and release frequency grow, manual testing can begin to limit how quickly the team can validate changes. Solbeg can introduce automation alongside the existing QA team, focusing first on repeatable and business-critical scenarios while manual QA continues to cover exploratory and other areas where human judgment remains important.
Customers, partners, internal controls, or auditors may require consistent evidence showing which checks ran against a particular release. Automated execution can produce repeatable results linked to builds, requirements, or deployment stages, while manual and exploratory testing remains documented separately where appropriate.
Scope of Work
Roles And Responsibilities In A Test Automation Engagement
Depending on project scope, software QA automation services can involve several testing, engineering, and delivery responsibilities. Team composition is defined after the current product, release process, environments, and existing automation are assessed.
Test automation architecture
Definition of framework structure, coding conventions, tool-selection criteria, reusable abstractions, reporting, and the approach to test data and environments. Architectural changes are reviewed as the automation suite grows.
UI automation engineering
Automation of selected end-to-end user flows across web or mobile interfaces. The work includes reusable page or component abstractions, synchronization, test data, and execution across the relevant browsers, operating systems, or devices.
API test automation
Service-level testing of business logic, authorization, validation, data exchange, and integrations. The scope can also include mocks or service virtualization for dependencies that are unstable or unavailable in test environments.
QA analysis
Design and prioritization of test scenarios based on requirements, product risks, and existing coverage. QA analysis also identifies areas better suited to exploratory, usability, or other manual testing rather than automation.
CI/CD and test infrastructure
Configuration of automated testing stages, execution environments, parallel runs, access to test data, and reporting within the client’s delivery process.
QA coordination
Planning of automation priorities, monitoring of coverage and suite stability, coordination of defect triage, and reporting of automation progress to relevant stakeholders.
Why Solbeg
What Engineering Teams Gain From Solbeg's Approach To Test Automation
When choosing a test automation company, the long-term value of the engagement depends on whether the resulting tests remain understandable, maintainable, and useful as the product evolves.
Test code is treated as software engineering work
Solbeg’s software engineering background allows its software test automation services to follow practices such as version control, code review, reusable architecture, and documented conventions. This gives the client’s team a codebase that can be reviewed and extended rather than a collection of isolated scripts.
One partner can cover web, mobile, and backend testing needs
Solbeg’s software testing and QA services span backend, web, and mobile products. This gives automation engineers access to technical context across the application stack and reduces unnecessary handoffs when a failure involves both client-side behavior and backend services.
Automation can reflect domain and business rules
Effective tests need to validate business behavior rather than only check whether individual screens load. Solbeg’s project experience across different industries can help automation work account for domain-specific rules, integrations, workflows, and edge cases where those are part of the client’s requirements.
Automation strategy can adapt to the client's delivery model
Products differ in release frequency, CI/CD maturity, environment availability, supported platforms, and QA team structure. The automation scope can therefore be aligned with the way the specific team delivers software instead of applying the same test pyramid or framework structure to every project.
Comparison
Code-Based Frameworks Vs. Low-Code Automation Platforms
Both approaches can be used for production test automation. The choice between these test automation solutions affects who can create and maintain tests, how deeply automation can integrate with the product and CI/CD process, and how maintenance requirements evolve over time.
Engagement Process
Test Automation Delivery Across Assessment, Framework Setup, And Coverage Expansion
Solbeg can run automation work in stages so working checks become available before the entire target scope is complete. For teams evaluating a QA automation company, Solbeg adapts the sequence to the product, release process, current test coverage, and condition of any existing automation.
-
Discovery and QA audit
Solbeg automation specialists work with the client’s QA and engineering stakeholders to review the product, current test cases, existing automation, release process, environments, and CI/CD setup. The result is a documented current state, automation candidates, and identified constraints or risks.
-
Automation strategy
The framework approach, tooling, test levels, execution model, and order of implementation are defined against the findings from the assessment. Priorities, acceptance criteria, and team responsibilities are agreed before broader implementation begins.
-
Framework setup
Automation engineers establish the framework, test configuration, required data handling, reporting, and CI/CD integration. Initial smoke or critical-path checks provide an end-to-end validation that the framework and execution environment work as intended.
-
Coverage expansion
Prioritized scenarios are automated incrementally, with test code reviewed and suite health tracked alongside coverage. The balance between API, integration, UI, and other test levels can evolve as product risks and existing coverage change.
-
Handover or ongoing maintenance
Framework conventions, test code, execution procedures, and operational responsibilities are documented so the client’s team can understand and extend the suite. Solbeg can continue stabilization, maintenance, and coverage expansion under an agreed engagement, with knowledge transfer incorporated into the delivery model as required.
Completed projects
View all projectsProjects we’re proud of
Examples of how we help companies turn ideas into reliable digital products that people use every day.
Healthcare/Mobile Development/QA
Mental Health Assessment Platform
Mobile app for mental health assessment and personalized support
View project
Healthcare/Online Scheduling/Public Sector/Retail/Web Development
Online Appointment Scheduling System
Online booking system for appointments and reservations
View projectFAQ
Questions To Settle Before Starting Test Automation
Not every scenario benefits from automation. Highly unstable functionality, one-time checks, exploratory testing, subjective usability evaluation, and some visual or hardware-dependent scenarios may be more efficient to keep manual. The decision should be based on execution frequency, business risk, stability, automation cost, and expected maintenance effort rather than on a goal of automating everything.
No. Automation is most effective at repeatable checks that benefit from consistent execution, while manual QA remains important for exploratory testing, evaluation of new behavior, usability, and investigation of unexpected results. An automation testing company should therefore consider automated and manual testing as complementary parts of the overall QA process.
Often yes. Existing automation can be assessed for architecture, stability, readability, execution time, coverage, and fit with the current product and delivery process. Parts that remain maintainable can be retained, while other areas can be refactored or replaced where doing so is more efficient than continuing to repair them.
Useful inputs include access to the relevant application and environments, repositories, existing test documentation, requirements, test accounts, representative data, and the CI/CD environment where automation will eventually run. Missing documentation does not necessarily prevent work from starting, but it can increase the discovery effort.
The estimate depends on the number and complexity of scenarios, required test levels, application architecture, supported platforms, state of the test environments, data setup, and condition of any existing framework. Test automation consulting at the beginning of the engagement helps turn those factors into a prioritized implementation scope that can be estimated in stages.
Compare how each provider designs, reviews, stabilizes, documents, and maintains automation rather than focusing only on the number of tests proposed. When reviewing test automation companies, ask about framework architecture, flaky-test handling, CI/CD integration, test data, reporting, and handover. It is also useful to check whether the QA automation companies being considered can work across the API and UI layers relevant to your product.
They can if every test runs at every stage, which is why suites are usually separated by purpose and execution time. Fast smoke and service-level checks can run frequently, while broader regression and longer end-to-end suites can run at later stages, in parallel, or on an agreed schedule. Execution time and failure rates should be monitored so tests that become too slow or unstable can be optimized or moved to a more appropriate stage.
Related Services
You may also need
End-to-end services to build, launch, and grow your digital product.