While exploring AI-assisted testing, I started thinking more about what actually happens when a test breaks. Tools like mabl, Testim, and Functionize are approaching self-healing in different ways, and I can see why it’s becoming useful as test suites get bigger. But I keep coming back to one thing: just because a healed test passes again, it doesn’t always mean it was fixed correctly. If a locator breaks and AI finds another element that makes the test pass, we still need to know whether it’s actually the element the test was meant to use.
While exploring these ideas through X360 AI Tech, I’ve also been looking at how much context is needed for a test change to actually make sense. For me, it’s not just about finding something that works again, but making sure the fix still supports the original purpose of the test. When that isn’t clear, I think QA review is still important. There’s a big difference between “the test passed again” and “the test passed again, and we know it was fixed correctly.” I think that difference becomes more important as test suites grow.