Likelihood to Recommend It's good for issue resolution, user access request automation, standard report generation, health checks, executing self-healing as configured in the attributes. Currently not good at real-time monitoring to trigger an action. Health checks have to be on a scheduled basis.
Read full review It is best suited for implementing the automated test cases in a human readable form so it's easy for non-technical members of the team and stakeholders to understand the test cases, features and the functionalities of the application. Automation of Integration tests and End to End tests are good use case. It is less appropriate or situations where the focus is only on the writing and maintenance of unit tests.
Read full review Pros ignio handles 100+ use cases covering the entire organization including applications and infrastructure. Centralize the dashboard to view and executed the health of systems in our environment. It handles CA services desk Incidents and requests. Using automated tools with power shell scripts. ignio event management helps the organization to manage the alerts well and make an informed decision. Read full review Versatility to be used in combination with different kinds of automated testing like automated performance testing, API testing, UI testing etc. I use JavaScript, Selenium, C#, email testing libraries, database testing libraries in combination with BDD with SpecFlow. I am able to use all these with SpecFlow to make my automation framework to be able to automate any kind of automated testing. It provides different widely used runner options like NUnit, XUnit etc. Before I started to work on establishing proper test automation in my workplace, the previous automation framework (non-BDD based) as well as unit tests used NUnit runner. The transition to using BDD was smooth because we could use the same runner and there were no compatibility issues. The auto-complete feature is good. I use it with Visual Studio as well as Rider and I don't have to recall the entire Gherkin statements. I just type a few words and the entire Gherkin statement implemented in framework is auto-suggested by SpecFlow. It saves time and context switching. Read full review Cons There is a lot more the desktop tool can do. For example, we need to apply an upgrade to get the tool to talk to our infrastructure while employees are working from home. The tool was initially installed with the assumption that the desktops would be in UserLand. Instead after COVID-19 the desktop/laptops have been used for over a year on people's home networks. As of right now, we have to sync when the devices are connected to VPN. Moving forward with the upgrade, we will be getting this data over TLS when they are connected to the untrusted networks. The concept of ignio AlOps requires OCM efforts within most operational teams. This isn't necessarily the fault of the tool itself, but when implementing ignio, or any AIOps tool, the team will get a lot of pushback as an outside team is centralizing the operational improvements. The tool should have a centralized intake process that will allow the collection, ranking, and management of automation opportunities. ignio AlOps should then simulate the proposed efficiencies from implementing something within the backlog. Right now a lot of local teams are having a hard time getting on the same page as the enterprise teams, and a common methodology for prioritizing (even if overly simplistic) would go a long way to enterprise planning. These tools are very new and things get added to them all the time. There should be a way for the product's stakeholders and process owners to understand the additional value ignio AlOps is gaining over time. Read full review SpecFlow does not accepts optional input variables in the methods defined during Gherkin statement implementation. Cucumber supports optional input variables in the methods defined during Gherkin statement implementation. The tests identified while using SpecFlow with NUnit removes all white spaces in the scenario names. It makes the tests less readable. If the white spaces are not auto-removed, it would be much better for readability as well as their actual identification in the repository. Read full review Likelihood to Renew It is a very good product and it helps our organization.
Read full review Usability ignio AIOps version upgrades were a heavy lift. Having to learn a new language versus an industry standard language took time. More consideration on overall internal long-term support needs to be determined.
Read full review Reliability and Availability Read full review Performance We had performance issues in older version butterfly. But the new version cheetah is simply amazing
Read full review Support Rating We have built a healthy relationship with the vendor support team throughout the implementation phase, all incidents raised were resolved within the SLA without a fail
Read full review In-Person Training Implementation team has provided necessary training & enablement.
Read full review Online Training Online training materials are shared by the implementation team and it was good.
Read full review Implementation Rating I am happy with the way team has implemented and shared the product for our organization. However, would like to see it get extended to the other line of business too.
Read full review Alternatives Considered Self HEAL OOB Capabilites
Read full review SpecFlow is .Net based which supports C#. Behave is Python based. Cucumber is Java based.
Ghost Inspector is no-code based but provides very limited testing features. We wanted to implement BDD so we rued out using
Ghost Inspector . Most of the developers in my team are C# experts so it was decided for everyone's comfort to go for SpecFlow rather than Behave or Cucumber. It's import to have technical experts in the language of the automation framework because there are many situations where the solutions to the test automation needs are not straightforward and implementing those requires expertise in the related programming language.
Read full review Scalability Quite Scalable!
Read full review Return on Investment ignio has had a positive impact on our organization by saving 7,000+ hours within Operations and automatically resolving 84% of our service requests. ignio has increased our alert coverage by over 60%. Read full review Everyone stays on the same page regarding the behavior of existing functionalities whether it be technical or non-technical individuals. So there is less need for multiple people to get involved which saves time and thus money. Reusing the same code through the implemented Gherkin statement saves test automation time and thus reduces cost. We combine SpecFlow with other opensource testing technologies to make our automation framework more versatile which further saves costs for us. Read full review ScreenShots