Pull Request testing

Shift to the left (real smooth now)

Still zero maintenance

Multiply the hours spent on false-positives and maintaining tests by the number of PRs you ship each day. The cost of all those engineering hours is QA Wolf’s ROI.   

Get your team something nice :)

Parallel testing parallel PRs

Run 100% of your tests in parallel. Then run 100% of your tests in parallel on 100 parallel PRs. Now do it an unlimited number of times each day — without managing test data or causing collisions.

Or we could just do it for you.

Works with your stack

GitHub Actions

GitLab CI

Jenkins

CircleCI

Vercel

Okteto

...and everything else using webhooks

Schedule a demo

The burden of testing multiplied by your velocity

The biggest blocker to continuous delivery is the inability for QA teams to keep pace with the amount of test investigation and maintenance required by product engineering shipping multiple times a day.

For in-house teams, around 15% of end-to-end tests fail each time a suite is run, and investigating those failures can take hours or days. Multiplying that time and cost by the number of pull requests a team merges each day (then adding in the constant data collisions, and the infrastructure to run so many tests each day) and it’s clear why PR testing is only accessible to the biggest and best funded teams.

The value of shifting left (testing as close to the initial development as possible) is obvious: Catching bugs before they’re merged to a shared environment keeps pipelines clear, improves quality, and speeds up delivery.

And QA Wolf makes it possible for any team. If you bring the preview environments to test, we’ll handle the rest.

How it's done

When devs push a PR to preview a webhook calls QA Wolf

These can be static preview environments or ephemeral.

diagram showing how QA Wolf is called via a webhook

diagram showing each test in it's own container managed by it's own k8 cluster

Each test is launched in its own container, and each environment is managed by its own k8s cluster

Isolated tests run faster, flake less, and are easier to review.

PRs are held if tests are failing

While our AI and QA Wolf engineers re-try and update the test scripts.

QA Wolf app PRs being held

AI knows when a change was intentional

By accessing the test runner on the preview environment, our AI can decide what to do:

If the change was intentional, the test is updated to match.

QA Wolf code editor

If the change was a mistake, a bug report is filed.

example bug report

FAQs

What is QA Wolf's pull request (PR) testing feature?

How does QA Wolf's PR testing work?

Why should I use QA Wolf's PR testing feature?

Can QA Wolf handle multiple pull requests at once?

How do I integrate my repository with QA Wolf?

What kind of tests does QA Wolf run on my pull requests?

How do I view the test results?

What’s included in QA Wolf’s bug reports?

What if I need help or support with QA Wolf's PR testing feature?

How does QA Wolf's infrastructure support PR testing?

How does QA Wolf's handle flakes during PR testing?

Are you ready for pain-free releases?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Keep reading

When crowdsourcing works and when it doesn’t — and why

Crowdsourcing has some valid use cases. But before you decide to go with a crowdsourcing vendor for automated testing, make sure you understand the drawbacks. This blog will tell you when it's is the right testing strategy for your project and when you are better off with something else.

Comparing QA Wolf and MuukTest: A detailed look at QA-as-a-Service models

QA Wolf and MuukTest may seem similar at first glance, but they serve different needs. QA Wolf’s all-inclusive service for complex projects versus MuukTest’s piecemeal pricing for simpler applications. Dig into the details to determine which service best suits your project’s demands.

QA Wolf Alternatives for Automated Testing: How Mabl Measures Up

QA Wolf provides a managed solution for custom, fast-changing software with per-test pricing, while Mabl offers a self-service tool for simpler apps with usage-based pricing. Explore their differences to find the best fit for your QA needs.