🧪 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬: 𝐇𝐓𝐌𝐋 𝐯𝐬. 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞 — 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐡𝐲?

Over the past months, I’ve worked with both native HTML reports and Allure reports across multiple projects. While both serve the same purpose -> to visualize test results. They differ greatly in experience, complexity, and value.

Here’s a quick breakdown from an architect’s perspective:

⚖️ 𝐇𝐓𝐌𝐋 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭
➕ Pros:

• Simple, built-in for many frameworks (Cypress, Playwright, Mocha, etc.)
• Zero or minimal config
• Easy to share

➖ Cons:

• Flat, basic structure
• Poor support for attachments (videos, screenshots)
• No detailed step logging or timeline
• Difficult to scale or integrate with CI dashboards

🚀 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭
➕ Pros:

• Rich UI with steps, attachments, history, timelines, flaky test detection
• CI-friendly (works with Jenkins, GitHub, etc.)
• Excellent integration with Playwright, JUnit, TestNG, etc.
• Supports trend analysis, retries, nested steps

➖ Cons:

• Setup is more complex (requires extra CLI, plugins)
• Takes time to maintain, especially for custom steps or labels
• Can bloat with large runs if not optimized

🛠️ Complexity
🕒 Setting up Allure correctly (with steps/screenshots/retries) can easily take a few hours or more

🚀 But the payoff is huge when your test results are readable, visual, and actionable

🎯 𝐌𝐲 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞?
For fast local runs or small projects - stick to HTML.
But for CI/CD pipelines, real QA dashboards, and serious reporting - Allure is worth every minute of setup.

💬 Have you worked with Allure? Do you still use basic HTML?
Which one gave your team the best visibility and debug speed?

testautomation #allure #cypress #playwright #qaengineering #devops #qualityengineering #reporting

#qa