Slow UIs, Async Behavior, and the Hidden Cost of Unobservable Systems
Performance issues are often discussed in terms of user experience, but their impact on test automation runs deeper than slow execution times. In many systems, what automation struggles with is not slowness itself, but uncertainty. When a system does not clearly communicate when it is ready, automation is forced to guess and those guesses are rarely stable over time.
Teams frequently treat automation instability in slow or asynchronous interfaces as a tooling problem. They add longer waits, introduce retries, or tweak timeouts until tests pass again. While these changes may reduce failures temporarily, they do not address the underlying issue: the system is not observable enough for reliable automation.
Slowness is not the real problem
From an automation perspective, time is rarely the enemy. Determinism is. A system can be slow and still be easy to automate if it behaves predictably and signals completion clearly. Conversely, a fast system can be extremely difficult to automate if its state transitions are implicit or inconsistent.
Problems arise when the system provides no reliable indication of when an operation has completed. A spinner disappears, a button becomes enabled, or a visual transition finishes but none of these necessarily reflect the true state of the underlying process. Automation reacts to these surface cues because they are the only available signals, even when they are misleading.
When tests fail intermittently in these scenarios, the root cause is not impatience. It is ambiguity.
Why waiting feels like progress
Adding waits is a natural response to asynchronous uncertainty. Longer waits reduce the probability of failure, which creates the illusion of stability. Over time, however, these waits accumulate. Test suites slow down, pipelines stretch, and failures still occur under different conditions.
More importantly, waits encode assumptions about timing that the system never guaranteed. Changes in data volume, infrastructure performance, or deployment environments silently invalidate those assumptions. Automation that relies on timing rather than state is always one change away from breaking.
Waiting is not a strategy. It is a workaround for missing signals.
The Observability Gap
At the heart of most automation issues in asynchronous systems is an observability gap. The system knows when work has completed, but it does not expose that knowledge in a way automation can reliably consume.
This gap forces tests to infer readiness indirectly through UI changes, animations, or DOM mutations. These inferences are brittle because they are side effects, not guarantees. When the UI changes without the underlying state being stable, automation receives false positives. When the state stabilizes without a visible change, automation waits unnecessarily.
Bridging this gap requires making system state explicit. That might mean exposing API endpoints that reflect progress, emitting events when workflows complete, or surfacing state transitions in a way that does not depend on visual interpretation. These changes improve automation, but they also improve debuggability and operational insight.
Asynchronous Systems Expose Design Intent
Asynchronous behavior is not inherently problematic. Modern systems rely on it heavily for scalability and responsiveness. The challenge is that asynchronous systems require clearer contracts than synchronous ones. When those contracts are implicit, automation becomes fragile.
A well-designed asynchronous system makes its intent clear. It defines what “done” means, how that state can be observed, and how failures are reported. Automation thrives in such environments because it can align its assertions with meaningful system behavior rather than superficial UI cues.
When these contracts are missing, automation ends up validating assumptions instead of behavior.
Why humans cope and automation cannot
Human testers often adapt seamlessly to asynchronous uncertainty. We notice patterns, infer intent, and compensate for delays. We refresh pages, repeat actions, or wait “a bit longer” without consciously registering the ambiguity.
Automation has no such flexibility. It operates strictly on the signals it is given. When those signals are unclear or misleading, automation does exactly what it was instructed to do and fails.
This is why automation instability is often a better indicator of system clarity than manual testing feedback. Automation does not tolerate ambiguity quietly. It exposes it.
Designing for readiness, not speed
Improving automation reliability in asynchronous systems rarely requires making the system faster. It requires making readiness explicit. When tests can ask, “Is this operation complete?” and receive a clear, deterministic answer, automation becomes simpler and more resilient.
This shift from optimizing for speed to designing for readiness changes how teams think about both testing and architecture. It encourages exposing state intentionally rather than hiding it behind visual transitions or implicit timing.
The result is not just better automation, but systems that are easier to reason about in production.
What comes next
In the next post, we’ll explore a different kind of automation challenge: third-party components that were never designed to be automated at all.
We’ll look at why UI automation often fails at integration boundaries, and how to build confidence without fighting systems you don’t control.
Read previous parts here part1 and part 2
If your automation feels fragile around asynchronous behavior, it’s likely reflecting a system that isn’t communicating clearly — not a test suite that’s poorly written.
Join the Conversation
If these challenges sound familiar, you’re not alone. Many of the most interesting discussions around testability, automation, and system design happen outside formal documentation through shared experiences and hard lessons learned.
HerNextTech is a community where practitioners exchange those insights openly: real problems, real constraints, and real solutions from people building and testing complex systems every day.
If you’re interested in learning from peers, sharing your experiences, or contributing to thoughtful conversations about modern testing and engineering practices, consider joining the HerNextTech community.
Because the best automation insights are rarely discovered alone.
Top comments (0)