Bridging the Gap Between UI and API Testing

In the domain of software testing, the dialogue between API and UI testing methodologies remains pivotal. The white paper from Karate Labs, “Navigating the Brave New World of API Testing”, champions API testing as a superior alternative to UI testing, positing it as a solution to several common testing challenges. However, this perspective, while valuable, warrants a critique to ensure a balanced understanding of the testing landscape.

Flaky Tests and Development Pace

Karate Labs suggests API testing as a remedy for flaky tests and the rapid pace of development. However, API tests are not immune to flakiness, with potential issues stemming from infrastructure, parsing, and beyond. Furthermore, the white paper overlooks the necessity of well-defined contracts for API testing to keep it up with the development process. In reality, UI tests, with frameworks like Page Object Models (POMs), can offer maintainability that rivals or surpasses that of API tests, especially when UI architectures are well-designed.

Maintainability and Functional Regression Coverage

The assertion that API testing ensures ease of maintainability and superior functional regression coverage merits skepticism. A well-architected UI test suite, leveraging Page Object Models (POMs) and reusable classes, can offer streamlined maintenance. API testing can encounter significant challenges, particularly with schema changes, which necessitate extensive updates to test scripts, especially in environments that do not dynamically build requests based on schema definitions. Additionally, the claim that API testing more effectively covers functionalities derived from requirements overlooks the complexity of applications where a single functionality might span multiple API calls and necessitate intricate processing within test code.

Performance Testing and Tool Ecosystem

The white paper positions API testing as uniquely suited for performance testing and suggests a disparity in tool availability favoring API over UI testing. This viewpoint overlooks the versatility of modern testing frameworks that equally empower UI tests for performance evaluation. Notably, advancements in UI testing technology, such as Playwright and Selenium, have substantially mitigated challenges related to browser compatibility and cross-browser testing (Chrome for Testing), rendering the testing process more efficient and less reliant on extensive setup or specific installations.

The comparison between the tool ecosystems for API and UI testing in the white paper does not accurately reflect the reality of the testing landscape. The assertion of a broader tool set for API testing neglects the comprehensive capabilities of UI testing tools that often include or integrate well with API testing features. Tools like Selenium, Cypress, and Playwright not only facilitate robust UI testing but also offer functionalities that support API tests, thereby bridging the gap between the two domains and underscoring the multifaceted utility of UI testing frameworks.

Simplicity and Speed of API Tests

The claim regarding the inherent simplicity and swiftness of API tests over UI tests overlooks the advancements and capabilities of modern UI testing technologies. Frameworks today are equipped with sophisticated mechanisms to efficiently manage element wait times and synchronize with external calls, significantly reducing the complexity traditionally associated with UI testing. Furthermore, the white paper does not account for the complexities that can arise in API testing, such as dealing with rate limiting, thorough API documentation, and dynamic schema changes, which can complicate the testing process and diminish the purported simplicity of API testing.

Stability and Data Coverage

The claim of inherent stability in API tests compared to UI tests overlooks the nuanced reality where both testing methodologies can exhibit flakiness, contingent on the complexity of the test suites and the quality of the implementation. The critique of UI tests for being prone to flakiness due to locator changes overlooks the adaptability of UI testing architectures, such as Page Object Models, which facilitate easy updates to locators, maybe even free depending on the technology. Additionally, the assertion that API testing provides better data coverage fails to account for the potential redundancy in API data, which may not always align with practical testing priorities.

Architectural and End-User Workflow Coverage

Asserting that UI frameworks focus solely on UI automation and neglect broader architectural coverage does not align with the capabilities of contemporary testing frameworks. Modern testing solutions, including those built around libraries like Playwright, can be extended through integration with various programming languages and technologies, thereby enabling comprehensive testing that spans multiple layers of application architecture. This challenges the white paper’s assertion by demonstrating that UI testing can, in fact, encompass extensive architectural coverage.

Additionally, the claim that API testing more accurately simulates end-user workflows than UI testing neglects the fundamental role of the user interface in mediating user interactions. API testing, while valuable, does not replicate the user’s experience or the complex interactions that occur within a user interface. Testing workflows solely through API calls may miss critical usability issues, user interface bugs, and the holistic user experience, underscoring the importance of integrating UI testing into the overall testing strategy.

Test Data Management and Accessibility

The white paper’s claims regarding the ease of test data management and accessibility for non-programmers in API testing do not fully capture the complexities of working with detailed API documentation and sophisticated data payloads. The assertion that API testing is inherently more straightforward for non-programmers overlooks the challenges associated with understanding and crafting complex API requests and interpreting the responses, which can be as daunting as navigating UI test scripts for those without a programming background.

Moreover, the portrayal of API tests as more effective living documentation than UI tests simplifies the reality that both forms of testing can serve as valuable documentation, provided they are well-structured and clearly written. As much code should itself explain what it is does, test scenarios can also describe themselves and be live documentation.


A balanced testing strategy that appreciates the strengths and limitations of both API and UI testing is essential. They share both struggles and solutions provided by different technologies. Karate Labs’ white paper, while advocating for API testing, overlooks the nuanced dynamics between API and UI testing methodologies. A comprehensive testing approach, informed by the specific needs of the project, the capabilities of the testing team, and the advantages of newer technologies, will ensure robust software quality assurance beyond the confines of any single testing paradigm.

Arek Frankowski
Senior Software Architect

Watch or read our other posts at Kimputing Blogs. You’ll find everything from Automated testing to CenterTest, Guidewire knowledge to general interest. We’re trying to help share our knowledge from decades of experience.

Similar Posts