What defines good E2E testing is not how many tests you have, but whether those tests actually help you make release decisions.

Once teams start writing E2E tests, they almost always hit the same wall:
How far should E2E tests go? What should be covered, and what should be intentionally left out?

Modern tools like Playwright and Cypress make it technically easy to test almost anything.
That convenience often blurs the line between what can be tested and what must be protected.

This article explains how to decide what E2E tests should protect, and how to design E2E quality so it actually works in real-world development.
It is written for engineers who already run E2E tests in CI, but still feel that release decisions are not getting easier.

1. The Shared Industry Baseline: E2E Tests Detect Breaks in User Value

Let me make the evaluation axis explicit.

E2E tests exist to ensure that a user’s end-to-end journey to receiving value is not broken.

This is not a tool-specific philosophy.
When you interpret the international software quality model (ISO/IEC 25010) specifically at the E2E layer, everything converges here.

  • Are individual functions correct? → Unit tests

  • Do modules work together correctly? → Integration tests

  • Can a user accomplish their goal? → E2E tests

An E2E test answers one core question:

“If a user performs this action, can they still reach the intended outcome?”

The moment you lose this perspective, E2E tests quickly turn into a large but unreliable safety net.

 

2. “It Seems Important” Is a Failing Criterion

Many teams decide what to protect in E2E tests using vague priorities:

  • It affects revenue

  • It’s a core screen

  • The PM is worried about it

I have repeatedly seen this approach cause E2E suites to grow until they stop being useful for decision-making.

The reason is simple.

“Seems important” is not actionable when a test fails.

What actually matters is this question:

If this flow breaks, would our release decision change?

If you cannot answer that immediately, the flow does not belong in E2E tests.

 

3. Conclusion: E2E Should Protect Only Decision-Changing Boundaries

My conclusion is unambiguous.

E2E tests should protect only the boundaries where test results change the go / no-go decision.

In practice, that usually means:

  • Can users log in?

  • Can they complete purchase, submission, or application flows?

  • Can critical roles complete irreversible or destructive actions?

On the other hand, E2E tests should not protect:

  • Minor UI variations

  • Differences in validation copy

  • Conditional UI branches that do not affect release decisions

Those may be important, but they are not E2E decision points.

 

4. Designing E2E Quality with Playwright and Cypress

Playwright and Cypress are extremely powerful.
That power amplifies both good and bad design decisions.

When I work with these tools, I follow a few non-negotiable principles.

4.1 Test Names Must Describe the Failure Boundary

An E2E test should be explainable in plain language before reading the code.

  • Which user

  • Trying to do what

  • Fails at which boundary

If that information is not clear from the test name, the test cannot support decisions.

4.2 One Test, One Decision

If a single test encodes multiple decisions, failure analysis becomes slow and ambiguous.

Login, navigation, input, submission —
do not treat them as one inseparable chain unless they represent one decision boundary.

Shorter tests with sharper intent are more valuable than long, “comprehensive” ones.

4.3 Prefer Explainability Over Absolute Stability

E2E tests do not need to be perfectly stable.

If a failure immediately tells you:

  • What broke

  • Where to start investigating

then occasional failures do not reduce quality.

Silent stability without explanation, however, actively harms real-world development.

 

5. E2E Becomes Stronger When You Define What It Will Not Protect

The most important E2E design decision is often what you explicitly choose not to protect.

  • Covered by unit tests

  • Covered by integration tests

  • Reviewed manually

Without this separation, E2E suites eventually collapse under their own weight, regardless of the tool.

I constantly ask myself:

“If I see this failure, can I decide without hesitation?”

If the answer is no, the test is misdesigned.

6. Final Thoughts: E2E Quality Is Not About Coverage Count

Let me state the conclusion clearly.

E2E tests should not protect the entire user experience.
They should protect only the boundaries where decisions change.

Playwright and Cypress are tools to verify those boundaries quickly and reliably — nothing more.

  • Tools do not define what to protect

  • The goal is decision clarity, not coverage

  • Good E2E tests reduce human hesitation

You do not recognize E2E quality when test count increases.
You recognize it when release decisions become faster.

That is the conclusion I reached through sustained, real-world practice.

ABOUT ME
りん
On this blog, I mainly share information about web development and programming, along with my daily thoughts and what I’ve learned. I aim to create a blog that lets readers enjoy both technology and everyday life, so I also include topics about daily experiences, books, and games. I’d be delighted if you could drop by casually and find something useful or enjoyable here.
BLOG：https://rinblog.org