The Problem
No company context
AI tools write code without knowing your codebase, your specs, your stored procedures, your standards. Generic in, generic out.
Zero audit trail
Nobody knows what changed, by whom, against which spec, at what cost. When something breaks, the log is empty.
Knowledge stays siloed
The senior engineer's head is still the source of truth. The pipeline learns nothing. That person leaves, the knowledge walks out.
Pilot never becomes default
The shiny demo works. Then adoption stalls. The new way of working never replaces the old one.
Why AIDLC?
Faster delivery
Tens of dollars per feature, hours of elapsed time. Not weeks.
Built-in compliance
Every action audited. Every dollar attributed to an issue.
Institutional memory
The pipeline learns. The org's knowledge stops walking out the door.
Faster onboarding
New engineers ramp on a pipeline that already knows the codebase.
A pipeline that improves
Each cycle's retro feeds the next cycle's configuration.
Humans stay in control
Agents propose. Humans approve. Every merge is gated.
Problems
No company context
Zero audit trail
Knowledge stays siloed
Pilot never becomes default
Why AIDLC?
Faster delivery
Built-in compliance
Institutional memory
Faster onboarding
A pipeline that improves
Humans stay in control
OpenTelemetry:
Baked in, not bolted on
Auto-instrumentation of .NET and Java services → ADOT collector sidecars on EKS → AWS X-Ray for distributed tracing → CloudWatch for metrics and logs → custom dashboards and SLO alerting. All traces, metrics, and logs flow through a single OTel pipeline, swap backends without re-instrumenting.
VM → Container replatforming
Move off bare VMs onto EKS with proper orchestration, autoscaling, and workload isolation.
Custom metrics
Business and technical KPIs exported via OTel metrics SDK to CloudWatch and Managed Prometheus.
Structured logging
JSON-structured logs with trace correlation IDs, shipped to CloudWatch Logs Insights.
SLO alerting
Composite alarms and SLO burn-rate alerts wired from day one not as an afterthought.
What changes in your architecture
AWS Landing Zone & multi-account governance
AWS Control Tower
Security baseline
Identity & access
Network architecture
FinOps & cost governance
Compliance as code
Measurable results our clients achieve
60-80%
infrastructure cost reduction vs on-prem VMs
10x
faster deployments via GitOps pipelines
99.9%+
availability through EKS self-healing & multi-AZ
<5 min
MTTR with full OTel trace-to-log correlation
Case Study
Mobile Test Automation on Transformation and SaaS Device Farm Integration Service
80%
Average automation coverage
1,200+
Test cases automated
24–36×
Faster test execution
300+
Builds per month
Situation
Yıldız Tech is the digital innovation and R&D center of Yıldız Holding, designated as an On-Site R&D Center. It builds technology for Yıldız Holding brands and external companies, with a focus on e-commerce. Two brands anchored this project. İstegelsin is Türkiye's first fully online supermarket. Şok is a retailer with 9,500+ stores, 31 warehouses, and 40,000+ employees, with mobile shopping running on the Cepte Şok app.
Yıldız Tech runs many projects in parallel. Testing them was fully manual, and the team had no existing test automation projects. Release cycles were slowed by manual regression, and there was no shared infrastructure to make testing faster or more stable.
Task
Yıldız Tech needed a test automation infrastructure built from scratch. The first scope covered İstegelsin: four projects (Web, Android, iOS, API) on a 6-month roadmap. Once mature, the same setup would extend to the internal Cepte Şok applications.
Two constraints shaped the toolset decision:
- The stack had to cover everything İstegelsin needed and stay tailor-made to their applications.
- The internal Yıldız Tech test team, including members who had never written automation tests, had to adapt and contribute quickly.
Action
Architecture
We ran POCs across language and framework combinations, then locked the stack per project:
- Web: Ruby + Capybara
- Android: Ruby + Appium
- iOS: Ruby + Appium
- API: Java + Karate
Methodology
We ran Scrum with 2-week sprints, tracked work on a Jira board, and held daily meetings, groomings, sprint reviews, and retrospectives. We started with smoke test cases, defined together with the internal team. Smoke cases cover core business functionality and, once built, produce a strengthened project structure, reusable functions, data and reporting integration points, and shared coding conventions.
Development
We built test architectures for Web, Android, iOS, and API, with defined standards for Cucumber test writing, variables, and tag naming. We used a BDD approach so test steps read as plain English and stay readable outside the dev team. The architectures run as a distributed system, executing tests in parallel across browser and device instances. To cut repetitive code, we built a private Ruby gem that generates test data (user info, cart, payment) dynamically at runtime, covering 150+ test data needs. We ran onboarding sessions (web element inspection, Git, Ruby, Capybara, Karate, Appium) and documented everything on Confluence.
CI/CD
Once coverage passed the 30% threshold, we built Jenkins pipeline architecture for Web and API projects, able to run Smoke, Regression, Production, or feature-specific suites. Test-environment builds trigger automatically and report results to a dedicated Slack channel. Smoke cases run every morning. Production cases run daily after deployment. We added the whole project team to the report groups, so every stakeholder sees results and broken features get tracked down faster.
Mobile Device Farm
We handled two integrations in parallel:
- Dynamic app management: we connected Bitrise so apps download and install automatically by specific or last successful build version.
- Device farm: after multiple POCs, the client chose the digital.ai Continuous Testing platform, which let us bring mobile projects into the CI/CD pipeline.
Load Tests
After UI and API progress, we built load test scripts with Karate + Gatling, generated the required data dynamically, and set up an architecture the whole team can run.
Results
One year of work delivered across the company:
- 3 API test automation projects
- 3 Android test automation projects
- 2 Web test automation projects
- 2 data management projects
- 1 iOS test automation project
Measurable outcomes:
- 80% average test case automation coverage per project
- 1,200+ test cases covered
- 30+ pipeline scripts by test type
- Custom data gem covering 150+ test data needs
- Parallel architecture cuts 2-3 day test runs down to a maximum of 2 hours
- 300+ builds per month through scheduled and triggered runs
Case Studies
Open-Source Observability Transformation on AWS
Open-Source Observability Transformation on AWS