I’m trying to understand if the drag-and-drop builder approach is actually realistic for building real Playwright automations without writing code. The marketing sounds convincing, but I want to know what people are actually shipping.
My concern is that at some point, every project hits edge cases that require code-level thinking. How does a non-developer handle that in a purely visual interface? Do you eventually hit a wall where you need a developer, or does the builder actually hold up?
Also, I’m wondering about the learning curve. If someone has never automated browser tasks before, can they pick up a visual builder and start building meaningful workflows, or is there a knowledge gap that the interface can’t bridge?
And debugging—when something breaks, how do you troubleshoot a visual workflow? Is it obvious what went wrong, or are you stuck guessing?
Has anyone here actually gotten non-technical people shipping production automations with a visual builder?
I’ve watched non-developers build surprisingly complex workflows with Latenode’s builder. The key is that the visual interface lets you see the entire flow at once, which is actually harder to understand when you’re reading code.
For edge cases, Latenode has two paths. Most things stay visual and logical. But when you need something custom, you can drop into JavaScript for that one step without rewriting the whole workflow. It’s a hybrid approach that actually works.
Debugging is cleaner than you’d think. You can run individual steps, see the data flowing through, and spot failures quickly. And the AI Copilot can even suggest fixes when something fails.
I’d say non-developers can ship real automations. They just need workflows that match the builder’s strengths, which for Playwright means structured, repeatable test flows, not ultra-custom logic.