How Manus AI Became Part of My Appium Automation

If you’ve ever watched your Appium test fail for three hours because of a dependency conflict you didn’t even know existed — this blog is for you.

Mobile automation is not a simple extension of web automation. The tools are different. The setup is layered. The learning curve is real — especially when you’re expected to deliver working scripts while still figuring things out.

I’m a manual and web automation tester with hands-on experience in Selenium Java. When I stepped into mobile automation with Appium, it felt like learning to drive all over again — same roads, completely different vehicle.

I used AI tools along the way. They helped. But getting the right answer for my setup always took longer than it should have.

And that’s when I realized something important:

The problem wasn’t that AI didn’t know the answer.
The problem was that it didn’t know my context.

Then I found Manus AI — and the way I work changed.

Here’s exactly how.

The Problem with Vague Questions

Most of us ask AI tools the same way we’d Google something:

“How do I click a button in Appium Java?”

You get a generic answer. It works for someone’s project — just not yours.

Your framework version is different.
Your project structure is different.
Your dependency setup is different.

You spend the next 30 minutes explaining what you actually meant.

Sound familiar?

The fix isn’t just a better tool.

It’s a better question.

Generic questions produce generic answers.
Framework-aware questions produce framework-aware code.
Context reduces debugging time.

And Manus AI is built to reward exactly that.

How I Use Manus AI — With a Real Example

Imagine I need to automate a Login flow on an Android app.

Step 1: I Tell It My Framework and Version

“I’m using Appium Java client 8.3.0 with Appium Server 2.x, UIAutomator2 driver, and Cucumber BDD.”

That one line saves 10 minutes of back-and-forth.

Manus immediately knows:

• Which APIs are available
  
• What’s deprecated
  
• What syntax applies to my version
  

No trial-and-error suggestions.

Step 2: I Describe My Project Structure

“I have a custom structure. Implementation logic is written inside the test cases folder. The step definition file only calls a single-line method from there — it doesn’t contain any logic itself.”

Example: Uploading a test resource image as the user’s profile picture.

// StepDefinition.java
@When("I upload image from gallery")
public void iUploadImageFromGallery() throws IOException {
    editProfile.uploadImage();  // Single step call
}

//ProfilePictureUpdate.java (Test case class)
public void uploadImage() throws IOException{
 editProfilePage.uploadProfileImageFromResources("profile.png");
}

//EditPage.java (Page Object Model class)
public void uploadProfileImageFromResources(String imageName) throws IOException{
    wait.until(ExpectedConditions.elementToBeClickable(profileIcon)).click();

    // 1. Push image from resources to device
    File resourceDir = new File("src/test/resources/images");
    File imageFile = new File(resourceDir, imageName);
    ((AndroidDriver) driver).pushFile("/sdcard/Pictures/" + imageName, imageFile);

    try {
        // 1. If a profile picture already exists, Add & Remove buttons will be visible
        wait.until(ExpectedConditions.visibilityOf(addPhotoButton));

        // 2. Click Add Photo → opens gallery
        addPhotoButton.click();

        // 3. Handle permission dialogs (if any)
        handlePermissions();

        // 4. Scroll and select media item
        scrollToMediaItem();
        wait.until(ExpectedConditions.visibilityOf(mediaGrid)).click();

        // 5. Click Done in Google Photos
        wait.until(ExpectedConditions.visibilityOf(doneButtonFromGPhotos)).click();

        // 6. Click profile icon again to verify by removing the photo
        wait.until(ExpectedConditions.elementToBeClickable(profileIcon)).click();
        wait.until(ExpectedConditions.elementToBeClickable(removePhotoButton)).click();

    } catch (Exception e) {
        /*  If Add button is not visible, the gallery opens directly */

        // 1. Handle permission dialogs (if any)
        handlePermissions();

        // 2. Scroll and select media item
        scrollToMediaItem();
        wait.until(ExpectedConditions.elementToBeClickable(mediaGrid)).click(); // Merged redundant visibility + clickable waits

        // 3. Click Done in Google Photos
        wait.until(ExpectedConditions.visibilityOf(doneButtonFromGPhotos)).click();

      // 4. Click profile icon again to verify by removing the photo
        wait.until(ExpectedConditions.elementToBeClickable(profileIcon)).click();
        wait.until(ExpectedConditions.elementToBeClickable(removePhotoButton)).click();
    }
}

Manus understands this separation of concern.

It doesn’t dump logic into the step definition.
It respects my framework design.

That matters more than people think.

Step 3: I Share Locators from Appium Inspector

I don’t describe elements. I paste the actual locator.

“Resource ID: com.example.app:id/et_profileIcon — this is the profile icon”
“Resource ID: com.example.app:id/btn_addPhoto — this is the add photo button.”
“Resource ID: com.example.app:id/btn_removePhoto — this is the remove photo button.”

“Resource ID: com.example.app:id/media_mediaGrid — this is the recently downloaded media.”

Real locators = real solutions. No guessing, no placeholder code.

Step 4: I Define the Flow

Flow 1 (Add Photo Button Visible)

“The user taps the profile icon → Add Photo button is displayed → taps Add Photo → image is fetched from the framework resource folder → image is selected and uploaded → taps Done → upload is verified → taps the profile icon again → taps Remove Photo → profile picture removal is confirmed.”

Flow 2 (Gallery Opens Directly)

“The user taps the profile icon → Add Photo button is not displayed → gallery opens directly → image is fetched from the framework resource folder → image is selected and uploaded → taps Done → upload is verified → taps the profile icon again → taps Remove Photo → profile picture removal is confirmed.”

This tells Manus:

• The sequence of actions
  
• The expected behavior
  
• The validation point
  

Now it doesn’t just generate click actions.
It understands intent.

Step 5: Manus Flags My POM.xml Too

This one surprised me the first time.

Without me asking, Manus pointed out:

“You’ll need to add io.appium:java-client:8.3.0 to your POM.xml and ensure the Selenium version doesn’t conflict.”

It gave me the exact XML block to paste. That single flag saved me from a script failure I wouldn’t have traced for hours.

The Result? One Shot. Working Code.

After giving all of the above, Manus returned a complete, structured, ready-to-run implementation — matching:

• My framework
• My locators
• My flow
• My project conventions

No vague snippets.

No dependency conflicts.

No structural mismatch.

What normally took 45 minutes of debugging and dependency fixes worked in a single iteration.

That’s not luck. That’s what happens when the right tool gets the right context.