Qlane
Merge PRs with confidence - AI QA that runs your whole app
Start new thread

Qlane - Merge PRs with confidence - AI QA that runs your whole app

byβ€’
Most tools sit on one side of a line. AI code-review tools read the diff but never run it, so they guess "this could be null." Black-box E2E tools drive a real browser but see only the DOM. Qlane boots your whole app in a sandbox and tests it from the inside - browser, shell, source, plus connectable logs and database - so it reports only bugs that actually reproduce, and traces each to its root cause. runs your app, not just your code.

Add a comment

Replies

Best
Maker
πŸ“Œ
Hey Product Hunt - Nazar here, founder of qlane. We built this platform because reading code and running code catch completely different bugs - and almost everything on the market only reads. On every pull request it clones, builds, and boots your actual app in an ephemeral sandbox - a single repo or your whole multi-service stack via Docker Compose with seeded data. Then an AI agent tests it from the inside, with an engineer's toolkit: a real browser, a shell, read access to your source, and connectable server logs, database, and error tracking. The difference is where it looks: - Static code review reads the diff and guesses. - Black-box test tools click the UI and see the DOM. - qlane reproduces the bug in the browser, then reads the failing network request, the matching server-log line, the offending DB row, and the source - and posts the root cause as a native GitHub review. It runs your app, not just your code. Evidence, not opinions. Because it boots the whole stack, it also catches the cross-service bugs that single-component tests structurally can't see. My question for you: what's the last bug that passed review and tests, then only showed up once the running app hit real data - and how long did it take to trace back to the actual cause? Thanks for reading - I'll be in the thread all day.

Β The framing that most QA tools sit on one side of a line β€” read the diff but never run it, or drive a browser but never see the code β€” is exactly right, and booting the whole app to do both is what actually earns "merge with confidence." That's a real gap you're closing, not a nicer wrapper on the same guess.

A QA tool that runs your whole app is best understood by watching it run, and you launched without a demo β€” so I made you one, free and whitelabel, no strings:


Yours to keep β€” download it from and put it on your own channel or launch page. Launches with a video do better, and yours is still editable.
Made at β€” make more there, or record your own walkthrough in ~2 minutes. Anyone else launching soon: paste your site, video in about 30 seconds. Nice work.

How does this handle apps with heavy external service dependencies, like third-party APIs that need real credentials during a test run?

finally something that doesn't just speculate about my null pointers. watched it catch a real race condition in my db queries by actually running the stack, not just staring at the diff. genuinely useful.

Tried it on a small project and the fact that it actually boots the app in a sandbox made a difference, caught a race condition two other tools missed. Root cause trace was clear enough to act on.

how does it actually handle test flakiness when the sandbox environment differs from CI, and is that something i have to configure myself or does it handle it under the hood

"Reading code and running code catch completely different bugs" is the thesis I'd tattoo on a wall β€” I verify my own changes by driving the actual app for exactly this reason, because a green typecheck and a working app are different claims. The question that decides how much I'd trust it: fidelity of the sandbox. Booting the stack with Docker Compose and seeded data catches "does the happy path run," but the bugs only running catches usually live in production-shaped state β€” an auth-token refresh race, a connection pooler that refuses you under a specific condition, a third-party API returning something your seeds never do. Seeded data almost by definition doesn't contain the state that produced the bug. Can Qlane snapshot real (anonymized) state into the ephemeral env, or is it always synthetic seeds? That gap is the difference between "the PR runs" and "the PR is safe."

The bugs that only turn up when the thing is actually running have always been the tedious ones to chase, so this feels like a real weight off before approving anything.