Subscribe
Sign in
  1. Discussions
  2. Do You Truly Value the Output of Automated Testing?

Do You Truly Value the Output of Automated Testing?

Sam Smith
1 reply
When I first delved into the world of software testing, I remember the exhilaration I felt automating my very first test case. Watching the code magically execute tasks, mimicking a human without requiring a coffee break, was a sight to behold. But as I became more engrossed in this realm, a question kept echoing in my mind: "Do we genuinely value the output of automated testing, or is it just the glamour of tech innovation?" Automation is undeniably powerful. It offers repeatability, and speed, and can run exhaustive tests at hours when most of us would rather be snuggled in bed. But how often do we pause to evaluate the quality and relevance of the results? Is there a chance we might be trading depth for breadth? Manual testers, or as I like to term them, "user behavior testers," bring something irreplaceable to the table: the human touch. They can capture nuances that even the most sophisticated automation scripts might overlook. This isn't to discredit automation but to strike a balance. I'd love to hear your thoughts! - Do you find automated test results as valuable as manual test outcomes? Has automation ever caught a critical bug that manual testing overlooked, or vice versa? - How do you strike the right balance in your QA approach? Please drop your experiences and insights below! And if you find this discussion enlightening, don't hesitate to share it. Let's spread the dialogue and learn from each other!

Replies

Paul Sapnik
DoesQA
DoesQA
Automation Tests are not exploratory in their own nature but a good tester behind the automation will be. I have created many automation tests which have stopped regressions from being deployed, some of which a "user behavior tester" would have found easily and others that were only detectable to a "bot", at least initially. These include accessibility scores decreasing slightly with the update or a bad breakpoint that only affected portrait iPads. I have also caught many defects while creating the automation tests. Automation Tests should provide confidence before a "manual" tester's time is invested and potentially wasted. If the automation gives a thumbs up and the Human doesn't go with the Human! And fill the gap in automation. Automation streamlines tasks, saving hours of manual effort, while manual discoveries pinpoint areas for automation improvements. With the right team and the right tools this is magical!
Share