Automated vs. Manual Testing

www.kanoah.com

ABOUT US

Kanoah is an innovative company providing ground-breaking solutions to software testing professionals on the

Atlassian JIRA platform

About Kanoah Tests

Kanoah Tests is a full featured test management, integrated seamless into JIRA with the same look-n-feel. No need to learn or switch between different applications

Coordinate all test management activities including test planning, authoring, execution, tracking and reporting from a central location

Kanoah Tests enables you to track testing progress and quality to foster collaboration and visibility across traditional and agile teams

Get real-time insights into your testing progress with out of the box reports

Easily integrate your automated tests and submit test results with Kanoah Tests’ powerful REST API or use the API to automate many areas of the application

After looking for several years at plugins for test management we finally found Kanoah Tests. The other solutions were either too complex, didn't integrate well with Jira, or were focused on a single project. Kanoah Tests proved to be an elegant solution that allowed linking between any project. Kanoah has been very responsive to feedback, requests, suggestions as well bugs. The customer service is awesome. I'd highly recommend Kanoah Tests to teams of any size looking to simplify test management and consolidate tools.

Don Pierce

Robert Murhamer

Liked Kanoah from the moment I discovered it. Integrates nicely with JIRA and especially with Agile. Test cases can be authored right from the story level, but has all other functionality a Test Case Management solution would need to have, ranging from creating test plans, executing test cases, importing test cases, API for automation, a.s.o. Additionally the team at Kanoah is amazing and responding to any question very quickly. It wasn't hard to sell to my management to purchase Kanoah. Will highly recommend Kanoah to anybody.

Zour Brosh

I just start working with Kanoah and I am impressed how it's simple to manage tests without unlimited non-used features like in most of the test management tools and still to get the needed functionality and results. The integration with Jira is a great working solution that enable to share testing and development in simple way on one system. I recommend to use Kanoah for testing management. It will help to do Kanoah as much as possible customizable like Jira to match each group methodology

For more reviews, visit: https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.kanoah.test-manager/server/reviews

Reviews

Key Features

Native seamless integration with JIRA

No need to learn or switch between different applications

Perfect for agile & traditional testing approaches

Manage, organize and track all your testing efforts in a central place

Reuse test cases across your projects

Powerful REST API

Establish clear traceability between requirements, test cases, and defects

Execute test cases and track results that matter

Get real-time insights into your testing progress with out of the box reports

Live statistics accessible to your entire team

Benefits for the testers

No need to lear or switch between different applications

Reuse test cases across projects for regression

Link test cases to requirements and defects

API support for automated efforts

Benefits for the teams

Informed decisions based on real-time insights

End-to-end traceability and impact analysis

Centralized Test Management

Save time and increase productivity

Why choose Kanoah Tests

Coordinate all test management activities right inside JIRA

1 Testing right inside JIRA

Take advantage of the built-in reports to track the results and measure progress

2Make informed decisions

Kanoah Tests users receive priority support, even during trials

3Stelar support

Automated vs. Manual Testing

Introduction

Manual testing and automated testing cover two vast areas. Within each category, specific testing methods are available, such as black box testing, white box testing, integration testing, system testing, performance testing, and load testing.

Some of these methods are better suited to manual testing, and some are best performed through automation.

What you automate depends on the tools you use.

When Should I Use Manual Testing?Exploratory Testing: This type of testing requires the tester’s knowledge, experience, analytical/logical skills, creativity, and intuition. The test is characterized here by poorly written specification documentation, and/or a short time for execution. We need the human skills to execute the testing process in this scenario.

Usability Testing: This is an area in which you need to measure how user-friendly, efficient, or convenient the software or product is for the end users. Here, human observation is the most important factor, so a manual approach is preferable.

Ad-hoc Testing: In this scenario, there is no specific approach. It is a totally unplanned method of testing where the understanding and insight of the tester is the only important factor.

When Should I Use Automated testing?Regression Testing: Here, automated testing is suitable because of frequent code changes and the ability to run the regressions in a timely manner.

Load Testing: Automated testing is also the best way to complete the testing efficiently when it comes to load testing.

Repeated Execution: Testing which requires the repeated execution of a task is best automated.

Performance Testing: Similarly, testing which requires the simulation of thousands of concurrent users requires automation.

Pros of Automated TestingRuns tests quickly and effectively. Once you’ve automated your tests, you’re good to go. You can reuse tests, which is good when executing regressions on constantly changing code. You won’t have to continuously fill out the same information or remember to run certain tests. Everything is done for you automatically. Automated testing is executed by software tools, so it is significantly faster than a manual approach.

Can be cost effective. While automation tools can be expensive in the short-term, they save you money in the long-term. They not only do more than a human can in a given amount of time, they also find defects quicker. This allows your team to react more quickly, saving you both precious time and money. Aids in testing a large test matrix (different languages on different OS platforms). Automated tests can be run at the same time on different machines, whereas the manual tests would have to be run sequentially. If you have to run a set of tests repeatedly, automation is a huge win for you.

Pros of Automated TestingMore interesting. Filling out the same forms time after time can be frustrating, and not to mention boring. Test automation solves this problem. The process of setting up test cases takes coding and thought.

Everyone can see results. With automated tests, people can sign into the testing system and see the results. This allows for greater team collaboration and a better final product.

More reliability. Automated testing is more reliable, as it is performed by tools and/or scripts.

Programmable. You can program sophisticated tests that bring out hidden information from the application.

Comprehensive. You can build a suite of tests that covers every feature in your application.

Cons of Automated TestingTools can be expensive. The automation tools can be an expensive purchase. As a result, it is important to only use the ones that will give you full, or as close to full coverage, as you can find.

Tools still take time. And of course, proficiency is required to write the automation test scripts. While the automation process cuts down on the time it takes to test everything by hand, automated testing is still a time intensive process. A considerable amount of time goes into developing the automated tests and letting them run.

Tools have limitations. While automated tests will detect most bugs in your system, there are limitations. For example, the automated tools can’t test for visual considerations like image color or font size. Changes in these can only be detected by manual testing, which means that not all testing can be done with automatic tools. Automated testing does not entail human observation and cannot guarantee user-friendliness or positive customer experience.

Cons of Automated Testing

Debugging the test script is major issue. If any error is present in the test script, sometimes it may lead to deadly consequences.

Test maintenance is costly in case of playback methods. Even though a minor change occurs in the GUI, the test script has to be re-recorded or replaced by a new test script.

Maintenance of test data files is difficult, if the test script tests more screens.

Pros of Manual TestingShort-term cost is lower. Buying software automation tools is expensive. With manual testing, you won’t have to put the same up-front costs into the software. Also, if the test case only runs twice a coding milestone, it most likely should be a manual test. Less cost than automating it.

More likely to find real user issues. Manual testing allows the developing program to be used as it would be upon launch. Any bugs that may pop up when a user handles the program in a certain way are more likely to be caught with manual testing. It allows the tester to perform more random testing. The experience says more bugs are found via random testing than via automation. And, the more time a tester spends playing with the feature, the greater the odds of finding real user bugs. Manual testing allows for human observation, which may be more useful if the goal is user-friendliness or improved customer experience. This is also why it is very helpful in UI testing.

Manual testing is flexible. When one of those brilliant thoughts comes to you, something that could change the course of the project, you want to be able to work on it immediately. With automated testing you have to set up test cases, program it into the automated tool, and then run the tests. With manual testing, you can just quickly test and see the results.

Cons of Manual TestingCertain tasks are difficult to do manually. There are certain actions that are difficult to do manually. Automated testing, once set up, is much better equipped to find errors for this kind of testing.

Not stimulating. Manual testing can be repetitive and boring – no one wants to keep filling out the same forms time after time. As a result, many testers have a hard time staying engaged in this process, and errors are more likely to occur.

Can’t reuse manual tests. With manual testing, if there is any change to the software, you have to run the tests again by hand. This is valuable time lost. Manual testing executed in regression testing might not catch defects for frequently changing requirements.

Running tests manually can be very time consuming. testing on different machines with different OS platform combinations cannot be done concurrently. Executing each task requires different testers. Executing the Build Verification Testing (BVT) is very mundane and tiresome in manual testing.

References

[1] https://www.apicasystem.com/blog/automated-testing-vs-manual-testing/

[2] http://www.base36.com/2013/03/automated-vs-manual-testing-the-pros-and-cons-of-each/

[3] https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/saraford/2005/02/07/automation-testing-versus-manual-testing-guidelines/

[4] http://www.softwaretestinggenius.com/pros-and-cons-of-automated-testing

[5] http://www.testnbug.com/2015/06/test-automation-vs-manual-testing-in-software-development/

Next Steps

Getting Started Guide

GETTING STARTED RESOURCES FREE TRIAL

DocumentationSupport

TutorialsWhat we're reading this weekBlog

Start you 30-day free trial now