The software testing automation has received much consideration lately. There are a lot of talks that automation testing is replacing manual software testing. A lot of testers and developers in today’s world want to look for the help of test automation to make their lives simple. Although, automation testing framework does not be able to completely replace manual testing methodologies. Thus, we can’t expect that automation software testing can ever able to replace manual testing out there on the planet.
Some development groups bounce into automated testing like it’s the heavenly vessel. And, it is—somewhat. People think why undergo the cost of manual testing approach when you can simply compose automated tests in their place? It’s quicker, less expensive, and gives the same results as manual software testing… right?
Wrong! In all actuality, the manual testing process hasn’t left. It never will.
As we’re strong believers to manual testing. Indeed, even as automated suites turn out to be more complex, regardless they require human drivers. Actually, automated tests are frequently converted from initially manual efforts.
Here’s the reason why automation won’t ever replace manual testing concepts:
People are imaginative and investigative
While we all at once complaint about the downfalls of being human, for what reason wouldn’t we be able to fly?! But, we do have our great characteristics.
The abilities and experience that testers convey to the table help them strategize each time they begin another session. As of right now, there’s no substitution for our quick mental preparing speeds and our fool investigation!
Automated tests can contain bugs/defects.
Much the same as your application’s code can contain bugs, automated tests can as well. In the case that you compose automated tests with bugs, you will have false positives. This can prompt real issues for your clients and your group. The human element of manual QA testing can find these mistakes and ensure you’re testing appropriately.
There’s an entire group of testing that basically should be manual
User experience is presumably the main motivation why manual testing is vital. We all could utilize important feedback from time to time. When it comes to functionality as well as to initial introductions, there’s no trade for the human eye.
While smoke tests can be automated, they too are better left for the testing manual. It’s far speedier for a tester to poke around your application and check whether it’s prepared for in-your-face testing than for a tester to compose scripts that would do same. Also, early-stage scripts won’t last, in any case.
Besides, just a human can double check languages utilize and other key localization factors in a product focusing on various regions.
Usability testing can’t be automated.
Automating Usability tests is simply impractical. Usability testing requires a human. You can’t prepare a PC to distinguish “great” usability versus “bad” usability. Maybe you’re considering, “alright, we will simply skip usability testing”. Try not to commit that error. By skipping usability testing, you’re presenting a huge amount of risk. This progression in the QA procedure is vital to guarantee confidence in the release.
Automation is excessively costly for small projects.
Not exclusively do you have testing automation software to pay for, however, you likewise have higher related support and administration costs, because of script written work and reworking, and in addition, set up and handling times.
For long-term software products and projects, the higher expenses can be justified, despite all the trouble. But, for shorter, smaller projects it’s a stupendous misuse of both time and money.
While figuring the potential ROI for a mechanization buy, you need to factor in included worker hours, also.
Therefore, the presence of both automation and manual testing constrains us to consider our selection of the testing tool, their cost, and the advantage they will give. There are a time and place for both manual testing and automation testing strategies for performing software testing. Manual software testing encourages us to understand the whole issue and investigate different points of tests with adaptability. Automation testing helps save time over the long run by achieving an expansive number of surface level tests in a brief span. It’s dependent upon you to decide when and where every strategy for testing is utilized.
Although, automation won’t replace types of manual testing, yet neither will manual software testing remove automation. Once the difference between them is understood, the deep-rooted dread of automation breaks down and a capable, gainful coordinated effort rises.
We, at TestOrigen, provides both QA manual testing as well as Automation using all the latest manual testing tools and automation testing tools, as we are well aware of the difference between automation and manual that making us a leader among various software testing companies.