Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
My manager has said we are doing either automated testing or manual testing. This sounds wrong to me. How can I convince my manager that a mix of both might be good?
Answer: Maik Nog – hanseatictester.info / @maiknog
You have to write up an scientific sounding essay series about the advantages of “Automated Manual Testing (AMT)” and “Manual Automated Testing (MAT)”. Blog about it and make people follow and support your claims.
In the next meeting lecture about the new concepts and confuse your manager, so that he will naturally agree to implement AMT/MAT.
Answer: Rob Lowry – roblowry.wordpress.com
Use automation as a tool, just like you use tools for manual testing when appropriate. Neither, as an exclusive system, are ideal for every project, so why would you want to restrict yourself?
Find a mix that would be good for your team or project and explain the strengths of each when mixed. Show how automation in one area is the right call, but in another area would be weak. Show where manual testing will give the depth of testing you need where appropriate.
Answer: Sakamoto Kazuma – sakamotokazuma.com
Automated testing is a good time-saver, but keep in mind that there will be a lot of things that can’t be found with automated testing. Say your product is expected to return a message A for a certain process, and message B for any showstoppers. Automation alone can’t determine whether or not you receive a showstopper error unless you spend a lot of time developing your automation to recognize what is and what isn’t a showstopper for all error cases. Isn’t it more time and effort efficient to test this manually?
Answer: Christian Baumann – agile-and-testing.chriss-baumann.de
To quote a former manager of mine: “A goal of 100 % test automation is not a strategy, it´s a fantasy.”.
It is just not possible to automate 100% of all tests, be it for technical reasons, be it that automated testing would be too expensive, or whatever…
Meaningful testing always requires to be done by a human, it needs real thinking, instead of just stupid repeating of the same scripts over and over again…
Furthermore automated testing is not possible without manual efforts. E.g. if an automated test fails, a human needs to investigate for what reason: Was it real bug? Who enters this into the bug tracker? Was it a false negative? For what reason? Needs the test script to be updated? □
