Manual testing begins with the elaboration of requirements and ends with the preparation of final reports. This process historically emerged as a more flexible and accessible alternative to automation in the early stages of development, allowing for quick checks of various scenarios live.
Initially, manual testing was performed without methodology, leading to errors and loss of information. If the process is unorganized, duplicate tests and missed bugs arise (problem). To increase efficiency, it is important to structure the testing stages, clearly define areas of responsibility, and use standardized documentation (solution).
Key Features:
Why can't manual testing be fully replaced with automated?
Manual testing is necessary for working with non-standard and changing scenarios, where quickly altering test cases is easier to do manually, as well as for checking user experience, visual and cross-browser bugs.
Can testing be done without any documentation?
No, lack of documentation leads to loss of information, inability to reproduce bugs, and decreased trust in testing results.
Does the testing phase always conclude the project?
No, testing often runs parallel to development (e.g., agile or iterative approaches).
The team lacked a clear testing structure, everyone tested in their own way, bugs were recorded in different files. As a result, some critical errors were ignored, and the project time increased.
Pros:
Cons:
A unified testing plan was implemented, areas of responsibility were defined, and a format for bug reports was agreed upon. Errors are documented and tracked in a common tracker.
Pros:
Cons: