You're balancing manual and automated testing for a project. How do you decide what to prioritize?

See which one can stand on one foot and choose the other one. Stop trawling for free content, LinkedIn. It’s VERY BORING!

Put both on scales. Use digital scales, cos why not? Don't skimp. Put all the automations on one side. You can do this by, I dunno, printing out all the contents of Cypress or whatever your tool happens to be. Put all the manuals on the other side. You can do this by printing out your specifications or designs or mindmaps for workflow. Hey, it's your manuals. See which is heavier. Remove artefacts until both sides balance. (Or add, I'm not the boss of you) Eh, voila, perfected designed, executed and measurable testing balance. (Remember folks, ask a silly question and ask me to it as an 'expert' for it and you'll get a really silly answer)

In the past, we needed to justify automating specific scenarios; now, we find ourselves justifying why these scenarios remain manual.

Ao equilibrar testes manuais e automatizados, considero o impacto potencial das falhas no projeto. Para áreas críticas, como seguran?a e processamento de dados, priorizo testes manuais, pois permitem uma análise mais detalhada e sensível às nuances que um teste automatizado pode n?o captar. Já para funcionalidades repetitivas e estáveis, a automa??o é essencial, garantindo eficiência e cobertura contínua. A chave está em adaptar a abordagem ao contexto do projeto, garantindo que tanto a qualidade quanto o tempo de entrega sejam otimizados de acordo com os riscos identificados.

From a technical perspective, automation efforts should be concentrated on high-risk components, specifically targeting critical business logic, security vulnerabilities, and modules with a high defect density. Manual testing should be reserved for lower-risk areas or cases requiring nuanced human evaluation, such as intricate user workflows and interaction scenarios.

Conducting a risk analysis helps you prioritize testing efforts. You should identify which parts of the application carry the highest risk if they were to fail. High-risk areas might need more thorough testing and could benefit from both automated and manual approaches. For example, critical functions that handle user data or payment processing should be meticulously tested manually to ensure they meet all security and usability standards, while automated tests can ensure they remain stable over time.

Automation should be prioritized for time-sensitive tests that demand rapid feedback, such as those integrated into continuous deployment pipelines. Manual testing should be employed when there’s adequate time for in-depth analysis or when the overhead of setting up automation exceeds its value within the project’s timeframe, particularly in cases of late-stage deliveries.

Time is often a deciding factor in QA. If your project has tight deadlines, you might lean more towards automated testing for its speed. However, it's important not to neglect the areas where manual testing can provide insights that automation cannot. In cases where time is limited, prioritize automated tests for the bulk of the regression testing and allocate manual testing to new features or areas where human judgment is irreplaceable.

Budget constraints can influence your balance between manual and automated testing. While automated testing requires an initial investment in tools and scripting, it can be more cost-effective in the long run for large projects with frequent regression cycles. Manual testing, however, doesn't have a steep upfront cost but can become expensive due to the man-hours required. Carefully consider the project's duration and the frequency of test cycles when deciding how to allocate your budget.

The skills available within your QA team can also dictate your approach. If your team excels in manual testing but lacks experience in writing automated test scripts, it might be more practical to focus on manual testing while building up automation skills over time. Conversely, if your team is proficient in automation, you can leverage this strength to cover more ground quickly while still dedicating skilled testers to perform manual checks on critical areas.

Finally, consider the maintenance needs of your tests. Automated tests require upkeep; as the software changes, so too must the test scripts. If your project is in a state of flux, with frequent updates and changes, the maintenance of automated tests could become overwhelming. In such cases, manual testing offers more flexibility, allowing testers to adapt on the fly without the need to update scripts continuously.