You're facing a tight deadline for testing. How do you decide which test cases to automate or test manually?

Risk assessment involves identifying and evaluating potential issues that could impact a project’s success. In software testing, this means determining which areas of the application are most likely to have defects or cause problems, and prioritizing testing efforts accordingly. By assessing the risks associated with different components or features, you can focus your testing resources on the most critical areas, helping to prevent major issues and ensure a more reliable product.

When facing a tight deadline for testing, it's important to prioritize test cases based on their complexity and impact. Automated testing should be used for repetitive, high-volume tests such as regression, smoke, and sanity checks, as these provide quick feedback and can be run frequently without manual intervention. Stable and predictable test cases, such as functional and API tests, are ideal for automation because they yield consistent results and save time. On the other hand, manual testing should be reserved for scenarios that require human intuition, such as exploratory and usability testing, or for complex workflows and edge cases that are difficult to automate.

When facing a tight deadline, deciding which test cases to automate or test manually requires strategic thinking. Prioritize automation for repetitive, time-consuming tasks, such as regression tests or tests that need to be run across multiple environments. Automation is also ideal for test cases that involve large data sets. For more complex or exploratory tests, where human intuition and creativity are needed, manual testing is usually the better option. The key is to balance automation efficiency with the unique insights manual testing provides.

Decide on automation by assessing whether a test case will be run frequently or demands a level of precision that humans might struggle to maintain. Tests that are repetitive and time-consuming are ideal for automation. However, keep in mind that setting up automated tests requires an initial investment of time. Consider whether the time saved during execution justifies this upfront effort. If the setup for automation would exceed the time needed for manual testing due to looming deadlines, manual testing might be the more practical choice.

Opt for manual testing for scenarios that need human judgment, such as usability or exploratory testing. These types of tests benefit from a human’s ability to detect nuances and offer qualitative insights that automated scripts cannot match. If a test case is particularly challenging to automate or is a unique situation that won’t recur, manual testing might be more effective. Ensure that manual tests are assigned to team members with the right skills to enhance overall efficiency.

If you have a testplan in place with detailed test cases, then inform your manager of testing needs and estimates well before actual deadline . If deadline happens because not enough test time was allocated or last minute changes ate into test time, loop back to your manager of the need to conscript/delegate others for testing/building automation with prioritized risky test cases. This could be tickets for next sprint after the release, so that the knowledge is fresh and test automation is not stuck in a vicious tech debt cycle. If your manager or department is unwilling to spare or flex resources to cover that feature during or after deadline, then your role and is set up for failure as costs, bugs and delays are shifted onto you.

Finally, be ready to evaluate and adjust your strategy as you go. If certain tests are taking more time than anticipated or if new critical issues arise, be prepared to re-prioritize as needed. Monitor the progress of both automated and manual testing closely, and don’t hesitate to reallocate resources to address the most crucial aspects of the software before the deadline.