Estimate how much time you will spend to test something manually and automatically, and also estimate time to automate. Estimate how often you will run this test. Using these estimations, calculate when automatic test will be more profitable. Act according to the result.
You also may want to reuse some automation components. I this case estimation is more complex. You have to estimate what time will be saved in other tests.
Nope, not unless you call regression testing re-testing. Re-testing is to validate that a specific test which failed previously and has now supposedly been fixed, is really fixed. Regression testing tests all functionality to validate that changes/fixes in the application do not effect proper functionality.
My policy is to not write new automated scripts for every defect, only if it is a major defect which might happen again.
I generally agree with Rich with a few caveats. If you identified the fix for which you are retesting with a manual test then retest it manually. If you found it with an automated test then there is nothing to stop you retesting it with the same automated test.
To answer the original question - Nikzard is absolutely correct about analysing the benefit of automation. I would add one further condition that is more a guideline rather than a rule - do not automate the testing of newly created code (especially GUI changes) as the effort involved in rescripting after bugfixes can be a waste of time.
If your not going to run the automated test numerous times (e.g. 10) without having to change the script then run it manually.
from my desk notes about this question, manual testing is "more suitable" for:
Business Acceptance tests
Interface tests (when the team is putting them in place for the 1st time)
Security - Authentication and authorisation - tests
There are probably others but I can't think of them for now.
Manual Testing is most useful for "Useability" Testing - a tool cannot test how an application "feels" to use. Also spelling and grammar - or at least I have not found an automated testing tool that will do this for me.
I would also look at repeatability and if it is not something that I would use again and it is a shorter time frame to test manually - I would go for manual.
Originally posted by spasham: hi guys,can anybody tell me a situation U experienced where ,manual testing was useful than automated testing
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Yes.Eventhough the manual testing is time consuming and tedious we can learn a lot,but in the case of automated testing the time consumed is less and therefore most of the companies are preferring the Automated Testing for its outstanding features.
In my opinion I can tell that I love Manual Testing rather than Autoamated Testing.But I agree that Winrunner 7.01 is a Fantastic Tool to
run the software.