Timeline for Can exploratory testing replace executing manual functional tests?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2011 at 4:25 | comment | added | Chuck van der Linden | For functional testing, creating well done (non brittle, low maintenance automation is generally more expensive than executing the same test manually, often my several multiples. However, once it is created, it's very cheap to run, so run it often if you have it. IOW not cheap to create, but very cheap to use. (the exception being combinatorial esting, where even creating disposable quick and dirty automation beats doing the same thing with small variations thousands of times) | |
| Jun 22, 2011 at 20:05 | comment | added | testerab | Well, if your automation has lower costs, you're probably doing it right! Sorry, should have been clearer - I think it's worth pointing out that in order to save money and time, automation needs to be done well. If done very badly, it can be more expensive. (E.g. I have seen an expensive test tool where over more than a year, only 8 tests had been written. Think of the licence fees! I could have run those tests in a day, manually.) | |
| Jun 22, 2011 at 19:23 | comment | added | Aruna | Sorry I couldn't understand your point, automation usually has lower costs associated with it compared to manual. It saves us cost in terms of time and human intervention, fatigue etc. Please explain how it could be costlier | |
| Jun 22, 2011 at 18:00 | comment | added | testerab | Heh. Unfortunately it's perfectly possible to make automation MORE expensive than manual testing, if you're determined enough. | |
| Jun 21, 2011 at 22:23 | history | answered | Aruna | CC BY-SA 3.0 |