Menu
Let's Talk
Recent Insights
Blog - December 11, 2024
Blog - October 14, 2024
Case Study - November 25, 2024
Case Study - August 29, 2024
Case Study - May 30, 2024
In the domain of software testing, a clear distinction exists between automated and manual testing methodologies. Automation testing efficiently executes predefined scripts to carry out repetitive tasks rapidly. However, it is limited to the scope of these predefined parameters, representing its primary constraint.
In analyzing the dichotomy between manual and automation testing, our team drew valuable inferences, showcasing how the depths of manual testing proved instrumental in mitigating a major issue in one of our mainstream case studies.
Our team faced a major challenge testing a web-based application for a premium content management software company. The application enabled seamless content creation, scheduling, and distribution to target systems.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
During the QA phase, we faced frequent status inconsistencies as the target systems went offline, showing unresponsiveness and false indications. Monitoring status or behavior changes after content is pushed to the target system was not feasible through automation. This limitation arose because automation tools could not dynamically assess content or monitor real-time changes effectively. The system’s erratic behavior, including sudden status indications and UI issues, posed persistent challenges, demanding innovative approaches to be executed across multiple testing rounds, to identify and report the behavioral patterns of the target system.
Diverse testing methodologies were employed like stress, regression, and focus testing to thoroughly evaluate the application’s performance and stability across various scenarios.
Challenges emerged with inconsistent behavior in the target system, complicating the reproduction of defects. The development team conducted thorough analysis and critical thinking, enhancing log statements to gain deeper insights into the code.
Deciphering the pattern or root cause of failures remained elusive and untraceable. Employing iterative testing methodologies and assessing the application/feature from very basic to pinpoint where the system faltered and under what circumstances it broke down proved valuable.
A proactive approach was employed to rigorously test all functionalities across environments, ensuring consistency by decoding patterns. The target system was focus-tested against different environments to decode behavioral patterns and system responses. Despite the slight stability advantage of the production environment, we persisted in correcting the QA environment to mitigate the untraceable problem.
The software’s capabilities were maximized by harnessing even its most basic functionalities. The alert system within the application proved invaluable, promptly notifying us of certain behavior. It was instrumental in addressing .
Enhanced log monitoring provided insights into system behavior, facilitating deeper analysis and critical thinking. The issue stemmed from a network disconnect between servers and the application, which was identified through addressing errors in business logic.
In an age dominated by automated processes, the significance of manual testing remains undiminished. The thoroughness and flexibility of manual testing enable practitioners to delve into complex scenarios, detect concealed problems, and guide the product’s quality to triumph. Although automation enhances efficiency in workflows, it is the strength of manual testing that acts as a wall against unforeseen challenges, guaranteeing the quality and robustness of software systems.