- Compare with Test automation.
Manual testing is the process of manually testing software for defects. It requires a tester to play the role of an end user, and use most of all features of the application to ensure correct behavior. To ensure completeness of testing, the tester often follows a written test plan that leads them through a set of important test cases.
Contents |
Overview
A key step in the process of software engineering is testing the software for correct behavior prior to release to end users.
For small scale engineering efforts (including prototypes), exploratory testing may be sufficient. With this informal approach, the tester does not follow any rigorous testing procedure, but rather explores the user interface of the application using as many of its features as possible, using information gained in prior tests to intuitively derive additional tests. The success of exploratory manual testing relies heavily on the domain expertise of the tester, because a lack of knowledge will lead to incompleteness in testing. One of the key advantages of an informal approach is to gain an intuitive insight to how it feels to use the application.
Large scale engineering projects that rely on manual software testing follow a more rigorous methodology in order to maximize the number of defects that can be found. A systematic approach focuses on predetermined test cases and generally involves the following steps.[1]
- Choose a high level test plan where a general methodology is chosen, and resources such as people, computers, and software licenses are identified and acquired.
- Write detailed test cases, identifying clear and concise steps to be taken by the tester, with expected outcomes.
- Assign the test cases to testers, who manually follow the steps and record the results.
- Author a test report, detailing the findings of the testers. The report is used by managers to determine whether the software can be released, and if not, it is used by engineers to identify and correct the problems.
A rigorous test case based approach is often traditional for large software engineering projects that follow a Waterfall model.[2] However, at least one recent study did not show a dramatic difference in defect detection efficiency between exploratory testing and test case based testing.[3]
Comparison to Automated Testing
Test automation is the technique of testing software using software rather than people. A test program is written that exercises the software and identifies its defects. These test programs may be written from scratch, or they may be written utilizing a generic Test automation framework that can be purchased from a third party vendor. Test automation can be used to automate the sometimes menial and time consuming task of following the steps of a use case and reporting the results.
Test automation may be able to reduce or eliminate the cost of actual testing. A computer can follow a rote sequence of steps more quickly than a person, and it can run the tests overnight to present the results in the morning. However, the labor that is saved in actual testing must be spent instead authoring the test program. Depending on the type of application to be tested, and the automation tools that are chosen, this may require more labor than a manual approach. In addition, some testing tools present a very large amount of data, potentially creating a time consuming task of interpreting the results. From a cost-benefit perspective, test automation becomes more cost effective when the same tests can be reused many times over, such as for regression testing and test-driven development, and when the results can be interpreted quickly. If future reuse of the test software is unlikely, then a manual approach is preferred.[4]
From the perspective of practicality, software that does not have a graphical user interface tends to be tested by automatic methods. Things such as device drivers and software libraries must be tested using test programs. In addition, testing of large numbers of users (performance testing and load testing) is typically simulated in software rather than performed in practice.
Conversely, graphical user interfaces whose layout changes frequently are very difficult to test automatically. There are test frameworks that can be used for regression testing of user interfaces. They rely on recording of sequences of keystrokes and mouse gestures, then playing them back and observing that the user interface responds in the same way every time. Unfortunately, these recordings may not work properly when a button is moved or relabeled in a subsequent release. An automatic regression test may also be fooled if the program output varies significantly (e.g. the display includes the current system time). In cases such as these, manual testing may be more effective.[5]
References
- ^ ANSI/IEEE 829-1983 IEEE Standard for Software Test Documentation
- ^ Craig, Rick David; Stefan P. Jaskiel (2002). Systematic Software Testing. Artech House. p. 7. ISBN 1580535089.
- ^ Itkonen, Juha; Mika V. Mäntylä and Casper Lassenius (2007). "Defect Detection Efficiency: Test Case Based vs. Exploratory Testing". First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. http://www.soberit.hut.fi/jitkonen/Publications/Itkonen_Mäntylä_Lassenius_2007_ESEM.pdf. Retrieved 2009-01-17.
- ^ Mosley, Daniel (2002). Just Enough Software Test Automation. Prentice Hall. p. 27. ISBN 0130084689.
- ^ Bach, James (1996). "Test Automation Snake Oil". Windows Technical Journal 10/96: 40–44. http://www.satisfice.com/articles/test_automation_snake_oil.pdf. Retrieved 2009-01-17.
See also
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
