What Makes the Automated Testing Process More Reliable Than Manual Testing?

What Makes the Automated Testing Process More Reliable Than Manual Testing?

Manual software testing processes have been around for decades and have proved reliable all these years. However, when benchmarked with automated testing processes, it seems to be lacking in this regard.

It is a known fact that test automation speeds up delivery for software testers, but at first glance, this methodology of testing systems and apps seems unreliable. A deeper dive into both automated and manual testing processes reveals a shocking truth. In addition to improving delivery timeframes, automated testing has another benefit for software testers when compared with manual test processes. Software developers and testers can get more reliable results when using automation testing methods for their projects. Unlike manual testing, which requires human participation and can cause issues during the process, automated testing reduces the chances of mistakes and makes automated testing processes more reliable than manual testing.

Inspecting syntax errors

Software developers are bound to make certain errors while coding the different units of a development project. Although some of the errors made by developers might not be significant, they can alter the software product’s performance. 

The most common errors that software developers inadvertently create while writing their code are syntax errors. Some syntax errors can be picked up by IDEs and compilers for smaller projects. For larger projects, they can only be discovered when integrating the different software units. Unfortunately, manual testing processes can only do so much to ensure that the code is clean of any syntax errors. 

It would take testers and QA analysts a lot of time to inspect the code and fix any errors that could potentially cause problems. Finding all errors would be impossible with manual testing processes, but automating testing processes makes this process easier and more accurate. By using AI-powered tools, developers can find all syntax errors in their code. 

Comprehensive tests

Running comprehensive test processes like system tests that assess the software project from end to end is very important. It is generally the last step before deploying the product in either beta mode or officially. This test assesses if all software components are functioning well together. 

Unfortunately, system tests take a lot of time when done manually. They can take up to weeks, depending on the size of that software project. To expedite the process, testers and QA analysts might overlook minor errors to meet the deployment date. This leads to unreliable test results that have an impact on product functionality. 

Implementing automated testing processes expedites system tests exponentially. The test results can be returned within minutes or hours instead of weeks. The best part is that there will be no compromises that could result in unreliable test results.

Accuracy of repetitive tests

Tests like regression testing are very repetitive. This type of test needs to be conducted after every alteration to the codebases. That means developers and testers need to run regression tests after adding every new feature or codebase. Running these tests manually is very tedious because of its repetitiveness. 

Automating regression tests could lift this burden from the shoulders of software developers and testers. At the same time, the test results will be more accurate since the tests are not run manually by the team. People tend to lose interest when doing tedious, repetitive tasks. The byproduct of losing interest is a lack of attention to detail.

Therefore, manual test processes could result in inaccurate test results because testers missed some key details during the testing phase. Assigning repetitive tests to automated processes like test case scripts or AI-powered tools can significantly improve software test accuracy.

Handling complex testing processes

Complex software development projects result in higher complexity for testers and QA analysts. Due to this, some tricky test cases could be above the expertise of testers and QA analysts. To reduce costs, development teams might avoid hiring expert testers, resulting in unreliable test results.

For some test cases, it is also impossible to complete with manual processes. Stress testing is a good example of a complex test case that can’t be completed with manual processes. Stress testing and other complex test cases require automated processes.

Automated tools can handle complex test cases like stress testing and other project-specific tests. Testers and QA analysts can choose from a wide variety of automated testing processes at their disposal. Alternatively, they can get pre-made test scripts that handle the complex test requirements for their software development project.

Offsetting the lack of workers

Software development teams try to minimize the workforce as much as possible. This makes financial sense because paying for more developers and testers consumes the project budget. Fewer people in a team, especially on the software testing end, can lead to poorer product quality. 

Instead of focusing on improving product quality, fewer testers look for the bare minimum errors. As a result, manual testing could result in unreliable software products that might cause problems down the line. Automating testing processes can offset the lack of human resources within a software development team. 

Some automated test processes encourage those developers to run tests before the codebases are integrated. Software developers test their software units before it is integrated and passed on to testers and QA analysts. The work for testers and QA analysts is significantly reduced and affords them enough time to improve the software product quality.