Zgadzam się
Nasza strona zapisuje niewielkie pliki tekstowe, nazywane ciasteczkami (ang. cookies) na Twoim urządzeniu w celu lepszego dostosowania treści oraz dla celów statystycznych. Możesz wyłączyć możliwość ich zapisu, zmieniając ustawienia Twojej przeglądarki. Korzystanie z naszej strony bez zmiany ustawień oznacza zgodę na przechowywanie cookies w Twoim urządzeniu.
This study presents a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of manual and automated
testing using the MrBuggy4 application. The main objective of the experiment was to evaluate
the differences between these two testing approaches in terms of test preparation and execu‐
tion time, as well as the effectiveness of error detection categorized by error type. The study
was conducted in two stages: the first stage included functional and integration tests, while
the second stage involved retesting.
The results of the experiment showed that manual testing allowed for faster preparation
and better detection of complex defects related to the user interface and certain integration
tests. In contrast, automated testing demonstrated significantly higher performance in re‐
peatable execution, result stability, and functional tests. Although the initial setup time for
automation was longer, the cumulative testing time decreased in subsequent cycles, confirming
its long‐term cost‐effectiveness.
The findings indicate that the implementation of automated testing is particularly beneficial
– and sometimes necessary – in projects with a large number of repetitive scenarios and frequent
software changes, whereas manual testing remains essential during the exploratory phase and
when testing new functionalities.
