Question Details

No question body available.

Tags

testing qa automation

Answers (3)

Accepted Answer Available
Accepted Answer
October 21, 2025 Score: 3 Rep: 1 Quality: High Completeness: 20%

This concern leads to a lot of tedious manual testing that massively slows down releases. Is there a way around this? If not, is there a way to make it more manageable?

Manual tests are necessary in many domains of programming and software engineering. Audio, video, speech-to-text, text-to-speech, etc.

Do the manual field tests. Tedious, yes. Necessary, sometimes. Automated tests involves at times maintaining the automation process, which might not be capable of matching the manual test. An automated test can provide results that say, yes, your audio is playing, though can't discern gaps and glitches or ending media early in playback.

You the get actual results you can verify with manual testing.

October 17, 2025 Score: 4 Rep: 8,110 Quality: Low Completeness: 20%

Your plugin app conforms to a protocol, an interface, implemented by UAC. But you can't change the UAC code, sometimes the vendor changes it, sometimes the behavior changes.

Write a mock UAC that to your app is nearly indistinguishable from the real one. Now you're back in the driver's seat, and can automate tests to your heart's content.

Of course you can't discard your manual test script read by a human, and its checkboxes for features manually verified. But you only need to do that once, right before a release, and it should go smoothly once the automated tests show Green.

October 19, 2025 Score: -1 Rep: 4,556 Quality: Low Completeness: 50%

Use specialized UI testing tools. They inject runtime in the target process avoiding UAC control. They also provide manual test recording, making automation easier.

  • I'm maintaining RCPTT - an OSS testing tool for Eclipse Platform applications.
  • There is TestComplete a paid tool to test .NET UI. Etc.