When is manual testing necessary?

[Stuart Lamont1]

Hi ServiceNow Community,

I am working on a new ServiceNow implementation and I will be mandating that developers create Automated Test Framework (ATF) tests wherever possible. Tests will be created as the platform is implemented, and will be built on in subsequent releases.

Can you provide some examples of situations where manual testing is the only way to test the Now Platform? (Please note that User Acceptance Testing will be manual...I am referring to other situations, such as ITSM, Integration Hub, etc.) I will seek to document these key use cases for manual testing so that I can make sure people are available to do this.

Thank you in advance.

[Danish Bhairag2]

Hi @Stuart Lamont1 ,

Certainly! While Automated Test Framework (ATF) tests are beneficial for automating repetitive and predictable testing scenarios, there are still situations where manual testing is necessary on the ServiceNow platform. Here are some examples:

1. **User Interface (UI) Testing**: Although ATF can simulate user interactions, it may not capture all UI-related issues such as layout discrepancies, design inconsistencies, or usability issues that require human observation and judgment.

2. **Complex Business Logic**: In cases where there are complex business rules, workflows, or calculations involved, manual testing allows for thorough validation of the logic and behavior, especially when the logic is subject to frequent changes.

3. **Integration Testing**: While ATF can test integrations between ServiceNow and other systems to some extent, manual testing is often required to verify end-to-end functionality, data accuracy, and error handling across multiple systems.

4. **Security Testing**: Manual testing is essential for assessing security vulnerabilities such as unauthorized access, data breaches, or potential security loopholes that may not be covered by automated tests alone.

5. **Performance Testing**: While ATF can help in measuring certain aspects of performance, such as response times for specific actions, manual testing is necessary for more comprehensive performance testing, including load testing, stress testing, and scalability testing.

6. **Accessibility Testing**: Manual testing is crucial for evaluating the accessibility of the ServiceNow platform for users with disabilities, ensuring compliance with accessibility standards and guidelines such as WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines).

7. **Edge Cases and Corner Scenarios**: Manual testing is needed to explore edge cases, unusual scenarios, and corner cases that may not be covered by automated tests or require human intuition to identify potential issues.

8. **Localization and Internationalization Testing**: Manual testing is necessary to verify the proper localization and internationalization of the platform, including language support, date and time formats, and cultural nuances that may vary across regions.

9. **Regression Testing**: While ATF can automate regression tests to some extent, manual testing is often needed to validate critical functionalities and ensure that new changes or updates do not introduce unintended side effects or regressions.

10. **User Experience (UX) Testing**: Manual testing allows for subjective evaluation of the user experience, including navigation, clarity of instructions, and overall satisfaction, which may not be fully captured by automated tests.

By documenting these key use cases for manual testing, you can ensure that the necessary resources and expertise are available to conduct thorough testing across various aspects of the ServiceNow platform.

Thanks,

Danish

[Stuart Lamont1]

Thanks for responding - I can't help noticing your response started with "Certainly!"

Did you really write this, or did the text come from Bing Copilot?

I came to the forum seeking someone's personal experience with ServiceNow testing.

Thanks.

[Sumanth16]

Hi @Stuart Lamont1 ,

Configure ATF module for all modules in ServiceNow to check regular functionalities after implementing new features.

Please refer to attached document.

If I could help you with your Query then, please hit the Thumb Icon and mark it as Correct !!

Thanks & Regards,

Sumanth Meda

[James Chun]

Hi @Stuart Lamont1,

Although I have not used the ATF capability much, I think it's designed to cover the 'core' functionalities of a process.

Of course, you can create all these test scenarios to cover all the small aspects (including the UI/UX) with the ATF but you need to weigh the effort it requires to implement and maintain versus the value it is going to bring to the business. It's likely that with future enhancements, you won't be modifying the core functionality but rather adding a new feature here and there. If so, is it worth creating/updating the ATF every time? Or would it be better to do a manual testing?

Just a few more use cases that I can think of are:

• Technical limitations of ATF. I believe there are some scenarios that ATF cannot support
• Sometimes you just need human eyes such as 'does that wording make sense?' Or 'is that picture appropriate'? That sort of questions

I think the last 2 points I made can be 'improved' with future ATF enhancements but the first point will stay the same.

Cheers