I'll bite! To me, it seems we should do both. Automated testing can do things like:
Test very quickly
Test all the scenarios
Repetitively test
Test under load
...and so on. However, what it can't do is more "ad-hoc" - more like "I wonder what happens if I click here?" A test case writer would have to anticipate that in order to test that case. A good friend of mine (and fellow exec in our venture) is just such a good tester because he likes to play around - jiggle the mouse, click randomly and drag/drop unexpected combinations. That alone identifies many issues that a test case writer wouldn't imagine to code for.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I'll bite! To me, it seems we should do both. Automated testing can do things like:
...and so on. However, what it can't do is more "ad-hoc" - more like "I wonder what happens if I click here?" A test case writer would have to anticipate that in order to test that case. A good friend of mine (and fellow exec in our venture) is just such a good tester because he likes to play around - jiggle the mouse, click randomly and drag/drop unexpected combinations. That alone identifies many issues that a test case writer wouldn't imagine to code for.