In my years working with software teams, I’ve noticed an interesting pattern: teams often swing between “automate everything” and “document everything” approaches. But here’s what experience has taught me:
The real power lies in strategic balance. Here’s why:
Automated tests through TDD are fantastic for catching regressions and providing quick feedback. They’re like your application’s safety net, constantly checking if new changes broke existing functionality. Plus, they serve as living documentation of expected behavior.
But manual test documentation brings its own strengths. It captures complex user scenarios, edge cases, and business context
that automated tests might miss. More importantly, it helps new team members understand the product’s behavior and testing approach.
Here’s what I’ve found works well: Use automation for repetitive, stable features and critical paths. Document manual tests for complex scenarios, exploratory testing, and areas with frequent business rule changes.
The disconnect between product specs and test cases? That’s actually an opportunity. By maintaining both automated and documented tests, you create a three-way validation between specs, tests, and actual implementation. When
there’s a mismatch, it often reveals important gaps or assumptions.
The key is treating test documentation not as a burden, but as a knowledge base that evolves with your product. Automated tests verify functionality, while documented test cases preserve context and rationale.
Quality isn’t about choosing between automation and documentation – it’s about knowing when to use each for maximum impact.