Test cases and test scenarios are both essential components of software testing, serving as the foundation for test execution. Although these terms may seem similar, they have distinct differences in form and purpose. Additionally, test cases and test scenarios designed for automated testing differ from those intended for manual testing. This article aims to clarify these essential testing elements.
Test scenarios and their features
A test scenario offers an abstract representation of the tested subject, describing the testing purpose from the perspective of the software end-user. These scenarios are often based on user stories and requirements, which causes a broad range of features and functionalities proposed for testing. Test scenarios typically represent the general flow of an application’s performance rather than its specific details. For example, a test scenario might focus on verifying the process of scheduling an appointment with a doctor or validating the process of uploading photos to a user’s profile.
A key feature of test scenarios is their independence from one another, which makes it possible to execute them in any order. Additionally, test scenarios are often documented using a scenario matrix that outlines various conditions and testing paths.
The definition of a test case
A test case can be considered a component derived from a test scenario, offering specific instructions and concrete steps for testing a particular aspect of the application. Consequently, the scope of a single test case is narrower than that of a test scenario as it focuses on specific features or functionalities. Test cases include various conditions such as negative, positive, and boundary cases, as well as specified inputs and expected outputs.
Although test cases are often linked to test scenarios or their requirements, they provide structure to the testing process and are designed to be reusable across different environments and test cycles. An example of a test case could be the verification of the correctness of transaction history in a banking app.
Implications of automated testing
While the underlying concept of test cases and test scenarios remains consistent across manual and automated testing, the form of test execution influences the design of these elements. Test scenarios and test cases developed specifically for automated testing:
- Include precise instructions for automated testing tools, often featuring more detailed steps than manual test cases;
- Require higher reusability and are designed to be independent and modular;
- Often employ a data-driven approach, allowing different data values to be used during the execution of the same test steps;
- Incorporate efficient error-handling mechanisms;
- Contain verification points, also known as assertions, for automated validation of expected test outcomes.
Automation using robust tools like Executive Automats enables the expansion of test scenarios and significantly enhances scalability due to parallel test execution across multiple environments and configurations. Additionally, automation with sophisticated solutions simplifies the maintenance of test cases and test scenarios, addressing one of the most common challenges in testing.
Detailed information can be found on the website:Â https://www.executiveautomats.com/resources/articles/test-scenario-vs-test-case-differences
Implications of manual testing
Manual testing has its own requirements for test cases and test scenarios stemming from the differences in the test execution processes. Below are some important aspects of test scenarios and test cases designed for manual testing:
Clear for humans
While manual test cases need to be clear and detailed, they should also be user-friendly for human testers. Manual testers can use their judgment and intuition during execution, offering a different perspective than automated tools. This can help identify issues that automated testing might miss.
Inconsistent repeatability
Human judgment and intuition, while valuable, can introduce inconsistencies in manual test cases. Each execution of test scripts by human testers can vary, leading to inconsistencies in test results and introducing subjectivity into the testing process.
Empowering exploratory testing
Manual testing inherently supports effective exploratory testing, which involves dynamic exploration of software to identify usability, performance issues, and other defects.
High adaptability
While various techniques are emerging to enhance the adaptability and flexibility of test cases and scenarios in automated testing, manual test scenarios and cases are generally easier to modify to meet changing requirements and priorities.
Effective for understanding human interactions
Despite its limitations and subjectivity, manual testing excels in testing user experience and software usability, areas that require direct human interaction and understanding.
Test case vs. test script
Alongside the terms “test scenario” and “test case,” the software testing industry also uses the phrase “test script.” While a test scenario is rarely confused with a test case, the distinction between a test case and a test script can sometimes be blurred.
A test script is a short program containing precise instructions for automated test execution, which is then carried out without human supervision. In contrast, a test case is typically created in the form of a document.
Test cases vs. test scenarios: bottom line
Effective software testing, whether manual or automated, hinges on understanding the distinctions between test cases and test scenarios. While they are related, they serve as distinct components of the testing process. Test scenarios offer a broad perspective on testing objectives from an end-user viewpoint, whereas test cases provide specific instructions for testing individual components or functionalities.
The mode of test execution influences the design of test cases and scenarios. In manual testing, these are designed to be clear and adaptable for human testers. In contrast, automated testing demands precise instructions for automated tools, ensuring efficient execution, scalability, and consistent results.
