Interview Questions for Manual Testing (Functional, Regression, System)

Functional testing verifies that a software application functions as expected according to its specifications. It focuses on the what – does the software perform its intended actions? Non-functional testing, on the other hand, assesses aspects that are not directly related to specific functions but are crucial for user experience and system performance. It focuses on the how – how well does the software perform those actions?

Think of it like this: functional testing is like checking if a car’s engine starts, accelerates, and brakes – it’s about the core features. Non-functional testing is like checking its fuel efficiency, acceleration speed, and comfort – the aspects related to usability and performance.

• Functional Testing Examples: Verifying that a login button correctly logs a user in, checking if an e-commerce website processes payments correctly, ensuring that a search function retrieves the expected results.
• Non-Functional Testing Examples: Evaluating the website’s load time (performance), assessing the user interface’s ease of navigation (usability), checking system security against unauthorized access, or confirming the application’s reliability under stress (stability).

Regression testing is the process of re-running existing tests after changes (like bug fixes, new features, or code modifications) have been made to the software. Its crucial purpose is to ensure that these changes haven’t unintentionally broken previously working functionalities. Imagine building a house – after adding a new room, you wouldn’t want the existing walls to collapse, right? Regression testing is similar; it prevents regressions (i.e., the reappearance of old bugs or the introduction of new ones) ensuring the software remains stable and reliable.

Why is it crucial? Because software development is iterative. New code is added, bugs are fixed, and features are enhanced constantly. Each change introduces a risk of negatively impacting existing features. Regression testing mitigates this risk, saving time, money, and the reputation of the software.

Real-world example: Let’s say you’re testing an e-commerce website. A new payment gateway is integrated. After the integration, regression testing would involve retesting all existing functionalities like adding items to the cart, checking out, managing orders, and viewing order history, to ensure that the new gateway hasn’t broken any of these pre-existing features.

System testing is the process of testing a complete, integrated system to verify that it meets its specified requirements. It’s the final stage of testing before the software is released to end-users. This involves testing the entire system as a whole, including all its modules, components, and interfaces, to ensure they work together seamlessly.

The System Testing Process typically involves:

• Planning: Defining the scope, objectives, and approach for system testing.
• Test Design: Developing test cases based on system requirements and specifications.
• Test Execution: Executing the test cases and documenting the results.
• Defect Reporting: Reporting and tracking identified defects (bugs).
• Defect Resolution: Collaborating with developers to fix the reported defects.
• Test Closure: Evaluating the overall test results and reporting on the system’s readiness for release.

Example: For an online banking application, system testing would involve end-to-end testing – from logging in, transferring funds between accounts, paying bills, to checking account statements, all integrated functionalities would be tested together as a single system.

Software testing encompasses a wide range of techniques, categorized in various ways. Here are some key types:

• Functional Testing: Verifies software functionality against requirements (as explained earlier).
• Non-Functional Testing: Tests aspects like performance, security, usability, etc. (as explained earlier).
• Unit Testing: Testing individual modules or components of the software.
• Integration Testing: Testing the interaction between different modules.
• Regression Testing: Retesting after code changes (as explained earlier).
• System Testing: Testing the entire integrated system (as explained earlier).
• Acceptance Testing: Testing by the end-user to validate that the software meets their needs.
• User Acceptance Testing (UAT): A type of acceptance testing where the end-users test the system.
• Performance Testing: Evaluates software responsiveness and stability under various loads.
• Security Testing: Identifies vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the software’s security.
• Usability Testing: Assesses how easy and intuitive the software is to use.

The Software Testing Life Cycle (STLC) is a structured approach to software testing that ensures systematic and comprehensive testing throughout the software development lifecycle. It’s a sequential process with clearly defined phases, each with specific objectives.

• Requirements Analysis: Understanding the software requirements to define the scope of testing.
• Test Planning: Creating a test plan that outlines the testing strategy, resources, and schedule.
• Test Case Design: Designing test cases based on the requirements and identifying test data.
• Test Environment Setup: Setting up the necessary hardware and software for testing.
• Test Execution: Executing the test cases and documenting the results.
• Test Reporting: Reporting the testing progress, results, and defects found.
• Test Closure: Finalizing the testing activities and evaluating the overall effectiveness of the testing process.

Each phase is meticulously documented to guarantee accountability and traceability of the testing effort. This methodical approach ensures that software meets quality standards and reduces the risk of defects reaching the end-users.

A test case is a documented set of steps to be performed to verify a specific functionality of the software. It’s a detailed procedure that outlines the inputs, actions, and expected outputs to determine whether a particular aspect of the software works correctly. Think of it as a recipe for testing a specific function of the software.

Example:

Test Case ID: TC_Login_001

Test Case Name: Verify Successful Login

Objective: To verify that a user can successfully log in with valid credentials.

Steps:

1. Open the application’s login page.
2. Enter the valid username: “testuser”
3. Enter the valid password: “password123”
4. Click the “Login” button.

Expected Result: The user should be successfully logged in and redirected to the home page.

Actual Result: [Space to record the actual result after execution]

Pass/Fail: [Space to indicate whether the test case passed or failed]

A test plan is a comprehensive document that outlines the entire testing strategy for a software project. It’s a roadmap that guides the testing process, ensuring all aspects are covered systematically. Think of it as the overall project plan for your testing efforts.

Key elements of a Test Plan:

• Introduction: Purpose, scope, and objectives of the test plan.
• Scope: What will be tested and what will not be tested.
• Test Strategy: Overall approach to testing (e.g., methodology, types of testing).
• Test Environment: Description of hardware, software, and network configurations.
• Test Schedule: Timeline for each testing phase.
• Test Deliverables: Documents and reports to be produced.
• Resources: Personnel, tools, and equipment required.
• Risk Management: Potential risks and mitigation strategies.
• Entry/Exit Criteria: Conditions for starting and ending the testing phases.
• Reporting and Communication: How testing progress and results will be reported.

A well-defined test plan is vital for successful software testing, providing direction, promoting collaboration, and ensuring a consistent and efficient approach to achieving quality software.

Think of a test scenario as a high-level description of a feature’s functionality. It’s a summary of what you want to test, focusing on the ‘what’ rather than the ‘how’. A test case, on the other hand, is a detailed, step-by-step instruction on how to test a specific aspect of that scenario. It outlines the exact inputs, expected outputs, and verification steps.

Example: Let’s say we’re testing an e-commerce website’s checkout process.

• Test Scenario: Verify successful order placement with different payment methods.
• Test Cases: This scenario could break down into multiple test cases, such as:
  • Test Case 1: Verify order placement using a credit card.
  • Test Case 2: Verify order placement using PayPal.
  • Test Case 3: Verify order placement using a gift card.

Essentially, a test scenario provides the overall goal, while test cases provide the specific actions to achieve it. Test scenarios help define the scope of testing, while test cases ensure comprehensive coverage.

Verification and validation are both crucial for ensuring software quality, but they address different aspects. Verification answers the question: ‘Are we building the product right?’ It focuses on checking if the software conforms to its specifications. Think of it as checking if you’re following the blueprint accurately. Validation, on the other hand, asks: ‘Are we building the right product?’ It focuses on determining whether the software meets the user’s needs and requirements. It’s like checking if the finished house actually meets the customer’s vision.

Example: If a software requirement specifies that the login should take less than 2 seconds, verification would involve testing the login time to see if it meets this specification. Validation would involve asking users if the login process is user-friendly and meets their expectations, even if it’s slightly slower than 2 seconds.

Black box and white box testing are two fundamental approaches to software testing that differ significantly in their methods and focus. Black box testing treats the software as a ‘black box,’ meaning the internal structure and code are unknown to the tester. The tester only interacts with the software’s inputs and outputs to identify defects. This approach focuses on functionality and usability. Think of it like testing a vending machine – you input money and select an item, but you don’t need to know the internal mechanism.

White box testing, in contrast, requires intimate knowledge of the software’s internal workings, code structure, and logic. The tester uses this knowledge to design test cases that cover all code paths and internal conditions. It’s like having access to the vending machine’s blueprint and testing each component individually. White box testing is especially useful in finding logical errors and code coverage issues.

In essence: Black box testing is focused on what the software *does*, while white box testing focuses on *how* it does it.

Test data management is a critical aspect of my testing process. In my previous role, I was responsible for the creation, maintenance, and security of test data used in various testing phases. This involved understanding the application’s data model, identifying the specific data required for different test scenarios, and then either generating synthetic data or extracting subsets from production data (always adhering to privacy regulations and anonymization techniques).

My experience includes using various tools and techniques for data masking, data subsetting, and database cloning. I’ve also implemented data-driven testing frameworks, enabling automated execution of test cases with different data sets. I’m proficient in handling different data formats and ensuring that test data accurately reflects real-world scenarios. In addition to data creation, a key part of my role involved careful data management after tests are completed to ensure data integrity and security, avoiding data leakage and preserving production data.

When I find a bug, my process is systematic and thorough. First, I reproduce the bug consistently to ensure it’s not a one-off issue. I document all the steps needed to reproduce the issue, including the environment, data, and actions taken. Then, I carefully classify the bug based on severity and priority (critical, major, minor, trivial). I capture screenshots or screen recordings as evidence. Finally, I submit a detailed bug report (which I’ll discuss in the next question) through the designated bug tracking system, ensuring all the relevant information is included.

A crucial part is collaboration. I often discuss the bug with the development team to clarify ambiguities and help them understand the issue. Throughout the process, I follow up on the bug’s status and retest the fix once implemented.

A bug report is a formal document that communicates a software defect to the development team. It serves as a clear and concise description of the problem. A well-written bug report is essential for effective bug resolution. The information it should include is:

• Bug ID: A unique identifier for the bug.
• Summary: A brief description of the bug.
• Steps to Reproduce: A detailed step-by-step guide to reproduce the bug.
• Expected Result: What should have happened.
• Actual Result: What actually happened.
• Severity: How critical is the bug (e.g., critical, major, minor, trivial)?
• Priority: How urgently does the bug need to be fixed (e.g., high, medium, low)?
• Environment: Operating system, browser, software versions etc.
• Attachments: Screenshots, screen recordings, log files.

A clear and concise bug report is key to smooth collaboration between testers and developers. It needs to be informative enough for the developer to quickly grasp the problem without requiring additional clarification.

Prioritizing test cases is critical for maximizing testing effectiveness, especially when time or resources are limited. My approach uses a combination of risk-based and business-criticality analysis.

I usually start by identifying the most critical functionalities of the application (e.g., payment gateway on an e-commerce website) and prioritize test cases that cover these areas. Then, I evaluate the potential impact of a failure in each functionality. A failure in a core functionality has a higher priority than a failure in a less critical area. I also consider the probability of failure and assign higher priority to functionalities with a higher likelihood of failure. Often, I use a risk matrix that combines probability and impact to determine the overall priority of test cases.

In addition to risk and impact, I also factor in factors like testing time and resource constraints to come up with a realistic, optimized testing plan. For example, I may prioritize test cases that can be automated first. This combination of risk-based and resource-constrained prioritization maximizes the effectiveness of testing with the available resources and time.

Software testing is typically performed at multiple levels, each focusing on different aspects of the application. Think of it like building a house; you wouldn’t paint the walls before laying the foundation. These levels ensure thorough testing and early detection of defects.

• Unit Testing: This is the most granular level, where individual components or units of code are tested in isolation. Imagine testing a single light switch to ensure it works independently before connecting it to the entire electrical system. Developers usually perform this.
• Integration Testing: Here, we test the interaction between different units or modules. This is like testing that all the light switches in a room work together and with the circuit breakers. This ensures that different parts of the system integrate correctly.
• System Testing: This involves testing the entire system as a whole, verifying it meets requirements. It’s like a final inspection of the entire house, checking all systems (electrical, plumbing, etc.) work together as intended.
• Acceptance Testing (UAT): This is performed by end-users or clients to confirm the system meets their needs and expectations. It’s the final homeowner approval before moving in.
• Regression Testing: This is performed after changes (bug fixes, new features) to ensure that existing functionality still works correctly. This is like retesting all the light switches after a repair.

The specific levels and their emphasis can vary depending on project size, methodology, and risk appetite.

My approach to risk-based testing centers around identifying and prioritizing the most critical areas of the application. Instead of testing everything equally, we focus our efforts on the areas that pose the highest risk of failure. Think of it as fire prevention; you’d focus on the most flammable areas of your house first.

This involves:

1. Risk Identification: We analyze requirements, design documents, and past defect history to identify potential risks. What features are most critical? What parts of the system are most complex or prone to errors?
2. Risk Assessment: We assess the likelihood and impact of each identified risk. A high-impact, high-likelihood risk (like a major security vulnerability) needs immediate attention.
3. Prioritization: We prioritize testing based on the risk assessment. High-risk areas receive more thorough testing, while low-risk areas may receive less attention. This ensures that we’re efficiently allocating testing resources.
4. Test Case Design: We develop test cases specifically targeting these high-risk areas.
5. Test Execution and Reporting: We execute the test cases and report on the findings, focusing on the identified risks.

For example, in an e-commerce application, the payment gateway would be considered high-risk; a minor UI issue would be lower risk. By focusing on the payment gateway, we reduce the chances of major financial issues.

Ensuring test coverage involves verifying that all aspects of the software have been adequately tested. It’s like making sure you’ve cleaned every room in your house before your guests arrive. We use several techniques:

• Requirement Traceability Matrix (RTM): This document links requirements to test cases, ensuring every requirement is covered by at least one test case.
• Test Case Design Techniques: We use techniques like equivalence partitioning, boundary value analysis, and state transition testing to ensure comprehensive coverage of different inputs and scenarios.
• Code Coverage Tools (for automated testing): These tools measure how much of the codebase is executed during automated tests, providing objective metrics on code coverage. While not directly applicable to purely manual testing, it informs the scope.
• Review and Peer Reviews: Test cases are reviewed to identify gaps in coverage and improve the testing strategy.

Using a combination of these methods allows us to achieve a high level of confidence that the software has been thoroughly tested. While 100% coverage is often an ideal, it’s not always feasible, and a risk-based approach prioritizes the most important areas.

I have extensive experience with several test management tools, including TestRail, Zephyr, and Xray. These tools help in organizing test cases, tracking test execution, managing defects, and generating reports. My experience spans all aspects, from setting up projects and defining workflows to utilizing advanced features like test automation integration. For instance, in a recent project using TestRail, we effectively used its customizable dashboards to track progress, identify bottlenecks, and provide regular updates to stakeholders.

The key benefits I’ve derived include enhanced test organization, better traceability, improved collaboration among team members, and the generation of insightful reports that facilitate decision-making.

I’m proficient in using Jira for defect tracking. Jira’s flexibility makes it ideal for managing the entire defect lifecycle, from reporting and assigning bugs to tracking their resolution and closure. I’m comfortable creating and managing various issue types (bugs, tasks, etc.), assigning them to developers, adding comments and attachments, and using its workflow customization to match our specific needs.

In a past project, we used Jira’s Kanban board to visualize the defect workflow, enabling us to identify bottlenecks and ensure timely resolution. We also leveraged Jira’s reporting features to track key metrics such as defect density, resolution time, and open defect count.

Conflicting priorities are common in testing, particularly in agile environments. My approach involves:

1. Prioritization based on Risk: I prioritize tests based on the risk of failure. Critical functionalities get tested first, even if it means postponing less critical tests.
2. Communication and Collaboration: I openly discuss conflicting priorities with stakeholders, explaining the impact of delaying or omitting specific tests. This collaborative approach often leads to mutually agreeable solutions.
3. Scope Management: If necessary, I’ll work with stakeholders to adjust the scope of testing, focusing on the most critical areas given time constraints.
4. Negotiation and Compromise: I’m adept at negotiating and finding compromises that balance competing priorities. This might involve reducing the depth of testing in some areas to ensure adequate coverage in others.

Ultimately, my goal is to deliver the highest quality software within the given constraints. This involves clear communication and a pragmatic approach to managing priorities.

In a previous project, I encountered a stakeholder who insisted on releasing the software before it was adequately tested. They prioritized a fast release over quality, creating a significant conflict. My approach involved:

1. Data-Driven Discussion: I presented them with data on the risks of early release, including the potential for critical bugs, customer dissatisfaction, and reputational damage. I used metrics from past projects to show the correlation between testing time and post-release defects.
2. Risk Mitigation Strategy: I proposed a phased release, where the most critical functionalities would be released first, followed by a second phase after more testing could be conducted. This compromise addressed their desire for a swift release while mitigating the risk of significant issues.
3. Clear and Professional Communication: I maintained a professional and respectful demeanor throughout the discussion. I understood their priorities but was firm in advocating for thorough testing. I focused on finding solutions instead of escalating the conflict.

This approach ultimately resulted in a compromise that satisfied both sides. The stakeholder appreciated the data-driven approach and the proposed risk mitigation strategy, and the software was released with a much lower risk of major issues.

One critical bug I found involved a major e-commerce website’s checkout process. During system testing, I discovered that the ‘confirm order’ button failed to function correctly if the user’s shipping address contained certain special characters, like an apostrophe or a hyphen. This resulted in orders being silently dropped without any error message to the user, leading to significant financial losses and customer dissatisfaction.

I systematically tested the checkout process with various address inputs, including edge cases and characters outside the standard alphanumeric set. I documented the issue with detailed steps to reproduce, screenshots, and the potential impact. The bug was quickly prioritized and fixed, preventing further issues. The key was meticulous attention to detail, understanding user behavior, and employing a systematic approach to testing, moving beyond happy-path scenarios.

Effective time management during testing hinges on prioritization and planning. I begin by thoroughly reviewing the requirements and test cases, identifying high-priority features and potential risks. I then create a realistic test schedule, breaking down tasks into smaller, manageable units. I use tools like test management software to track progress and allocate time effectively. This includes prioritizing critical functionalities, creating a test plan with timelines, and utilizing techniques like risk-based testing to focus my efforts where they’ll yield the greatest impact.

Additionally, I employ time-boxing techniques for specific tasks. This helps prevent getting bogged down in a single issue and ensures timely completion of the overall testing process. Regular communication with the development team helps to resolve any roadblocks promptly, maximizing my testing time.

I’m proficient in both Agile and Waterfall methodologies. In Agile, I participate in sprint planning, daily stand-ups, and sprint reviews, actively contributing to test-driven development (TDD). I adapt to changing requirements and prioritize testing based on sprint goals. I’m familiar with Agile testing techniques like exploratory testing and test-first approaches.

In Waterfall, my focus is on detailed test planning and execution following a structured approach. I work closely with the requirements team to ensure complete test coverage. I create comprehensive test plans, test cases, and execute them systematically, documenting findings meticulously. I’m experienced in creating comprehensive test documentation, including test plans, test cases, and bug reports, tailored to each specific methodology.

I actively contribute to improving the testing process through several means. Firstly, I regularly document and share lessons learned from previous testing cycles, which helps to identify areas for improvement. This involves maintaining detailed bug reports and suggesting proactive measures to prevent similar issues in the future. For example, if I notice a pattern of bugs stemming from a specific module or area of the application, I’ll bring that to the development team’s attention, suggesting they focus extra attention there in their development.

Secondly, I propose and implement improvements to testing processes and documentation. I’ve championed the use of new test management tools to improve efficiency and traceability and suggested changes to our test case creation process that enhanced accuracy and clarity. Finally, I actively participate in knowledge-sharing sessions and training opportunities to enhance the overall testing skillset within the team.

My strengths lie in my meticulous attention to detail, my ability to quickly grasp complex systems, and my proactive approach to identifying and reporting defects. I am adept at designing and executing comprehensive test plans, and I possess excellent communication and collaboration skills—essential for effectively conveying testing results and working with development teams. I am also comfortable working independently and as part of a larger testing team.

One area I am actively working to improve is my automation scripting skills. While I’m proficient in manual testing, acquiring more automation expertise will allow me to contribute to test automation efforts and enhance testing efficiency. I am actively pursuing training opportunities to enhance my abilities in this area.

My salary expectations are commensurate with my experience and skills, and are in line with industry standards for senior manual testers with my background. I’m open to discussing a competitive salary range based on the specific details of the role and the company’s compensation structure. I am more interested in a company that values my skills and will enable me to grow in my profession than in just a salary figure.

Yes, I have a few questions. First, can you describe the team structure and the testing processes currently in place? Secondly, what opportunities are available for professional development and skill enhancement within the company? Finally, what are the long-term goals of the team and how would my role contribute to those objectives?