3. About Kanoah Tests
Kanoah Tests is a full featured test management, integrated seamless into
JIRA with the same look-n-feel. No need to learn or switch between different
Coordinate all test management activities including test planning, authoring,
execution, tracking and reporting from a central location
Kanoah Tests enables you to track testing progress and quality to foster
collaboration and visibility across traditional and agile teams
Get real-time insights into your testing progress with out of the box
Easily integrate your automated tests and submit test results with Kanoah
Tests’ powerful REST API or use the API to automate many areas of the
4. After looking for several years at plugins for test management we finally found
Kanoah Tests. The other solutions were either too complex, didn't integrate well
with Jira, or were focused on a single project. Kanoah Tests proved to be an
elegant solution that allowed linking between any project. Kanoah has been
very responsive to feedback, requests, suggestions as well bugs. The customer
service is awesome. I'd highly recommend Kanoah Tests to teams of any size
looking to simplify test management and consolidate tools.
Liked Kanoah from the moment I discovered it. Integrates nicely with JIRA and
especially with Agile. Test cases can be authored right from the story level, but has
all other functionality a Test Case Management solution would need to have,
ranging from creating test plans, executing test cases, importing test cases, API for
automation, a.s.o. Additionally the team at Kanoah is amazing and responding to
any question very quickly. It wasn't hard to sell to my management to purchase
Kanoah. Will highly recommend Kanoah to anybody.
I just start working with Kanoah and I am impressed how it's simple to manage tests
without unlimited non-used features like in most of the test management tools and
still to get the needed functionality and results. The integration with Jira is a great
working solution that enable to share testing and development in simple way on
one system. I recommend to use Kanoah for testing management. It will help to do
Kanoah as much as possible customizable like Jira to match each group
For more reviews, visit: https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.kanoah.test-manager/server/reviews
5. Key Features
Native seamless integration with JIRA
No need to learn or switch between
Perfect for agile & traditional testing
Manage, organize and track all your testing
efforts in a central place
Reuse test cases across your projects
Powerful REST API
Establish clear traceability between
requirements, test cases, and defects
Execute test cases and track results that
Get real-time insights into your testing
progress with out of the box reports
Live statistics accessible to your entire
6. Benefits for the testers
No need to lear or switch between
Reuse test cases across projects for
Link test cases to requirements and
API support for automated efforts
Benefits for the teams
Informed decisions based on real-time
End-to-end traceability and impact
Centralized Test Management
Save time and increase productivity
7. Why choose Kanoah Tests
Coordinate all test
management activities right
Take advantage of the built-in
reports to track the results and
Kanoah Tests users receive
priority support, even
Manual testing and automated testing cover two vast areas. Within each
category, specific testing methods are available, such as black box testing,
white box testing, integration testing, system testing, performance testing,
and load testing.
Some of these methods are better suited to manual testing, and some are
best performed through automation.
What you automate depends on the tools you use.
10. When Should I Use Manual Testing?
Exploratory Testing: This type of testing requires the tester’s knowledge,
experience, analytical/logical skills, creativity, and intuition. The test is
characterized here by poorly written specification documentation, and/or a
short time for execution. We need the human skills to execute the testing
process in this scenario.
Usability Testing: This is an area in which you need to measure how user-
friendly, efficient, or convenient the software or product is for the end users.
Here, human observation is the most important factor, so a manual
approach is preferable.
Ad-hoc Testing: In this scenario, there is no specific approach. It is a totally
unplanned method of testing where the understanding and insight of the
tester is the only important factor.
11. When Should I Use Automated testing?
Regression Testing: Here, automated testing is suitable because of frequent
code changes and the ability to run the regressions in a timely manner.
Load Testing: Automated testing is also the best way to complete the
testing efficiently when it comes to load testing.
Repeated Execution: Testing which requires the repeated execution of a task
is best automated.
Performance Testing: Similarly, testing which requires the simulation of
thousands of concurrent users requires automation.
12. Pros of Automated Testing
Runs tests quickly and effectively. Once you’ve automated your tests, you’re
good to go. You can reuse tests, which is good when executing regressions
on constantly changing code. You won’t have to continuously fill out the
same information or remember to run certain tests. Everything is done for
you automatically. Automated testing is executed by software tools, so it is
significantly faster than a manual approach.
Can be cost effective. While automation tools can be expensive in the
short-term, they save you money in the long-term. They not only do more
than a human can in a given amount of time, they also find defects quicker.
This allows your team to react more quickly, saving you both precious time
and money. Aids in testing a large test matrix (different languages on
different OS platforms). Automated tests can be run at the same time on
different machines, whereas the manual tests would have to be run
sequentially. If you have to run a set of tests repeatedly, automation is a
huge win for you.
13. Pros of Automated Testing
More interesting. Filling out the same forms time after time can be
frustrating, and not to mention boring. Test automation solves this problem.
The process of setting up test cases takes coding and thought.
Everyone can see results. With automated tests, people can sign into the
testing system and see the results. This allows for greater team
collaboration and a better final product.
More reliability. Automated testing is more reliable, as it is performed by
tools and/or scripts.
Programmable. You can program sophisticated tests that bring out hidden
information from the application.
Comprehensive. You can build a suite of tests that covers every feature in
14. Cons of Automated Testing
Tools can be expensive. The automation tools can be an expensive
purchase. As a result, it is important to only use the ones that will give you
full, or as close to full coverage, as you can find.
Tools still take time. And of course, proficiency is required to write the
automation test scripts. While the automation process cuts down on the
time it takes to test everything by hand, automated testing is still a time
intensive process. A considerable amount of time goes into developing the
automated tests and letting them run.
Tools have limitations. While automated tests will detect most bugs in your
system, there are limitations. For example, the automated tools can’t test for
visual considerations like image color or font size. Changes in these can
only be detected by manual testing, which means that not all testing can be
done with automatic tools. Automated testing does not entail human
observation and cannot guarantee user-friendliness or positive customer
15. Cons of Automated Testing
Debugging the test script is major issue. If any error is present in the test
script, sometimes it may lead to deadly consequences.
Test maintenance is costly in case of playback methods. Even though a
minor change occurs in the GUI, the test script has to be re-recorded or
replaced by a new test script.
Maintenance of test data files is difficult, if the test script tests more screens.
16. Pros of Manual Testing
Short-term cost is lower. Buying software automation tools is expensive.
With manual testing, you won’t have to put the same up-front costs into the
software. Also, if the test case only runs twice a coding milestone, it most
likely should be a manual test. Less cost than automating it.
More likely to find real user issues. Manual testing allows the developing
program to be used as it would be upon launch. Any bugs that may pop up
when a user handles the program in a certain way are more likely to be
caught with manual testing. It allows the tester to perform more random
testing. The experience says more bugs are found via random testing than
via automation. And, the more time a tester spends playing with the feature,
the greater the odds of finding real user bugs. Manual testing allows for
human observation, which may be more useful if the goal is user-
friendliness or improved customer experience. This is also why it is very
helpful in UI testing.
Manual testing is flexible. When one of those brilliant thoughts comes to
you, something that could change the course of the project, you want to be
able to work on it immediately. With automated testing you have to set up
test cases, program it into the automated tool, and then run the tests. With
manual testing, you can just quickly test and see the results.
17. Cons of Manual Testing
Certain tasks are difficult to do manually. There are certain actions that are
difficult to do manually. Automated testing, once set up, is much better
equipped to find errors for this kind of testing.
Not stimulating. Manual testing can be repetitive and boring – no one wants
to keep filling out the same forms time after time. As a result, many testers
have a hard time staying engaged in this process, and errors are more
likely to occur.
Can’t reuse manual tests. With manual testing, if there is any change to the
software, you have to run the tests again by hand. This is valuable time lost.
Manual testing executed in regression testing might not catch defects for
frequently changing requirements.
Running tests manually can be very time consuming. testing on different
machines with different OS platform combinations cannot be done
concurrently. Executing each task requires different testers. Executing the
Build Verification Testing (BVT) is very mundane and tiresome in manual