Can we do automation testing without manual testing?

Can we do automation testing without manual testing?

Manual testing is performed by hand. Quality Assurance (QA) authorities guarantee that applications work appropriately by following conditions written in experiments. In spite of its crude nature, manual testing is as yet significant, as certain usefulness essentially can't be naturally tried. For instance, wearables and cell phones can require field testing in a physical domain. Mobile applications frequently experience 'monkey tests' that identify bottlenecks during unpredicted distressing conditions.

Automation in testing​ is a significant component of Test-Driven Development (TDD).

Test-driven improvement is described by the composition of experiments for every (Unit Tests) before the real code is composed. After the code is composed, these unit tests are run and dependent on the consequences of these tests, code may be refactored (if essential) or new tests included and executed. Here at RubyGarage, we utilize a TDD way to deal with manufacturing the vast majority of our items; this methodology causes us to incorporate tests into every unit of an application and quickly assemble quality programming items.

There's no silver projectile for testing during the advancement procedure. In spite of the wide assortment of testing procedures and instruments, we can't depend on a solitary methodology. Automated and manual testing each has their qualities and shortcomings.

What we need to pressure is that regardless of how incredible computerized tests are, you can't automate everything. Manual tests assume a significant job in programming development and prove to be useful at whatever point you can't automate the procedure.