[schwartzworld]

My first software job many years ago was manual software testing. I had a script I'd follow. Create a thing. Link it to a thing. The company paid me to do this.

Now that I'm a dev, I could write a cypress test that would run through that entire script as part of CI, which means the mistakes would get caught before code is merged. How is that not preferable?

[AnimalMuppet]

Automated QA is great at following the script. Manual QA is better at going off-script.

For example, that box on our Windows UI on our product that lets you paste a list of IP address or machine names? It was manual QA that decided to try pasting a 2 Meg Windows executable into that window. The app did not handle that very well...