When faced with a tight deadline, I prioritize testing based on criticality, complexity, and time efficiency. Automated testing is ideal for repetitive or high-priority scenarios that require quick feedback, ensuring coverage without delays. Manual testing, on the other hand, is reserved for exploratory, complex, or edge cases that demand human judgment. I focus first on high-risk areas that could impact key functionalities, ensuring critical paths are tested thoroughly. Regular communication with the team helps adjust priorities dynamically, balancing speed and depth to deliver quality under pressure.

To meet tight deadlines, I’d prioritize Manual Testing for critical, high-risk areas to ensure functionality while leveraging the Automated Suites for lower-risk or repetitive tasks. Manual testing focuses on complex workflows, recent changes, edge cases, and UI/UX validation, where human intuition is key. Automation would handle regression tests, stable features, and resource-intensive tasks like bulk data validation, saving time and effort. This ensures broad coverage without neglecting critical paths. I’d adapt based on risk assessments and allocate resources strategically—manual testing for high-impact zones and automation for breadth and efficiency.

To balance automated and manual testing under tight deadlines, I prioritize automation for critical features and regression tests to save time on repetitive tasks ⚙️. For complex scenarios like edge cases or usability issues, I rely on manual testing 🧑💻. When time is limited, I focus manual testing on high-risk areas and use automation for simpler tests ⏱️. Frequent automated tests during development help catch defects early 🚀. I also stay in close communication with the team to adjust the testing plan as needed, ensuring efficiency while maintaining quality 🤝.

Consider the time factor: If the deadline is tight, there are two approaches a. Automate one e2e test while other tests remain manual b. Stabilize ur regression suite while new functionality is manual Overall if automation doesn't work at the end it's a risk for adding more people which offsets quality

Automate repetitive tests like regression to save time. Use manual testing for new features or complex scenarios. Prioritize based on risk, testing high-risk areas manually. Balance resources by considering setup time for automation and available testers.

I look at the risk and impact first automated tests handle core functionality and regressions, while manual testing explores edge cases. High-priority areas go to automation if scripts are ready. If not, I focus on manual testing. It’s about maximizing coverage with the time available.

Under tight deadlines, I prioritize critical functionalities and automate repetitive tasks for quick feedback. Manual testing is reserved for complex or exploratory areas that require deeper insight. This balance ensures efficient and thorough coverage.

When deadlines are tight, I focus on: 1. Critical Tests First: Automate repetitive tasks like regressions; use manual testing for complex or high-risk areas. 2. Quick Feedback: Run automated tests early for faster insights, saving manual efforts for detailed checks. 3. Efficiency: Prioritize based on impact and time, balancing both methods to cover as much as possible.

For API testing perform one +ve scenario manually, then switch to automate and execute -ve scenarios. For UI, Perform validations manually on all the UI pages, then switch to automate all +ve or -ve scenarios.