Dynamics 365 manual testing is the coverage automation cannot give you. A script asserts what its author expected. It cannot notice that a posting is technically valid but commercially absurd, that a workflow approval reached the wrong person, or that a screen is correct and still unusable. A person notices all three.
We are not against automation — a maintained regression suite is the right tool for repetitive checks across release waves. But automation only ever re-runs known cases. The defects that stop a go-live are usually the ones nobody wrote a case for, and finding those is human work.
Automation is necessary and not sufficient. These are the four gaps we are repeatedly brought in to close after a suite is already green.
A regression suite encodes the cases someone thought of on the day they wrote it. Every defect outside that set passes silently, and the suite reports green.
D365 will happily accept a posting that is correct by the system's rules and wrong by your accounting policy. Only somebody who understands the process catches that.
Automation checks behaviour, not intent. When a posting group or dimension default is changed for one reason, a human notices the three other processes it just affected.
The most expensive go-live defects we see arrive on projects with passing automated tests. Coverage was measured in scripts run, not in risk actually examined.
We are not proposing to replace your automation. These are the three points where people outperform it:
Dynamics 365 manual testing is quality assurance performed by people rather than scripts. Testers work through real business processes in D365 — checking not only that a transaction completes, but that the result is correct for the business, that exception paths behave sensibly, and that users can actually complete the task without inventing a workaround.
They do different jobs. Automation is better at repeating known checks quickly across every release wave. Manual testing is better at finding defects nobody anticipated, judging whether a technically valid result is commercially correct, and assessing usability. Most D365 teams need both; problems arise when a green automated suite is mistaken for full coverage.
Exception and edge paths nobody scripted, postings that are valid by system rules but wrong by business policy, workflow approvals routed to the wrong person, cross-module side effects of a configuration change, and usability problems that push users into workarounds which corrupt data later.
Yes. Microsoft ends RSAT support on 15 May 2027, and teams rebuilding or migrating a regression suite often face a window with reduced automated coverage. Manual testers can hold coverage over that gap so releases keep shipping while the new suite is built.
© 2026 TestSquad. All rights reserved. · Privacy Policy
