You will get test plan/test cases of an application in a spreadsheet with detailed steps
Top Rated
Top Rated
Project details
You will get detailed step design test cases that will cover all aspects of your product functionality. I will ensure all aspects of test cases should be covered including Positive and Negative test cases. With 6+ years of experience in software testing, I care deeply about your product and quality through test cases. The work I deliver is 100% original and high quality.
Testing Platform
Website Testing, Mobile Testing, Software Testing, Game TestingDevice
Mac, iPhone, iPad, Android Mobile Phone, Android Tablet, Windows Phone, Windows TabletLanguage
EnglishWhat's included
| Service Tiers |
Starter
$100
|
Standard
$500
|
Advanced
$1,000
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery Time | 1 day | 5 days | 10 days |
Number of Revisions | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Number of Pages Tested | 1 | 5 | 10 |
Screen Recording Time (Minutes) | 400 | 2000 | 4000 |
Test Scenario | - | ||
Summary Report | - | ||
Annotated Screenshots | - | - | |
Test Desktop | - | - | |
Test Mobile | - | - |
Optional add-ons
You can add these on the next page.
Fast Delivery
+$100 - $200
Additional Revision
+$100
Additional Page Tested
(+ 1 Day)
+$100
Test Scenario
(+ 1 Day)
+$100
73 reviews
(68)
(5)
(0)
(0)
(0)
This project doesn't have any reviews.
TS
Tony S.
May 28, 2026
QA for Manufacturing App
We hired this freelancer for a senior QA testing contract with clearly defined
expectations. Prior to starting, we provided detailed documentation explicitly
outlining that testing Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) and location-based
access rules (such as blocking specific plants, departments, or production
lines) was a critical, high-priority focus area.
Unfortunately, the thoroughness of the manual testing did not meet expectations.
During our own review, we discovered several major data leaks and permission
gaps that went completely unnoticed, delaying our launch by several weeks.
Below are some of the critical RBAC issues we found, how they were addressed,
and how a manual QA tester should have caught them:
1. Reports Module Ignored Site Restrictions
- The Bug: A user explicitly blocked from seeing data at a specific plant
(e.g., Mumbai) could run an "Incident Summary" report, which still compiled
and displayed Mumbai's data and totals.
- How it was fixed: We updated the report generation queries to apply the same
site-visibility filters used across the rest of the app.
- What QA should have done: Log in as a restricted test user, go to the
Reports tab, generate a summary report, and verify if any data from the
blocked location appeared.
- Ease of catching (if tested manually): Very Easy. Running basic reports as a
restricted user is standard test coverage.
2. The Audit Calendar Displayed Blocked Audits
- The Bug: While the audit list correctly hid audits from blocked plants, the
calendar view on the exact same screen still displayed them because it used
an unfiltered query.
- How it was fixed: We consolidated the calendar queries to run through the
same site-visibility logic as the main audit lists.
- What QA should have done: Log in as a restricted user, navigate to the
Audits screen, toggle to the calendar view, and check if any audits from the
blocked plant were visible.
- Ease of catching (if tested manually): Very Easy. The calendar is on the
main dashboard of the Audits module.
3. Audit Restrictions Failed Below the Plant Level
- The Bug: Blocking an entire plant worked for Audits, but blocking a specific
department/location or production line (zone) within an allowed plant was
silently ignored.
- How it was fixed: We corrected the audit visibility check to evaluate
specific location nodes rather than just stopping at the top-level plant.
- What QA should have done: Create a test template restricting access to a
specific sub-location (like a production line) within an otherwise allowed
plant, assign it to a test user, and verify if audits for that specific line
were hidden.
- Ease of catching (if tested manually): Easy to Medium. Requires setting up
and verifying different tiers of the site hierarchy overrides as explicitly
outlined in our onboarding document.
4. Create, Edit, and Delete Restrictions Were Bypassable
- The Bug: While the frontend UI correctly hid the "Create," "Edit," and
"Delete" buttons for restricted users, the backend server did not actually
enforce these rules. A user could still successfully make direct API calls
to modify or delete records at blocked sites.
- How it was fixed: We resolved a backend bug that mis-identified
sub-locations, and updated the mutation permission checks to pass the target
record's actual site.
- What QA should have done: For a "Senior" QA role, manual testing should
extend to basic security verification. A senior tester should use browser
developer tools (or an API client like Postman) to capture a mutation
request and attempt to send a Create/Edit/Delete payload to a blocked site
using the restricted user's token.
- Ease of catching (if tested manually): Medium to Hard. This requires looking
beyond the visible UI to verify that the API endpoints themselves are
secure, which is expected of a senior manual QA resource.
Because these core testing requirements were missed, we settled the first
milestone and a partial payment of the second, but did not release the full
contract amount. While the freelancer's communication was fine, the depth of the
manual testing did not align with the standard of a senior-level QA engineer.
expectations. Prior to starting, we provided detailed documentation explicitly
outlining that testing Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) and location-based
access rules (such as blocking specific plants, departments, or production
lines) was a critical, high-priority focus area.
Unfortunately, the thoroughness of the manual testing did not meet expectations.
During our own review, we discovered several major data leaks and permission
gaps that went completely unnoticed, delaying our launch by several weeks.
Below are some of the critical RBAC issues we found, how they were addressed,
and how a manual QA tester should have caught them:
1. Reports Module Ignored Site Restrictions
- The Bug: A user explicitly blocked from seeing data at a specific plant
(e.g., Mumbai) could run an "Incident Summary" report, which still compiled
and displayed Mumbai's data and totals.
- How it was fixed: We updated the report generation queries to apply the same
site-visibility filters used across the rest of the app.
- What QA should have done: Log in as a restricted test user, go to the
Reports tab, generate a summary report, and verify if any data from the
blocked location appeared.
- Ease of catching (if tested manually): Very Easy. Running basic reports as a
restricted user is standard test coverage.
2. The Audit Calendar Displayed Blocked Audits
- The Bug: While the audit list correctly hid audits from blocked plants, the
calendar view on the exact same screen still displayed them because it used
an unfiltered query.
- How it was fixed: We consolidated the calendar queries to run through the
same site-visibility logic as the main audit lists.
- What QA should have done: Log in as a restricted user, navigate to the
Audits screen, toggle to the calendar view, and check if any audits from the
blocked plant were visible.
- Ease of catching (if tested manually): Very Easy. The calendar is on the
main dashboard of the Audits module.
3. Audit Restrictions Failed Below the Plant Level
- The Bug: Blocking an entire plant worked for Audits, but blocking a specific
department/location or production line (zone) within an allowed plant was
silently ignored.
- How it was fixed: We corrected the audit visibility check to evaluate
specific location nodes rather than just stopping at the top-level plant.
- What QA should have done: Create a test template restricting access to a
specific sub-location (like a production line) within an otherwise allowed
plant, assign it to a test user, and verify if audits for that specific line
were hidden.
- Ease of catching (if tested manually): Easy to Medium. Requires setting up
and verifying different tiers of the site hierarchy overrides as explicitly
outlined in our onboarding document.
4. Create, Edit, and Delete Restrictions Were Bypassable
- The Bug: While the frontend UI correctly hid the "Create," "Edit," and
"Delete" buttons for restricted users, the backend server did not actually
enforce these rules. A user could still successfully make direct API calls
to modify or delete records at blocked sites.
- How it was fixed: We resolved a backend bug that mis-identified
sub-locations, and updated the mutation permission checks to pass the target
record's actual site.
- What QA should have done: For a "Senior" QA role, manual testing should
extend to basic security verification. A senior tester should use browser
developer tools (or an API client like Postman) to capture a mutation
request and attempt to send a Create/Edit/Delete payload to a blocked site
using the restricted user's token.
- Ease of catching (if tested manually): Medium to Hard. This requires looking
beyond the visible UI to verify that the API endpoints themselves are
secure, which is expected of a senior manual QA resource.
Because these core testing requirements were missed, we settled the first
milestone and a partial payment of the second, but did not release the full
contract amount. While the freelancer's communication was fine, the depth of the
manual testing did not align with the standard of a senior-level QA engineer.
RV
Robert V.
Apr 29, 2026
Manual testing of web and mobile application
DD
Devon D.
Mar 3, 2026
QA for our application
JY
Joseph Y.
Jan 8, 2026
Testing the Web App
EM
Elina M.
Oct 30, 2025
API testing
About Babulal
Senior QA Engineer | Manual QA | AI Engineer | QA Tester | Automation
99%
Job Success
Greater Noida, India - 8:22 pm local time
I ensure seamless, error-free applications through comprehensive front-end and back-end testing, optimizing product quality at every stage of development.
🛠 Services I Offer:
💻 End-to-End Testing: Ensure flawless functionality and business logic coverage across all application layers.
🤖 Test Automation: Build and maintain automation frameworks using Selenium, Appium, Playwright, Testim, GhostInspector, Cypress, and TestNG for faster, more reliable releases.
🌐 API Testing: Expertise in Postman, Swagger, and automated API testing tools to validate seamless communication and integrations.
🖥 Cross-Browser & Cross-Platform Testing: Guarantee consistent user experience across Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Android, and iOS devices.
📊 Performance Testing: Perform Load, Stress, Endurance, Spike, and Volume testing to ensure system stability and scalability under peak loads.
🔄 Agile QA Support: Collaborate effectively in Agile/Scrum environments, participating in daily stand-ups, sprint reviews, and CI/CD pipelines.
📝 Test Documentation: Provide clear, actionable test plans, test cases, bug reports, and user-friendly QA documentation.
🚀 Why Work With Me:
✔️ 7+ Years Proven QA Expertise: Successfully delivered projects across diverse domains with measurable improvements in release timelines and software stability.
✔️ Automation-Driven Efficiency: My custom automation frameworks have significantly reduced manual effort and increased test coverage.
✔️ Detail-Oriented Problem Solver: I detect and resolve issues before they impact production, ensuring a smooth user experience.
✔️ Client-Focused Communication: Transparent, reliable, and collaborative throughout every project phase.
💎 Specialized Testing Expertise:
✨ Manual Testing: Functional Testing , Regression Testing , Cross Browser Testing, Unit, Integration, Acceptance Testing, Exploratory Testing , Usability Testing, End-to-End Testing.
✨ Automation Testing: Selenium, Appium, Nunit, Pytest, Playwright, Testim, GhostInspector
✨ API Testing: Postman, Swagger, RestAssured
✨ Performance Testing: JMeter, LoadRunner
✨ Security & Penetration Testing
✨ ETL & Database Testing
✨ Mobile App Testing (Android & iOS)
✨ A/B Testing, UAT, Accessibility, Usability & Compatibility Testing
🤝 Let’s Connect:
Looking for a QA Engineer, Test Automation Expert, API Tester, or Performance Testing Specialist? I’m ready to help you deliver stable, high-performing, and reliable software.
📩 Contact me today to discuss how I can add value to your project!
Steps for completing your project
After purchasing the project, send requirements so Babulal can start the project.
Delivery time starts when Babulal receives requirements from you.
Babulal works on your project following the steps below.
Revisions may occur after the delivery date.
Will review your product and flow
First I'll review your product and flow