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
74 reviews
(69)
(5)
(0)
(0)
(0)
This project doesn't have any reviews.
KL
Kipley L.
Jul 29, 2026
Independent Software Verification
Fixed price: $500 USD · 3 escrow milestones · completed 1 week
Babulal did independent QA verification on our market-analytics platform — data-flow tracing, signal firing, and cross-device rendering. He found real defects we'd have shipped, including one our own team had twice concluded was fixed. He was precise, responsive, and documented everything with evidence. What I valued most: when an issue was still open he said so, rather than signing off to keep things moving. That's the whole point of hiring an independent reviewer. Would work with him again.
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
About Babulal
Senior QA Engineer | Manual QA | AI Engineer | QA Tester | Automation
98%
Job Success
Greater Noida, India - 11:12 am local time
️⭐️ Top Rated freelancer ️ ⭐️ 100% Job Success
⭐️ Top Rated Plus 1% professional on Upwork
• Expertise in end-to-end web testing, mobile testing, functional testing,regression testing, usability testing, cross browser and device testing.
• Expertise in end-to-end test automation with Selenium with C#, Javascript & Python from scratch.
• Strong experience in establishing QA processes, developing test plans, creating test cases, bug reports
• Expert knowledge of Software QA methodologies, STLC, best practices, and UI/UX usability standards.
• Skilled with test management, bug/issue tracking tools, and test environments.
• In-depth knowledge of Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC), Agile, Scrum, Kanban, Waterfall.
• Proficient in programming and scripting languages, databases.
• Familiar with API testing using Postman, load testing with JMeter.
• Experience with Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) and cloud environments, AWS, Azure, Github Actions
• Experties in end-to-end testing of marketplace app like Shopify, Etsy , Ebay and Woocommerce sites
• Expertise in end to end testing of crosslisting sites, inventory management, management sites, stripe payments testing.
• ️ Highly skilled QA Engineer with over 7+ years of experience in various types of testing, including web, mobile, and desktop platforms. Proficient in creating test documentation, working with Agile methodologies, and utilizing a wide range of testing tools and frameworks.
Summary of Skills:
* Manual Testing Mobile Applications (Android & IOS with Testflight installed)
* Manual Testing of Desktop Software and Web-based software
* Automation testing of Web Application using Selenium with C#, Python, Katalon Studio, Ghost Inspector, Testim and Playwright with Javascript
* Automation testing of Mobile application (Android and iOS) using Appium
* API testing using Postman and Swaggers
* Performance testing using Jmeter
* Excellent bug finder with a good eye for details, receiving awards and bonuses
* Document creation (Test plan, test case, test script, test scenario, users manual)
* Report Bugging Documentation
* Project Handover Documentation
* Worked on Agile Methodologies
Scope of Testing:
* Manual Testing (Functional testing such as smoke and sanity testing, regression, usability, alpha-beta, positive and negative, GUI, exploratory, API, Usability testing, Cross browser testing, Device Compatibility testing and end-to-end testing)
* Mobile Apps Testing
* Game app testing(mobile/desktop)
* Cross-browser Testing
* UI/UX Testing/Feature suggestion
* Automation testing (Web and Mobile(Android and iOS)
Technical Experience:
* Platforms: Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows 10, Windows11
* Database: MySQL
* Remote Applications: Teamviewer, Remote Desktop Application
* Defect Tracking and Management Tools: JIRA, Trello,Asana, Excel, Clickup, Qase, Qmetry, QADeputy.
* Other software/tools: Browserstack, Google Apps, Dropbox, Postman, Slack, Microsoft Teams
* Microsoft Applications and documentation tools
Devices:
* Android - Samsung Galaxy, Redmi, Oppo
* iPhone 12 plus, iPhone 13 (TestFlight ready)
* Tablet - iPad 5 Mini
* Apple TV
* Google Chromecast
️ Why you should choose me over another freelancer ️
- I provide high-quality and professional work so that the customer has a positive experience of working with me, is satisfied with the result, and wants to come back to me next time with a new job offer.
- I believe that my passion for testing and ability to learn, adapt to new challenges, and grow make me a strong competitor.
Have any questions or want to discuss your projects? Please do not hesitate to contact me.
Let’s get started!
Cheers!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords: Quality Control, Manual Testing, Quality Assurance, QA Testing, Web Testing, Bug Reports, GUI Testing, UI Testing, Software QA, QA Engineering, Desktop Application Testing, Functional Testing, Non-functional, Software Testing, Web App Tester, Usability Testing, User Acceptance Testing, Defect Tracking, Test Reporting, Test Plan, Test Case, Data Testing, Website Testing, User Story, Beta Tester, Stability/Reliability testing, Compatibility testing, Black box Testing, Cross-Browser Testing, Cross-Device Compatibility, Retesting, Front End Testing, Accessibility testing.
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