Pricing
.png)
Understand the differences between regression testing and retesting. Learn when to use each, examples, and how to implement both effectively in QA process.
Regression testing and retesting sound similar but serve fundamentally different purposes. Retesting verifies that a specific defect has been fixed. Regression testing verifies that the fix did not break anything else. Confusing these concepts leads to incomplete testing, escaped defects, and wasted resources. Understanding when and how to apply each testing type is essential for effective quality assurance.
A tester finds a bug. The developer fixes it. What happens next?
This moment in the software development lifecycle is where many teams make critical errors. They either verify the fix without checking for side effects, or they run comprehensive tests without confirming the original issue is actually resolved.
Consider a real scenario. A user reports that discount codes are not applying correctly during checkout. The development team investigates, identifies a calculation error, and deploys a fix. Now what?
If the QA team only verifies that discount codes now work correctly, they have performed retesting. They confirmed the fix. But what if the calculation change inadvertently affected tax calculations? Or shipping cost computations? Or order total displays? Those side effects escape to production because no one checked.
If the QA team only runs the general regression suite without specifically verifying the discount code fix, they have performed regression testing. They checked for side effects. But what if the developer's fix was incomplete and the original bug still occurs in certain scenarios? The defect remains unresolved because no one verified it specifically.
Effective QA process requires both. Retesting confirms fixes work. Regression testing confirms fixes do not break other things. Skipping either leaves gaps that allow defects to reach users.
Retesting, also called confirmation testing or defect verification, validates that a specific reported defect has been fixed. It answers one question: does this particular bug still occur?
Retesting is narrow and targeted. A tester executes the exact steps that originally produced the defect. If the defect no longer occurs, retesting passes. If the defect still occurs, retesting fails and the issue returns to development.
The retesting workflow follows a predictable pattern:
Title: Discount code SAVE20 applies 20% to subtotal instead of total with tax
Steps to Reproduce:
Expected Result: Discount should be 20% of £108 (subtotal plus tax) = £21.60
Actual Result: Discount is 20% of £100 (subtotal only) = £20.00
After the developer deploys a fix, the tester executes the same five steps. If the discount now calculates as £21.60, retesting passes. If the discount still calculates as £20.00 or any other incorrect value, retesting fails.
The tester does not verify anything else during retesting. They do not check other discount codes, other tax scenarios, or other checkout functionality. Retesting is exclusively about this one defect.
Regression testing validates that recent code changes have not adversely affected existing functionality. It answers a different question: did this change break anything else?
Regression testing is broad and systematic. It covers functionality beyond the specific change to detect unintended side effects. A bug fix might resolve the reported issue while inadvertently breaking related or seemingly unrelated features.
The regression testing workflow integrates into the broader development cycle:
Using the same discount code fix scenario:
After the discount calculation fix deploys, regression testing covers:
Each of these areas could potentially be affected by changes to discount calculation logic. Regression testing verifies they all still work correctly.
Understanding these distinctions enables effective test strategy design.
Some teams question whether both retesting and regression testing are truly necessary. Could regression testing alone suffice? Could retesting be skipped if regression tests cover the affected area?
The answer is no. Both testing types serve essential, non-overlapping purposes.
Regression tests cover general functionality, not specific defect scenarios. A regression test for discount codes might verify that applying a valid code reduces the order total. It might not verify the specific calculation logic that was incorrect.
Consider the discount code defect. A general regression test might verify:
This test passes whether the discount is calculated correctly (20% of total with tax) or incorrectly (20% of subtotal). The test confirms the discount applies but not that it applies correctly in the specific scenario that was broken.
Retesting executes the exact defect reproduction scenario, catching cases where the fix was incomplete or introduced a different but related error.
Retesting verifies the defect is fixed but cannot verify that nothing else broke. The fix for the discount calculation might have changed a shared function that also affects tax calculations. Retesting the discount defect would pass while tax calculations silently break.
Consider what happens without regression testing. The developer fixes the discount calculation by modifying a pricing utility function. The retest passes because discounts now calculate correctly. But the same utility function is used for tax calculations, and those now produce incorrect results. Without regression testing, the tax defect escapes to production.
Effective quality assurance executes both:
Skipping either step creates gaps. Retesting without regression misses side effects. Regression without retesting misses incomplete fixes.
Implementing both retesting and regression testing effectively requires process design, automation strategy, and resource allocation.
Manual retesting is feasible because it executes once per defect fix. Manual regression testing is not feasible because it executes continuously and comprehensively.
Industry data illustrates the challenge. Manual regression testing takes 15 to 20 days for comprehensive coverage. Enterprises with daily or weekly releases cannot wait weeks for regression results. Even automated regression with traditional tools struggles. Selenium users spend 80% of their time maintaining tests and only 10% creating new coverage. The maintenance burden makes comprehensive regression coverage unsustainable.
AI native test platforms transform regression testing economics:
When application elements change, AI native tests adapt automatically. Virtuoso QA achieves approximately 95% accuracy in self-healing. The maintenance spiral that kills traditional regression automation simply does not exist.
AI native platforms distribute tests across hundreds of concurrent execution streams. Regression suites that take hours sequentially complete in minutes with parallel test execution.
Tests are authored in plain English, enabling anyone to contribute to regression coverage. Business analysts, manual testers, and product managers can create regression tests without coding skills. Regression suites expand continuously because creation is no longer bottlenecked.
AI native platforms combine UI testing, API testing, and database validation in unified test journeys. This comprehensive verification catches regression defects that single-layer testing misses.
Some teams believe that verifying a fix constitutes sufficient testing. They retest the defect, confirm it is resolved, and proceed to release. This approach misses side effects entirely.
Solution: Establish a clear policy that every defect fix requires both retesting (confirm the fix) and regression testing (confirm no side effects).
Some teams run comprehensive regression suites after defect fixes but never specifically verify that the reported defect is resolved. They assume that if regression passes, the fix must be good.
Solution: Require explicit retest of each defect using original reproduction steps, separate from regression testing.
Teams sometimes assume that small changes cannot cause regression. A one-line code change seems too trivial to warrant comprehensive testing.
Solution: Remember that bugs are often one-line changes too. The size of a change does not correlate with its impact. Run appropriate regression testing regardless of change size.
The defect occurred in environment A but the fix deploys to environment B for testing. Environment differences can mask continuing defects or create false failures.
Solution: Retest in the same environment type where the defect was originally found. If that is not possible, document the environment difference and consider additional verification.
Regression suites degrade over time. Tests break as applications evolve. Flaky tests accumulate. Eventually the suite produces so much noise that teams ignore results.
Solution: Treat regression suite maintenance as ongoing work, not technical debt. With AI native platforms, self-healing handles most maintenance automatically.
Teams that rely on manual regression testing cannot achieve adequate coverage or frequency. Manual regression is too slow for modern development velocity.
Solution: Automate regression testing. Use AI native platforms to eliminate the maintenance burden that limits traditional automation.
Regression testing and retesting serve distinct but complementary purposes in software quality assurance. Retesting confirms that specific defects are fixed. Regression testing confirms that fixes do not break other things. Both are necessary for comprehensive quality verification.
The challenge is not understanding these concepts. The challenge is implementing them at scale. Manual retesting is manageable. Manual regression testing is not. Traditional automation helps but creates maintenance burdens that constrain coverage.
AI native test platform like Virtuoso QA transform regression testing economics. Self-healing eliminates maintenance burden. Parallel execution collapses cycle times. Natural language authoring accelerates test creation. These capabilities make comprehensive regression coverage sustainable.
The organisations that implement both retesting and regression testing effectively ship with confidence. They confirm that fixes work. They verify that fixes do not break other things. They catch defects before customers do.
The distinction between retesting and regression testing is clear. The path to implementing both effectively is through intelligent automation.
Try Virtuoso QA in Action
See how Virtuoso QA transforms plain English into fully executable tests within seconds.
