Related
Can one implement automated UI testing for any UI designed using Azure GUIX? I came across an earlier post asking the same question.
Azure GUIX automated testing specifically for languages
I searched for Azure Test Harness but could not find much on it. Any suggestions?
We have added a string-fit test in GUIX Studio for the 6.1.9.1 patch release, under Edit -> Run String Fit Test. This release has been pushed to the App Store and will be rolling out over the next couple of days. This tests to insure every string in every language fits within the assigned widgets. Of course you can assign and re-assign strings at runtime, so Studio can't test for that, only the know assignments of widgets and fonts can be statically tested by GUIX Studio.
For our own internal regression testing, we build our test apps as Win32 apps and write python scripts to generate events into those apps to drive them. We do md5sum calculations of the canvas memory and compare the computed value with "golden values" to insure nothing has been broken. We haven't yet instrumented anything similar to support on-target regression testing but we have this feature in our backlog, I will see if we can get this on the priority list for the next release.
Best Regards
I am experienced writing automation tests for web apps using Selenium.
However I now have to automate a Windows Desktop app which I'm new to.
I'm using QTP 11 (old version) and I can get QTP to login type username/password to the desktop app. However when the app loads there are icons like a Windows desktop. I tried using ObjectSpy on the Actions folder icon but it can't find the object ID and it thinks the icon is a WinObject("COMPOSITE")
Also tried using QTP Record feature but the code that it generates uses hardcoded x and y values. I don't want to use x,y values as if the Actions icon moves 3cms left or right in future the test will fail.
e.g.
Window("Loan IQ").WinObject("COMPOSITE").Click 369,33
Need help finding the object ID in a Win32 app. Thanks
First of all you should make sure that UFT is configured to test your application. In the Record and Run Settings dialog, make sure that either _any windows application__ is selected or your app is explicitly listed.
If this doesn't improve the situation you can try using image based testing (aka Insight).
WIN32 Apps can be a nightmare to automate especially with QTP 11, as it is a kinda outdated version. If you want to get stable automation I propose the following:
Upgrade to a newer version of UFT (14+)
This will most probably not help you indentify the objects but will have a lot of new technologies supported that may help you as described in the following steps
Use Image Based Recognition
Even if your screen resolution changes UFT is still able to identify pictures.IT does not use absolute vectors to compare bitmaps but a different technology which I won't go in detailed (long story short, screen resolution changes are okay)
Provide support for your Widgets
Microsoft has 2 frameworks that can be used to provide UI Automation capabilities (initially for people with accessibility needs, but now is used for RPA and GUI Testing). UFT supports the MSAA and UIA frameworks of Microsoft so if your company is ready to implement support for the UI widgets via one of these Technologies, you are on your way for a smooth Test Automation Experience. Please note: This is mostly a huge investment, so if the tool is something internal and not planned for longer term usage, go with the image based Recognition
I have been curious to know what is the purpose of having a console window in .Net? I have not seen applications that are console window based. Is there such a thing as a console based application?
Yes, the C# compiler itself is a prime example, csc.exe.
While overall trend on Windows is to build GUI based apps, there are a lot command line tools out there, especially in the world of development (Compilers, Unit Testing Tools, Code Coverage Tools, Code Analysis Tools, etc).
Typically you won't see command line applications built for non technical users.
The advantage of simple command line tools is that they can be mixed and matched in ways that the original authors may have never anticipated so long as they understand a common medium of exchange, usually plain text. The *nix world has thrived on this principal, but as I mentioned above, this is partly due to the fact that until only in the last few years or so, usually only technical inclined people used those operating systems and were comfortable using command line tools.
GUI applications tend to be much more rigid in design, you're usually limited to only the functionality the author of the application anticipated. The flip side is they tend to be easier to understand and use intuitively.
Actually people mostly use Console Applications for samples and trainings. But there should be some conditions where Console applications are really needed.
Command-line programs can be hooked together like scripts to do interesting things using the |, <, and > operators.
Personally, at work I use small console-based applications in conjunction with Cygwin and shell scripts for better automation of the processes that those small tools need to perform. Like Joe Chung, I use pipes and redirection a lot, for example to save log files. Cygwin(/Linux) is much better at that sort of thing than Windows.
In Visual Studio, I sometimes use the console for "old-school" style debugging, like watching the flow of events when I do things in a Form. It can also be handy to watch when threads begin and end.
Consoles are great for outputting debug messages. I work on a GUI app that, for developers, outputs a lot of stuff to the console but for "real users" doesn't give them all the debugging info.
The entire .NET SDK is console based. Visual Studio is just value add ontop of it.
I think its most important to remember that console applications dont mean 'command line applications', they really are applications which have an interface that is based on stream I/O -
Console applications are very easy to interact with programatically since their interface is relatively simple.
Also, no windowed UI - means you can avoid alot more interaction with unmanged code.
So - there is certainly plenty of room for console apps in .NET
We're in the initial stages of a large project, and have decided that some form of automated UI testing is likely going to be useful for us, but have not yet sorted out exactly how this is going to work...
The primary goal is to automate a basic install and run-through of the app, so if a developer causes a major breakage (eg: app won't install, network won't connect, window won't display, etc) the testers don't have to waste their time (and get annoyed by) installing and configuring a broken build
A secondary goal is to help testers when dealing with repetitive tasks.
My question is: Who should create these kinds of tests? The implicit assumption in our team has been that the testers will do it, but everything I've read on the net always seems to imply that the developers will create them, as a kind of 'extended unit test'.
Some thoughts:
The developers seem to be in a much better position to do this, given that they know control ID's, classes, etc, and have a much better picture of how the app is working
The testers have the advantage of NOT knowing how the app is working, and hence can produce tests which may be much more useful
I've written some initial scripts using IronRuby and White. This has worked really well, and is powerful enough to do literally anything, but then you need to be able to write code to write the UI tests
All of the automated UI test tools we've tried (TestComplete, etc) seem to be incredibly complex and fragile, and while the testers can use them, it takes them about 100 times longer and they're constantly running into "accidental complexity" caused by the UI test tools.
Our testers can't code, and while they're plenty smart, all I got were funny looks when I suggested that testers could potentially write simple ruby scripts (even though said scripts are about 100x easier to read and write than the mangled mess of buttons and datagrids that seems to be the standard for automated UI test tools).
I'd really appreciate any feedback from others who have tried UI automation in a team of both developers and testers. Who did what, and did it work well? Thanks in advance!
Edit: The application in question is a C# WPF "rich client" application which connects to a server using WCF
Ideally it should really be QA who end up writing the tests. The problem with using a programmatic solution is the learning curve involved in getting the QA people up to speed with using the tool. Developers can certainly help with this learning curve and help the process by mentoring, but it still takes time and is a drag on development.
The alternative is to use a simple GUI tool which backs a language (and data scripts) and enables QA to build scripts visually, delving into the finer details of the language only when really necessary - development can also get involved here also.
The most successful attempts I've seen have definitely been with the latter, but setting this up is the hard part. Selenium has worked well for simple web applications and simple threads through the application. JMeter also (for scripted web conversations for web services) has worked well... Another option which is that of in house built test harness - a simple tool over the top of a scripting language (Groovy, Python, Ruby) that allows QA to put test data into the application either via a GUI or via data files. The data files can be simple properties files, or in more complex cases structured (something like YAML or even Excel) data files. That way they can build the basic smoke tests to start, and later expand that into various scenario driven tests.
Finally... I think rich client apps are way more difficult to test in this way, but it depends on the nature of the language and the tools available to you...
In my experience, testers who can code will switch jobs for a pay raise as developers.
I agree with you on the automated UI testing tools. Every place I've worked that was rich enough to afford WinRunner or LoadRunner couldn't afford the staff to actually use it. The prices may have changed, but back then, these were in the high 5-digit to low 6-digit price tags (think of the price of a starter home). The products were hard to use, and were usually kept uninstalled in a locked cabinet because everyone was afraid of getting in trouble for breaking them.
I worked over 7 years as an application developer before I finally switched to testing and test automation. Testing is much more challenging than coding, and any automation developer who wants to succeed should master testing skills.
Some time ago I put my thoughts on skill matrices in a couple of blog posts.
If interested to discuss:
http://automation-beyond.com/2009/05/28/qa-automation-skill-matrices/
Thanks.
I think having the developers write the tests will be of the most use. That way, you can get "breakage checking" throughout your dev cycle, not just at the end. If you do nightly automated builds, you can catch and fix bugs when they're small, before they grow into huge, mean, man-eating bugs.
What about the testers proposing the tests, and the developers actually writing it ?
I believe at first it largely depends on the tools you use.
Our company currently uses Selenium (We're a Java shop).
The Selenium IDE (which records actions in Firefox) works OK, but developers need to manually correct mistakes it makes against our webapps, so it's not really appropriate for QA to write tests with.
One thing I tried in the past (with some success), was to write library functions as wrappers for Selenium functions. They read as plain english:
selenium.clickButton("Button Text")
...but behind the scenes check for proper layout and tags on the button, has an id etc.
Unfortunately this required a lot of set up to allow easy writing of tests.
I recently became aware of a tool called Twist (from Thoughtworks, built on the Eclipse engine), which is a wrapper for Selenium, allowing plain English style tests to be written. I am hoping to be able to supply this to the testers, who can write simple assertions in plain English!
It automatically creates stubs for new assertions too, so the testers could write the tests, and pass them to developers if they need new code.
I've found the most reasonable option is to have enough specs such that the QA folks can stub out the test, basically figure out what they want to test at each 'screen' or on each component, and stub those out. The stubs should be named such that they're very descriptive as to what they're testing. This also offers a way to crystalize functional requirements. In fact, doing the requirements in this fashion are particularly easy, and help non-technical people really work through the muddy waters of their own though process.
The stubs can be filled in via a combination of QA/dev people. This allows you to CHEAPLY train QA people as to how to write tests, and they typically slurp it up as it furthers their job security.
I think it depends mostly on the skill level of your test team, the tools available, and the team culture with respect to how developers and testers interact with each other. My current situation is that we have a relatively technical test team. All testers are expected to have development skills. In our case, testers write UI Automation. If your test team doesn't have those skills they will not be set up for success. In that case, it may be best for developers to write you UI automation.
Other factors to consider:
What other testing tasks are on the testers' plate?
Who are your customers and what are their expectations related to quality?
What is the skill level of the development team and what is their willingness to take on test automation work?
-Ron
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
As recently as several years ago, the developers actually made the builds that went to clients. This was obviously a disaster for reasons too numerous to list.
Then when we started to learn the errors of our ways, we looked for a way to auto-build the entire application on a dedicated build machine. The culture at that time was very averse to bringing in outside tools, so we built our own autobuild system by writing a VB app.
This worked fine for a while, until the project's structure started to change, new projects were added, and we needed to build the application in different ways. Then then weaknesses of our hand-rolled autobuilder became apparent and, over time, increasingly onerous. This disease has progressed now to the point where QA (who owns our build process) can't even maintain the autobuilder because it requires more and more programming skill. Every time we add a project or change something in an existing project, it consumes more developer time just to make it work. There have been days when we were unable to produce a build because the system was broken.
I'm now in a position where I can change this process, and I'm looking to scrap the entire system and put something else in it's place. My goals are:
Have an autobuild system that can run with zero human interaction at a specific time every day. It should be able to gather all the source code, compile all the apps, create the setups, put the finished products on a network share, and possibly trigger the automated testing system to kick in (we use QTP).
The autobuild system should be flexible enough to easily adapt to changes in the project without rrequiring a major overhaul.
It should be simple enough so that QA can own the system and not require developer resources to make changes to how builds are made.
What are your experiences? Can you recommend an autobuild system? Should I have different goals?
I'm currently using CruiseControl integrated with Ant to control project builds. This allows flexibility of build schedules and means you can automate the entire build process fairly easily using Ant scripts. Also, during defect fixing periods you can have CruiseControl set up to watch for source control submissions instead of time periods and build when these occur. This allows developers very quick feedback on defect fixes.
I use FinalBuilder and FinalBuilder Server for nightly builds. It's a bit buggy at times, but if you think it through it's quite easy to create extensible projects that can build X project type, build it's database from change scripts and deploy it to a testing server.
It can also handle all kinds of wierd and wonderful things like ZIPing a nightly build and uploading it to an FTP or creating ISO images automatically.
Definitely look into MSBuild if you're on the Microsoft stack.
Joel is always going on and on about how great FinalBuilder is, so that might be worth a look as well.
We just migrated from a hand-rolled set of Perl scripts to a Buildbot setup. I found it because that's what Google's using for Chrome.
You can do nightlies, or it can integrate with source control to do an isolated test build whenever anybody does a checkin, or a variety of other things. It's also parallel; you can have more than one machine in the build farm, either for specialized duties or just to handle more load.
The entire system is written in Python, so it's platform-agnostic, which is important if you need to do builds on more than one platform. It can do anything you can do from the command line; we have it calling MSBuild for user-mode components, a DDK build for kernel-mode pieces, and running products for unit test builds.
Out of the box it supports most OSS source control tools, but if you're using TFS or something else you may need to modify the package that you install on the slave machines.
I think you are on the right track here.
Whoever looks after your automated build process needs to have a fundamental understanding of how your solution fits together. This doesn't necessarily mean knowing how to write code or architect solutions, but they will require a solid understanding of how the solution compiles, packages itself etc.
You might need to share responsibility for builds between people or teams to accomplish this. I'd say that a daily build is a "team responsibility".
I'd look at establishing a baseline build configuration which can be extended for "special use" builds (besides just building a release version), e.g. internationalized releases, fxCop/Quality Tools config, build + run Unit Tests, continuous integration builds, a build config to run on developer workstations, etc.
Instead, I'd aim to achieve the following:
Automatic versioning, signing etc
Ability to produce verbose output (logging) to help debug build breaks
On that point - it should handle errors properly, capture as much information and log it properly
Consistency - It should work the same way each time to produce repeatable outcomes
Run in a clean, limited access environment
Well commented/documented so that it can be understood by new staff, etc.
Option to generate release notes, compile metrics, produce reports (if this option is available)
Ability to deploy to multiple environments
Support different ways to obtain source code from source control, e.g. by changeset, label, date, etc
As for tool recommendations, I've used FinalBuilder, Visual Build Pro, MSBuild/Team Build, nAnt, CruiseControl and CIFactory plus and good old fashioned batch files.
Each has its pros and cons, I'm not going to make a recommendation except to say that the products with decent UI support were a little bit easier to work with, but at times were far less powerful. If you're working with VIsual Studio, MSBuild is very powerful, but has a somewhat steep learning curve.
As of tools delivered with MS Visual Studio you might want to use MSBuild. Additional Community toolsets for MSBuild will even give you the possibility to checkout code from Subversion and zip output.
We're using it successfully in our company. Projects consists of several solutions with 100+ subprojects. Works like a charm.
Visual Build Pro is nice, if your build machines are Windows. I think this would fill the requirement you have about QA owning the system. But don't get me wrong, it's pretty powerful.
We use CruiseControl.NET and UppercuT (which uses NAnt) to do this. UppercuT uses conventions for building so it makes it really easy for someone to get started by answering three questions (What is the solution named? What is the path to source control? What is your company's name?) and you are building.
http://code.google.com/p/uppercut/
Some good explanations here: UppercuT
We use the Hudson buildbot for for big Java web app building from ant build scripts. Hudson is pretty sweet for our purposes. It has a master/slave setup so builds can be done concurrently (on a timer or on-demand). Slave nodes can be any OS/hardware combo provided it has the needed build tools already on it and is on the network (and won't crash every 10 min).
Full web-based interface including live console output, change logs, artifacts from the build are available across the network including previous builds (if successful). Awesomesauce!