Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
We are currently using Fitness for subsystem testing.
we are having lot of issues using the tool, few to mention
Development time for writing Fixture is more then writing the actual code
Issues around check in of the dlls so that Qa can test them
Issues in running Fitnesse for project which uses NHibernate
limited help online
We are planning to use some other tool to do the testing
Few options which we know are
SOAP UI
Story teller
I am not sure whether we will have similar problems with these tools
It would be great to know if someone has experience using these tool and could guide us
In our project we have adopted TDD so we have Nuits for unit testing.
It would be great if anyone is aware of tools/ideas which could extend nunits for subsystem testing as well.
Component testing tools are all about calling functions. Your tests cause functions to be called in "fixtures" that then call into the SUT. Any tool based on this premise will encounter the problems you reference above.
However, most of those problem are manageable. For example you should not be writing lots of fixtures. If you are, something is wrong. Secondly, your fixtures ought to be little more than wiring code to call the APIs in your application. If your fixtures are doing significant work, then something is wrong.
In most FitNesse environments the number of fixtures is rather small. For example, there are over two hundred acceptance tests for fitnesse itself, but the number of fixtures in on the order of a dozen, and they are all relatively simple.
Get help on the fitnesse#yahoogroups.com site. The folks there are usually very responsive to questions.
If you can communicate with your software using text, then I have had success on past projects rolling my own framework using expect.
The framework I cooked up stored tests as XML files, using a simple xUnit style markup. The xml files were then transformed into executable tests using a stylesheet. I ended up transforming the tests into Tcl/Expect, but you could transform them into anything. In fact, if you wanted, you could transform them into multiple languages, depending on your needs.
Several people have kindly reminded me (in the same way you remind you poor dottering grandfather about the drool on his chin) that we are in the 21st century when they inquire why I would choose Tcl over some more modern language. As it turns out, for the purposes of this kind of testing, I haven't yet found a better choice. The Tcl language still kicks butt in this area. Trust me, I didn't wake up one day and say to myself "self, what I need a test framework implemented in a scripting language everyone will hate!"
Believe it or not, I really was looking for a tool, any tool, that had the following characteristics:
Cross platform. This was non-negotiable. We do a lot of cross platform development and we already use WAY too many tools that don't support cross platform development.
Simple syntax. Say what you want about Tcl, but the syntax is very regular. I knew that some native code would probably creep even into the XML files (and originally it was Tcl only, no XML) and I wanted the syntax to be comprehensible to a non-programmer. This simplicity is a core strength of Tcl. As it turns out, it also made transforming the XML easier too.
Free. My favorite price ;-)
Writing tests as simple xml files allowed non-programmers to write customer acceptance level tests - no programming required.
Easily extended.
I did not set out to home grow this to the extent I have. Initially, I looked at established test frameworks like DejaGnu and android. Mostly they had way too many features. They were so feature laden that I didn't think they would be easy for a project to start using without a lot of up front training. Looking at DejaGnu, got me interested in Tcl in general, and after a brief look at tcltest, I almost gave up. Both DejaGnu and tcltest assume you are an advanced Tcl scripter, which I didn't think anyone at my company ever would be. In addition, I wanted the test framework (if possible) to support an xUnit type of test framework and neither of these tools did.
Eventually I found TclTkUnit, a Tcl based testing framework that is designed along xUnit lines. It was only a short leap of logic to realize I could run TclTkUnit in Expect instead of tclsh and get everything I needed.
As it ended up getting used more, I added another stylesheet to render the xml files nicely in a web browser. The test framework generated it's own documentation.
On another project we needs a very basic sim / stim environment to emulate a person throwing switches and pushing buttons on a piece of hardware we didn't have. It only took a few hours to hack the test framework to function as a simulator. Creating the framework took some work, but we felt that it did pay benefits in the long run. I really believe that these types of unforseen consequences of creating your own tools is why people in the agile community & XP in particular have always been such strong advocates.
We have adopted a Fitnesse-based but practically-code-free approach using GenericFixture (google for Anubhava to find his wordpress site) for Fitnesse.
What this allows us to do is to create "executable test narratives" using a language that is friendly to the business-side (as opposed to the technical-side). This language, which is very easily defined, practically without coding, in Generic Fixture, is called a DSL (domain specific language). So we can write our test narratives using e.g. medical terms or even in a language other than English. Basically what we get is transforming our Use Cases into executable narratives.
We are starting to use it in a large project (15 ppl for 2 years) and it seems (so far) to have a good future.
It easily allows Test Driven Development or test-creation after development (traditional approach).
It is wiki-based (Fitnesse) and its versioning and refactoring funcitonality has proven so far sufficient.
I can give more info if anyone is interested.
best regards,
Aristotelis.
We use unit-testing frameworks like NUnit to drive our subsystem tests as well - the tests don't care how they are run. It doesn't have fitnesse's document-based approach, though.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I work on a team with three other developers and one business analyst writing internal business applications. We're primarily building apps in ASP.Net, and do so in a very 2003-ish way. It's like going back in a time machine. Although two of the other developers are amenable to learning new things, one of the developers is not. He's the type who thinks he's the strongest developer in town, and that if he doesn't understand a new tool within 5 minutes then he just needs to build his own. He also doesn't recognize agile development, TDD, or basically any non-Microsoft-blessed tool or method. He even considers source control from anything other than SourceSafe to be dangerous. To his credit, he's a brilliant programmer, just not someone interested in software development.
So the only way I can get consensus is if a tool is really easy to use. Once we hit a single snag, he'll lose faith in a "I told you so" sort of way.
So what set of tools should I use to get us into a modern source control system, TDD, and CI? The obvious choice in my situation seems like it would be Microsoft's TFS, but I doubt I could get our thrifty and apathetic management team to spend the extra money (they already think MSDN Pro is too much).
Basically, what is the easiest set of tools to get going with Source Control, TDD, and CI for a .Net 2008/2010 environment?
I wouldn't recommend dumping all these tools and methodologies on your team at once, take baby steps. Introduce one at a time. Some will come naturally.
There are many good choices, but I can personally recommend these:
Source control: Subversion with TortoiseSVN and Ankh or VisualSVN
Continuous Integration: CruiseControl.NET
TDD tools: NUnit + your mocking framework of choice (I use NMock, though it's a bit old-school). I agree with commenter Eric that TestDriven.NET is a must-have, particularly if you want to make this easy!
These are easy to get started with because they're all good products, reasonably to very well-documented, and widely-used (so it's easy to get help).
It's always going to be difficult to introduce new tools if you can't build a consensus. Focus on building the consensus, rather than on the tools.
SVN is very good (with Ankh and TSVN), but it can be a bit surprising to people used to SourceSafe.
TDD is a technique, rather than a toolset, so you need books, blogs, etc. For tools to support it, NUnit or MSTest. Continuous Integration is a must-have. CruiseControl.Net is pretty good (though a bit difficult to configure initially). Consider also TeamCity.
Do you have a bug-tracking system?
Oh, and if your management team is that apathetic, consider quitting.
Update: you've said that they're not so much "apathetic" as "hands-off". Question: are they really hands-off, and will they let you move things along? Or are they "status quo" -- "it ain't broke, so don't fix it, and don't rock the boat"?
I think you can make a really really good case that within the last two years Agile has become completely and totally embraced by Microsoft. I know for a fact that the Codeplex, MEF, and ASP.NET MVC teams are quite steeped in it. I also think that visual studio and parts of the windows 7 team are Agile. Also consider that Visual Studio 2010 includes out-of-the-box refactorings that don't really make much sense outside the context of TDD and that Agile is the default project management template for TFS and a picture of a corporate culture that is quite different from the one of years past starts to emerge.
As for specific tools. TFS is OK for source control but I find it very heavyweight and finicky. Others have mentioned Subversion but if you're worried about MS blessings you might have better luck jumping straight to Mercurial. Its a more advanced SCM but it is now supported natively by Codeplex and has excellent windows integration. I've never used it but I am in deep tool-love with it's cousin git.
Test driven development: Start with MSTest, its not as slick as anyone would like but its not the worst thing in the world. I would also recommend MbUnit which has all of NUnit's features along with some good support for the integration tests that you will probably be writing by accident as you are starting out with testing. Oh, and if you have customization freak I would urge him to look at XUnit.Net.
Mocking: The choice is basically Rhino Mocks or MoQ. Here's a quick intro I wrote for Rhino Mocks that goes over all the basics. That being said, the trade off seems to be more documentation for RM versus a very mildly less error prone syntax for MoQ.
Test Runners: If you start out with MSTest you'll notice that you can get a significant speed boost in your test runs by using TestDriven.Net, resharper or coderush rather than the built in test runner. That being said, don't underestimate the standalone test-runners. They can be quite good every once in a while. I heavily recommend Gallio Icarus runner which comes with MbUnit.
I want to echo what George Mauer has said and suggest starting with MSTest for your unit testing. It's right there in the box to begin with Visual Studio, this will help in your cause as it's "MS blessed".
I would start with unit testing and take it from there, after a few months of "look how easier our life is now we have these tests automated" I'd take it up a notch. Consider adding something like Selenium or WatiN to the mix. Once you're rolling with that, get your CI server up. "Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to start off all these tests manually?..."
I guess a decent SCM might be a sticking point. SourceSafe is better than nothing. Perhaps start using Mercurial or Git yourself? Show those open to the change the benefits, eventually your stubborn dev will come around when others around him are wanting to switch. Hopefully, he'll find it harder to shout if he's in the minority.
Check out http://www.viget.com/extend/effectively-using-git-with-subversion/ for ideas with mixing up different SCMs.
I also want to +1 mxmissile for saying to take things slowly. I think you'll find it very difficult to introduce all these changes in one go. It's a lot to take in at first if you're not used to it. Try to pick the part you're weakest on, or will add the most value and build up from there.
Good luck!
One tool that got me hocked on TDD is TestDriven.Net which puts the test results in the Output window. I mapped this to the F8 key and the productivity gain is superb; write a test, press F8 and see this results in the output window.
One suggestion I also have to differentiate between having Unit Tests and doing TDD. I have found that TDD can be hard to push on to a team, while; unit, integration or functional tests are an easier sell. Having a bunch of tests that saves an hour going through a manual test day after day is a big win.
After a while people will start to appreciate some new ideas if it is helping them in their daily life. Then you'll be able to introduce a build server, and move away from SourceSafe.
In .NET environments, Microsoft Visual SourceSafe is most frequently used. (but it costs). Next to that you can opt for SVN or GIT. Git is more recent (and gaining popularity). It's easier to work with than SVN once you get it.
http://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparison might help with your decision.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Looking to add UI testing to my WinForms 3.5 project. Currently using MSTest for unit testing and MSBuild to build it.
One option I am looking at is Test Automation FX.
The product seems to be a bit new and not fully polished, but it seems to work. So, I'm curious if anyone else is using and has good or bad things to say about it.
It is quite a bit cheaper in price ($450) than Test Complete ($2000), so I also am trying to figure out what is lacking or missing, if anything, from Test Automation FX.
I have gone recently through the process of choosing a GUI testing solution, and finally decided to go to TestAutomationFX. Here are the main reasons I made this choice:
It's creating real code (in my case C#), which is invaluable for me: for maintenability, archivability, flexibility and so on. It is much easier to write in C# (I can ask my developers for support) than in a proprietary script language I would have to learn from scratch (or worse: endless grids of non-maintanable dropboxes). It also lets me build a good testing framework
It has seamless integration with NUnit (that my team uses for unit and integration tests). My data driven test come from the same CSVs, and GUI test reports are just appended to unit test reports, granting easy archiving and maintenance
It has much better recognition of the complex UI objects my developers use (Telerik, Infragistic, home-made): 25% of my clics are in x/y mode, versus 67% with TestComplete or Ranorex
Their sales engineers gave me excellent support (at least during the evaluation period)
It has no major bugs nor complex license setup (yes, I'm looking at you, TestComplete guys, see my other post), no runtime license issue, no virtual machine licensing problems either
(though this was not that important to me), it's four times cheaper than other commercial solutions
On the other hand, there is a medium flaw in the application:
The mapping system (ie. mapping AUT-object properties to Test-application-objects) is really touchy: code refactoring needs special attention. I overcome this by commiting to my VCS before every code refactoring. Anyway, does testComplete provide the option of code refactoring.
OK, as you can see, I'm pretty ethusiast with this solution. I've been using it for only a few days, and may run into bigger problems later. But right now it gives me exactly what I wanted, so let me be happy :)
The company I work for uses SilkTest, which works very good. In general, when using automated testing, you would be doing lots of regression testing. What is more important is when you've modified an existing project, then the test software must still be able to run those tests without any errors. (Or, with the errors you'd expect.)
But the market does have lots and lots of other test solutions. In the past, I even saw a test setup which required two computers and additional hardware. The hardware would connect to the monitor, mouse and keyboard of the test system. The other end would connect to a special extension card in the test server. The hardware was there so the server could send keyboard commands to the test system and record anything that happened on the screen. With some additional OCR software, it was very well capable of analysing any errors. Then again, it had a price of six digits and to be honest, I'd rather buy a Porsche for that price and probably would have some cash left to bring two beautiful dates with me while driving through the boulevards in Nice, France...
There's a Wiki page with an overview of all kinds of test software. It doesn't compare them but you can find Test Automation FX there, although it doesn't provide much information. It seems limited to testing Windows GUI's only.
TestComplete provides more information. Then again, comparing the Wiki's it also supports a lot more. Really a lot more. Enough to explain why it's that expensive...
I have just starting to evaluate different GUI automate testing tool. I have looked at Test Automation FX, Ranorex and TestComplete. And the price for the software are in that order.
This is some of my conclusions:
Test Automation FX - Coded in C#, Fully VS integrated. But very slow in finding components and takes much memory and don't fully support DevExpress components
Ranorex - Coded in C#, Have a studio for maintating test but can be fully integrated into VS. Has better object support. And you can find objects in your software by regex expresseion on several thing. Have some problem with DevExpress components but is rather fast to work with.
TestComplete - Uses its on script language. VBscript is the easiest one (C#Script is just awkward notation). This have really good support for DevExpress components and runs the test really fast. But is very expemsive
Right now I don't know which I should use. Ranorex is alite better than Test Automation FX but both lack the full support for DevExpress components. TestComplete is nice but it introduce a new language to the development and is very expensive. But the test scripts are small and the program have more logic in finding very to click.
I have evaluated Test Automation Fx, Although it recognizes all the controls of my application (we use 3rd party controls from infragistics ie netAdvantage controls for WPF)
It is very slow in recognizing the controls and even playback time is quite slow compared to QTP or Ranorex. I would recommend Ranorex over Test Automation Fx.
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
I am developing applications for 9 years now - meanly Java. Now am asked to participate in the SVT team for the next release. Overall this means installing complex system setups and running specific user scenarios on these setups as well as doing long runs and load runs.
Overall I am positive about it as I will learn something new. But I am also affraid to loose some grip and knowledge with programming, because of not doing it a lot then.
I know doing programming in side projects such as helping with open source projects will be one alternative, but finding the time on top of a familiy life and a fulltime jop is not that easy.
What do you think, is doing concrete testing work helping getting a better software engineer?
Thanks in advance,
Michael
Testing isn't asside of programming.
You can still program automated systems so you can have recursion testing. From unit tests to real complex automated systems, the best i know is selenium which generates code you can use to build testing scripts in most languages.
There are other tools for non webapps. But I personaly believe that testing is a bit far away from "stoping coding. Unless you're just doing user point-of-view testing.
You can also do error injections which will make you write small singletons to inject them in the memory of your application.
So you can code while testing ;) and learn new stuff also.
Having been in a testing team i think it really helps, because you'll learn to exploit code easily, which will reflect when you build your own API or App at a later date.
I would say it depends on your skill and temparament. Programming knowledge will serve you well while testing. At the same time, I know that it needs a different approach and mindset and is on a completely different career track. You can always keep up your programming skills by writing code for a project you like (even if you have to make one up).
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!