Ready API automation framework [closed] - api

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
This might sound a very vague question, but I am hoping to get some insight from all of you who can throw some ideas so that I can move in the right direction. I have ReadyAPI license and want to develop an automation framework around it. I can of course add assertions and create tests and everything within the tool, but I am wondering if there is a way I can build keyword or data driven framework around it so that I can have reusability, ease of use, adding assertions on the fly, execution via excel, or even adding assertions via excel (not sure). I am not sure if that's going to make creation of tests even more complex. Please provide your valuable inputs!

If you already have Ready API! then you probably don't need anything else. The licence is not cheap, so you'd have to consider if you really want to spend more money buying something from Mindtree. And, looking at their list of dependencies, there's always the danger of getting bogged down in the tooling and making them work together rather than doing actual work.
Why not start small and simple by doing some data-driven test cases using Excel or even a database as your source? I've used Excel to drive test cases and to populate assertions and not encountered any problems. For any customised behaviours, there's always Groovy to help. Then, once you've maxed out the capabilities of Ready API! look at something else.

Related

How to decide which type of testing(Manual or automation) required when we get new web application? [closed]

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 3 years ago.
Improve this question
How to decide which type of testing(Manual or automation) required for a project or application to test?
What are the parameters we have to consider to select which type of testing(Manual or automation) to test very new application?
It depends on :-
Size of the project- If the project is large and consist of so many functionalities then automation testing is suggested
How many times you want to test a particular feature- If the requirement is to test regularly then automation test is best
Font size and image- This can not be tested through any automation tool so to test this, one should need to do manual testing
To find bugs- If one needs to find a lot of bugs, Manual testing is suggested.
You shouldn't have to choose between automation testing and manual testing the way you're asking. The way you're asking it gives me the feeling that the product is already waiting to be tested. In this case you would need to resort to manual testing.
Ideally you would want to have both and even more of automation. Some of the questions that you need to ask are:
Is this a new project or an existing one? If it's a new project then it's easier to plan for automation from the start. You could start implementing automation tests from the start. If it's an existing project then you'll need time to set up automation + write scripts etc. Then you have to resort to manual testing initially.
Is there any existing team? If yes, then what are they doing. You need to continue the process instead of suddenly disrupting it for anyone.
How much resources (money+people) do you have? Do you have manual testing resources? Are they busy or do they have bandwidth? How many automation test resources do you have?
What kind of project is it? Who does it go to? Does it have human lives depending upon it? Does it need a legal certificate of some kind for being tested?
There's just too many questions based on how your question is currently stated. I hope that this answers your question when we consider it generally. But if you're looking for a particular answer then please consider adding more context.

Approaches to testing negative scenarios in Go [closed]

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 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm wondering if there's an accepted/idiomatic way of testing an unexpected behavior when working with external systems (such as databases). These are mostly cases within "if err != nil {...}", when normally the error just doesn't happen and you don't control it through the inputs.
One "right" way of doing that is probably defining an interface and a mock structure that would return error when you need it. But if I already have a significant amount of code that doesn't work with interfaces, bringing them just for the sake of testing a couple of scenarios seems tiresome.
So does anyone know and use different approaches? For example, in dynamic languages such as php and js a function/method behavior can be easily overridden with a mocking library or even manually, which is quite useful when writing tests.
Using interfaces and custom / mocked implementations for testing is the way to do this. If you want to test most of your code, it is worth making the switch now. If you don't want to test most of your code just a tiny part of it, then what's the point of even bothering with the test? They won't ensure you of anything, on the contrary, they will give you the–false–illusion that "everything" is fine.
If you don't want to use and mock interfaces, another way would be to mock the database server itself, but let's face it, it would be even more work.
Just use interfaces. It's never too late to refactor. It is something always worth doing on the long run.
Also note that you can do this "switch" gradually. Just create an interface that contains the functionality used by the code you want to test. You don't need to "touch" the rest of your code. Change the testable code to use the interface, which then you can mock in your tests. This is easy in Go.

What is the dif between Software testing and Software inspection? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
So I've read some reports about both of these methods but I can't really grasp the dif between the two.
If anyone could sum it up for me or try to explain it I'd be ever so grateful!
BR, Fredrik
Similar to a car. If you test it, you usually drive it around or at least turn it on. If you inspect it usually you check fluids, maybe pull a spark plug, connect it to a computer and check its settings, fiddle with buttons and switches to make sure there is connectivity. During an inspection you may test the vehicle, but during a test you do not always inspect the vehicle.
Software testing is useful because it allows for a mock up of a production environment to be used in order to see if there are bugs, or errors which either throw exceptions or cause logical errors such as making relationships out of state.
Software inspection is more involved. It can involve testing, but can also involve doing code review to make sure that efficient process is used, and that the readability and maintainability is proper. It helps to make sure that features are properly decoupled, the program is running as fast as possible, and that nothing is going on behind the scenes which is undesirable.

Optimal amount of Automation rework [closed]

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 5 years ago.
Improve this question
During the development cycle of a feature, the feature is constantly changing, even after the point where the it meets all requirements (UI improvements, etc...). If you have automated tests for that feature, these changes can break your automation and you will have to rework it. If the feature keeps changing though, it does not make sense to rework automation after every revision. At some point, however, you have to automate it so you can do regression testing. How can we find the optimal time to rework automation? How do we get the optimal amount? My team agreed that we over-reworked the automation of one of our features. One example of a mistake we made was to rework automation right before a conference where we showed the feature off to customers to get customer feedback. We should have known that customer feedback would result in more changes to the feature. Functional testing should have been enough in that case.
Does anyone have any tips or experiences to share?
The general tip would be to come to a consensus on what "done" means for the feature before you you start building it.
If during the build you come across some new tweaks that you'd like to add to improve the feature (or whatever) don't add them to the existing story - write a new one... and make sure that you prioritise it against the other things that you need to be doing.
This is also sometimes, but not always, a sign that you're working with increments of functionality that are too large. Try splitting and thinning the stories further until you can write down some quite concrete definitions of "done" for the feature. Consider automating those tests of "done" before you start building (but don't go overboard).
You might find the Specification By Example book of use.
According to my experience is that the feature you've been developing is not understood by the customers yet, fully.
Separate the feature into small parts like #adrianh suggested.
One more tip for the instable customers: Let them first see the pseudo prototype at first hand, even maybe in the planning meeting (code it directly to html or something easier something like a prototyping/diagramming tool). Let them play with it. This way, you will have an easier time with your features.

How difficult would it be to build a Chat/IM Client for an office network? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
First and foremost, I would like to say I am very, /very/ new to programming and the like. If I decide to build this, this would probably be my first "large" project i've ever done myself.
What I am looking to build is a very simple Chat/IM client to use for the users in our office network. It would just call us their Windows logon name and use that to IM and the like. I'm talking a very simple client, with a list of names of people who are logged into the network, and option to IM them and an option to do a multiple user chat. It doesn't have to be visually stunning.
How difficult would this honestly be? Is it possible for me, someone who has very little knowledge when it comes to programming to teach myself how to build it?
If not, can you explain why this would be very difficult and what already built clients would work well for what I am using?
This is a big application. Your first parts will suck and refactoring it later will suck even more. I suggest building something small in the first place and then step from one bigger project to another.
XMPP/Jabber is IMHO the best solution for office IM. Most clients like Pidgin, Adium etc can connect to it. Every bigger company I worked for in the last years used it. Take a look at Openfire - A free open source XMPP server that you can directly connect on and which is easy to set up: http://www.igniterealtime.org/projects/openfire/