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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Is it a good practice to go the PageFactory way when writing testcases in Selenium2? If yes why?
To be frank I have never used them when writing test-cases and have not missed it either. But I would to know what are the advantages of using PageFactory over not using it.
From my point of view the advantages are on the one hand, all the ids and xpaths at only one place in code, on the other hand the abstraction layer between the implementation an the test itself.
This will allow non- programmers to test the websites what's useful for me, because some people know exactly what the workflows are and which functionality is the most important but are not part of the development teams or engineers at all.
Last but not least, the PageFactory term is quite useful.
Based on these reasons we decided to switch from over 500 Selenium 1 testcases to Selenium 2 with PageObjects. And try to compensate the effort of creating POs, which will surely exceed the effort for std test executions, by increased maintainability, usability and scalability
Related
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 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Are there any added advantages to using Cypress instead of TestCafe? while comparing usages with developer friendliness, are there any added advantages using Cypress.io
This is difficult to answer, especially when you don't provide us with any insight into your context. These are not identical products, they might be suitable for slightly different use cases.
I can tell you my personal opinion of the two, but that might not apply to your situatio(s), so I just recommend reading documentation:
https://docs.cypress.io/guides/overview/why-cypress.html
https://devexpress.github.io/testcafe/
and trying the products on some real projects.
Some areas to consider:
what you want to automate
who needs to maintain the tests - how well people know JavaScript, Cypress, in my opinion, requires more knowledge in this area which seems to bring a lot of trouble to many people
reading carefully trade-offs and best practices in Cypress - if you don't already follow many of these practices, you might find it really hard to completely switch to Cypress
documentation support - this is exceptional in Cypress, really good docs online, with tons of examples, you rarely see this with other technologies
both products have some additional paid features, have a look on what you need to use
integrations with other services - CI, browserstack and the like
etc.
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 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Deep-learning is applied to play game in some projects, so it should make sense to apply it for UI test automation. Any comments on this idea?
In large software, it is really hard and time taking to test out all possible scenarios via traditional approach. So, building a machine learning model to do this is a neat idea. The end goal for such a system would be to crash to make the software unresponsive.
There is research being done on this idea. You should take a look at this research paper which explores Reinforcement Learning as an approach to automated GUI robustness testing. Reinforcement Learning is also one of the approaches used in teaching computers to play games.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
So, I working on a problem at my workplace, that is a big company with a serious CNC shopfloor. Here I thought I could make the life much easier with a little software. I have the conception, I put a lot of work in it together with my helpful friends and here is the point, when I suppose to explain it to my leaders.
The problem is, I've never made anything like this before. So I don't know the way. I should use UML-diagrams and use cases, class diagrams etc? Or which is a preferred way?
Out of the management perspective you could explain why your programm is efficient and required to optimise the workflow. Creating a presentation could help you make the idea of the application clear and bring it in a form which is understandable.
If I were you I will go in priorities for activities diagram. You create an activity diagram of the old flow and another with the new flow. You show both to your manager and you compare them. Normally your program will minimise steps inside the new flow. Then you can say that with less steps to manage there will be more money to earn for your manager and you at the end :)
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
A rather complicated library/subsystem has to be integration tested and smoke tested, and for that purpose we need to develop a non-trivial test fixture/runner.
The details are not important, but assume that the test fixture we need will be generating complicated, interacting, state-dependent input test vectors, and will be looking for complex result sequences.
The test fixture itself will require some significant development effort (though less effort than the subsystem itself). The question is:
Should this non-trivial test fixture be included in the project plan as a part of the iterations?
Should a set of user stories be created for this test fixture?
If so, how would the user stories be structured? And who would be the actors here: the test engineer running the tests, the subsystem, or the fixture itself?
If your 'non-trivial test fixture/runner' is estimated to take more than a day to be implemented, it's work that should be tracked proper and should go into your backlog.
If you think it may take a week or longer, then I'd do a prototype first.
Probably the 'non-trivial test fixture/runner' doesn't bring any business value itself. I'd assume you're addressing technical dept. Writing user stories for technical tasks/ dept feels always wrong to me. Put them as technical tasks in your backlog.
You should know your business and your actors.
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
CRC cards are known as one of the simple, intuitive method
to simulate your system before creating it.
Many people praises its goodness with a few of criticism
but I could not find well, solid examples about its actual usage
or good case studies.
YouTube only provides two direct examples how CRC methods
are used - both of them are played in not american, even the
creators of the method are two great american ^^.
How funny?
So here I want to know how many people actually uses CRC in design session?
Is it still valid or great? Is it worth to investigate, practice and put in many hours?
My guess is that this is largely replaced by UML. Never heard of anyone using CRC, but then again I'm more in the web than corporate development..