I am facing some difficulties in understanding test harness and related common terms like test case, test scripts in automation testing.
So this is what I got so far:
Automation testing is the use of a special software (other than the software being tested) to control the execution of tests and compare the actual results with the expected results. It also involves the setting up of test pre-conditions. This kind of testing is most suitable for tests that are frequently carried out.
Now, I am having some problems with test harness. I read that it consists of a test suite of test cases, input files, output files, and test scripts.
Now my question is what is the difference between test case and test script?
How do you use the software to test the different functions of the Acceptance Unit Testing (AUT)? I also came across some terms like suite master and case agents.
Several broad questions there, will try to answer based on my experience.
Think of a Test Harness as an 'enabler' that actually does all the work of (1)executing tests using a (2)test library and (3)generating reports. It would require that your test scripts are designed to handle different (4)test data and (5)test scenarios. Essentially, when the test harness is in place and prerequisite data is prepared (aka data prep) someone should be able to click a button or run one command to execute all your tests and generate reports.
A test harness is most likely a collection of different things that make all of the above happen. If you wrote unit tests while developing your application, that would be part of a test harness. You would also have other tests for the functionality of your app, like: user logs in to site, sees favourites pane, recent messages and notifications. Then you add in a 'runner' of sorts that goes through all of your "test scripts" and runs them (instead of you having to execute tests one at a time). If it feels like a test harness is more of a conceptual collection rather than a single piece of software, then you're understanding this correctly :-)
Now my question is what is the difference between test case and test script?
Simple but not entirely correct answer: A Test Case defines test objectives, description, pre-conditions, steps (descriptive or specific), expected results. A Test Script would then be the actual automated script that you execute to do that test. That's in an Automation context. And it changes. A lot.
What certifications like ISTQB define as test scenarios is usually referred to as test cases in some companies and countries. In others, test cases are flipped with test scripts when referring to manual testing (when the steps are given in detail but not part of an automation harness). Others say that test scripts exclusively mean automated tests. On the other hand, one can also argue that several test cases can be combined in a test script and vice-versa. So that begs the question, how does a test procedure fit in?
A test development stage can have: "Test procedures, test scenarios, test cases, test datasets, test scripts to use in testing software."
If you assume a > (is larger than/collection of) relation, how would you relate those? Rhetorical question - that differs based on where you work, who your client is, etc. Best thing is to define it with your colleagues/clients and agree on the understanding of the terms rather than the definition. I currently go with test script = automated script, based on a pre-existing manual test case or a test scenario.
Also, how do you use the software to test the different functions of the AUT?
You write different tests to test different things. Each test does certain actions and checks if the AUT's output matches what you expected - If displayed_value == expected_value. An input file could be used to provide data for the test- list of test usernames and passwords, for instance. Or run the same test with different data - login as a different user with different messages, etc.
Take a look at RobotFramework and the Selenium. A robot framework test (written in text or html files) combined with the Selenium library would allow you to write an automated test which tests something specific...like a home page validation. You would write a separate test to ensure that a user can see all his/her messages. Another to test clearing notifications. And so on.
test harness: A test environment comprised of stubs and drivers needed to execute a test.
Test harnesses and stubs will be used to replicate the missing items (components not yet included in the tests or external systems).
Often, when small-scale Integration Testing of several modules or components is performed, it is necessary to devise or improvise methods and tools to get the test data to the components under test. This is often called a test harness. Because of the need to understand the technicalities required to build a test harness this testing is almost always done by the development team.
A test harness may facilitate the testing of components or part of a system by simulating the environment in which that test object will run. This may be done either because other components of that environment are not yet available and are replaced by stubs and/or drivers, or simply to provide a predictable and controllable environment in which any faults can be localized to the object under test. These are usually bespoke programs generated by developers to help in the testing process. If they are used in a mature organisation it is quite possible that these harnesses will be considered as ‘Test Assets’ and subject to Version Control & Configuration Management.
Test harnesses contains all the information required to compile and run a test. This includes, test cases, source files under test, stubs, and Target Deployment Port (TDP) configuration settings.
A Test Harness is the collection of all the items needed to test software at the unit, module, application or system level and provides the mechanism to execute the test. Every item such as input data, test parameters, test case, test script, expected output data, test tool, and test result report is part of the test harness.
Related
We are embarking on the delivery of a large D365 ERP. As Test Manager I'll be creating some tests with normal Pass/Fail criteria which can be easily reported on. The bulk of the testing will be done by our project SMEs & other business users. For some of the larger modules we could have up to 20 people executing test scenarios. Rather than them having to test using Excel I'd like them to use the Test & Feedback extension and create Exploratory Tests when they test a feature/business scenario.
When they are using the extension they will be linking back to the parent item in the Test Suite (either a PBI or a Test Case). These Exploratory Tests then display as 'Related' to the item in the Test Suite. So that the project can fully understand the required test effort I'd like to get Exploratory Tests added to the Test Suites, and subsequently reported on the Dashboard.
I've gotten stuck with the last part and am wondering if anyone on here can help with some answers/advice for the following:
Is there a way for a Test Suite to update dynamically (or otherwise) when Exploratory Tests are linked to items in the Test Suite? There doesn't appear to be a way to rerun a query to add items to an existing Test Suite (I can go and recreate the Test Suite using a Query and get the items in, but I lose the test results for other items in the suite)
Is anyone aware of a widget that will allow me to report on Exploratory Tests?
Is there a way for a Test Suite to update dynamically (or otherwise)
when Exploratory Tests are linked to items in the Test Suite?
For this issue, when you create a test suite ,there are three types to choose from : static test suites, requirement-based suites, and query-based suites. I think query-based suites could meet your need.
What are query-based test suites :
Use a query to group together test cases that have a particular characteristic, for example, all tests that have Priority=1. The suite will automatically include every test case that is returned by the query that you define.
Is anyone aware of a widget that will allow me to report on
Exploratory Tests?
Regarding the second question,AFAIK,there is currently no such widget.Widgets are implemented as a contribution point in the extension framework. You can try to build a custom widget extension to achieve this feature.
I am working in automation in selenium with java and testng.I have completed all my test scripts but i don't have practical experience of working in Selenium in IT industry.
My question is how the test scripts run after completing test scripts for a specific project for regression?
1.Using Eclipse(any IDE) on regular basis or
2.Making any jar file to run on regular basis or
3.Any other means
Please let me know what happens according to company point of view.
It really depends on companies point of view. From my work practice - we had been doing regression via selenium (Eclipse IDE), but again if the company practices continuous integration system, mostly the test must be ran by a machine, so probably then it's better to use jar which would return test results to some kind of file.
Different companies follow different approach while doing regression testing, when using automated scripts. There is not set standards or a SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for this. The higher level of hierarchy in the testing department (test lead etc.) has to decide, which practise will have a maximum ROI while following a specific practise.
For example, in my current organisation, I have been running a CI system, using Jenkins, which runs all the automation scripts, at a specified time on the day the regression is supposed to begin - or we trigger it and the CI takes care of the rest.
In my previous organisation, for regression purposes, we have had a dedicated system, where we would copy all the scripts, make all the necessary updates/system changes and then trigger the scripts to have the tests run.
I believe not many big companies would follow the practise of having their regression tests run individually via Eclipse IDE, since for a whole sprint (or for a whole project), there would be hundreds of test cases, involving a lot of scripts, and running them via Eclipse, would make them pretty boring and time consuming as well. Plus every single test script run would generate a separate report, which would be too complex to store and debug in case of any failure.
However, as I said, this depends entirely on how the company sees the ROI and effort to be made for this.
In modern programming workflow numerous testing frameworks are used at once. For example, in PHP world, it is de-facto standard way to use unit tests, integration tests and functional/acceptance tests at once. Most of the time different frameworks are used for different test type. I am using combination of PHPSpec for unit, PHPunit for integration and CodeCeption for functional tests.
Is it possible to aggregate code coverage results that each of these frameworks return? Is there any tool that aggregates code coverage reports from different frameworks?
Or it is only possible to view individual results for each framework while they are incorrect because each code coverage report doesn't take into account other tests.
It is actually quite simple to perfrom this task. All your frameworks rely on the same library to generate the code coverage.
As you can see the generator in sebastianbergmann/php-code-coverage already supports a merge function (line 335) to merge different aggregates. Since you are part of a team using tests I assume it will be easy for you to change the test execution layer slightly to gather the code coverage in a single php process and just merge em.
There is a tool for this: phpcov. It allows to merge many coverage files with merge option:
$ parallel --gnu ::: \
'phpunit --coverage-php /tmp/coverage/FooTest.cov tests/FooTest' \
'phpunit --coverage-php /tmp/coverage/BarTest.cov tests/BarTest'
$ phpcov merge /tmp/coverage --clover /tmp/clover.xml
phpcov 2.0.0 by Sebastian Bergmann.
Generating code coverage report in Clover XML format ... done
I think we are on same boat. How we can tell how much we have converge using this all different testing tool. We start discuss with team and decide to go for
SonarSource. - For PHP Plugin and Live demo
PHP Report Stlyle - I advice you to visit live demo. It will help more.
It is very robust tool. It give us all inside of code.
The PHP Test Coverage Tool from Semantic Designs (my company) collects and combines test coverage from any
framework
test set
individual test
even ad hoc manual tests.
After running some set of tests, our tool is can be easily triggered to dump test coverage vectors to a file; you need to modify the framework slightly to invoke
TCVDump();
when the framework completes, or you can invoke a TCVDDump() by touching an easily found, special web page added by the test coverage tool. Each such call produces a time-stamped or user-named file (e.g, after the framework or test set) so they are easily distinguished
The graphical test coverage display included as part of the tool will interactively select and merge small or large sets of such files to produce a coherent whole, both display and summary. It will also compare test coverage vectors to enable one to decide if coverage from one test set include/intersects another, etc.
The test coverage display component will also export text or XML/HTML summaries of the coverage results.
You can even run tests on different subsystems and combine them. This test coverage tool is part of larger family of tools for many languages other than PHP; tests run on a multilingual application system can also be combined to provide an overview of coverage for the multilingual application.
We are switching from a classic 'Waterfall' model into more Agile-orient philosophy. We decided to give BDD a try (Cucumber), but we have some issues with migrating some of our 'old' methodologies. The biggest question mark is how manual tests integrates into the cycle.
Let's say the Project Manager defined the Feature and some basic Scenario Outlines. With the test team, we defined around 40 Scenarios for this feature. Some are not possible to automatically test, which means they will have to be tested manually. Execute manual testing when all you have is the feature file, feels wrong. We want to be able to see past failure rate of tests for example. Most of the Test-Cases managers support such features, but they can't work with Feature files. Maintaining the Manual Testcases in external Test-Case manager, will cause never-ending updating issues between the Feature file and the Test-Case manager.
I'm interested to hear if anyone is able to cover this 'mid-ground' and how.
This is not a very unusual case. Even in Agile it may not be possible to automate every scenario. The scrum teams I am working with usually tag them as #manual scenario in the feature file. We have configured our automation suite (Cucumber - Ruby) to ignore these tags while running nightly jobs. One problem with this is, as you have mentioned, we won't know what was the outcome of manual tests as the testers document the results locally.
My suggestion for this was to document the results of each iteration in a YML or any other file format that suits the purpose. This file should be part of the automation suite and should be checked in the repository. So to start with you have results documented along with the automation suite. Later when you have the resource and time, you can add a functionality to your automation suite to read this file and generate a report either with other automation results or separately. Until then your version control should help you to track all previous results.
Hope this helps.
To add to #Eswar's answer, if you're using Cucumber (or one of it's siblings), one option would be to execute the test runner manually and include prompts for the tester to check certain aspects. They then pass/fail the test according to their judgement.
This is often useful for aesthetic aspects e.g. cross-browser rendering, element alignment, correct images used, etc.
As #Eswar mentioned, you can exclude these tests from your automated runs by tagging them.
See this article for an example.
Test cases that cannot be automated are a poor fit for a cucumber test. We have a bunch of these edge cases. It is nigh impossible to get Selenium to verify PDF documents well. Same thing for CSV downloads (not impossible, but not worth the effort). Look and feel tests simply require human eyes at this point. Accessibility testing with screen readers is best done manually as well.
For that, be sure to record the acceptance criteria in the user story in whichever tool you use to track work items. Write a manual test case. The likes of Azure DevOps, Jira, IBM Rational Team Concert and their ilk have ways to record manual test plans, link them to stories, and record the results of executing a manual test.
I would remove the manual test cases from the cucumber tests, and rely on the acceptance criteria for the story, and link the story to some sort of manual test case, be it in a tool or a spreadsheet.
Sometimes you just need to compromise.
We use Azure DevOps with Test Plans + some custom code to synchronize cucumber tests to ADO. I can describe how we’ve realized it in our projects:
We start with the cucumber file first. Each User Story has its own Feature file. The scenarios in the Feature are the acceptance criteria for the story. We end up with lots of Feature files, so we use naming conventions and folders to organize them.
We annotate the top of the Feature file with a tag to the User Story, eg #Story-1234
We‘ve written a command line utility that reads the cucumber files with these tags. It then fetches all the Test Suites in the Test Plan that are linked to Stories. In ADO, a story can only be linked to a single test suite. If a Test Suite doesn’t exist for that Story, our tool creates one.
For each Scenario, the tool creates a an ADO Test Case and then annotates the Scenario with the Test Case ID. This creates amazing traceability for each User Story as the related Test Cases are automatically linked to the Story in the Azure DevOps UI
Although we don’t do this, we could populate the TestCase with the step definitions from our cucumber Scenario. It’s a basic XML structure that describes the steps to take. This would be useful if we wanted to manually execute the test case using the Azure DevOps Test Case UI. Since we focus primarily on automation, we rely on the steps in our Feature files and our ADO Test Cases end up being symbolic links back to cucumber Scenarios.
Because our cucumber tests are written in C# (SpecFlow), we can get the full class name and method for the cucumber test code. Our tool is able to update the Azure DevOps Test Case with the automation details.
Any test case that isn’t ready for automation or must be done manually, we annotate the Scenario with a #ignore or #manual tag.
Using Azure DevOps Pipelines, we use the Visual Studio Test task to run our tests. The important point here is we execute the Test Plan option. This option fetches the Test Cases in the Test Plan that have automation and then executes the specific cucumber tests. The out-of-the-box functionally updates the Test Case statuses with the test results.
After running through automation, we use the Test Plan Report in Azure DevOps which shows the Test Case execution status over time and can distinguish between test automated and manual test cases.
We execute any remaining manual test cases to complete the Test Plan
For us, we often found that the manual cases that cannot be automated are exception cases, or cases that depend on external environment (for example malformed data, network connection not available, maintenance, first time guide...). These cases require special setup to simulate the environment when they happen.
Ideally, I believe it is possible to cover everything, given that you are prepared to go as far as you can to make it happen. But in reality, it is most often too much an effort needed that we prefer the hybrid approach of mixed manual-automatic test cases. We do, however, try to convert those exception cases over the time to automatic ones, by setting up separate environment to simulate exception cases and write automation tests against them.
Nevertheless, even with that effort, there would be cases when it's impossible to simulate, and I believe they should be covered by technical tests from engineers.
You could use an approach similar to the following example:
http://concordion.org/Example.html
When you use a build or continuous integration system to track your test runs, you could add simple specifications / tests for your manual cases that contain a text comparison (e.g. "pass" or "fail"). Then you would need to update the spec after each manual test run, check it in, and start the tests in your build / continuous Integration system. Then the manual results would be recorded together with the results of the automated test execution.
If you would use a tool like Concordion+ (https://code.google.com/p/concordion-plus/) you could even write a summary specification, which could contain scenarios for each of your manual tests. Each one would be reported as individual test result in your test execution environment.
Cheers
taking screen shots seems to be a good idea, you can still automate the verification but will need to go an extra mile. for instance when using Selenium you can add Sikuli(NB: u can't run headless test) to compare results (images) or take a screenshot with Robot (java.awt) use OCR to read text and assert or verify(TestNG)
Where i am working we have the following issue:
Our current test procedure is that our business analyst test the release based on their specifications/tests. If it passes these tests it is given to the quality dept where they test the new release and the entire system to check if something else was broken.
Just to mention that we outsource our development. Unfortunately the release given to us is rarely tested by the developers and thats "the relationship" we have with them these last 7 years....
As a result if the patch/release fails the tests at the functionality testing level or at the quality level with each patch given we need to test the whole thing again not just the release.
Is there a way we can prevent this from happening?
You have two options:
Separate the code into independent modules so that a patch/change in one module only means you have to re-test that one module. However, due to dependencies this is effective only to a very limited degree.
Introduce automated tests so that re-testing is not as expensive. It takes some more work at fist, but will definitely pay off in your scenario. You don't have to do unit test or TDD - integration tests based on capture-replay tools are often easier to introduce in your scenario (established project with manual testing process).
Implement a continuous testing framework that you and the developers can access. Someething like CruiseControl.Net and NUnit to automate the functional tests.
Given access, they'll be able to see nightly tests on the build. Heck, they don't even need to test it themselves, your tests will be being run every night (or regularly), and they'll know straight away what faults they've caused, or fixed, if any.
Define a 'Quality SLA' - namely that all unit tests must pass, all new code must have a certain level of coverage, all new code must have a certain score in some static analysis checker.
Of course anything like this can be gamed, so have regular post release debriefs where you discuss areas of concern and put in place contingency to avoid it in future.
Implement GO server with Dashboard and handle with GO Agent GUI at your end.
http://www.thoughtworks-studios.com/forms/form/go/downloadlink text