HttpUnit vs. SilkTest
This question is for HttpUnit users. Can this "0" cost tool ever be a substitution for any existing tools such as Winrunner, SilkTest,etc.? What is that HttpUnit can not cover to compare with 'browser' tools?
Any response is greatly appreciated.
Re: HttpUnit vs. SilkTest
I haven't 'used' the http directly. I've read the docs and ended up sticking with perl's lwp for various reasons.
Anyhow, these tools require complete different mentality. Silk, Mercury and others are GUI drivers. They can control the browser. But when you really want to test various situations beyond the GUI, you need something that can manipulate at the lower level.
1. Header manipulation.
2. Cookie manipulation
4. Post/Put, various content type
5. Tracing capabilities and other things that browsers mask and hides from the users.
If the above things interest you, then http unit is what you want. In fact, in many cases, httpunit will do what you need. Now, it won't do (actually silk and those guys don't necessarily do anything more then what http validation would do) GUI type of validation that some of these pieces would do. Also, it requires understanding of http protocol beyond most people comprehend, such as 401, mime64 encoding and so forth. I do testing for network security company and do hundreds of tests that were not covered because others were using 'silk' and claimed it was 'impossible' to test certain things.
So think about this and see if this is the thing you want to do.