I work for a company that is looking to increase our scope of automated testing.
I am doing research into different possibilities for automating our testcases and find myself asking an interesting question:
Is there a major difference, or serious loss in functionality of writing scripts using a tool such as WinBatch as opposed to using a tool dedicated to testing. I know that using WinBatch I can write a script that would execute the software, record all I needed recorded (and more) and be able to produce consistent results. Will this hinder my ability to catch as much during testing?
I am just wondering, as I am going to have to propose a recommendation to management, and will have to justify the distance in cost from a $99 scripting tool to a much more expensive test suite.
[i]By calling me a raven, or thinking me one, you allowed me existence - which is the sum of what one can request of his fellowbeings.</I] --Mr. Raven in Lilith
If you search through QAForums, you'll find that others have pondered the same question and decided that general automation tools can provide most of the benefits of a test automation tool at much less cost.
I haven't used WinBatch for a while now, but I do use WinTask every day for test automation.
In general, the non-test automation tools do a very good job at execution, but not as good a job at verification.
That said, a robust automation tool like WinBatch or WinTask, with a robust scripting language, can permit the scripter to add a pretty good library of verification code.
If I had a big enough budget, and had the right mix of abilities on my QA team, I'd opt for a full-fledged test automation tool.
But, short of that, I've found I can be quite happy using general automation tools.