Is anyone successfully using a code coverage tool integrated with QTP and/or Quality Center?
I'm looking for a tool to purchase next fiscal year that will effectively give coverage of automation testing on the business object level that will integrate well with MQC and QTP. Any suggestions and experiences would be greatly appreciated.
Not sure about QTP/MQC, but have done this with Rational Pure coverage and Rational Robot. Never tried instrumenting application with pure coverage and executing with QTP.. though I have tried this with Rational Robot and it worked.
I haven't tried the combination you describe, but investigated the use of several code coverage tools with various outcomes. Most of the time there were problems creating the instrumented build due to the use of static linking. Of the few that did build, I found that the applications ran like an absolute dog. Automation was painful and invariably timed out. Manual tests would have been quicker.
Whatever you use - evaluate it thoroughly, but first decide whether you really need a Code Coverage tool. Just remember, there isn't enough hours in a lifetime to test every line of code in each combination of use. I find that targeted testing based on risk works for me.
If you had to identify, in one word, the reason
why the human race has not achieved, and never
will achieve, its full potential that word would be "meetings".
I use AutomatedQA's AQTime in conjunction with TestComplete for various profiling tasks, including coverage, that need to be run with automation. I use it with Visual C++ apps. The time overhead for running my app with code coverage is about a factor of 3-4 slower. AQTime instruments the .EXE file such that you don't have to create and a seperate instrumented build. I find this makes it way easier to use for most tasks. The downside is that you need debug info (e.g. a .PDB file), and you will probably want to disable compiler optimisations.
I've also run Compuwares TrueTime under TestComplete, which does require a seperate instrumented build, but IMO gives slightly better results.
IMO, uou should be able use most coverage tools under most automation packages given you can instrument your AUT, and you have adequate system resources to run your AUT, coverage tool, and automation tool at the same time.