LeanUFT (12.5) with SELENIUM - anyone using it?
Anyone using this combo? Or even using UFT 12.5 alone?
We've been using 3 year old PCs with 8 GB RAM for QTP and it worked pretty well. Since switching over to UFT, we keep getting performance issues. UFT crashing, getting "low on resources" messages, and other issues. Not acceptable, but we can get it to work.
So we got a new PC a month ago. This bad boy is twice as big in physical size, cost a lot more and has 16 GB RAM. Installed 12.5... thing still crashes when running UFT scripts. Still getting low resources" error message. Clicking the file tabs just to view the function files is sooooo ... S L O W ... This is worse than with the older PCs with older UFT versions.
What have your experiences been like?
I am not using that combo.
Currently using UFT on windows7/8GB RAM , but didnt see the scripts crashing.
Not sure if there are any specific patches required - check once based on your system config
Hi Peter...Perhaps give UFT 12.02 with patches a try. It crashes a few times a day when F10 and F11 are used for stepping through code especially if there are variable watches in the watch window.
When in Florida, Don't Tampa with the code. I made this up.
I've got LeanFT12.51 (the new point release that actually works in Win10 and Eclipse Mars!) on an i7 with 8GB ram.
I got my first and only 'low resources' message when running with Mobile Center.
My MC server is a very old slow CentOS box with a slow NIC... I have to assume that LeanFT struggled with the connection.
LeanFT21.51 against Chrome has been running fine for days.
I haven't added Selenium into the mix - what would Selenium add over LeanFT?
... just another Tester ...
HP is going to have a desktop sharing session with me tomorrow to figure this out. They didn't mention a patch for 12.5, but did say there there is a newer version 12.51 that we might try.
A while ago we have upgraded to 12.02 with patches on most of our QA Automation Lab PCs. Even there, performance is poor. We got the new PC with 16GB RAM to see if that helps out, and since we wanted to try out LeanFT we decided to install it on that PC.
Just a FYI if anyone wants to try out 12.5+
If a trial or purchased license was ever used on a PC, then a trial cannot be used again on that PC. Now this new PC never had UFT/QTP installed. So we are able to use this UFT as a trial version. If v12.5 is going to be used with a purchased license, you must install a new license manager. The new manager will Not work with older UFT versions.
Originally Posted by a.irvine
HP told me about 12.51 today, so we might try it tomorrow. Hmm, we have no plans to test mobile. Glad it's working good for you on Chrome.
I think the reason for our slow performance is due to having so much code associated to our tests. But that wasn't much of an issue with QTP. It's not the execution that is slow, but rather doing things like typing into the editor and opening any files. And only when we got to UFT did it start crashing when doing these tasks as well as during execution.
Using free open source Selenium would be more cost effective. LeanFT licenses cost less than full UFT licenses. From what HP states in their website, I can use UFT features that are not as robust in Selenium (such as Object Spy/Repository/Identification features). Plus use the Add-in Manager to use, for example, the .NET add-in. Selenium by itself only works with Web apps, so it would work with our .NET thick client. Selenium uses C# language so we can version our code in Microsoft's Visual Studio (we are a Microsoft shop) and do all the great stuff that is supposedly in VS.
I'm not a selenium expert but my understanding is that LeanFT can do all the things Selenium can do, while also giving you a decent object spy (with object description code generator [I find this pretty useful]) and the ability to test desktop, WPF, Mobile, SAP...
granted it's not FOSS, but to some extent you get what you pay for.
Since you're a MS shop and would be using LeanFT C# in VS you'll also get access to the Object Models functionality that will make it much easier for you to write and maintain your LeanFT scripts (more like QTP/UFT).
I can't do that - Object Models aren't available in Eclipse.
...Have you tried the Microsoft CodedUI tests?
Reading through your original post, can you clarify please - are you using UFT or LeanFT? they are almost completely different products.
From a price perspective, have you considered getting your UFT licenses via HP SaaS? in my region they are typically similar to the Support and Maintenance cost of a perpetual licenses, but without the initial buy price.
... just another Tester ...
True, even I think LeanFT can do all those which selenium can do and anyways we have our QTP advantages of OR, SPY, ACTIONS etc.,
All that was lagging in QTP was the java support - where we can get diff api's to support or any custom controls build by our dev.
Selenium can run headless and use remote executing agents to offload the browsers to 3rd party clouds like Sauce Labs. Selenium is still my framework of choice when implementing distributed cross browser testing. You also have the option with PhantomJS Ghostdriver to run tests much faster in headless fashion. This is commonly done to speed-up feedback during smoke tests in CI heavy environments.
Originally Posted by VijayChander
Of course that said. These days I'm not a big supporter of large monolithic projects. I would keep a LeanFT project and Selenium project separate to keep the project size smaller and easier to manage. In places where they need to interact, I'd put stubs or mock services in place so application pieces can be tested in isolation from web pieces.
Here are some reasons why I think this way,
* Web and Native have different platform variances, one that varies more by browser (IE vs Chrome), and one that varies more by platform (32 bit windows vs 64bit windows server).
* Web tests are easier to deploy and run in the cloud with some basic tunneling setup, native applications need to be deployed to the machine it needs to run on (and that machine will need a license to run the automation tools)
* Beyond business, data objects, and framework, you'll rarely share code between your web and native application tests. (For framework code, I recommend splitting that off into a 3rd project that outputs a reusable library, this makes it easier to reuse, develop on quickly on framework separately from automation projects, and reduce build times by not recompiling the framework code on each automation project build)
* Different licensing requirements. Where Selenium tests can be easily deployed on bare VMs, licensed tools tend to use a shared pool of machines with the proper licenses.
Let me clarify.
Originally Posted by a.irvine
Right now we are using UFT.
But, we want to see if using Selenium would work out better for us because:
1 - Cost less.
2 - Hoping switching over to Selenium will solve the "low resource" and Slowness in UFT.
We would use Selenium with Visual Studio, not Eclipse.
UFT now comes with LeanFT at no extra charge. Or at a much lower cost you can purchase LeanFT by itself (so I could dump the expensive full license)
LeanFT has features that you can use together with Selenium.
These features (or tools) are and were specifically designed to work with Selenium - you do Not use these exact features when doing UFT automation (instead you use similar features).
LeanFT has features that Selenium does not have.
LeanFT has similar features that Selenium has, but the LeanFT features work better.
I never used Selenium, so I do not know what features are additional features, and which ones are similar features.
I do know that the LeanFT Object Repository and Spy that can be used with Selenium is better than what comes with Selenium (if it all comes with it).
These better tools would allow users to create their Selenium scripts much more like they do with UFT, which hopefully means at a faster rate and with more reliable code.
Our Automation team tried using CodedUI but that was a disaster. The tool did not recognize objects well, sync was real bad, some AUTs crashed CUI right after the execution logged into the system, CUI's spy tool worked very slow to show object properties...the list went on and on.