SPONSORS:






User Tag List

Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
    Posts
    1,462
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Preferable way to run UFT scripts in ALM/QC - for someone with no UFT experience.

    Hello,

    If you have to ask someone, who has very little or no UFT experience (in short Manual Testers), to run your UFT automated scripts setup in ALM/QC, what would be the best way or preferable way?

    Show him/her how to execute the tests in ALM/QC (like the way the automators would do)
    or
    Execute the tests using a batch file in CMD prompt
    or
    ???

    Please share any example, if you have any.

    Thanks.
    Gilbert
    Last edited by Gilbert; 03-03-2017 at 09:23 AM. Reason: additional info

  2. #2
    SQA Knight
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Doesn't get much easier than pressing the run button in QC. I would prefer that over a command line run. Best to just have the whole execution automated itself and running nightly and then just have manual testers check any failed scenarios to determine if it was an application bug or an automation failure. If you're watching automation any time other than debugging you're doing it wrong.
    Last edited by NoUse4aName; 03-03-2017 at 12:44 PM.

  3. Thanks a.irvine thanked for this post
  4. #3
    SQA Knight bklabel1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Kew Gardens, United States
    Posts
    2,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Blog Entries
    1
    I agree with NoUse4aName.
    In a case where the user does not have ALM I would recommend running from a batch file that starts UFT.
    The script could create reports that the user can get to without having to open UFT.
    There is now a version of UFT that is only for running scripts. I have not tried using this but it may be a good way to make sure that the user does not have access to change the scripts.
    Thanks,
    Kevin
    When in Florida, Don't Tampa with the code. I made this up.

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    amsterdam
    Posts
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0
    1. I would teach my tester how to use templates in HP ALM/QC and ask them to attach screenshots to their templates (assuming its GUI)
    2. I would teach myself to have HP UFT function to follow the template names used by the testers
    3. teach more to my testers in testcases (build out of templates) to use shorthand specification(s) like click, check, snapshot as dataparameters which then
    a. easily can be interpreted for manual testing
    b. easily can be transformed for automated testing
    4. over time more communication on whats the input for automated testing (the more structure the quicker automating will go) and the specification of testcases will improve for manual and automated testing

    Starting scripts from testlab is probably easiest if testers already know hp alm/qc product.

    I start my scripts from a powershell and not from hp alm during creation/maintenance of the scripts

    see
    Powershell meets HP UFT

    and with the runtime it just becomes

    Code:
    $qtApp.Open "C:\GuiTest1"
    $qtApp.Test.Run Nothing, true, False

  6. #5
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
    Posts
    1,462
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Thank you guys for your suggestions.
    This is all for our offshore team in India. The automators there do the execution of the automated scripts. Manual testers refuse to run because they say it's too complicated for them. They know QC/ALM but not UFT.
    My suggestion is to create a very easy to follow step-by-step instructions full of screenshots and examples. Plus some hands-on Training of course. If they can't follow that, then that's another problem - why they got hired in QA in the first place? If tools like Camtasia Studio is available, that is even better for creating the instructions with voice/video that can be saved in different formats.

    Others are suggesting to create a new tool with much easier GUI than ALM/QC. I said "We paid lots of money for ALM/QC and will create something from scratch?".
    Still others suggested to use MS Excel for executing the automated tests. These people have very little idea on automation, I guess.

    So until now, no decision has been made after so many hours spent in meetings already and more coming. Wow!
    Last edited by Gilbert; 03-23-2017 at 09:13 AM. Reason: additional info...

  7. #6
    SQA Knight
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Yeah should be very easy to get offshore candidates familiar with ALM/QC(including running automated tests from it). Unless the existing ones have highly valuable product knowledge that is not in house I would definitely advocate to replace. No reason to train off shore folks on basic industry standard tooling. What are you paying for exactly then?

    The age of the "manual tester" is coming to an end. Most roles require automation experience as well where it is expected to do both while embedded in an agile development team.

  8. #7
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Doncaster, UK
    Posts
    5,834
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0
    I can't ever see manual testers disappearing, I think there will be a big move away from manual testing to automation, 85% auto / 15% manual perhaps but never 100%. Well not until they can replace the 'Mark One Eye Ball"

    Just my opinion but one I strongly believe.

    Mark Smith.

  9. #8
    SQA Knight
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0
    There will still be a need to manually test things absolutely. But that is becoming more often the side job of an automated tester rather than a job in itself.

  10. #9
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,268
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilbert View Post
    If you have to ask someone, who has very little or no UFT experience (in short Manual Testers), to run your UFT automated scripts setup in ALM/QC, what would be the best way or preferable way?
    The preferable way to run UFT scripts in this case is undoubtedly via ALM/QC. Manual testers are familiar with ALM/QC and I assume that they execute manual test cases from ALM/QC.

    Executing automated scripts is no different than this. Automated scripts are also executed from Test Lab. The only additional step here is to changing 'Automation Parameters' for the UFT scripts, assigning Testing Hosts and analyzing results. Guess this is very intuitive for them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gilbert View Post
    Manual testers refuse to run because they say it's too complicated for them. They know QC/ALM but not UFT.
    This is an interesting case and is very much similar to the issue I am facing & trying to solve. This usually points an underlying problem with the automation framework. At least that's the case with me.

    I suggest you take a closer look at the framework to understand how test scripts are setup and executed. In addition, look at how test results are generated and how easy is it to interpret results and analyze failures(i.e distinguish between technical failures and application failures). And most importantly, look at how Test Data is linked/consumed by the Test Scripts. Is it easy for Manual Testers to change/update test data for say each run or different test environments. This would help find answers for why manual testers see test execution as complicated.

    In my case, the Manual Testers would like to run the Test Scripts themselves but they can't because of framework issues. The framework is too complex & the design is bad, that you can't run a script by clicking the Run button in UFT or from Test Lab. In order to re-run a script, you have to reset certain 'Flags' in the DB, for each script (DB is used by the Test framework). This 'Reset' activity is not part of the automation script but performed manually via a Framework GUI, before each test run. Also you have to set Test Environment values, by editing config files manually on the Testing Host, for running test scripts against different environments.

    Therefore we can't schedule our tests or run our tests automatically but can only perform 'Manual Automation'. We have 'test executors' trained to execute these tests. In short, it's not just Manual testers that feel automation as complex but also automaters.

    It's very important to find the core issue that, stops automated scripts to be run in an automated fashion or makes it complex, that only specialized resources can execute and analyze results. We have to solve this issue to make test automation available to all, in order to succeed with Test Automation.
    Rajkumar

 

 

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.40 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 9.68%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.7.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBNominate (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Username Changing provided by Username Change (Free) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
BetaSoft Inc.
Digital Point modules: Sphinx-based search
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:45 AM.

Copyright BetaSoft Inc.