After 5+ years w/ WR I've recently started using QTP. There have been a handful of QTP behaviors that have bugged me for a bit and I wanted to get them all down in one place. I intend for this to be constructive criticism in that it might help the product. I admit going in that I may not be looking at this from an objective viewpoint as I'm so used to WR and 'C'-like languages.
That being said:
I wish QTP was an MDI app like WR. I dislike having to close a script to take a quick look at another. This behavior is annoying and really slows me down.
I dislike the fact that I can't see line numbers in the QTP test results tree.
I am a bit frustrated by the manner in which QTP imports Actions from other scripts. It seems more natural for me to #include things. But that could be due to my 'C' background.
I liked the way that WR allowed me to load/unload GUI Maps at will. I find the OR model a bit clunky at times.
I liked the way I could use startup/init scripts in WR and I could control every WR runtime behavior programatically. There may be a way to do this in QTP but I haven't really dug into it yet.
Continued from previous post ...
At least once I've had actions that were run from my script that I couldn't figure out. They simply didn't appear in the Expert Mode of my script. But when I switched to the Keyword view I could see the two calls to Actions. Odd.
I dislike the way that when I'm recording web apps in QTP, the object repository relearns apparently identical objects with new names. Make managing the OR very mess.
Can't easily comment out blocks of code like in WR. This seems like a programming 101 task from an editor standpoint.
I don't want to come down too hard on QTP. I think it does some things very well. For example, it seems very smart and forgiving about synching with web apps. I run into very few sync problems compared to WR.
Also, web integration seems much more natural in QTP. It always felt a bit like a clunky add-on to me in WR. Usable, but not quite clean.
I also hope that some of the constructive feedback in this thread makes it back to the MI QTP engineering and product development teams.
It's a good tool but needs a bit of work. I think if they can iron out the few programming hinderances, it would come close to being the best tool out there IMHO. Their support and engineering team is quite co-operative and very responsive. I'm sure if you ran these comments by them they would be more than happy to hear from you.
(I'm hiring Software Development Engineers in Test in Seattle, WA)