QTP vs opensource
I have a question about comparing QTP functionality against that provided by open source web testing tools:
An Agile Tool Selection Strategy for Web Testing Tools
"Sometimes tools can be combined for even more advantages. Groovy scripts can be integrated into WebTest scripts to provide more flexibility. Selenium tests can be run from FitNesse. Those are just a couple of examples. Don’t limit your thinking to an individual tool’s features."
Judging from http://www.softwareqatest.com/qatweb1.htm, "QuickTest Pro" is Mercury's equivalent to open source functional testing tools such as FitNesse and WebTest.
The big question is: what would functional tests like the ones below look like in "QuickTest Pro"? How much harder/easier would they be to generate and maintain? Does it have as many verification commands? Are the open source tools better or worse?
“WebTest 2.6 released, featuring upgrades to Ant 1.7, Groovy 1.5.4, and HtmlUnit 1.14.
The release includes support for data-driven testing, testing of drag-and-drop, advanced AJAX support, high-concurrency testing and reporting, real-time monitoring, and - as usual - lots of handling improvements. Integration with Ant.”
<webtest name="Check freetext entry">
<config ... />
<invoke ... />
description="Checks for the existence of an TEXTAREA element named FreetextComment"
description="Checks for the existence of an TEXTAREA element named FreetextComment with value TEST"
name="check that WebTest is Google's top 'WebTest' result">
description="Go to Google (in English)"/>
<verifyTitle text="Google" />
<setInputField name="q" value="WebTest" />
<clickButton label="I'm Feeling Lucky" />
<verifyTitle text="Canoo WebTest" />
WebTest’s verifyXPath command would be ideal for validating SOAP XML output (and well-formed (X)HTML)
<webtest name="xpath" >
<verifyXPath description="simple match"
<verifyXPath description="more complicated match"
<verifyXPath description="simple match with value"
“The main Core steps provide the ability to invoke pages, store and verify various information about visited pages, and manipulate HTML forms and include: invoke clickLink clickButton followFrame previousResponse verifyTitle verifyText verifyElement verifyElementText verifyTextarea verifyInputField verifySelectField verifyLinks verifyXPath verifyCheckbox verifyCookie setCheckbox setInputField setRadioButton setSelectField storeRegEx storeProperty storeXPath storeDynamicProperty storeCookie storeHeader verifyProperty”
Re: QTP vs opensource
I would not even begin to look at an opensource functional test tools until the issues with modeldialogboxes/alert boxes have been resolved.
Re: QTP vs opensource
[ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
I have always seen this as a big disadvantage of QTP against opensource tools, but it is possible to use XPath on HTML with QTP(and probably any other automated test tool, or just with IE COM) :
XPath with QTP