| || |
venting(?) about HTML testing
User sei roy (seiroy@IAAI.com.nospam) posted:
It's been years since I used Robot to test web pages (I beta tested Robot
v7.0 years ago).
So now I am at a gig testing a web application that is 99% HTML and 1% Java.
I am absolutely amazed how weak it seems to me the HTML support is for Robot
- it seems like it could be a lot more robust (more/better SQABasic commands
and object recognition) and better documentation, etc. Ha, the current
Rational Training Manual is almost identical to the one that I have from
about 7 years ago - except they added a new section of a few feable pages
that say "oh, you can also use Robot to test web apps and you can use
SiteCheck to solve all of your web test problems".
Also, I (still) absolutely hate getting error messages (I think when I add a
VP name, etc) that says something like "name entered is too long - can only
have 20 characters" - one would think that Rational would fix their GUI
interfaces errors by now - like beep me when I try to enter more then 20
OK, I've vented and now I feel better.
Re: venting(?) about HTML testing
User Kevin Petry (firstname.lastname@example.org) posted:
If you check the rational site, I believe there looking for documentation
QA. I always enjoy the infinite loop in the page number references in the
The HTML has improved at least 100% since version 7.
Are your programmers adding attributes to the html tags that make robot
happy or are they just cutting the briefiest code they can. For example
is the Name attribute being used?. Low quality html works in most browser
but most test tools really like more.