Talk:Test automation/Archives/2013

Software testing

Is this distinct from Software testing? --babbage 19:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Automation is important and not trivial. 145.253.108.51 (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting review of WET Web Tester article

I have added a the draft of WET Web Tester page. This article is currently classified as ActiveDiscuss and I plan to take off the activediscuss template after the review comments. I request folks to review the page and communicate your reviews in the Talk:WET_Web_Tester. --Best regards, Raghu V 13:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Large see also section

This article's "see also" section is getting out of control. The list should be only things directly related to the article per Help:Section. Should it really be a list of products? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I consent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.78.88.222 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Promotion Link

Original: * SQA4.Net.Tester - SQA4.Net.Tester is SQA4.Net's 100% Scripting-free automated testing solution. It enables subject matter experts (SMEs) and other users to easily create, customize and excecute test cases.

No comment. 145.253.108.51 (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ranorex - Is that a popular tool?

I would say yes. Please see the web search interest for Testpartner and Ranorex at http://google.com/insights/search/#q=TestPartner%2CRanorex&cmpt=q. What do you think? -Gherget (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest. You work for the company. Your contributions have been to promote the tool. You haven't even done general editing of articles.

I would suggest that rather than Google you use one of the annual tools usage surveys to back your point. Better Software/Stickyminds.com does one. There are others, but it is the most highly supported. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and appreciate your efforts in keeping the Wiki clean. You can find Ranorex also on the official Better Software/Stickyminds Tools Guide (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/sqe/bettersoftware0109/index.php?startid=31). -Gherget (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided is their annual tool guide. It does not rate popularity only payment to the company for advertising purposes. Their survey asks readers to respond with the tools in active use. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular tools

Anyone may add a tool to the list. If you can't prove it has at least 5% market-share (or a serious underground following), the addition will be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ranorex is a popular tool and is non-legacy which is important. Tools should be divided by legacy and non-legacy test automation.

Typically Legacy TA = record and playback, and defect tracking. Non=legacy = library implementation without need for record and playback.

Almost all current frameworks use legacy technology. Two of the latest technologies and tools are from Ranorex and QualiSystems. Get to know more about test automation history.

As a reference Linda Hayes and Worksoft announced the death of record and playback in 2006. ProfessionalTST (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Popular tool? What is its market share? All of the products show up in StickyMinds/Better Software annual survey of tools in use. I didn't see Ranorex in the last one. So while the current tools (and their frameworks) use "legacy technology" at least they can be proven to work.

As a reference? A reference to what? Record and play-back is still alive in 2010. What did she say would be replacing it? Manual testing? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The literature doesn't really discuss test execution engines. Compare this search (four results) with one for Test automation (1109 results). I'm sure Google would show similar percentages. There has only ever been one author. All subsequent edits have been adding it to categories, etc. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Merge what little can be saved from this article into the test automation article LarsHolmberg (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The test automation engine should be part of the framework. Also the test automation section needs a lot more specific references. It is also missing the history of test automation. And the reference to scriptless is not 100% accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessionalTST (talk • contribs) 15:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree - it's really a good fit for this article and doesn't stand well on it's own. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree - its agreed that there aren't a lot of google hits and consensus and that the page should be improved upon, but test automation is far too general of a term to serve test execution engine's demagraphic. I dont think that anyone searching for info about the test execution engine would ever think to look in test automation. It is far too general.

• Disagree - Test Automation as a topic is much different than test execution engines. Test Automation Engineers realize that tools such as QuickTest Pro are about test automation where at Quality Center are more about managing the process of test execution (among other things). This Wiki entry stands well on it's own, speaking from the perspective as test automation engineer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregpaskal (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree, one is theory, the other practise. I think this article needs to be improved. We should talk about the test concepts: manual, A/B, semi-automated, fully automated, then discuss the problem of creating automated tests, cost of maintenance, etc. This page shouldn't have any links to external products, even test execution engines should only refer to wikilinks, not external sites. SteveLoughran (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. One would not equate the Aviation page with the currently available Aircraft. Nor should we equate automated testing with the currently available frameworks. Morrillonline (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Aviation and Aircraft are long articles. Test execution engines is not about frameworks, test automation framework is. Test execution engine is a poorly-written short article that makes more sense being merged into this one with a redirect on the old article page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. Test Automation talks about the generic approach of testing in an automated fashion, which is on par with Manual Testing, Performance Testing, etc. so it should be an article in its own right. Test Automation Framework is just one of the way you can perform test automation. Some might not need a framework, some do, and others probably built small programs as frameworks. The different levels of automation warrant their own page. The is a better case to even include further pages with specific types of Frameworks. As long as all these articles reference each other so that the reader is able to form a wider opinion it should be fine to having several articles. -- Marco Venzelaar 24 January 2011, 08:42 (GMT).

• Disagree. Test Automation is a subject that should stand on it's own and not be merged with another topic. When a customer wants to discuss test automation they are generally referring to utilizing a tool such as HP's QuickTest Pro to fulfill a process that is manually executed. The same goes for a test automation framework, this is the process put in place to allow the test automation tool to perform the automation. It's common to break up aspects of automating an application into smaller segments, the framework is a guide to how that will be done and overall how it will be executed.

• Disagree. Test Automation Describes the method of automating tests. pages like test execution engines and Test Automation Framework decribe tool implemanting the method. It is, however, a good idea to collect links to these pages on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevort (talk • contribs) 07:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.235.0.124 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Test Automation is an individual subject. Test Automation is all about what it is whereas the Automation Framework is one of the practices to achieve Test Automation. There is a definite link between the two but they aren't the same; these 2 articles should be kept separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.168.51 (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment "Automation Framework is one of the practices to achieve Test Automation", it's not a practice. And the proposal isn't about merging to Automation Framework but to merge in test execution engines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Test Automation is a complete & early subject. Without understanding Test Automation, it would be very difficult to understand [Execution Engine].

It is imperative to understand Test Automation first & then go for Test Execution Engine or Test Automation Framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsinha (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GUI Testing

"This type of tool also requires little or no software development." This statement is to my own best experience completely in error. I'm adding a 'citation needed' flag.--212.114.241.120 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

SmarteScript

SmarteScript, by SmarteSoft, not listed in the tools list here, is recognized by Gartner and Stickyminds/Better Software, and has a strong following in enterprise IT departments, with thousands of users in the US, Europe, and Australasia. It qualifies as non-legacy in the definitions above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proscriptless (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It would need an article on Wikipedia. The "recognition" by Stickyminds is an advertisement. I can buy one of those for any tool I want. No other mention of the tool is revealed in a site search. Feel free to create the article to indicate the software is notable. Once the article exists, feel free to prove its popularity with a reference and then add it here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The point of the notable list?

I ended up here after I thought adding Robot Framework to the list of notable test automation tools (yep I am one of the developers) but then I noticed that the whole list doesn't really contain a lot of notable open source test automation tools at all. It seems that the whole list has mostly commercial record and play tools and other GUI automation tools and some other more specialized tools (some seem to be even long dead like the Rational Robot).

It is quite clear why these tools are listed here: this is the first link you will get after you search for "test automation" with any notable search engine. In my opinion the list doesn't really represent the state of the art test automation tools - it shows the tools that benefit the most from people who have the least amount of knowledge about this subject.

So to protect test automation newbies from getting a strongly biased view of the test automation field I suggest that the whole list should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkorpela (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability is determined by the Wikiepedia notability guidelines. In other words, if there is an article about it, then it can be included. That doesn't mean that all notable software has an article. It also doesn't mean that all notable software in this class is included here. It does mean that if someone adds some software that doesn't have an article, then it will be removed. The list is not designed to represent the state of the art of test automation tools. It's designed to show a list of notable tools.

Your assertion that the list is present because of Internet searches is fallacious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Plan B. I'll add Robot Framework, Cucumber, Fitnesse and Sikuli - IMHO all are notable and all have Wikipedia articles. Mikkorpela (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Good. But you don't have to pipe items like Robot Framework, Fitnesse and Sikuli. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by piping items? (sorry English is not my first language) Thanks for pointing out that Robot Framework article still needs some work. Mikkorpela (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a pipe: |. When you link an item such as Robot Framework, you just have to link it like this[[Robot Framework]] not as you did: Robot Framework. Similarly [[Fitnesse|Fitnesse]] and [[Sikuli|Sikuli]] are unnecessary. See WP:PIPING --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The list doesn't mention xUnit tools at all but many of them are notable by Wikipedia standards. Also the most of test automation in the world is done with a general purpose programming language such as Java, CSharp, Python, Ruby etc. (these are not mentioned here at all). Still I think this list is like having a notable automobiles list on Automobile article or having a notable bicycles list on Bicycle article. There are too many notable tools for general test automation and only showing small proportion of them is advertisement. Mikkorpela (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)