In my opinion, Watir is absolutely what we need. A smallish
tool for the
job, which can be extended at your will. That is why, among
other
reasons, I believe Bret started this thing, a tool with no
vendorscript,
but with a proper programming language. The tool allows you
to do the
things that are not in the standard language, namely
manipulate web
pages. For the rest use Ruby itself. This solution is
incredibly
flexible.
It all started for me with Michael Kelly's article on
performance
measurement. That article showed me how to think about
writing test
scripts. Now, I log onto Oracle, get a value, run a browser
interaction
with parameterized input values, write to a spreadsheet,
mail myself a
failure report and many more things. It is really
hand-rolled per
requirement. If you want a solution that does more or looks
prettier,
get a vendor tool. Watir is for testers who like to hack a
bit and roll
their own solutions. It is not meant to be a one size fits
all solution.
I just wish the Win32-GUITest library could get the same
amount of
attention. I've had lots of success with Perl's version of
this lib.,
and would like to do that testing in Ruby now.
My 2 cents.
Walter Kruse
-----Original Message-----
From: wtr-general-bounces rubyforge.org
[mailto:wtr-general-bouncesrubyforge.org] On Behalf Of
Bret Pettichord
Sent: 22 February 2007 06:46 AM
To: wtr-generalrubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Wtr-general] Watir.. close, but not close
enough
John Lolis wrote:
> I don't feel that its a problem Watir needs to solve.
If the community
really did want some framework I think it would be a project
separate
from Watir. I'm not even sure a project like that would
work. Every
application that needs testing is probably going to need a
slightly
different approach. If someone attempts to write a 'be all
end all'
framework its probably going to end up very complex and hard
to
understand (see most commercial testing packages).
>
To some degree I agree. However, our user's guide tells
people how to
use Watir with Test::Unit and so a lot of people group them
together.
Indeed, we've had so many complaints about the poor fit of
this unit
testing framework for system acceptance testing that I've
included
Watir::TestCase in the recent versions of Watir 1.5. Namely,
this
TestCase executes its test methods in the order defined and
also
supplies "verify" methods that work like assert,
but don't abort a test
case when they fail. These were the two most common
complaints with
Test::Unit itself by Watir users.
But i do agree that there is a value to keeping Watir small
and flexible
and it seems to me that it would probably be better to
migrate this new
TestCase subclass to some other project. It could still be
used by Watir
users, but they would be free to use whatever test harness
they wanted:
Test::Unit or Rspec or this new thing or maybe something
they built
themselves.
Bret
_______________________________________________
Wtr-general mailing list
Wtr-generalrubyforge.org
htt
p://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-general
************************************************************
************************************************************
**
Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the
official business of MultiChoice Africa is proprietary to
the company. Any view or opinion expressed in this message
may be the view of the individual and should not
automatically
be ascribed to the company. If you are not the intended
recipient, you may not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute
or
copy this message. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately by email,
facsimile
or telephone and destroy the original message.
************************************************************
************************************************************
**
_______________________________________________
Wtr-general mailing list
Wtr-generalrubyforge.org
htt
p://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-general
|
