My feeling is that webtest is a good tool, but regarding the community support, it is a bit lacking I would say.
You just have to pick up the questions to the list that remain forever unanswered. It is a pitty. I am subscribed to other communities and people is really involved, answering both novice and advanced questions. Just my opinion. Cheers, Josep El 12 de abril de 2012 11:05, Dierk König <[email protected]> escribió: > Hiall, > > my tone here was a little harsh. Sorry for that. > > To clarify what WebTest is going to support and where the limits are: > - we're certainly happy to upgrade to new versions of htmlunit if they > support new, yet uncovered features. > - we're happy to include patches to support new functionality as long as > they follow the spirit of webtest > (i.e. they are self-testing, add to the reports properly and provide > examples and documentation) > > We will not change WebTest to support new UI paradigms, especially not > beyond the request-response model. > This is not because of we're ignorant but because > a) we simply cannot hold our guarantees any more and > b) the whole reporting - the main feature of WebTest - relies on the > current paradigm. > > When changing the UI paradigm - and AJAX changes that into an event model - > it is only logical to also change the UI testing technology. > > Since all WebTests are written in an open format, moving the tests to a > new format becomes possible. > > happy testing > Dierk > > Am 11.04.2012 um 23:33 schrieb Dierk König: > > > Hi Lisa, > > > >> We're trying to upgrade to the latest version of Canoo WebTest, which > appears to still be 1812, and we already had issues with it that we were > working on. But tests that were passing fine using WebTest 1812 are now > failing since the upgrade of Dojo. > > > > So it worked before the Dojo upgrade, but not after? (at first, this > doesn't really sound like an _WebTest_ error to me ... ) > > > >> If there is no way to get around this in Canoo WebTest, I guess our > only option is to move to another test framework, which will take us a long > time, as we have 8 years' worth (and many thousands of test cases) of > WebTest scripts which, up to now, have provided us a lot of value in > regression test coverage. > > > > Your long-standing loyalty is much appreciated! > > > >> I've been worried about WebTest since it hasn't been updated much the > past year or two. Is it dying out? > > > > WebTest is a functional testing tool for HTML-based web applications. > > This is what it addresses and what it does well. > > There is hardly any bugs and the feature set is complete enough. > > And since we do not release new versions just for the fun of it, there > is not much activity in that area. > > > > But if new issues come up, we are happy to tackle them. > > > >> We switched from: > >> <script type="text/javascript" > src="/include/javascript/dojotoolkit/dojo/dojo.js"></script> > >> to > >> <script src=" > https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/dojo/1.7.2/dojo/dojo.js"; > djConfig="parseOnLoad: true"></script> > > > > An architectural remark: this means you went for dynamically assembling > your application from self-modifying code that is loaded from unreliable > source. > > > > Some people claim that this undermines the value of test-automation > since, e.g. the JS that you load from remote can change any time. > > What you have tested against may be obsolete one second after the test > has finished without you knowing. > > > >> JavaScript error loading page > http://localhost:8080/home/index.jsp?&fid=2: Wrapped > com.gargoylesoftware.htmlunit.ScriptException: Wrapped > com.gargoylesoftware.htmlunit.ScriptException: TypeError: Cannot read > property "firstChild" from undefined ( > https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/dojo/1.7.2/dojo//parser.js#8) > > > > Well, it would be easier to tell with seeing the source code but > obviously some JS tries to read "firstChild" from a reference that is > undefined. > > Why is it undefined? I can only guess. Maybe some dependent remote JS > cannot be loaded. Why? There are a thousand possibilities; even invalid > certificates. > > > > If that is the case then I would be scared if my browser displays the > page without error (but, yes, some do). > > > > I'd advise to download the remote JS, store it on your local server, and > load it from there as you did before. (check the google license whether > this is allowed) > > And, yes, dependency management means more maintenance work. > > > > cheers > > Dierk_______________________________________________ > > WebTest mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest > > _______________________________________________ > WebTest mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest >
