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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bret Pettichord Sent: 22 February 2007 06:46 AM To: wtr-general@rubyforge.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-general@rubyforge.org http://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-general@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-general
