Functional testing tools for web applications come in a variety of styles, but one of the most fundamental differences between the choices are between the tools that drive one or more real web browsers in order to fully recreate a realistic environment, like Selenium, and tools that simulate the way a web-browser operates, like Canoo WebTest. I’m a beginner in the testing field. Essentially a bad Selenium test is like a run-on sentence, or the way a small child tells a story: You still have to see how it works in a real browser – not idealized tests which explain how it should work. Email Required, but never shown.
|Date Added:||10 July 2015|
|File Size:||25.92 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread. Selenium actually launches specified browser and sends command to it directly which means that quality of simulation is very close to real one. Because WebTest and HtmlUnit have excellent Ajax supportand many people are successfully using it with these libraries.
If you want to be able to run both You can express each test as a method on a webdirver typically, you have multiple jweubnit per class.
I have learned Robot Framework these days. There are things that you can do with one and cannot do with another.
From my experience, Selenium with it’s ChromeDriver was able to successfully load heavy JS page and do actions on it, while HtmlUnit failed even after several hours of tuning it with different configuration options. Trying to be objective, I may overcompensate in the other direction and give Selenium too much credit.
Maven Repository: it » jwebunit-webdriver-plugin »
JUnit will run the tests for you and report which tests passed and which failed. You need to Register an InfoQ account or Login or login webdrivr post comments.
Vitaly suggested that WebTest and Selenium are apples and oranges: Christian rebutted WebTest’s Ajax supportsaying that in his application, “Even the webrdiver pages are throwing exceptions, because HtmlUnit can’t parse the Dojo import statements. Canoo WebTest looks like a very powerful tool. Thanks for your answer. It can even be considered superior as it allows better control over how to schedule the in-page requests making the unpredictable browser behavior predictable see for bs my previous post.
A code coverage tool can help you understand which parts of your code are getting exercised by your tests. Subscribe to our newsletter? Dojo and to some extent YUI are the last holdouts in this regard. jwebunjt
WebTest vs. Selenium: Real and Simulated Browser Testing
This pop-up will close itself in a few moments. It suffers from a methodological error. You can use it to simulate a user interacting with a web site.
I’ve found Webdrivee to be fairly reliable – places where the tests break down are often indicative of something wrong with the application; or something that is likely to be problematic when the application goes into production. Not to mention it’s hard for people to get into the habit of learning to do Selenium tests as “atomic” features.
I don’t want to start holy war, but IMO JUnit is better and more widespread and hence, is more actively developed. Sign up using Email and Password. Do you also know any example which uses those that can help me? Is your profile up-to-date?
Finally, Kent Tong imagines bridging the two approaches:. Do you use one of these, or another functional testing tool altogether? Thank you for participating in the discussion.
Functional testing tools for web applications come in a variety of styles, but one of the most fundamental differences between the choices are between the tools that drive one or more real web browsers in order to fully recreate a realistic sebdriver , like Selenium, and tools that simulate the way a web-browser operates, like Canoo WebTest.
Please take a moment to review and update.