I'm currently using UFT One for web automation (mostly screen scraping, form submissions, file uploads, SF Lightning manipulation, etc.) but there is potential for more extensive automation/testing in the future. Our current license is up for renewal shortly and I want to be sure that it makes sense to stick with UFT One over UFT Developer.
Can anyone speak to the major differences between UFT Developer and UFT One?
What do you mean for "but there is potential for more extensive automation/testing in the future"?
I’m asking, because to answer you, depends in what your team are aiming for to test.
For example:
We use UFT ONE and Mobile Center, I’m making script's for emulators, browsers, Androids and IOS, pushing queries from the database etc etc...
UFT ONE have a lot to explore, and can do almost every functionality test, and also other kind of test.
Other thing to have in consideration is, look at your team and the skills they have. If you have low programming skills UFT ONE whit the VBscript have a lower curve to learn, since VBscript are easier to understand and get the logic.
If you go at UFT DEV, you can have a huge learning curve. Or you can have programmers that are testing something whit the wrong perspective.
So in the end you have to adjust at your needs, but think well about some questions.
Best luck.
Regards
UFT Developer (previously known as LeanFT) is more developer oriented, you can write your tests in more developer friendly languages (JavaScript, Java, .NET).
UFT One (previously known as UFT) is more "tester friendly", it uses VBScript for the test's code but it has a much richer feature set and is more established in the testing community.
UFT Developer is used for parallel execution .you can integrate with TestNG .you can use eclipse and all .it has separate recording option.
Related
As a main project in 5th semester of CS degree I am doing a research on technologies for realizing real-time server2client communication in a multi-user environment. The deciding factors are:
1. Performance
2. Scalability
3. Ease of implementation
4. Portability
5. Architectural flexibility
6. Community support
7. Licensing fees
Now, I could build a chat application with each technology, which I analyze, and get it over with. The problem is that I don't think that such an app would even remotely reach the boundaries of what a certain technology can do.
So my question is: what kind of prototype application could I build to make a good test for Performance and Scalability?
If it's any help, the technologies which I am going to test are: SignalR, Pusher, Pubnub, LightStreamer.
Thank you in advance!
Not a "popular" answer, although:
My experience shows me that each and every case is special.
There is not prototype application for that, except for generic tools like ab (generic to some degree, uh).
For each test you simply have to get the right "ingredients".
Background: I have created a CRUD web app using a java based RAD tool called Wavemaker. I am considering developing the app again in a framework that has greater support. Even though I have some experience in development I still get confused by all of the terms. My understanding is that there are languages (C#, PHP, Javascript, Java, etc), frameworks (Wavemaker, Ruby on Rails, Yii, Symfony, Code Igniter, Zend, etc) and editors (Dreamweaver?)?
I outsourced the development of a mobile version of my web app and this was created using jquery mobile, php and ajax. I started using Dreamweaver because I read it had integration for development with jquery mobile and hence I could perform modifications on my mobile app.
I was wondering whether Dreamweaver was a viable choice for the development of a CRUD web app? I used dreamweaver many years ago for the create of html pages and it would automatically create a lot of "unclean" code that made it hard to maintain. I fear that I would put myself in a similar situation here with server-side code.
If Dreamweaver is not appropriate could you kindly suggest a framework that may meet my requirements?
The main things I liked about Wavemaker:
Drag and drop widgets
A lot of the database functions were automatically handled
The main things I don't like about developing with Wavemaker (not Wavemaker itself):
Support: The support generally involves posting to the forums and hoping for a reply that may never come. I would rather paid support over this option which to be fair is offered by vmware but I found it too confusing.
Small number of freelance contractors: Much of the functionality within my app required coding or workarounds outside of the standard features of wavemaker and it is very hard to find a freelance wavemaker developer for help
Ongoing bugs that cause a headache during development
With that being said my priorities are:
Support: great documentation with rapid response to problems (even if this requires a paid subscription)
A large number of freelance contractors available (I guess this means a popular framework using a popular language).
Simple and easy to use (I understand there would be an initial learning curve)
Stable: I won't be running into bugs that hold up my development and need me to wait for the next release for a fix
The ability to incorporate reporting like BIRT reports or Jasper.
Possibly steer clear of Java as I have found Tomcat to be an extra level of complication that it would be great to do without.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Dreamweaver was a viable choice for the development of a CRUD web app?
Yes, but with caveats. It still does not produce code that advanced users would consider "clean" but the integration of JQuery Mobile in CS5.5 makes it a good choice for non-coders or beginning coders who need to spin up rapidly and will worry about elegance later.
That being said, if you are outsourcing the design it is likely that the code you get back will be editable in Dreamweaver but not written in such a way as to take advantage of Dreamweaver's built-in behaviors (automatic code writing). Dreamweaver expects to see code written to its specs in order to take over for the user. If not, it is still a great wysiwyg editor and above-average code editor.
But it's not a framework. In your sitution, JQuery Mobile is the framework and any JQuery Mobile developer should be able to step in and run with the project. But if you write big chunks of the CRUD using Dreamweaver, developers may tell you that they will want to rewrite those sections. Some won't care.
I am freelance programmer and i have a client who wants to build web-based software for scheduling/booking events. There is very few rules for possible booking options, but they are somewhat uncommon so there is no ready-made software to fully support them.
Anyway, besides that, the most important part is pretty common: calendar with events, reminders etc. So i believe there is some tools i can use, at least for that part.
What i'm interested in, is what tools can i use to build custom calendar, where i can write my own rules to prohibit user from booking in certain situations? Maybe there is some special framework (or, much more likely, plugins for web-frameworks) for scheduling software? If not, which ready-made software support maximum customization?
Well since you didn't specify what language your most familiar with i'll just stick to php.
Now you have a few options here.
A) You can start from a framework with some libraries and build from there. The major pro is that you can customize it like you want it. Downside would be more time actually making it, and since a client sets specific deadlines this might not be the right solutions.
B) You could start with something like Joomla. Now I do agree that it does have it's bloat, more than a million lines of code if I can remember. But with some searching I found some good booking systems that are built into modules.
If you go with B, you will be able to worry on details instead of the core grunt stuff. I've used joomla for a few different sites, and it's extremely customizable if you spend time with it.
In the end it's honestly related to your time restrictions, and your language of choice. Joomla is built with PHP if your wondering.
Hope this helps,
Daniel
By day, I am a front-end web developer but in my off time I dabble with other languages such as C, Objective-C, Python, etc. When I first got into web development the idea of web applications was just getting started.
Since then two amazing frameworks have appeared, SproutIt's SproutCore and 280 North's Cappuccino (+Objective-J). SproutCore is being used by Apple for it's MobileMe application and 280 North released 280 Slides. Both of these applications are amazing and they are a testament to what is possible on the web. So the momentum is shifting. Web applications starting to look and act like desktop applications.
So my question is this: should web based applications follow web standards, separation of markup (content), presentation (design), and behavior (functionality) or no?
I am not sure about SproutCore since I have not look at the source code, but I know that if you go to 280slides.com and turn off the JavaScript everything basically disappears. You are left with some meaningless words.
Let me clarify, I understand that web based applications such as 280 Slides is meant to have JavaScript on and not meant to be functional without it but in my day job my main focus is writing clean markup, separating content, presentation, and behavior so that our site and applications can be used by as many people as possible.
It seems like the other people who have answered so far have no idea what you're talking about.
Like me, you've had it pounded into your head to make your web applications as accessible as possible. That is, they should work without scripting and without stylesheets. JavaScript and CSS should only be used to enhance the experience. They should not be required.
SproutCore and Cappuccino are frameworks for front-end development that require the user to have both JavaScript and CSS enabled. Your question is around how we reconcile this with the dogma of the day.
Unfortunately, I don't have a clear-cut answer. I like the fact that SproutCore and Cappuccino (and probably others) are testing the limits of what's possible within a web browser. I also believe firmly that information and services provided on the web should be available to as many people as possible, given the limitations of the technology.
How you approach your solutions needs to be based on a deep knowledge of your user-base. If you're working on an iPhone app, you don't need to worry about traditional web accessibility because the experience is intensely visual. If you're building a web application for a general audience, these new frameworks are probably a poor choice (if you value the widest possible access to your information and services).
Over time, screen reader software is likely to get better at interpreting JavaScript-heavy interfaces, so perhaps this issue will fade. Thing is, something else is likely to "sprout" up in its place.
Javascript is a Web standard — certainly more so than, say, Flash, which was previously (and still often is) used for rich Web applications. In this regard, SproutCore and Cappuccino are giant improvements in my book.
The question here really seems to be how important accessibility is. And that is largely a personal decision based, as Andrew said, on knowing your users. For some apps, accessibility really doesn't make that much sense — 280 Slides is a good example of this. It's a graphic design app that's largely about visual behaviors. It doesn't make very much sense for it to degrade to plaintext. (At least, a text-based app meant to accomplish what 280 Slides does would be really be a completely different thing.)
Yes. It will be difficult at first, but once the codebase matures you will be thankful you followed those rigorous standards.
Edit: An added benefit will be portability to many web-based platform via CSS profiles and whatnot.
The MVC model can be applied just as easily to desktop applications as it can to web based applications. I don't see much reason to distinguish between the two, especially since the line is more blurred in the case of web applications.
I don't know about these particular frameworks, but a lot of web frameworks these days are structured around the MVC model, such as ASP MVC, CakePHP, Ruby on Rails, etc.
Separate as much as you can and it will pay out in the end. When things get complicated and hairy :)
I think they should. Following that type of MVC design allows for changes to be more easily implemented, provides good separation of concern, and is generally easier to understand for newcomers to a project.
Is there anyone who has used or looked into using Jitterbit as well as BizTalk? If so, what are some pros and cons of each, and which one did you go with as your final solution?
Specifically, I'm looking for SAP integration, but any input would be appreciated.
Like Rob I have not heard about JitterBit until reading your question (thanks!), I have, however, been working with BizTalk, almost exclusively, for the past 9 years; for that reason I wasn't sure I should be responding, but as Rob did, and nobody else has, I figured it's worth a couple of cents....
From the little reading I've done it seems to me that JitterBit, apart from being an open source, which has it's pros and cons, is trying to lower the entry barrier by offering a relative simple solution with the promise of rapid development and drag-n-drop approach "with no custom code".
I'll take their promise at face value, as I know nothing about it, although I have my doubts, so let's assume developing with JitterBit is really easy, there's one thing I can clearly state - developing with BizTalk isn't.
But, and that's a bit but in my view, developing with BizTalk is somewhat difficult not because Microsoft did a bad job at it, on the contrary - developing with BizTalk is somewhat difficult because Microsoft wanted to create a tool that could realistically allow enterprises to solve their BPM and integration needs well, and, in my experience, these problems are almost never simple, so Microsoft had built a server that has many capabilities, is very strong and very flexible, at the cost of complexity.
So, while any experienced technical sales guy can give you a demo of an integration scenario that is very simple, and is developed in a few minutes using a lot of drag and drop and configuration, even in BizTalk, but is this a realistic enterprise-level solution? was it a realistic scenario that was demonstrated? from my experience the answer is almost exclusively no; the problems tend to be complex, and their require a more robust solution.
So, I guess the bottom line would be - if you're looking for a one off solution, and open source is something you guys work with - JitterBit is definitely worth looking at, seeing if it's capable of helping out and has, indeed, a short learning curve (it would be important to look at maintenance, monitoring, trouble shooting, instance management etc)
If, however, you believe, as is often the case, that your solution would grow to become a BPM/integration platform in your organisation, and you need something more robust - I would put my money on BizTalk being a better candidate.
I've done a fair bit of integration with SAP, starting with the old SAP DCOM connector. More recently I've been involved in the selection of an integration platform to serve in an Enterprise Service Bus pattern.
We did web service samples to connect to SAP on a number of platforms, including BizTalk, Mule, Netweaver, Webmethods and Tibco. Webmethods won out based on licensing and capability, though BizTalk and Netweaver both had very high marks.
Jitterbit was not part of the evaluation - in fact I had to look it up to be sure I understood your question.
If your goal is just to be able to call an RFC, the .NET SAP connector works well.
If your goal is to expose a web service to wrapper a process in SAP, then BizTalk is good, but I recommend you see if your organization already has netweaver licensed as there are many web services available directly from SAP with no coding.
My recommendation is to avoid Jitterbug and Mule for the enterprise for now - unless Open Source is actually a popular thing at your place of employment. Netweaver and BizTalk are very robust, polished products.
If you are looking for something you can ship easily, then Jitterbug may make more sense. Though generally I'd recommend you define it as a web service call, and look to your customers technology stack for the most appropriate integration technique.
More context of what you are looking to achieve will enable a more accurate answer.
Michael,
We use Jitterbit in our organization and we've been very successful with it in various projects. Our SAP projects use XI and Jitterbit has dramatically simplified the ability to integrate web service interfaces with the various protocols it supports.
In addition to an excellent price (and we now subscribe to Jitterbit for support) we realize great value out of the support service. If we have any questions during our implementations they seem to provide all the subject matter expertise included in the support cost, so we're quite self sufficient.
We still have many other integration solutions in our company including VB and Java programs; it's a mess, but we don't believe that any one platform will meet all of our different divisions' needs. We have been using open source, specifically Linux and Apache for many years now, although IBM and Microsoft are also prevalent here.
We went with Jitterbit as it supports protocols needed to integrate any modern system and with SOA / Web Services being our stated direction Jitterbit was a great fit for what we needed.
Given that Jitterbit is Open Source, I would encourage you to download it and try it out.
I will say it simply, I have been using biztalk and was one of the people that helped validate the 2006 training course. Biztalk by far one the best server applications for Business process that is available today. You do also have to factor in the price point is ridiculously low compared to what else is out there.