Антон Семенченко | (epam systems, dpi.solutions )Сравнительный...

Anton Semenchenko

Сравнительный анализ инструментов

Автоматизации Desktop AUT

Agenda, part 1 (general)

1. Problem2. Solutions 2016

Agenda, part 2 (tools and criteria's)

1. Tools to be compared (15)

2. How \ why we selected this list of tools?

3. Comparison criteria types (3)

4. Stakeholders oriented comparison criteria (7)

5. Mixed comparison criteria (7)

6. Tech stuff oriented comparison criteria (8)

7. How \ why we selected these lists of criteria's?

8. How to select proper criteria's for your project

Agenda, part 3 (comparison analyses)

1. Mixed comparison criteria

2. Tech stuff oriented comparison criteria

3. Stakeholders oriented comparison criteria

4. Define our “standard” context

5. Summarized scores

6. How to calculate scores

7. How to use scores / presentation

8. 4 summarized tables

Agenda, part 4 (tools, “how to” and examples)

1. How to define proper tool based on selected criteria's

2. How to link information from presentation to QA Automation

metrics

3. How to link information from presentation to Project Health

4. How to link information from presentation to QA Automation

5. Tools tiny overview

6. Tools overview structure

7. Example of tool usage structure

Agenda, part 5 (trends, science and “what’s next”)

1. Define a Trend! Is it possible ..?

2. Trend – an option

3. Why so?

4. What’s next

Problem

• There is an implicit leader for Web automation

Problem

• It’s not that simple if to talk about desktop apps

Tools to be compared

• TestComplete Desktop

• Unified Functional Testing (UFT)

• Ranorex

• Telerik Test Studio

• Zeenyx AscentialTest

• MS VS Coded UI

• CUIT

• AUTOIT

• Sikuli

• Jubula

• Robot Framework

• Winium

• WinAppDriver

• QTWebDriver

• PyWinAuto

How \ why we selected this list of tools?

Comparison criteria types

1. Stakeholders oriented2. Tech stuff oriented3. Mixed

Stakeholders oriented comparison criteria

1. Approximate complexity of auto-test development2. Approximate complexity of auto-test support3. Approximate “entrance” level4. Required technical skills level5. Tests readability6. How fast tests run7. Ability to re-use "Business-Logic" layer in other technical

context

Mixed comparison criteria

1. Supported platforms2. Supported technologies3. Licensing4. Maturity5. Record-Play system support6. Standard actions pack

Tech stuff oriented comparison criteria

1. Programming languages support2. Have tools for mapping3. Self-Made architecture support4. Data-Driven testing support5. Test-Driven development support6. Key-word driven7. Behavior Driven Development support8. Continues integration system support

How \ why we selected these lists of criteria's?

How to select proper criteria's for your project

Mixed comparison criteria

Supported platforms – “the best” tool?

1. TestComplete Desktop

2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)

3. Ranorex

4. Telerik Test Studio

5. Zeenyx AscentialTest

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

Supported platformsTool Platforms Mark

TestComplete Desktop Windows

Unified Functional Testing

Windows

Ranorex WindowsTelerik Test Studio WindowsZeenyx AscentialTest Windows

MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Windows

AUTOIT WindowsSikuli Windows, Unix-like GoodJubula Windows, Unix-like GoodRobot Framework Windows, Unix-like GoodWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

Windows / Windows; Cross-Platform

/ ; Good

PyWinAuto Windows

Supported technologies – “the best” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10.Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

Supported technologiesTool Technologies Mark

TestComplete Desktop C/C++, WinForms, WPF, Java, Qt

WinForms, WPF, Java, SAP

Ranorex WinForms, WPF, Java, Qt, SAP

Telerik Test Studio WPF BadZeenyx AscentialTest Win Forms, WPF, Java BadMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Win Forms (partial), WPF BadAUTOIT OS level GoodSikuli Image recognition based GoodJubula WinForms, WPF, Java BadRobot Framework Uses AutoIT (and co inside) GoodWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

WinForms, WPF / Any ; QT Bad

PyWinAuto Win32 API, WinForms (partial, Win32 API bases)

Licensing – “the worst” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

LicensingTool License Mark

TestComplete Desktop Paid BadUnified Functional Testing

Paid Bad

Ranorex Paid BadTelerik Test Studio Paid BadZeenyx AscentialTest Paid BadMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Paid BadAUTOIT FreeSikuli Open source GoodJubula Open source GoodRobot Framework Open source GoodWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

Open source Good

PyWinAuto Open source Good

Maturity – “the worst” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10.Jubula

11.Robot Framework

12.Winium

13.WinAppDriver

14.QTWebDriver

15.PyWinAuto

MaturityTool Maturity

TestComplete Desktop GoodUnified Functional Testing

Ranorex GoodTelerik Test Studio GoodZeenyx AscentialTest MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT GoodAUTOITSikuliJubulaRobot FrameworkWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

PyWinAuto

Record-Play support – do we really need it?

Record-Play supportTool Record-Play Mark

TestComplete Desktop Yes GoodUnified Functional Testing

Yes Good

Ranorex Yes GoodTelerik Test Studio Yes GoodZeenyx AscentialTest NoMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT NoAUTOIT NoSikuli NoJubula NoRobot Framework NoWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

PyWinAuto No

Standard actions pack – do we really need it?

Standard actions packTool STD actions Mark

TestComplete Desktop NoUnified Functional Testing

Ranorex NoTelerik Test Studio NoZeenyx AscentialTest Yes GoodMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT NoAUTOIT NoSikuli Yes GoodJubula Yes GoodRobot Framework NoWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

PyWinAuto Yes / No (via SWAPY)

Tech stuff oriented comparison criteria

Programming languages – “the best” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

Programming languages supportTool Language Mark

TestComplete Desktop Python, C#Script, JScript, C++Script, VBScript,

DelphiScript

VBScript Bad

Ranorex C#, VB.NetTelerik Test Studio C#, VB.NetZeenyx AscentialTest Own DSL BadMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT C#, VB.NetAUTOIT Own Basic-like language BadSikuli Jython, JavaJubula -Robot Framework Own DSL, Java, Python

Winium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

Java, JavaScript, PHP, Python, Ruby, C#

PyWinAuto CPython

Tools for mapping – “the best” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

Tools for mappingTool Tools for mapping Mark

Yes Good

Ranorex Yes GoodTelerik Test Studio Yes GoodZeenyx AscentialTest Yes / No GoodMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT NoAUTOIT NoSikuli Yes / NoJubula Yes GoodRobot Framework No

PyWinAuto No

Custom architecture – “the worst” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

Custom architecture

Tool Custom architecture MarkTestComplete Desktop Yes / NoUnified Functional Testing

Yes / No

Ranorex Yes / NoTelerik Test Studio Yes / NoZeenyx AscentialTest No BadMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes GoodAUTOIT No BadSikuli Yes GoodJubula No / YesRobot Framework Yes GoodWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

Yes Good

PyWinAuto Yes Good

DDT support – “the worst” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

DDT supportTool DDT support Mark

Yes Good

Ranorex Yes GoodTelerik Test Studio Yes GoodZeenyx AscentialTest Yes GoodMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes GoodAUTOIT No BadSikuli Yes / No GoodJubula Yes GoodRobot Framework Yes Good

Yes Good

PyWinAuto Yes Good

TDD support – “the worst” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10.Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

TDD supportTool TDD Mark

TestComplete Desktop Yes / No GoodUnified Functional Testing

Yes / No Good

Ranorex Yes / No GoodTelerik Test Studio Yes / No GoodZeenyx AscentialTest No BadMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes GoodAUTOIT No BadSikuli Yes / No GoodJubula Yes GoodRobot Framework Yes GoodWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

Yes Good

PyWinAuto Yes Good

Key-word driven – “the best” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

Key-word driven supportTool Key-word Mark

TestComplete Desktop No BadUnified Functional Testing

No Bad

Ranorex Yes / NoTelerik Test Studio Yes / NoZeenyx AscentialTest Yes GoodMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes / NoAUTOIT No BadSikuli Yes / NoJubula No BadRobot Framework Yes GoodWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

Yes / No

PyWinAuto Yes / No

BDD support – “the worst” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

BDD supportTool BDD Mark

No Bad

Ranorex Yes GoodTelerik Test Studio Yes GoodZeenyx AscentialTest No BadMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes GoodAUTOIT No BadSikuli Yes GoodJubula No BadRobot Framework Yes / NoWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

Yes Good

PyWinAuto Yes Good

CI support – “the worst” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

CI supportTool CI Mark

TestComplete Desktop Automated Build StudioUnified Functional Testing

Jenkins plugin

Ranorex JenkinsTelerik Test Studio BambooZeenyx AscentialTest Test Execution

ManagementMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Any GoodAUTOIT - / AnySikuli - / Any Java-compatibleJubula No BadRobot Framework Jenkins pluginWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

Any Good

PyWinAuto Any Good

Stakeholders oriented comparison criteria

Define our “standard” context

Approximate complexity of auto-test development

Tool Development MarkTestComplete Desktop ~3hUnified Functional Testing

Ranorex ~2h GoodTelerik Test Studio ~2h GoodZeenyx AscentialTest ~2h GoodMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT ~3h ; 2h ; GoodAUTOIT ~1h GoodSikuli ~2h GoodJubula ~2h GoodRobot Framework ~4hWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

~3h / 6h -> 2h / Bad -> Good

PyWinAuto ~1h Good

Approximate complexity of auto-test support (per year)

Tool Support MarkTestComplete Desktop ~3h BadUnified Functional Testing

~3h Bad

Ranorex ~2h GoodTelerik Test Studio ~2h GoodZeenyx AscentialTest ~3h BadMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT ~2h ; 1h GoodAUTOIT ~4h BadSikuli ~5h BadJubula ~2h GoodRobot Framework ~1h GoodWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

~2h / 10h -> 1h Good / Bad -> Good

PyWinAuto ~2h Good

Approximate “entrance” level – “the best” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10.Jubula

11.Robot Framework

12.Winium

13.WinAppDriver

14.QTWebDriver

15.PyWinAuto

Approximate “entrance” levelTool Level

TestComplete Desktop HighUnified Functional Testing

RanorexTelerik Test StudioZeenyx AscentialTest MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT HighAUTOIT LowSikuli LowJubulaRobot Framework HighWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

High ->

PyWinAuto

Required “technical skills” level – “the best” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

Required “technical skills” levelTool Level

TestComplete DesktopUnified Functional Testing RanorexTelerik Test StudioZeenyx AscentialTest LowMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT High ; AUTOIT LowSikuli LowJubula LowRobot Framework HighWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

High ->

PyWinAuto Low

Test readability – “the worst” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

Test readabilityTool Level

TestComplete DesktopUnified Functional Testing RanorexTelerik Test StudioZeenyx AscentialTest HighMS VS Coded UI ; CUITAUTOIT LowSikuli HighJubula HighRobot Framework - > HighWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

- > High

PyWinAuto High

How fast tests run – “the best” tool?

3. Ranorex

6. MS VS Coded UI

7. CUIT

8. AUTOIT

9. Sikuli

10. Jubula

11. Robot Framework

12. Winium

13. WinAppDriver

14. QTWebDriver

15. PyWinAuto

How fast tests runTool Level

TestComplete Desktop BadUnified Functional Testing

RanorexTelerik Test StudioZeenyx AscentialTest MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT GoodAUTOIT GoodSikuli BadJubula BadRobot Framework GoodWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

PyWinAuto Good

Ability to re-use "Business-Logic" layerTool “BDD” Mark

No Bad

Ranorex Yes GoodTelerik Test Studio Yes GoodZeenyx AscentialTest No BadMS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes GoodAUTOIT No BadSikuli Yes GoodJubula No BadRobot Framework Yes GoodWinium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

Yes Good

PyWinAuto Yes Good

Summarized scores

How to calculate scores

How to use scores

Stakeholders oriented scoreTool Score

TestComplete Desktop -2Unified Functional Testing

Ranorex +3Telerik Test Studio +3Zeenyx AscentialTest +1MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT +1AUTOIT +1Sikuli +3Jubula +2Robot Framework +2Winium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

PyWinAuto +6

Mixed scoreTool Score

TestComplete Desktop +1Unified Functional Testing

Ranorex +1Telerik Test Studio 0Zeenyx AscentialTest -1MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT -1AUTOIT +1Sikuli +4Jubula +1Robot Framework +2Winium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

PyWinAuto -1

Tech stuff oriented scoreTool Score

Ranorex +4Telerik Test Studio +4Zeenyx AscentialTest -1MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT +4AUTOIT -6Sikuli +4Jubula +1Robot Framework +4Winium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

PyWinAuto +5

Summarized scoreTool Stub

Ranorex +8Telerik Test Studio +7Zeenyx AscentialTest -1MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT +4AUTOIT -4Sikuli +11Jubula +4Robot Framework +8Winium / WinAppDriver ;QTWebDriver

PyWinAuto +10

How to define proper tool based on selected criteria's

How to

1. link information from presentation to QA Automation metrics

2. link information from presentation to Project Health Check3. link information from presentation to QA Automation ROI

Tools tiny overview

Tools overview structure

1. Pros2. Cons3. What kind of project / product / problem /

situation certain tools could be used for!

Example of tool usage structure

1. Plus several examples of each tool usage— Example structure:

• Values:— Value the individual— Act as a team— Strive for excellence— Focus on customer— Act with integrity

• Prisms:— Technology— Delivery— Leadership

Project A

Test Complete Desktop

1. Pros• Low entrance level• High level of test scripts’ flexibility• Huge knowledge base (at about MSDN level)• Wide choice of script languages which look like common

languages

2. Cons• Very expensive license• Very specific own script languages

Unified functional testing

1. Pros• Low “entrance” level• High level of test scripts’ flexibility• Good tech support

2. Cons• Strict integration with other HP solutions • Very specific own DSL

Ranorex

1. Pros• Low “entrance” level• Script tests are written on common languages (C#, VB,Net)• Good tech support

2. Cons• Paid license

Telerik Test Studio (Desktop)

1. Pros• Low “entrance” level• Great parameterization of Keyword tests• DDT support using common formats (CSV, XLS, DB)• Converting tests to common languages (C#, VB.NET)

2. Cons• Only WPF-applications

Zeenyx

1. Pros• Supporting complex logic• Great organization of DDT• Using standard .Net libraries support

2. Cons• Need time to learn how to use• Specific own DSL

MS VS Coded UI

1. Pros• “Native” for Windows• Supports a huge set of UI technologies• Generated UI Map• Ready to go infrastructure• Good documentation and support

2. Cons• License cost• Relatively “low level” API

MS VS Coded UI + CUIT

1. Pros• The same as for MS VS Coded UI• Elegant “High level” API

2. Cons• The same as for MS VS Coded UI

AutoIT

1. Pros• Easy• Universal• Free

2. Cons• There is no ready-to-use verification instruments• Test = exe file• There is no ready-to-use reports

Sikuli

1. Pros• IDE is easy to learn and use• Standard actions pack• Supports an ability to write tests using common languages (Java,

Python)• Supports an ability to work on different platforms and with any

applications• Free

2. Cons• Low test’s reliability• Slow tests work• No ability to work with texts• Complicated to support tests

Jubula

1. Pros• IDE is easy to use• Supports an ability to work on requirement base• Integrated DB for storing test data and results• Free

2. Cons• No flexibility which is ingrain to script tests• No CI support

Robot Framework

1. Pros• Their own not complex and easy-to-read Keyword-based language• Plugins for different IDE’s• Work with different Oss• Different programming languages support• Tools for creating user-own libraries• Free

2. Cons• High entrance level

Winium

1. Pros• Familiar syntax and API• Supports all the languages that are supported by Selenium

WebDriver• Free

2. Cons• “Immature” testing tool• Incomplete way of locating elements• A lack of documentation

WinAppDriver

1. Pros• Familiar syntax and API• “Native” for Windows• Free

2. Cons• “Immature” testing tool• Complicated (in special case usage)• A lack of documentation

QTWebDriver

1. Pros• Familiar syntax and API• QT Applications oriented / “Native” (unique tool)• Free

2. Cons• “Immature” testing tool• Complicated (in special case usage)• A lack of documentation

PyWinAuto

1. Pros• Extremely simple to use• Easy to support• Free

2. Cons• Do not support all popular UI technologies• CPython only

Define a Trend! Is it possible ..?

1. There is a potential leader for Desktop Automation

Why so?

“Scientific” technical prove of Trend

• Hegel’s dialectics

• Bifurcation mathematical apparat (Bifurcation Theory)

• Sedov’s law of hierarchical compensation

• Pannov-Snuks Vertical

• Big History

Why so?

Non-technical scientific prove of Trend

• Peter Drucker “Management. Challenges for the 21st Century”

Note: It’s a topic of the whole big conversation, and I’m sure we’re going to get back to it, but not today…

How to

1. use this presentation on different project phases2. use this presentation based on main project roles

What’s next (just a possible way)

• Shu1. Use Presentation

1. Please, follow recommendationsa) “How to select proper criteria's for your project” b) “How to define proper tool based on selected criteria's”c) “How to link information from presentation to QA Automation

metrics”d) “How to link information from presentation to Project Health Check”e) “How to link information from presentation to QA Automation ROI”f) “How to use this presentation on different project phases”g) “how to use this presentation based on main project roles”

What’s next

• Ha1. Update a set of criteria's2. Update a set of tools3. Update Presentation4. Read “Scientific” prove of Trend

What’s next

• Ri1. Re-Read “Scientific” prove of Trend2. Update a set of criteria's3. Update a set of tools4. Update Presentation5. Predict the “Trend”6. Manage the “Trend”

Next iteration • Move from static (Presentation) to dynamic (Application)• For example, “https://telescope.epam.com”

CONTACT MEAnton_Semenchenko@epam.com

semenchenko_anton_v

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anton-semenchenko-612a926b

https://www.facebook.com/semenchenko.anton.v

https://twitter.com/comaqa

Thanks for your attention

Anton SemenchenkoDPI.Solutions

EPAM Systems

www.comaqa.bywww.corehard.by

Антон Семенченко | (epam systems, dpi.solutions )Сравнительный...

Technology

ИНВЕСТИЦИОННЫЙ МЕМОРАНДУМ...

fronttalks: Илья Пухальский (epam systems),...

внедрение облачных решений hp в...

hr-it 2016. olesya kyrylchuk. epam. Шляхи...

auditoria ambiental epam

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ …...

empresa pÚblica aguas de manta - epam · remuneraciones...

guía del enfoque epam: extensión como proceso de ......

ÊÀÒÀËÎÃ ÏÐÎÄÓÊÖÈÈ 2010šаталог... ·...

oracle aia presentation for epam astana

ГУБЕРМСНЛГО ЗЕМСТВАств1я...

haz dust model epam 5000

mongodb + node.js + epam road

anywhere програма...

epam systems: ОТ ИДЕИ К...

Оглавление -...

výrobky epam léba některých nemocí epam_1.pdf · 2017....

solit 2014, Как эффективно...

мастер класс - подставка для...

Автомобильный транспорт...