This link has been bookmarked by 33 people . It was first bookmarked on 30 Oct 2007, by Jacob Share.
-
20 Oct 11
-
16 Feb 11
-
25 May 10
-
11 Mar 10
-
14 Feb 10
-
06 Feb 09
-
05 Feb 09
-
10 Dec 08
-
26 Nov 08
-
24 Oct 08
-
15 Oct 08
auxonne auxonneThis blog post compares the features of two open source automated web testing tools: Canoo WebTest and Selenium.
tools blog web testing browser html automation comparison unittest
-
25 Aug 08
-
06 Aug 08
-
14 Feb 08
-
21 Dec 07
-
06 Nov 07
Yeray DariasComparativa entre los frameworks de test de la capa de vista WebTest y Selenium.
-
05 Nov 07
-
31 Oct 07
-
-
-
Browser fidelity: WebTest 0 - 1 Selenium
WebTest vs Selenium: WebTest wins 13 - 5
October 29th, 2007 at 9:21 am (HtmlUnit, Test Automation, WebTest)
In the last months I’ve seen a rising interest in automated testing of web applications thanks to the efficient viral marketing of Selenium. However, the world is full of test automation projects that started with big hopes and lots of enthusiasm only to be abandoned shortly after facing the unpleasant reality that it needs more than a point-and-click activity to develop a suite of robust tests.
The maintainability of automated tests depends primarily on the skills of the test authors, but different tools have different features that impact their efficiency. This blog post compares the features of two open source automated web testing tools: Canoo WebTest and Selenium.
A short introduction to the contenders:
Canoo WebTest is a free open source tool that has existed since 2001. It is written in pure Java and contains a set of Ant tasks that drive a simulated, faceless browser (originally HttpUnit, but for the last few years HtmlUnit).
Selenium is a free open source tool as well, created in 2004. It uses injected JavaScript to work within real browsers. Different components exists under the name Selenium: Selenium Core, Selenium RC, Selenium IDE (!), … In this blog post I will only consider Selenium RC used with Selenium IDE on Firefox or Selenium HTA on Internet Explorer due to the limitations of the other possibilities.
Features comparison
To be clear, as a WebTest (and HtmlUnit) committer I’m undoubtedly biased. On the other hand, I have experience with huge functional test suites being developed and maintained over periods of years. Trying to be objective, I may overcompensate in the other direction and give Selenium too much credit. Of course I will diligently fix errors I may have in my Selenium understanding. But please read this post until the end before starting with criticisms
This is probably the most overestimated characteristic of a web testing tool. Automated tests don’t make manual testing useless because automated tests can’t cover everything (at least for affordable costs). You still have to walk through your application (just think of everything you’ve checked just reading this: page layout, font size, font colors, …).
The consequence is that an automated web testing tool’s purpose is not to ensure that an application works “well” as it is not possible, but to detect most of the failures that could happen. This is a huge difference because it means that tests don’t have necessary to run in a “real” browser.
Nevertheless the browser’s real behaviour has to be approximated as closely as possible. HtmlUnit’s JavaScript support has made impressive progress but it still doesn’t (and will never) behave exactly like a normal browser.
Even though Selenium modifies the normal JavaScript execution of an application, it uses the browser itself and therefore is nearer to the standard behaviour of the browser. -
-
-
30 Oct 07
-
29 Oct 07
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.