October 13, 2010 at 11:05 Kevin Nilsen Performance at Code Camp 2010
Last weekend in Silicon Valley, the next Code Camp took place - a large-scale event for developers. Some sessions were devoted to software testing, and I would like to briefly talk about one of them.
The session was announced as "Next Generation of Testing for HTML5." In reality, Kevin briefly described the innovations in html5 using this presentation , and then outlined his vision of which web application testing tools are most interesting today. To illustrate what was being discussed, he attached a screenshot of the signature from the Google testing blog: “Life is too short for manual testing”.
As a developer, Kevin could not get around unit testing in the report. Quote: “Many say that it is necessary to cover with unit tests 80%, or even 90% of the code. I believe that 10% is enough to test the basic functionality. Further testing will be picked up by a QA specialist. However, if he returns to you with a bug - it's time to study the area in which you made a mistake, deeper, and start writing regression tests . "
The unit testing tool he recommended was QUnit, which was already well-illuminated on Habré . However, it is not suitable for integration testing, since it cannot check the site’s functionality, which depends on page refresh (log in, for example). And so Kevin's next recommendation is Mr. Hudson .
Hudson is what large companies call the “testing lab” (and write for internal needs on their own): they monitor tasks, collect builds and send error messages. In different companies, this tool is used by different specialists, but if it is the tester who is tasked with collecting builds, then at least it’s worth getting to know Hudson.
Next, we talked a little about Selenium (as it turned out, most of those present in the room use this tool), the main drawback of which is the need to know the “internal” language of the program if you do not want to edit the code for different browsers. In addition, Selenium does not support javascript - “ What nonsense, my whole team knows javascript, I could force everyone to write scripts - but no!“- the speaker grumbled.
Lightweight and easy alternative - Canoo Webtest . The latest build is September 29, 2010, so the project is lively and improving, despite the simple site.
The product is more serious, and perhaps even more revolutionary - Test Swarm . The innovation of the idea lies in crowdsourcing: it is not necessary to beat a dozen test machines, if you just need to check the site in browsers of different versions. You can borrow peers' machines for this purpose) The web server analyzes which browsers are available on which of the connected machines, and uses them all in testing. Presentation at Vimeoabout how it works. The alpha version of the project was released in August last year, I saw the last commits from March of this year. Kevin said that once his colleagues presented him with a build that correctly passed all the tests in one of the versions of the FF installed on his computer. “Hmm, let’s run it through Test Swarm,” he said, and in all other versions of browsers this or that failure was found.
PS Perhaps these tools are known to most community subscribers. In this case, congratulations, you are at the forefront in the struggle for the quality of web applications)
The session was announced as "Next Generation of Testing for HTML5." In reality, Kevin briefly described the innovations in html5 using this presentation , and then outlined his vision of which web application testing tools are most interesting today. To illustrate what was being discussed, he attached a screenshot of the signature from the Google testing blog: “Life is too short for manual testing”.
As a developer, Kevin could not get around unit testing in the report. Quote: “Many say that it is necessary to cover with unit tests 80%, or even 90% of the code. I believe that 10% is enough to test the basic functionality. Further testing will be picked up by a QA specialist. However, if he returns to you with a bug - it's time to study the area in which you made a mistake, deeper, and start writing regression tests . "
The unit testing tool he recommended was QUnit, which was already well-illuminated on Habré . However, it is not suitable for integration testing, since it cannot check the site’s functionality, which depends on page refresh (log in, for example). And so Kevin's next recommendation is Mr. Hudson .
Hudson is what large companies call the “testing lab” (and write for internal needs on their own): they monitor tasks, collect builds and send error messages. In different companies, this tool is used by different specialists, but if it is the tester who is tasked with collecting builds, then at least it’s worth getting to know Hudson.
Next, we talked a little about Selenium (as it turned out, most of those present in the room use this tool), the main drawback of which is the need to know the “internal” language of the program if you do not want to edit the code for different browsers. In addition, Selenium does not support javascript - “ What nonsense, my whole team knows javascript, I could force everyone to write scripts - but no!“- the speaker grumbled.
Lightweight and easy alternative - Canoo Webtest . The latest build is September 29, 2010, so the project is lively and improving, despite the simple site.
The product is more serious, and perhaps even more revolutionary - Test Swarm . The innovation of the idea lies in crowdsourcing: it is not necessary to beat a dozen test machines, if you just need to check the site in browsers of different versions. You can borrow peers' machines for this purpose) The web server analyzes which browsers are available on which of the connected machines, and uses them all in testing. Presentation at Vimeoabout how it works. The alpha version of the project was released in August last year, I saw the last commits from March of this year. Kevin said that once his colleagues presented him with a build that correctly passed all the tests in one of the versions of the FF installed on his computer. “Hmm, let’s run it through Test Swarm,” he said, and in all other versions of browsers this or that failure was found.
PS Perhaps these tools are known to most community subscribers. In this case, congratulations, you are at the forefront in the struggle for the quality of web applications)