« Hey Vendors, Give Us Real Scripting Languages | Main | Automated Testing != Record-Playback Tool »
February 16, 2005
Are automated test tools for real?
Alan Earls wrote an article comparing pros and cons of traditional automated testing tools.
He makes the following points:
- even if tools look impressive in a demo, they often fail to deliver on their promise and become shelfware
- the tool is not going to solve all your quality problems for you if there is no testing process nor the right people already in place
Posted by Misha Rybalov at February 16, 2005 10:51 AM
Comments
Yeah, people who cannot actually program or who don't really understand sqa DO tend to write stupid articles about how unuseful test tools are. However, for those of us who have been programming all our lives and who use REAL test tools from Mercury or Rational know that they DO work, but not if you are a 'record-playback' 'tester'. I have been using WR, XR, TR since 'day one' (1995) and they are the best data-driven test tools available. Remember, you get what you pay for and if you actually think a SCRIPTing tool is as good as a PROGRAMMING tool, you really are only a 'tester' (aka 'blackbox').
I'm temporarily being forced to use samie, but not for long. I'm a REAL automation engineer and samie is for ... beginners? lamebrains? people who don't really work at automation test development but who are playing? recent college grads? something like that. Not for professionals.
Posted by: Someonesomewhere at October 25, 2005 09:30 AM