Better Software - December 2007 - (Page 25)

several screens, so running a test manually took a lot of time. It was also susceptible to a lot of variation in inputs, so the tester had trouble remembering exactly what she had done. Since I had Ruby and Web Application Testing in Ruby (Watir) installed on my machine, I immediately began thinking about tests I could design using that tool to help. I began designing a test, much like an experiment, where I would repeat a test case ten times to see how many times the intermittent bug occurred. I wanted to minimize variability and have control over my inputs, and I wanted to repeat a similar test several times quickly. I created a Watir script simulating the user workflow, with all the user inputs stored as variables so I could control them more easily. This took about fifteen minutes to create. I then ran the test several times under my supervision, watching the script play back on the screen. We then monitored how often the bug occurred and found the data duplication that was occurring with this workflow. In short order, we had the information we needed for the programmers to begin investigat- ing a fix. We also had a script we could reuse during the bug fix process and for other testing tasks. The tester was surprised to see me open up a programming environment at first, but when I explained what I was doing, she was intrigued. “Can I have the script? I want to learn how to do that for similar cases!” In short order, I helped her install Ruby and Watir and got her off and running, creating her own scripts. I was suddenly struck by how much Watir shapes my Web-application testing. When the Watir project began about three years ago, I was a contributor on the project and had influence on its design, primarily through features I needed for test automation. Now, it and other tools are strongly integrated into my Web-testing work. I use some tools for user simulation and others for application monitoring, and I rely on the feedback of both to guide my testing. Now that I rely on the tools, they have become enmeshed with my manual testing activities. It can be difficult to divide my testing into either only manual testing and only automated testing. I have found that I can observe and investigate potential problems in real time during testing much more easily this way. Combining the power of the human mind with automation tools helps fuel observation and discovery. When you combine these testing activities, you’ll be surprised where your testing journey will take you. {end} Jonathan Kohl is a software testing consultant with Kohl Concepts Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Jonathan writes about and speaks on software testing. Read more of his work at www.kohl.ca. Contact Jonathan at jonathan@kohl.ca. Sticky Notes For more on the following topics go to www.StickyMinds.com/bettersoftware. I I I I JUnit testing framework References Everyday Scripting with Ruby Influences www.StickyMinds.com DECEMBER 2007 BETTER SOFTWARE 25 http://www.kohl.ca http://www.StickyMinds.com/bettersoftware http://www.sqe.com/webseminars http://www.sqe.com/webseminars http://www.StickyMinds.com http://www.StickyMinds.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Better Software - December 2007

Better Software - December 2007 Contents Mark Your Calendar What's Happening @ StickyMinds.com Technically Speaking Code Craft Test Connection Management Chronicles Man and Machine Let Your Values be Your Guide A Story About User Stories and Test-driven Development Product Announcements The Last Word Ad Index

Better Software - December 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.