Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Win32-GuiTest v1.50.3-ad (Release)

Expand Messages
  • pkaluski
    ... be a ... M$ ... which ... I tend to disagree with you. IMHO, testing against special test application should not be an addition. It should be a core, the
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 14, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In perlguitest@yahoogroups.com, Gabor Szabo <gabor@p...> wrote:
      > On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, pkaluski wrote:
      >
      > > Hi,
      > > I think we should consider creating an application, which would
      be a
      > > target for Win32::GuiTest unit tests. Relying on notepad or other
      M$
      > > stuff is risky, because these applications change too often.
      > > It would be easier to maintain tests if we have one application,
      which
      > > hosts most of controls we would like to test.
      >
      > That could be *in addition* to the tests against notepad and co.
      > I belive for real good tests we should also use real and changing
      > targets.
      > Usually I like to have two kinds of tests:
      > one with data that I control - the application you suggest
      > one with data from the wilde - the kind we have now
      >
      >
      I tend to disagree with you.
      IMHO, testing against special test application should not be an
      addition. It should be a core, the main part of the regression test
      suite. Here are my reasons:
      1. Win32::GuiTest is controls oriented, not application oriented.
      What I mean is that is uses the notion of controls rather than
      applications. It operates on controls. Therefore it seams more
      natural to make test controls oriented, rather then application
      oriented.
      2. If our goal is to make a portable, widely used and trusted module,
      we have to create a test suite, which should pass on every system we
      declare.

      I do agree that it would be good to have tests for real applications,
      but I don't think we have resources to maintain test scripts and make
      sure that tests pass on Win2K and on WinWhatSoEver. What if notepad
      in WinWhatSoEver is redesigned and uses different set of controls?
      At current stage, I believe that creating stable, easy to run test
      suite is more important than making sure that GuiTest work for
      particular application.

      -Piotr
    • Gabor Szabo
      ... You are welcome :) I think *both* should be there, that s what I usually do with software I am testing. But in any case, if you have the tuits to develop
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 14, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, pkaluski wrote:

        > I tend to disagree with you.
        You are welcome :)

        I think *both* should be there, that's what I usually do
        with software I am testing.

        But in any case, if you have the tuits to develop the
        application to be tested then go ahead and do it and let's
        leave it for Dennis to decide what to include in the distro.

        The more test we have the better.

        Gabor
      • pkaluski
        Well, I did not expect, that I find the example of windows version inconsistency so quickly. Units test made on calculator fail. This is due to the fact, that
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 15, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Well,
          I did not expect, that I find the example of windows version
          inconsistency so quickly.

          Units test made on calculator fail. This is due to the fact, that
          calculator on win2k will write 1969 as "1969. ". On XP it will be
          "1,969. ". There are also differences in formating binary and octal
          numbers.

          -Piotr

          --- In perlguitest@yahoogroups.com, "pkaluski" <pkaluski@p...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In perlguitest@yahoogroups.com, Gabor Szabo <gabor@p...> wrote:
          > > On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, pkaluski wrote:
          > >
          > > > Hi,
          > > > I think we should consider creating an application, which would
          > be a
          > > > target for Win32::GuiTest unit tests. Relying on notepad or
          other
          > M$
          > > > stuff is risky, because these applications change too often.
          > > > It would be easier to maintain tests if we have one
          application,
          > which
          > > > hosts most of controls we would like to test.
          > >
          > > That could be *in addition* to the tests against notepad and co.
          > > I belive for real good tests we should also use real and changing
          > > targets.
          > > Usually I like to have two kinds of tests:
          > > one with data that I control - the application you suggest
          > > one with data from the wilde - the kind we have now
          > >
          > >
          > I tend to disagree with you.
          > IMHO, testing against special test application should not be an
          > addition. It should be a core, the main part of the regression test
          > suite. Here are my reasons:
          > 1. Win32::GuiTest is controls oriented, not application oriented.
          > What I mean is that is uses the notion of controls rather than
          > applications. It operates on controls. Therefore it seams more
          > natural to make test controls oriented, rather then application
          > oriented.
          > 2. If our goal is to make a portable, widely used and trusted
          module,
          > we have to create a test suite, which should pass on every system
          we
          > declare.
          >
          > I do agree that it would be good to have tests for real
          applications,
          > but I don't think we have resources to maintain test scripts and
          make
          > sure that tests pass on Win2K and on WinWhatSoEver. What if notepad
          > in WinWhatSoEver is redesigned and uses different set of controls?
          > At current stage, I believe that creating stable, easy to run test
          > suite is more important than making sure that GuiTest work for
          > particular application.
          >
          > -Piotr
        • Gabor Szabo
          ... Is this difference due to a change in the application itself or is it because of a change in an underlying control that might be used by other applications
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 18, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, pkaluski wrote:

            >
            >
            > Well,
            > I did not expect, that I find the example of windows version
            > inconsistency so quickly.
            >
            > Units test made on calculator fail. This is due to the fact, that
            > calculator on win2k will write 1969 as "1969. ". On XP it will be
            > "1,969. ". There are also differences in formating binary and octal
            > numbers.

            Is this difference due to a change in the application itself or is
            it because of a change in an underlying control that might be used
            by other applications as well ?


            I would add a conditional to the test checking the version
            of Windows and based on that decide what is the expected string.

            Gabor
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.