Applying Modern Software Development Techniques to Automating the Web UI

Ultimate Software: Mission Statement To provide United States and Canadian businesses with 200 or more employees the highest quality, most complete, and well-integrated suite of strategic human resources, payroll, and talent management solutions.

Who we Are Michael Longin – Ultimate Software Software Engineer Certified Scrum Master Project Lead - SWAT Christopher Taylor – Ultimate Software Lead Process Engineer Software Test Engineer Certified Scrum Master

Goals For This Session  Attendees will gain a better understanding of how to apply modern software development techniques for UI testing in an effort to create more agile and resilient tests, as well as improve overall quality.  “Automated testing done right is Software Development” –Elfriede Dustin and Marcus GTAC 2008

Tools You Will See Today  SWAT –Simple Web Automation Toolkit –C# library for writing tests against a web UI –  Fitnesse –Wiki based requirements test tool – Both are open source and can be used either together or stand alone

Outline  What is wrong with the record\playback technique  Applying Acceptance Test Driven Design  Refactoring  Pair testing  Comparing new methods to record\playback

Record-Playback Technique Weaknesses  Brittle »Easily broken when features change, even when the feature is not part of the test  Very hard to update without re-recording  Not Agile »Can only be done when code is complete  Only tests what you record and not what you expect  Requires cleanup post recording  Time consuming  Hard to read and understand

Acceptance Test Driven Design  A way of writing software where the test is written before coding has commenced  Not just for testing below the UI  A passing test demonstrates satisfaction of requirements  Allows both positive and negative test case scenarios

ATDD as part of UI development  Test defines the user experience  Programmers can code the user interface to a prewritten test  Automated tests are written alongside the test cases and coding effort  Turns vertical slicing into completed automation

How to use ATDD with the UI  Starts with well written conditions of satisfaction  Automation script is developed alongside test case creation  Consistent naming standards are key* txb -> Textbox btn -> Button lbl -> Label *if naming is wrong, can be easily updated  Once test is complete, developer can start running the test against code  Once test runs green, the story is complete

User Story #1 : Login  As a user I want to provide my username and password to login  Conditions of Satisfaction Login and password boxes are present Title should read “M&C Life Insurance” Valid login should lead to homepage Example login: ctaylor/password Homepage should read “Welcome”

User Story #1: Prototype

Applying ATDD continued  Example User Story #1 –Title should read “M&C Life Insurance” Title means an H2 Text reads: “M&C Life Insurance” –Login and Password boxes are present Two text boxes Login - >txbLogin Password -> txbPassword Login button -> btnLogin

Demonstration of Code 14 Conditions of Satisfaction (Test underneath) -Test Setup (Open the browser and navigate) |OpenBrowser| |NavigateBrowser|MCInsurance.com| -Login and password boxes are present |AssertElementExists|id|txbLogin|INPUT| |AssertElementExists|id|txbPassword|INPUT|

Demonstration of Code (continued) Conditions of Satisfaction (Test underneath) -Title should read “M&C Life Insurance” |AssertElementExists|innerHTML| M&C Life Insurance |H2| -Valid Login should lead to homepage |SetElementAttribute|id|txbLogin|value|ctaylor|INPUT| |SetElementAttribute|id|txbPassword|value|password|INPUT| |StimulateElement|id|btnLogin|onclick|INPUT| |AssertElementExists|Expression|innerHTML:Welcome|H1| 15

Refactoring  Why refactor? –Less time to write automation –Less maintenance –Creates reusable code –Creates a domain specific language  What is refactoring? –For our purposes Turn frequently used blocks of code into single line reusable entities Use variables to make tests more robust Creates an easily readable test by using English named functions

Additional Benefits of Refactoring  Allows tests to be easily updated if core features change If login changed for example, only one update needed  Allows those beginning to write tests to take advantage of previously created work  Makes tests much easier to read and debug

User Story #2:View My Name  As a user, I want to be welcomed by my name after I login  Conditions of Satisfaction My first and last name are correct Title should read “Welcome ‘first name’ ‘last name’” o Example: “Welcome Chris Taylor”

User Story #2: Prototype

A Test Refactored  Example: |OpenBrowser| |NavigateBrowser|MCInsurance.com| |SetElementAttribute|id|txbLogin|value|ctaylor|INPUT| |SetElementAttribute|id|txbPassword|value|password|INPUT| |StimulateElement|id|btnLogin|onclick|INPUT| |AssertElementExists|Expression|innerHTML:Welcome Chris Taylor|H1|  Becomes: !define userName (ctaylor) !define password (password) !include.Macros.Login |AssertElementExists|Expression|innerHTML:Welcome Chris Taylor|H1| Example:

Pair Testing  Benefits rival those of Pair Programming – (Yes, we did in fact just site Wikipedia)  Can be very effective for both writing automation and locating missing requirements  Two heads are always better than one  While automating you can also accomplish exploratory testing  Can replace manual testing phase with the creation of automation

Recorded vs New Way (Recorded) 22 |OpenBrowser| |NavigateBrowser| |AssertElementExists|expression|innerHTML:M&amp.C Life Insurance|H1| |StimulateElement|Expression|innerHtml:.INPUT id=ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_login_textBoxLogin name=ctl00.ContentPlaceHolder1.login.textBoxLogin.|onclick|TD| |StimulateElement|Expression|innerHtml:.TABLE.[\r]+[\n]+.TBODY.[\r]+[\n]+.TR.[\r]+[\n]+.TD. User Name..TD.[\r]+[\n]+.TD..INPUT id=ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_login_textBoxLogin name=ctl00.ContentPlaceHolder1.login.textBoxLogin...TD...TR.[\r]+[\n]+.TR.[\r]+[\n]+.TD.Pas sword..TD.[\r]+[\n]+.TD..INPUT id=ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_login_txbPassword type=password value="" name=ctl00.ContentPlaceHolder1.login.txbPassword...TD...TR.[\r]+[\n]+.TR.[\r]+[\n]+.TD align=middle colSpan=2..INPUT id=ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_login_btnLogin type=submit value=Login name=ctl00.ContentPlaceHolder1.login.btnLogin...TD...TR...TBODY...TABLE.|onclick|DIV| |SetElementAttribute|id|ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_login_textBoxLogin|Value|ctaylor|INPUT| |SetElementAttribute|id|ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_login_txbPassword|Value|password|INP UT| |StimulateElement|Expression|id:ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_login_btnLogin|onclick|INPUT| |AssertElementExists|expression|innerHTML:Welcome Chris Taylor|H2|

Recorded vs New Way (New way) !define userName (ctaylor) !define password (password) !include.Macros.Login |AssertElementExists|Expression|innerHTML:Welcome Chris Taylor|H1| Login Macro |OpenBrowser| |NavigateBrowser| |SetElementAttribute|id|txbLogin|Value|${userName}|INPUT| |SetElementAttribute|id|txbPassword|Value|${password}|INPUT| |StimulateElement|Expression|id:btnLogin|onclick|INPUT|

Recorded vs New Way (An Example)  Recorded Unreadable Unorganized Not useable as documentation (concept of testable documentation)  New way Easily readable Robust Testable documentation

Where to Get Help  Questions –SWAT: –Fitnesse: ch=web&pub=groups&sec=group&slk=2 – –Blogs devXero.wordpress.com  Websites – –

Questions