Selenium Ruby Driver vs. FIT

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Selenium Ruby Driver vs. FIT

saud aziz
Hey guys,

What advantage(s) do i have if i write scripts in Ruby using Ruby driver over FIT based tables?

I believe using drives provides me more control over my scripts as i can tie data with Excel sheets and make it extract variables from it and what not.. what do you guys say?

Also, What advantage besides running scripts on multiple browsers and selenium IDE does Selenium have over Watir?

Any input is much appreciated. Thanks.

--
Saud Aziz

What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure. - Samuel Johnson



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Selenium Ruby Driver vs. FIT

Jason R Huggins
"saud aziz" <[hidden email]> wrote on 02/18/2006 04:06:29 PM:

> Hey guys,
>
> What advantage(s) do i have if i write scripts in Ruby using Ruby
> driver over FIT based tables?

If you need things like conditionals and looping, use the Ruby driver. If
you're needs are very simple, FIT based tables can do the job. (There have
been some musings about adding conditionals and looping to FIT style
tests, but it's not there today.)
 
> I believe using drives provides me more control over my scripts as i
> can tie data with Excel sheets and make it extract variables from it
> and what not.. what do you guys say?

I like to think of the Selenium drivers as enabling "white box" testing...
and also "synchronous" in design.
With white box, I mean you can send one command to the browser in an "RPC"
fashion, get a result, then check the back-end database to confirm.

With FIT-style/Table-style Selenium, it is more for "black box" testing
and "asynchronous" in design.
You send the whole test document over to the browser in a "REST" fashion,
it generally only has the same access to click and type and change things
as a regular user would. There are some tricks to accomplish "white box"
with FIT-style Selenium, and you could do "black box" with the driver, but
in general each "style" of Selenium enables a better focus on different
things.

Use the Ruby Driver if:
        - You need to use conditionals or looping.
        - Mostly want to do "white box" testing.
        - Want to easily plug in with server side unit testing libraries.
        - Your test writers prefer programming in a "real" language.
        - Want the interaction between browser and test harness to be
"RPC" and synchronous in nature.

Use FIT-style Selenium if:
        - Your tests are relatively simple with little need for
conditionals or looping
        - Want to focus more on "black box" testing
        - Your end users or customers are non-programmers and are more
comfortable with FIT-based Selenium tests.
        - Want the interaction between browser and test harness to be
"REST" and asynchronous in nature.

> Also, What advantage besides running scripts on multiple browsers and
> selenium IDE does Selenium have over Watir?

The ability to run in multiple browsers on multiple operating systems is
precisely the point of Selenium. You could say that Selenium excels at
"breadth of coverage" (browser, OS, and language support) and Watir excels
at "depth of coverage" (deep integration between Ruby and Internet
Explorer). I expect both tools will "meet in the middle" at some point.
That'll be fine, because competition is a good thing and pushes each other
to improve. And with either tool, you don't have to pay thousands of
dollars in license fees. :-)

-Jason


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Selenium Ruby Driver vs. FIT

Alexandre Garel

Jason R Huggins a écrit :

>I like to think of the Selenium drivers as enabling "white box" testing...
>and also "synchronous" in design.
>With white box, I mean you can send one command to the browser in an "RPC"
>fashion, get a result, then check the back-end database to confirm.
>
>With FIT-style/Table-style Selenium, it is more for "black box" testing
>and "asynchronous" in design.
>You send the whole test document over to the browser in a "REST" fashion,
>it generally only has the same access to click and type and change things
>as a regular user would. There are some tricks to accomplish "white box"
>with FIT-style Selenium, and you could do "black box" with the driver, but
>in general each "style" of Selenium enables a better focus on different
>things.
>
>Use the Ruby Driver if:
>        - You need to use conditionals or looping.
>        - Mostly want to do "white box" testing.
>        - Want to easily plug in with server side unit testing libraries.
>        - Your test writers prefer programming in a "real" language.
>        - Want the interaction between browser and test harness to be
>"RPC" and synchronous in nature.
>
>Use FIT-style Selenium if:
>        - Your tests are relatively simple with little need for
>conditionals or looping
>        - Want to focus more on "black box" testing
>        - Your end users or customers are non-programmers and are more
>comfortable with FIT-based Selenium tests.
>        - Want the interaction between browser and test harness to be
>"REST" and asynchronous in nature.
>
>  
>
I think it would be worth putting this part in selenium's shipped
documentation (replacing Ruby by any language).
Alex.





Ce message est protégé par les règles relatives au secret des correspondances. Il est donc établi à destination exclusive de son destinataire. Celui-ci peut donc contenir des informations confidentielles. La divulgation de ces informations est à ce titre rigoureusement interdite. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, merci de le renvoyer à l'expéditeur dont l'adresse e-mail figure ci-dessus et de détruire le message ainsi que toute pièce jointe.

This message is protected by the secrecy of correspondence rules. Therefore, this message is intended solely for the attention of the addressee. This message may contain privileged or confidential information, as such the disclosure of these informations is strictly forbidden. If, by mistake, you have received this message, please return this message to the addressser whose e-mail address is written above and destroy this message and all files attached.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Selenium Ruby Driver vs. FIT

saud aziz
Thanks for the information Jason. It is very helpful. And i agree with Alexandre that things like this shoudl be either in Wiki or part of documentation as i find it very helpful in choosing between the tools.


On 2/22/06, Alexandre Garel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jason R Huggins a écrit :

>I like to think of the Selenium drivers as enabling "white box" testing...
>and also "synchronous" in design.
>With white box, I mean you can send one command to the browser in an "RPC"
>fashion, get a result, then check the back-end database to confirm.
>
>With FIT-style/Table-style Selenium, it is more for "black box" testing
>and "asynchronous" in design.
>You send the whole test document over to the browser in a "REST" fashion,

>it generally only has the same access to click and type and change things
>as a regular user would. There are some tricks to accomplish "white box"
>with FIT-style Selenium, and you could do "black box" with the driver, but
>in general each "style" of Selenium enables a better focus on different
>things.
>
>Use the Ruby Driver if:
>        - You need to use conditionals or looping.
>        - Mostly want to do "white box" testing.
>        - Want to easily plug in with server side unit testing libraries.
>        - Your test writers prefer programming in a "real" language.
>        - Want the interaction between browser and test harness to be
>"RPC" and synchronous in nature.
>
>Use FIT-style Selenium if:
>        - Your tests are relatively simple with little need for
>conditionals or looping
>        - Want to focus more on "black box" testing
>        - Your end users or customers are non-programmers and are more
>comfortable with FIT-based Selenium tests.
>        - Want the interaction between browser and test harness to be
>"REST" and asynchronous in nature.
>
>
>
I think it would be worth putting this part in selenium's shipped
documentation (replacing Ruby by any language).
Alex.





Ce message est protégé par les règles relatives au secret des correspondances. Il est donc établi à destination exclusive de son destinataire. Celui-ci peut donc contenir des informations confidentielles. La divulgation de ces informations est à ce titre rigoureusement interdite. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, merci de le renvoyer à l'expéditeur dont l'adresse e-mail figure ci-dessus et de détruire le message ainsi que toute pièce jointe.

This message is protected by the secrecy of correspondence rules. Therefore, this message is intended solely for the attention of the addressee. This message may contain privileged or confidential information, as such the disclosure of these informations is strictly forbidden. If, by mistake, you have received this message, please return this message to the addressser whose e-mail address is written above and destroy this message and all files attached.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]




--
Saud Aziz

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Selenium Ruby Driver vs. FIT

Jason R Huggins
"saud aziz" wrote on 02/22/2006 12:25:05 PM:
> Thanks for the information Jason. It is very helpful. And i agree with
> Alexandre that things like this shoudl be either in Wiki or part of
> documentation as i find it very helpful in choosing between the tools.

Cool. I just posted it here:
" Choosing between "Driven Mode" and "FIT or Table style"" -->
http://wiki.openqa.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=422

It should probably be included in the FAQ, once the FAQ itself gets
cleaned up.

-Jason




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Selenium Ruby Driver vs. FIT

saud aziz
Thanks.

One thing i would like to suggest is to link RPC and REST acronyms with some link to either article or web site that describes those techniques.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks once again for the effort.

Saud

On 2/22/06, Jason R Huggins <[hidden email]> wrote:
"saud aziz" wrote on 02/22/2006 12:25:05 PM:
> Thanks for the information Jason. It is very helpful. And i agree with
> Alexandre that things like this shoudl be either in Wiki or part of
> documentation as i find it very helpful in choosing between the tools.

Cool. I just posted it here:
" Choosing between "Driven Mode" and "FIT or Table style"" -->
http://wiki.openqa.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=422

It should probably be included in the FAQ, once the FAQ itself gets
cleaned up.

-Jason




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]




--
Saud Aziz

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain