The problem isn't the broken tests. We just have very broken tools for UI testing.
UI testing sucks. It really does.
If you aren't already fam...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
It looks really interesting! I really like your test.uilicious.com site.
I've been looking a bit into cypress.io/ How would you say that you differ from each other?
Do you have any plans for a free plan for open source projects?
Co-founder here - having given a similar answer on cypress in the snippet launch post
Cypress - focuses on chrome based testing, being embedded inside the browser itself. On the downside, while it means lack of other browser testing such as IE11, it has one of the fastest! test speeds without any of the webdriver overheads. Its test scripts are also more technical in nature.
Uilicious - on the other hand, focuses more on simulating user behaviour, across multiple browsers, including the minor slow downs and delays between actions, and key strokes. With a test scripting language to cater for the non-programmers : 90% of the time.
As for open source projects, we have in the pipeline the functionality to execute test scripts from a public git repo, similar to travis CI. Its still in extremely early stages of development. But thats the plan (no fixed date yet, as its heavily dependent on our next investment round) 🙂
Its something we are committed in doing for our FOSS community and local Engineers.SG. Hopefully paving the way for more opensource friendly companies in our country Singapore, which we feel is lacking in our asian region.
Thanks for your answer! It looks really promising! Thanks for pushing the development further in this field!
I am also interested in this comparison.
At my company for new projects we have been using codeception with gherkin to do UI acceptance testing and it has been great. It is very similar to what is presented here just but instead of defining steps in code, you define them in gherkin. Anything to make UI testing easier is awesome. Unfortunately I have found that UI still needs some human touch to fully test.
Yea you still do need some check things by eye, there are things like whether or not there's a red outline around erroreous input fields are hard to write automated checks for. I find that really good testers can point out not just what's not working, but what's doesn't feel right for the user in terms of UX.
Very interesting.
This sounds like a really clever tool and I can totally see myself using that in what I'm building in the future. Great job!
That looks awesome. I tried it a bit, it works fine on a few things however the handling of non-ASCII characters seems problematic :)
Oh yeah, you're right, thanks for pointing that out. We have that working on the Pro version of the app, but this is we have a bug here on the free version. Looks like we missed out testing international languages, need to add that to our test suites. Shall get that sorted out over the next week 😉