SpecFlow is an open source BDD for .NET. that aims to bridge the communication gap between domain experts and developers by binding readable behavior specifications to the underlying implementation.
N/A
Tricentis Tosca
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Tricentis Tosca provides an approach to test
automation that is AI-powered, codeless, and end-to-end so it can test
everything in a complex IT landscape, to ensure business processes
work flawlessly no matter where changes occurs.
Its 160+ technology support helps users test everything at
the UI, API and data layer, including virtually any enterprise, custom,
homegrown and mobile application.
With its model-based approach, Tosca enables business,
QA and IT teams to…
It is best suited for implementing the automated test cases in a human readable form so it's easy for non-technical members of the team and stakeholders to understand the test cases, features and the functionalities of the application. Automation of Integration tests and End to End tests are good use case. It is less appropriate or situations where the focus is only on the writing and maintenance of unit tests.
For projects having huge set of test cases to be automated can be accommodated by Tricentis Tosca with proper folder structure and best practices implementations. Tosca will be less appropriate for organizations where the number of automation scripts are limited with hardly any scope of increasing the script count or the cost of automation will be more than the cost of having manual resources as Tosca is a licensed tool.
Versatility to be used in combination with different kinds of automated testing like automated performance testing, API testing, UI testing etc. I use JavaScript, Selenium, C#, email testing libraries, database testing libraries in combination with BDD with SpecFlow. I am able to use all these with SpecFlow to make my automation framework to be able to automate any kind of automated testing.
It provides different widely used runner options like NUnit, XUnit etc. Before I started to work on establishing proper test automation in my workplace, the previous automation framework (non-BDD based) as well as unit tests used NUnit runner. The transition to using BDD was smooth because we could use the same runner and there were no compatibility issues.
The auto-complete feature is good. I use it with Visual Studio as well as Rider and I don't have to recall the entire Gherkin statements. I just type a few words and the entire Gherkin statement implemented in framework is auto-suggested by SpecFlow. It saves time and context switching.
SpecFlow does not accepts optional input variables in the methods defined during Gherkin statement implementation. Cucumber supports optional input variables in the methods defined during Gherkin statement implementation.
The tests identified while using SpecFlow with NUnit removes all white spaces in the scenario names. It makes the tests less readable. If the white spaces are not auto-removed, it would be much better for readability as well as their actual identification in the repository.
Documentation - struggled multiple times with features not explained very well, or not explained at all
The only support is on Tricentis Forums, where, sometimes, based on 'luck' - you will open a support case, and wait few days until you get the chance to speak with someone from Tricentis and show case your issue
We aim to renew Tosca for our organization. What we lose in license cost is gained by having employee that do not need programming background. We also recoup a lot of the cost on the rapidity of automation. Only the support we might not use as much. I believe Tosca is here to stay at our organization
It can be a challenge for new users who have never used an automation tool. For example, it is hard to understand the layout of the screen and where to find how to update the data. The interface can be overwhelming at first.
Tricentis team was very supportive. Support is expensive but they helped us at many level. Setting up timeline, implementation, precise questions on automation challenges. We had an account manager and technical people we could as to talk to. Support was generally timely and helping. They often proposed to come on site to help us which would cost more but could be helpful
It would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is better
okIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is better
SpecFlow is .Net based which supports C#. Behave is Python based. Cucumber is Java based. Ghost Inspector is no-code based but provides very limited testing features. We wanted to implement BDD so we rued out using Ghost Inspector. Most of the developers in my team are C# experts so it was decided for everyone's comfort to go for SpecFlow rather than Behave or Cucumber. It's import to have technical experts in the language of the automation framework because there are many situations where the solutions to the test automation needs are not straightforward and implementing those requires expertise in the related programming language.
Tricentis Tosca is codeless and therefore easier to use. It's a great tool for people that would start doing automation and have no coding background. It seems like it has the same capabilities as other test automation suites but I felt it lacked a bit of capabilities on the test management suite such as defects test suites organizations etc
Everyone stays on the same page regarding the behavior of existing functionalities whether it be technical or non-technical individuals. So there is less need for multiple people to get involved which saves time and thus money.
Reusing the same code through the implemented Gherkin statement saves test automation time and thus reduces cost.
We combine SpecFlow with other opensource testing technologies to make our automation framework more versatile which further saves costs for us.
It really had a very good impact on our ROI. We were able to automate most of the apps and layers with in it and get a very short execution time which led to increased releases with in short span of time.
Time to market really improved and efficiency of developing scripts was not too bad.
With built in test dashboards, it was easy to pull metrics and share the insights with management.
