Automating using Automation Test Tools - HP UTF (QTP)
April 19, 2017
Automating using Automation Test Tools - HP UTF (QTP)
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Overall Satisfaction with HP UFT
The main use of the HP UTF Suite is for DevOps activities which include automated tests and continuous integration for the builds being developed for the 9 applications/products which are being enhanced and built by the client. The product is mainly used by the business analysts and the QA testing team. HP UTF being the enhanced version of QTP, it addresses the issue of making tests automated and then running these same via a CI tool like TeamCity or Jenkins.
Also, as it integrates with the HP ALM product line (we are using it to store requirements), we connect to the requirements and the defects encountered for each of the JIRA cards. It also allows the users to work with databases and execute against web services and REST services, along with the usual UI tests for web. Integration with HP Loadrunner makes it possible to run performance tests also, which are valuable for the client and the services they have on offer. Integration with these other tools allows us to maintain a specific stack and lower the TCO across the organization and bring in a valuation and Agile practises across to all the teams involved. We have even started working on the concept of having a central team to work across all the projects.
Also, as it integrates with the HP ALM product line (we are using it to store requirements), we connect to the requirements and the defects encountered for each of the JIRA cards. It also allows the users to work with databases and execute against web services and REST services, along with the usual UI tests for web. Integration with HP Loadrunner makes it possible to run performance tests also, which are valuable for the client and the services they have on offer. Integration with these other tools allows us to maintain a specific stack and lower the TCO across the organization and bring in a valuation and Agile practises across to all the teams involved. We have even started working on the concept of having a central team to work across all the projects.
- Testing both GUI and backend processes in conjunction with other tools in the HP Toolset, i.e. Loadrunner & HP ALM.
- Using REST & web services (XML, SOAP), is relatively easier when you can scan in the WSDL files.
- Unable to build tests using programming languages like Java or C#.
- Lock-in access with ALM licenses can create a problem and hinders users who are working only on testing to not be able to use the tool.
- If the organization does not have an experienced HP Toolset user, things can get messy quite fast and It creates confusion for users who come in later.
- Organization within the ALM tool and the UTF tool to work in a Agile centric environment are lacking. Too much of customization needs to be carried out for it to work properly.
- Reduces the total workload of keeping the team to test older (regression) functionality. QA testers can concentrate on ad-hoc and exploratory testing, saving time and effort across the entire project.
- Has built a better infrastructure for the client applications on which we can rely on for stability and providing regression results for any new features being developed.
- Led the applications a step closer to implementing agile practices and DevOps across the entire organization. Thus, providing a better turnaround time of new features to the customers and less maintenance headaches for the BAU team to address.
Most of the test tools are similar in nature to what they do. Every tool has its own quirks, making them necessary to understand how and what they do, before we get to start using them; which also happens to be the key to good automation testing. Considering the HP toolset, they have good integration between the suite and handle requests to each other in sync. Usually, this is not possible with other tools (except SmartBear TestComplete), which are standalone tools for automation and need to be synced (via coding or configuration) to other tools from other vendors. I would also like to make the point here that each of the testing tools have their own pros and cons and each is suited to a different application on which they work best.