TestComplete - Fantastic for an established product wanting to implement test automation where it didn't previously exist
Overall Satisfaction with TestComplete
We're primarily using TestComplete to run UI tests against a web application and standalone applications. The web application is older and has a lot of architecture that is outdated and limits us from running automated tests that are based more in the API/integration-based area. That means we are stuck with running more UI-based tests than a true test automation group might like to have. TestComplete makes organizing and running our tests fairly smooth.
Pros
- TestComplete is great for working with our non-web applications.
- TestComplete allows us to interface with our web application in a robust way.
- Despite the age of our architecture, TestComplete handles the old stuff that's been around a while as well as the newer technology when we are able to implement it.
Cons
- TestComplete could stand to have a simplified view for different types of users. For instance, as a manager/architecture guy, I'm not so interested in getting into the code and am more interested in file-based interactions.
- TestComplete could use more integration with reporting for things like TeamCity to improve test status visibility.
- TestComplete has done a wonderful job of shortening our regression test cycles.
- TestComplete is a little tougher to implement with schedulers like TeamCity.
- Licensing is kind of a pain.
We aren't 100% sure that we will stick with TestComplete for our web-based UI testing for the long haul because Selenium is a bit lighter on the overhead front, but we definitely really like it for testing our standalone applications and utilities. As far as a complete testing package is concerned, though, we really like it as a one stop shop for test automation.
Comments
Please log in to join the conversation