TestComplete for Desktop application
Updated December 10, 2021
TestComplete for Desktop application
Score 7 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Overall Satisfaction with TestComplete
Used for UI testing of our desktop application. Really helpful to check for regression in the hundreds of small features it has, especially when a Unit Test isn't possible, because a lot of GUI logic is needed before launching the business logic. It is also great to know that each window, tab, and popup was checked before release, especially when the test users mainly focus on the new feature of the software.
- Repetitive mundane sequence of UI actions
- Checking UI object's properties
- Taking a lot of my time
- Name mapping is hard to edit: when the hierarchy or the identifiers properties are wrong, it can be quite painful and time-consuming to correct. Especially when it is not clear which item wrongly matches. A tool to correct such items in name mapping would be useful.
- TestComplete isn't multi user friendly, especially when using source control. Even if each user works on different tests, correcting the name mapping file only generates havoc on merge.
- KeywordTests' UX is awful: for some items, editing parameters can be done in two clicks, for others we need to click several times to display the edit button, which would be hidden by the tooltip, and then click blindly on this button.
- And then some properties can be modified in their text boxes, but other need to display the variable editor to be able to change anything.
- Region Checkpoint is mostly useless: such checkpoint would be great for verifying generated images, but then anti-aliasing will never be the same on different rendering and the checkpoint will fail. Increasing the error tolerance will then not detect real issues.
- We have redone the checkpoint by using perceptualdiff (https://github.com/myint/perceptualdiff ) and using only the Region Checkpoint feature to save the reference image (and mask). We also added the possibility to change of reference image, as testing on different graphic cards will give other subtle changes (AMD vs Nvidia).
- TestExecute is too much limited. We needed to write a tool to deploy our software on the test machine, and then change the TC project file to include or not some test. As some tests are quite flaky, we needed a redo of these, so we only select (automatically) the failed tests for doing another run.
- Exception in the test should always mark it failed, and not just discard it as it happens now in some cases.
- We needed a color checkpoint to check the display of some status indicators. Quite strange that it was missing in TC.
- Validation before release to catch any regression
- Time consuming to create and maintain the tests
- For complex applications, it should still require less time than manually [testing] every features in all possible cases
We used before the Coded UI Tests which are in Visual Studio / Azure DevOps, and the tests were impossible to maintain and very very flaky. Then in 2015, we selected TestComplete, as it was clearly the tool with the most feature for desktop UI testing. Selenium was directly discarded as it couldn't test desktop applications. We recently become aware of Ranorex Studio, the feature set seems similar to TestComplete. But with all the time invested in the tests made for TestComplete, a tool switch makes no [sense].
Do you think TestComplete delivers good value for the price?
Yes
Are you happy with TestComplete's feature set?
No
Did TestComplete live up to sales and marketing promises?
No
Did implementation of TestComplete go as expected?
No
Would you buy TestComplete again?
Yes
Using TestComplete
3 - Software engineers. Creating and maintaining the tests requests a good knowledge of the internal working of the tested application. And scripting and tools developing is mandatory to bypass the missing features of TestComplete.
3 - Software engineers. We needed to develop several add-on tools to really automatize the tests.
Programming skill is also needed for custom checkpoints (check values in complex databases after UI actions...).
For creating new UI tests, we often need to change the tested software UI (adding ID to recognize correctly the controls...). A good understanding of how some controls work is also mandatory (like for Telerik WPF RadTabControl). Otherwise, the name mapping would be wrong, and only some views could be correctly tested.
Programming skill is also needed for custom checkpoints (check values in complex databases after UI actions...).
For creating new UI tests, we often need to change the tested software UI (adding ID to recognize correctly the controls...). A good understanding of how some controls work is also mandatory (like for Telerik WPF RadTabControl). Otherwise, the name mapping would be wrong, and only some views could be correctly tested.
TestComplete Support
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
Kept well informed Quick Initial Response | Slow Resolution Poor followup Problems left unsolved |
No premium support offered.
Yes - When they identify as a bug, it is quickly resolved.
Using TestComplete
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
Consistent Feel confident using | Do not like to use Unnecessarily complex Difficult to use Not well integrated Slow to learn Cumbersome Lots to learn |
- Keyword test recording
- Adding checkpoint
- Playing the test
- Correcting name mapping
- Editing parameters in keyword tests
- Updating region checkpoints