|Re: SWTbot vs Jubula [message #1066561 is a reply to message #1066528]
||Wed, 03 July 2013 07:53
|| Mickael Istria
Registered: July 2009
Location: Grenoble, France
On 07/03/2013 02:42 AM, Jiajian Lei wrote:
> My manager asked me to investigate both SWTbot and Jubula, since they
> both help automate GUI functional testing. My product is a
> company-specific CDT debugger that is built on java. I am very new to
> SWTbot and Jubula. Could anyone please give me some advice on which one
> might fit us better and why? What's the pros and cons of each one?
I think both are easy to get started with, and your manager does expect
you to try both and choose according to your product specificities.
Then, here is my understanding about the key points in SWTBot vs Jubula
* SWTBot is a Java API to consume while writing tests (can be JUnit,
TestNG...), which makes it very easy to use for Java developers
* Jubula has its own XML-based languages to write tests
* SWTBot supports and focuses only on SWT-based application.
* Jubula supports many types of application (SWT, Swing, HTML and
* SWTBot APIs have support for Eclipse workbench and
GEF/GMF/Graphiti/Sirius concepts (views, perspectives, editparts...)
* I don't know for Jubula
* SWTBot has a test recorder and generator that generates pieces of code
by monitoring at user-actions. It's still young but already provides
support for most usual UI operations; so it already provides a nice
productivity gain in writing tests. http://wiki.eclipse.org/SWTBot/Generator
* Jubula has a test recorder and generator, which is probably more
mature. But I never tried it, so I can't tell more.
If you go for SWTBot, it's also important that you understand that this
is a community project, and that it can be extended based on community
needs. However, there is no guaranteed support and development, so you
might need to contribute some missing pieces if you want to get them in.
JBoss, by Red Hat
My blog: http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com
My Tweets: http://twitter.com/mickaelistria
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.39322 seconds