Introducing Keyword-driven Test Automation

orial

Presented by:
Hans Buwalda
Brought to you by:

340 Corporate Way, Suite Orange Park, FL 32073
888‐2
MI
PM Tut
4/7/2014
1:00 – 4:30 PM

“Introducing Keyword‐Driven Test Automation”

LogiGear

300,
68‐8770 ∙ 904‐278‐0524 ∙ sqeinfo@sqe.com ∙ www.sqe.com

Hans Buwalda has been working with inform hnology since his high school
r,
s

Hans Buwalda
LogiGear

ation tec
years. In his thirty year career, Hans has gained experience as a developer, manage
and principal consultant for companies and organizations worldwide. He was a pioneer
of the keyword approach to testing and automation, now widely used throughout the
industry. His approaches to testing, like Action Based Testing and Soap Opera Testing,
have helped a variety of customers achieve scalable and maintainable solutions for
large and complex testing challenges. Hans is a frequent speaker at STAR conference
and is lead author of Integrated Test Design and Automation: Using the Testframe
Method.

2/4/2014
1
STARCANADA 2014
Toronto, Canada
Tutorial MI
Monday, April 7, 13.00 – 16.30
Introducing
Keyword-driven
Test Automation
© 2014 LogiGear Corporation. All Rights Reserved
Hans Buwalda
LogiGear
hans @ logigear.com
Introduction
− industries
roles in testing
− roles in testing

2/4/2014
2
About LogiGear
Software testing company, around since 1994
Testing and test automation expertise, services and
www.logigear.com
www.testarchitect.com
g p ,
tooling
− consultancy, training
− test development and automation services
− "test integrated" development services
Aims to be thought leader, in particular for large and
complex test projects
p p j
Products:
− TestArchitect™, TestArchitect for Visual Studio™
− integrating test development with test management and automation
− based on modularized keyword-driven testing
About Hans
Dutch guy, living and working in California since 2001, as
CTO of LogiGear
Background in math, computer science, management
Original career in management consultancy, since 1994
focusing on testing and test automation
− keywords, agile testing, big testing, . . .
www.happytester.com
hans @ logigear.com

2/4/2014
3
Topics for this tutorial
Introduction to keyword driven testing
− including "Action Based Testing", my own flavor of it...
Comparison to other techniques for automationp q
Recommendations for a successful application of keyword
driven testing
− test design
− automation
− organization
Some ideas for specific situations:
− data driven testing
data driven testing
− non-ui testing
− multi-media
− protocols
− initial data
Not everything will be equally interesting, or accessible, to
everybody
Testing Under Pressure
DEADLINE
specification development test

2/4/2014
4
Testing Under Pressure
DEADLINE
specification development test
Develop tests in time:
Develop tests in time:
• Test design
• Auditing, acceptance
• Preparations
• Automation
The 5% Rules of Test Automation
No more than 5% of all test cases should beNo more than 5% of all test cases should be
executed manually
No more than 5% of all efforts around
testing should involve automating the tests
testing should involve automating the tests

2/4/2014
5
Why a High Automation Degree ??
The best way to prepare for efficiency in the crunch zone
− good manual test cases can help too, but marginally
Buy time to do more "exploratory testing", and better test
development
Credible pay-off for the cost of introduction of automation
− initial costs are: tooling, learning curve, adaptation of existing tests
Automation is better positioned to identify “bonus bugs”
− on average 15% of fixes cause new bugs
− many of these bugs are hard to find without integral testing
• often a result of violating overall architectures
• the bugs occur because data is left in inconsistent state
Automated tests have a better chance of being kept up to date if they
form the majority of the testware
Automation can be re-run, for example as part of the continuous
integration process
− either specific based on code changes, or integral, to also catch bonus bugs
Why < 5% Automation Efforts ??
Automation should not dominate testing
− it is not a goal in itself
− may never be a bottleneck
automation
should deliver,
not dominate…
may never be a bottleneck
Testers should be able to focus on testing
− better tests (higher ambition level)
− communication with stake holders
High automation efforts can aggravate the
High automation efforts can aggravate the
“crunch zone”, instead of relieving it
− “invitation to Murphy’s law”

2/4/2014
6
Record and Playback
select window "Logon"
enter text "username", "administrator"
enter text "password", "testonly"
push button "Ok"push button "Ok"
select window "Main"
push button "New Customer"
expect window "Customer Information"
select field "First Name"
type "Paul"
select field "Last Name"
type "Jones"
type Jones
select field "Address"
type "54321 Space Drive"
.
.
.
Scripting
Test Case
Design
Test Case
Automation
TEST DESIGNER
AUTOMATION ENGINEER
Test Case
Execution
AUTOMATION ENGINEER
MR. PLAYBACK

2/4/2014
7
Example scripting
/// <summary>
/// AddItems ‐ Use 'AddItemsParams' to pass parameters into this method.
/// </summary>
State of the art, but stuff for coders . . .
/// </summary>
public void AddItems()
{
#region Variable Declarations
WinControl uICalculatorDialog =
this.UICalculatorWindow.UICalculatorDialog;
WinEdit uIItemEdit =
this.UICalculatorWindow.UIItemWindow.UIItemEdit;
#endregion
// Type '{NumPad7}' in 'Calculator' Dialog
Keyboard.SendKeys(uICalculatorDialog,
this.AddItemsParams.UICalculatorDialogSendKeys,
ModifierKeys.None);
// Type '{Add}{NumPad2}{Enter}' in 'Unknown Name' text box
Keyboard.SendKeys(uIItemEdit,
this.AddItemsParams.UIItemEditSendKeys,
ModifierKeys.None);
}
Keywords, Action Words
number name quantity
new product P-9009 Sledge Hammer 5
number quantity
add quantity P-9009 20
number name quantity
new product P-9009 Sledge Hammer 5
number quantity
actions, each with a
keyword and
arguments read from top
to bottom
fragment from a test with actions
Common in automation tools nowadays (but with different styles)
Identify tasks for both test development and automation
q y
number quantity
check quantity P-9009 34
q y
number quantity
check quantity P-9009 34
"34" is the
expected value
here
to bottom
y p
The test developer creates tests using actions
Each action consists of a keyword and arguments
The automation task focuses on automating the actions
Each action is automated only once

2/4/2014
8
Potential benefits of keywords
More tests, better tests
− more breadth
− more depth
Fast, results can be quickly available
− the test design directly drives the automation
Separates the tests from the technical scripting language
− easier to involve business subject matter experts
− the action format allows for easy readability
Less efforts for automation
− even "script free" in many cases
Automation more stable and maintainable
− limited and manageable impact of changes in the system under test
Develop tests more early in the life cycle
− deal with execution details later
Risks of keyword approaches
Often seen as silver bullet, complications are
underestimated
− often treated as a technical "trick"
− testers can get squeezed and marginalized
• developers and users dictating tests
• automation engineers dictating actions
− testers can end up with an automation responsibility, thus becoming pseudo
programmers
The method needs understanding and experience to be
successful
− pitfalls are many, and can have a negative effect on the outcome
Lack of method and structure can risk manageability
− maintainability not as good as hoped
− results can be disappointing, approach will be blamed

2/4/2014
9
Combining Approaches . . .
Use keywords for the automation-ready
description of test cases
Use scripting to set up structured automation for
the actions
Use record and playback to record keywords
Enter a user id that is greater than 10 characters,
enter proper information for all other fields,
and click on the "Continue" button
There should be an error message stating
that "User Id must be less than 10
characters".
Comparing Formats
Most values are implicit. The tester has to
figure them out during execution….
classic format
Execution instructions are
repeated in multiple test cases
and click on the Continue button characters .
Enter a User Id with special character's), enter
proper information for all other fields
and click on the "Continue" button
An error message should be displayed
indicating that "User Id cannot contain
some special characters".
Enter the information, with a password of 4
characters and click on the "Continue" button
Check for an error message saying:
"Password must contain at least 5
characters".
keywords
user id message
check registration dialog aaaaabbbbbc User Id must be less than 10 characters
user id message
check registration dialog résoudre User Id cannot contain some special characters
password message
check registration dialog test Password must contain at least 5 characters

2/4/2014
10
Keywords is not just test automation
Can also be used for other than testing:
− data entry chores
− training purposesg p p
Can also be used for manual testing
− for example with a manual testing dialog
− even can show instructions, with placeholders for values
Action
login <user> <password>
Enter "<user>" in the user name field, and "<password>" in the password field.
Action
login <user> <password>
Enter "<user>" in the user name field, and "<password>" in the password field.
Test line
user name password
login hansb secret
Test line
user name password
login hansb secret
What the manual tester would see
Enter "hansb" in the user name field, and "secret" in the password field.
What the manual tester would see
Enter "hansb" in the user name field, and "secret" in the password field.
Keywords need a method
By themselves keywords don't provide much scalability
− they can even backfire and make automation more cumbersome
− a method can help tell you which keywords to use when, and how to
i thorganize the process
Today we'll look at Action Based Testing (ABT)
− addresses test management, test development and automation
− large focus on test design as the main driver for automation success
Central deliveries in ABT are the "Test Modules"
Central deliveries in ABT are the Test Modules
− developed in spreadsheets
− each test module contains "test objectives" and "test cases"
− each test module is a separate (mini) project, each test module can
involve different stake holders

2/4/2014
11
Don't just automate manual testing

2/4/2014
12
Good automated testing is not the same as automating good manual testing. . .
Action Based Testing (ABT)
Uses the keyword format as a basis for a method
− covers test management, test development and automation
− with a large focus on test design as the main driver for automation
success
− method is specific, but concepts are generic
The central product in ABT is the "Test Module", not the
test case
− like chapters in a book
− test cases are part of the test modules, they are typically the result
(rather than the input) of test development
(rather than the input) of test development
− test development is seen as having both analytical and creative
aspects
− developed as spread sheets, external from the automation, with a
well defined flow
− easier to manage: each test module is a separate (mini) project, each
test module can involve different stake holders

2/4/2014
13
Test Module Plan
Test Module 1 Test Module 2 Test Module N
Overview
Tests
Objectives
Tests Tests
Actions
. . .
Objectives Objectives
AUTOMATION
user password
log in jdoe StarEast
first last brand model
rent car John Renter Ford Escape
rent car John Renter Chevrolet Volt
last total
check bill Renter 140.42
interaction test business test
window control value
enter log in user name jdoe
enter log in password StarEast
window control property expected
check prop log in ok button enabled true
car guy
Example of business level test module
Consists of an (1) initial part, (2) test cases and (3) a final part
Focus is on business functionality, with a clear business scope
Navigation details are avoidedNavigation details are avoided
TEST MODULE Car Rental Payments
user
start system john
TEST CASE TC 01 Rent some cars
first name last name car
rent car John Doe Ford Escape
rent car John Doe Ford Escape
rent car John Doe Chevvy Volt
last name amount
check payment Doe 140.4
FINAL
close application

2/4/2014
14
Example of an interaction level test module
Lay-out the same, with an initial part, test cases and a final part
Interaction details that are the target of the test are not hidden
Focus is not on business ("is the payment amount correct"), but on( p y )
interaction ("do I see the payment amount")
TEST MODULE Screen Flow
user
start system john
TEST CASE TC 01 Order button
window button
click main create order
window
check window exists new order
FINAL
close application
Variables and expressions with keywords
TEST CASE TC 02 Rent some more cars
car available
get quantity Chevvy Volt >> voltsget quantity Chevvy Volt volts
car expected
check quantity Chevvy Volt # volts - 2
This test does not need an absolute number for the
available cars, just wants to see if a stock is updated
As a convention we denote an assignment with ">>"
The "#" indicates an expression

2/4/2014
15
Data driven testing with keywords
DATA SET cars
car first last value
Chevvy Volt John Doe 40000
TEST CASE TC 03 Check stocks
data set
use data set /cars y
Ford Escape Mary Kane 22500
Chrysler 300 Jane Collins 29000
Buick Verano Tom Anderson 23000
BMW 750 Henry Smyth 87000
Toyota Corolla Vivian Major 16000
car available
get quantity # car >> quantity
rent car # first # last # car
car expected
check quantity # car # quantity - 1
repeat for data set
The test lines will be repeated for each row in the data set
The values represented by "car", "first" and "last" come
from the selected row of the data set
Automating keyword tests
Keywords are useful, but technical not complex. It is not hard to make a
simple keyword interpreter. Many test tools also have keyword options in
some form or another.
Function Interpret
While not end of test
Read next line
Split the line into arguments
Look up the keyword in the "action list"
Execute the function belonging to the keyword
ReportInterpreter
g g y
Report the results of this line
Repeat for next line
End

2/4/2014
16
Example: script for an action "check sort order"
The following action script will verify whether the rows in a table are sorted:
def action checkSortOrder():
# get table object, column number and column count
windowName = LIBRARY.NamedArgument("window")
tableName = LIBRARY.NamedArgument("table")
columnName = LIBRARY.NamedArgument("column")
table = ABT.OpenElement(windowName, tableName)
column = table.GetColumnIndex(columnName)
rowCount = table.GetRowCount()
# check the sort order, row by row
previous = table.GetCellText(0, column)
f i i (1 C t)
find the table in the UI
if a value is smaller than before, fail the test
get arguments from the test line
_ ()
for i in range(1, rowCount):
current = table.GetCellText(i, column)
if current < previous :
LIBRARY.AdministerCheck("order", "sorted", "fails " + str(i+1), 0)
return
previous = current
LIBRARY.AdministerCheck("order", "sorted", "all rows in order", 1)
if all rows are ascending, pass the test
Using the new action
By keeping an action generic it can be applied for a
variety of situations
S l f i " h k t d "Some examples of using "check sort order":
window table column
check sort order view orders orders table ID
window table column
check sort order annual results regions revenue
window table column
check sort order inventory cars price
window table column
check sort order registration students last name

2/4/2014
17
Example application
A Test Module for the application
We click a tree node, and then do a check
The actions here are built-in in the framework

2/4/2014
18
Making a new "action"
name of the new action
create a node path
the arguments of
the new action
This action definition uses existing actions to create a new
action called "check bitrate"
Argument names can be used in cell expressions, that start
with "#", and support the usual string and numeric operators
p
from the first two
argumentsthe expected value is
given by the 3rd argument
Using the action in a test
These test lines don't care about the navigation in the UI of
the application, the focus is functional: verify data
Such functional tests are easier to read with high level
actions, and the reduced dependency on navigation makes
them (much) easier to maintain in the long term

2/4/2014
19
4000
In a good application of the keywords approach a large increase in test cases (like doubling
the amount) should result in a modest increase in actions, and a minor increase, if any, in
programmed action functions.
Scalability
4000
tests
2000
250
actions
tests
22 functions
200
actions
20 functions
Identifying controls
Identify windows and controls, and assign names to them
These names encapsulate the properties that the tool can
use to identify the windows and controls when executing the
tests

2/4/2014
20
Mapping an interface
INTERFACE ENTITY library
interface entity setting title {.*Music Library}
name class label
interface element title text Title:interface element title text Title:
interface element artist text Artist:
interface element file size text File size (Kb):
name class position
interface element playing time text textbox 4
interface element file type text textbox 5
interface element bitrate text textbox 6
name class position
interface element music treeview treeview 1
An interface mapping (common in test tools) will map windows and
controls to names
When the interface of an application changes, you only have to update
this in one place
The interface mapping is a key step in your automation success, allocate
time to design it well, in particular naming and choosing identifying
properties
Some Tips to Get Stable Automation
Press for an automation-friendly system design
− consider this a key requirement ("must have")
− having testing and automation in agile teams helpshaving testing and automation in agile teams helps
Test the automation, in particular complex actions
− before running tests with them
Keep an eye on the test design
Use "active" timing, don't use hard coded waits

2/4/2014
21
Automation friendly system design (examples)
Timing hooks
− to know when a UI or a background process is ready
Hidden identifiers for controlsHidden identifiers for controls
− like "name" in Java and "automation id" in WPF
Access to data input
− ability to set up special values for calculations
− functions to shut off or steer random generators
Behind-the-scenes access to displayed data
− graphic representation is different from value correctness
− in a game: knowing where the monsters are
Emulation features, like time-travel and fake
locations
(note: be aware of security considerations. Non-UI access should be safe)
Look for properties a human user can't see, but a test tool can
This approach can lead to speedier and more stable automation
− interface mapping is often bottleneck, and source of maintenance problems
− with predefined identifying property values in interface map can be created without "spy" tools
not sensitive to changes in the system under test
Automation-friendly design: hidden properties
− not sensitive to changes in the system under test
− not sensitive to languages and localizations
Examples:
− "id" attribute for HTML elements
− "name" field for Java controls
− "AccessibleName" or "Automation ID" properties in .Net controls (see below)
number

2/4/2014
22
Mapping the interface using hidden identifiers
INTERFACE ENTITY library
interface entity setting automation id MusicLibraryWindow
ta name ta class automation id
interface element title text TitleTextBoxinterface element title text TitleTextBox
interface element artist text SongArtistTextBox
interface element file size text SizeTextBox
interface element playing time text TimeTextBox
interface element file type text TypeTextBox
interface element bitrate text BitrateTextBox
ta name ta class automation id
interface element music treeview MusicTreeView
Instead of positions or language dependent labels, an internal property
"automation id" has been used
The interface definition will be less dependent on modifications in the UI
of the application under test
If the information can be agreed upon with the developers, for example in
an agile team, it can be entered (or pasted) manually and early on
Active Timing
Passive timing
− wait a set amount of time
− in large scale testing, try to avoid passive timing altogether:
• if wait too short, test will be interrupted
if it t l ti i t d• if wait too long, time is wasted
Active timing
− wait for a measurable event
− usually the wait is up to a, generous, maximum time
− common example: wait for a window or control to appear (usually the test tool will do
this for you)
Even if not obvious, find something to wait for...
Involve developers if needed
− relatively easy in an agile team, but also in traditional projects, give this priority
If using a waiting loop
− make sure to use a "sleep" function in each cycle that frees up the processor (giving the
AUT time to respond)
− wait for an end time, rather then a set amount of cycles

2/4/2014
23
Active Timing
How much passive timing do you have in your
scripts?
If you're not sure, find out...
... and let me know
"First action I took upon my return was to evaluate the percentage of
First action I took upon my return was to evaluate the percentage of
passive time in our code and found passive time 68% versus active
time 32%. Needless to say our automation test cases were very
expensive time operations and now I know why..."
Raed Atawneh, 2012 (extract)
Things to wait for...
Wait for a last control or elements to load
− developers can help knowing which one that is
Non UI criteriaNon-UI criteria
− API function
− existence of a file
Criteria added in development specifically for this purpose, like:
− "disabling" big slow controls (like lists or trees) until they're done loading
− API functions or UI window or control properties
Use a "delta" approach:
Use a delta approach:
− every wait cycle, test if there was a change; if no change, assume that the
loading time is over:
− examples of changes:
• the controls on a window
• count of items in a list
• size a file (like a log file)

2/4/2014
24
Test Design
Effective test breakdown (into test modules)
− make sure every test module has a clear focus
keep different kinds and levels of tests separate− keep different kinds and levels of tests separate
Right level of actions
− as “high level” if possible, hiding as many details as
much as possible
− but not if the details are relevant for the test
I have become to believe that successful automation is not a
technical challenge. It is most of all a test design challenge.
Why Better Test Design?
Quality and manageability of test
− many tests are often quite "mechanical" now
− one to one related to specifications, user stories or requirements,
hi h ft i k b t l k iwhich often is ok, but lacks aggression
− no combinations, no unexpected situations, lame and boring
− such tests have a hard time finding (interesting) bugs
Better automation
− when unneeded details are left out of tests, they don't have to be
maintained
− avoiding "over checking": creating checks that are not in the scope of
a test but may fail after system changes
a test, but may fail after system changes
− limit the impact of system changes on tests, making such impact
more manageable
I have become to believe that successful automation is usually
less of a technical challenge as it is a test design challenge.

2/4/2014
25
The Three “Holy Grails” of Test Design
Metaphor to depict three main steps in test design
Using "grail" to illustrate that there is no one perfect
solution, but that it matters to pay attention (to search)
About quality of tests, but most of all about scalability and
maintainability in big and complex projects
Organization of tests into test modules
Right approach for each test module
Proper level of detail in the test specification
What's the trick...

2/4/2014
26
What's the trick...
Have or acquire facilities to store and organize
your content
Select your stuff
Decide where to put what
− assign and label the shelves
P t it th
Put it there
If the organization is not sufficient anymore, add
to it or change it
Breakdown Criteria
Main Criteria
− Business tests versus interaction tests
− Data versus presentation ("is data correct" versus "can I view data")
Architecture of the system under test (client server protocol sub− Architecture of the system under test (client, server, protocol, sub
systems, components, modules, ...)
− Functionality (customers, finances, management information, ...)
− Kind of test (navigation flow, negative tests, response time, ...)
− Ambition level (smoke test, regression, aggressive, …)
Additional Criteria
− Stakeholders (like "Accounting", "Compliance", "HR", ...)
− Complexity of the test (put complex tests in separate modules)
− Technical aspects of execution (special hardware, multi-station, ...)
− Overall project planning (availability of information, timelines, sprints, ...)
− Risks involved (extra test modules for high risk areas)

2/4/2014
27
Approach 1: Workshop
Gather a meeting with relevant participants
− test developers
− domain expertsdomain experts
− automation engineer (focus on efficiency of automation)
− experienced moderator
− also consider: developers, managers
If necessary, provide training of participants
before the discussion
before the discussion
Approach 2: Design and Feedback
One or two experienced test designers create a
first draft
The draft is delivered/discussed to relevant
parties
Ask the parties to verify:
1. Structure: does it make sense
2. Completeness: are all relevant areas covered
Based on feedback, further modify the design

2/4/2014
28
Properties of a good Breakdown
Reflects the level of tests
Well differentiated and clear in scope
Balanced in size and amount
Modules mutually independent
Fitting the priorities and planning of the project
"Thou Shall Not Debug Tests..."
Large and complex test projects can be hard to "get to
run"
If they are however, start with taking a good look again at
your test design...
Rule of thumb: don't debug tests. If tests don't run
smoothly, make sure:
− lower level tests have been successfully executed first -> UI flow in
o e e e tests a e bee success u y e ecuted st U o
the AUT is stable
− actions and interface definitions have been tested sufficiently with
their own test modules -> automation can be trusted
− are you test modules not too long and complex?

2/4/2014
29
Breakdown examples
CRUD tests (Create, Read, Update, Delete) for all entity types in the app
− like "order", "customer", "well", etc
− for all: various types and situations
Forms, value entry
− does each form work (try to test form by form, not entity by entity)
− mandatory and optional fields valid and invalid values etcmandatory and optional fields, valid and invalid values, etc
− UI elements and their properties and contents
− function keys, tab keys, special keys, etc
Screen and transaction flows
− like cancel an order, menu navigation, use a browser back and forward buttons, etc
− is the data in the database correct after each flow
Business transactions, business rules
− identify situations that the tests need to try
Function tests, do individual functions work
− can I count orders, can I calculate a discount, etc
End-to-end tests
d to e d tests
− like enter sale order, then check inventory and accounting
Tests with specific automation needs
− like multi station tests
Tests of non-UI functions
High ambition tests (aggressive tests)
− can I break the system under test
Identifying the modules
Step 1: top down: establish main structure:
analyze what the business is and what the system does?
how is it technically organized?
do other “primary criteria” apply?
use the list in the "breakdown examples" slide as a starting point
− see it as "low hanging fruit": items that tend to apply well in many projects
also visit the “secondary criteria”
− not always applicable, but can help to refine the design further
Step 2: bottom up: refine, complete:
study individual functionalities and checks (like from exist test cases)
and identify test modules for them if needed
identify and discuss any additional criteria and needed testing situations
review and discuss the resulting list(s) of test modules
if necessary try to create some early drafts of test modules and adjust the list
Repeat steps 1 and 2 if needed.

2/4/2014
30
Example of an application under test
Various item types
− tests
− actions
− interface definitions
d t t− data sets
− folders
− ...
Various operations
− open
− cut, copy, paste
− check out
− ...
Various ways to initiate an operation
− context menu, with or without accelerator key
, y
− main menu, with or without accelerator key
− toolbar
− short cut key
− function key
− drag and drop
− double click
− ....
Defining some modules
Test modules for operations
− primary and alternate paths
− various values for fields like "comment" in check-in
− paste in other projects
d t i− copy and paste various groups
− not necessarily on each item type
Test modules for items
− address all item types at least once
− on each item type perform each operation
− not necessarily each variant of each operation
UI handling
− try for UI command if it starts the intended operation
y p
− not necessarily on each item type or operation variant
Concurrency
− try concurrency sensitive operations with multiple stations
− in varying concurrency scenarios, with and without local "refreshes"
− not necessarily each item type or operation variant
− certainly not each UI command included

2/4/2014
31
What about existing tests?
Compare to moving house:
− some effort can't be avoided
− be selective, edit your stuff, look at the future, not the past
d id h t t h t th t it th− decide where to put what, then put it there
− moving is an opportunity, you may not get such chance again soon
Adopt a module approach
− define the modules and their scope as if from scratch
− use the existing test cases in two ways:
• verify completeness
• harvest and re-use them for tests and for actions
avoid porting over "step by step" in particular avoid over checking
− avoid porting over step by step , in particular avoid over-checking
Defining test runs using "test suites"
Build Acceptance Test
Smoke Test
System Test
© 2009 LogiGear Corporation. All rights reserved.© 2014 LogiGear Corporation. All rights reserved.© 2011 LogiGear Corporation. All rights reserved.© 2014 LogiGear Corporation. All rights reserved.© 2014 LogiGear Corporation. All rights reserved.
Functional Acceptance Test
Delivery Test

2/4/2014
32
Test Module Scope Prio Status
Model Life Cycles
Create, store, delete Models (=formula + data), as part of SYS
sessions
1 pass
Result Life Cycles Create, store outputs. See them in the process store. 1 pass
Formula Life Cycles Create, edit, manage, remove formulas 2 pass
Formula Editor buttons, operations, undo 3 pass
Repository
display of the Modeler repository, presence of user formulas,
drag and drop usage. Effect of changing repository folder
(environment variable)
1 failed
Model Store in Repository presence, re‐run, delete 1 pass
Repository UI example: selecting an item shows its description 2 errorsRepository UI example: selecting an item shows its description 2 errors
Formula Evaluation
Correctness of results, valid/invalid arguments, boundary
analyses, special arguments
1 pass
Built‐in Formulas
Presence, correctness, valid/invalid arguments, boundaries,
special arguments, equivalence classes
1 pass
Data Table Association
Associate tabels view, change and remove associations, data
applicability, for existing and defined formulas
2 pass
Quick Access buttons
Life cycle of Quick Access buttons, correctnes for the built‐in
ones
3 dev
Formula arguments
presence, argument types, argument entry, parameters,
defaults
2 pass
arguments for Built‐in
l
arguments, argument types and defaults for each pre‐defined
f l
2 failed
Formulas formula
2 failed
Area Of Interest Relations defaulting, tree visibility, select/deselect, …. 1 pass
Model Execution
Model times, start, stop (cancel), restart ("chunks",
"timeboxes", ... needs more information)
3 pass
Graphics graphical representation of various data types and data sets 1 pass
Graphics Viewing zoom, select, drag and drop (no 3d now) 1 pass
Administration users, projects, authorization 1 pass
Model results in central
database
storing, removing, using, correctness, … (there are some other
applications, mostly legacy, that can do the same Models to
compare)
1 pass
Modeler UI various controls, panels, tabs 2 pass
Model Life Cycles
sessions
1 pass
Repository
1 failed
Formula Evaluation
1 pass
Built‐in Formulas
1 pass
2 pass
ones
3 dev
Formula arguments
defaults
2 pass
l
f l
2 failed
Formulas formula
2 failed
Model Execution
3 pass
database
compare)
1 pass

2/4/2014
33
Model Life Cycles
sessions
1 pass
Repository
1 failed
Formula Evaluation
1 pass
Built‐in Formulas
1 pass
2 pass
ones
3 dev
Formula arguments
defaults
2 pass
l
f l
2 failed
Formulas formula
2 failed
Model Execution
3 pass
database
compare)
1 pass
Model Life Cycles
sessions
1 pass
Repository
1 failed
Formula Evaluation
1 pass
Built‐in Formulas
1 pass
2 pass
ones
3 dev
Formula arguments
defaults
2 pass
l
f l
2 failed
Formulas formula
2 failed
Model Execution
3 pass
database
compare)
1 pass

2/4/2014
34
Model Life Cycles
sessions
1 pass
Repository
1 failed
Formula Evaluation
1 pass
Built‐in Formulas
1 pass
2 pass
ones
3 dev
Formula arguments
defaults
2 pass
l
f l
2 failed
Formulas formula
2 failed
Model Execution
3 pass
database
compare)
1 pass
Test Module Scope Prio Build 1 Build 2 Build 3
Model Life Cycles
sessions
1 pass pass pass
Result Life Cycles Create, store outputs. See them in the process store. 1 pass pass pass
Formula Life Cycles Create, edit, manage, remove formulas 2 pass pass pass
Formula Editor buttons, operations, undo 3 pass pass pass
Repository
1 failed failed failed
Model Store in Repository presence, re‐run, delete 1 pass pass pass
Repository UI example: selecting an item shows its description 2 errors errors errorsRepository UI example: selecting an item shows its description 2 errors errors errors
Formula Evaluation
1 pass pass pass
Built‐in Formulas
1 pass pass pass
2 pass pass pass
ones
3 dev dev dev
Formula arguments
defaults
2 pass pass pass
l
f l
Formulas formula
Area Of Interest Relations defaulting, tree visibility, select/deselect, …. 1 pass pass pass
Model Execution
3 pass pass pass
Graphics graphical representation of various data types and data sets 1 pass pass pass
Graphics Viewing zoom, select, drag and drop (no 3d now) 1 pass pass pass
Administration users, projects, authorization 1 pass pass pass
database
compare)
1 pass pass pass
Modeler UI various controls, panels, tabs 2 pass pass pass

2/4/2014
35
Grail 2: Approach per Test Module
• Name the test modules
recommendation: subject area only, leave words like "Verify", "Test", "Can" from
titles of test modules (and test objectives and test cases)
• Plan the test module:• Plan the test module:
when to develop: is enough specification available
when to execute: make sure the functionality at action level is well-tested
and working already
• Process:
analysis of requirements
formulation of "test objectives"
create "test cases"
© 2009 LogiGear Corporation. All rights reserved.© 2014 LogiGear Corporation. All rights reserved.© 2014 LogiGear Corporation. All rights reserved.© 2014 LogiGear Corporation. All rights reserved.
• Identify stakeholders and their involvement:
users, subject matter experts
developers
auditors
• Choose testing techniques if applicable:
boundary analysis, decision tables, transition diagrams, soap opera testing,
...
Eye on the ball, Scope
Always know the scope of the test module
Th h ld b biThe scope should be unambiguous
The scope determines many things:
− what the test objectives are
− which test cases to expect
− what level of actions to use
− what the checks are about and which events should
generate a warning or error (if a “lower” functionality
is wrong)

2/4/2014
36
State your Objectives . . .
...
TO-3.51 The exit date must be after the entry date
...
test objective TO-3.51
name entry date exit date
enter employment Bill Goodfellow 2002-10-02 2002-10-01
enter employment Bill Goodfellow 2002-10-02 2002-10-01
check error message The exit date must be after the entry date.
Grail 3: Specification Level, choosing actions
Scope of the test determines the specification level
As high level as appropriate, as little arguments as
iblpossible
− Use default values for non-relevant arguments
Clear names (usually verb + noun usually works well)
− to standardize action names: standardize both the verbs and the nouns, so
"check customer" versus "verify client" (or vice versa)
− tests are not C++ code: avoid "technical habits", like mixed case and (worse)
underlines
Manage the Actions
Document the Actions
By-product of the test design

2/4/2014
37
Example of using actions
In this real world example the first "sequence number" for teller transactions for a given day is retrieved, using a search function
• the "#" means an expression, in this case a variable
• the ">>" assign to a variable for use later on in the test
key
key navigate F7
key navigate 3y g
page tab
locate page tab Scan Criteria
w indow
wait for controls loaded search
text
check breadcrumb general functions > search
w indow control value
select search scan direction Backward
w indow control value
enter value search business date match # bus date
source control
click search go
w indow
wait for controls loaded search results
w indow control variable
get search results sequence number >> seq num
Example of using actions
In this real world example the first "sequence number" for teller transactions for a given day is retrieved, using a search function
• the "#" means an expression, in this case a variable
• the ">>" assign to a variable for use later on in the test
variable
get sequence number >> seq num

2/4/2014
38
An example test for the Modeler
model name arguments formulamodel name arguments formula
create model vegas winner x 10*x
argument value
set argument x some money
model name expected
run model vegas winner a lot more money
run model vegas winner a lot more money
Too detailed?
Step Name Description Expected
step 16 Click the new formula button to start a new
calculation.
The current formula is cleared. If it had not
been save a message will show
step 17 Enter "vegas winner" in the name field The title will show "vegas winner"
step 18 Open the formula editor by clicking the '+'
button for the panel "formula editor"
The formula editor will show with an empty
formula (only comment lines)
step 19 Add some lines and enter "10*x;" The status bard will show "valid formula".
There is a "*" marker in the title
step 20 Click the Save formula button The formula is saved, the "*" will disappear
from the title
step 21 Open the panel with the arguments by
clicking the '+' button
There two lines, for 'x' and 'y'
g
step 22 Click on the value type cell and select
"currency"
A button to select a currency appears, with
default USD
step 23 Click on the specify argument values link The argument specification dialog is shown

2/4/2014
39
Another example
TEST MODULE Order processing
start system
TEST CASE TC 01 Enter an order for two articles
user password
login jdoe testdesign
window
check window exists welcome
order id cust id priority
create order AB123 W3454X normal
order id article amount price
add to order AB123 tablet 3 219.95
add to order AB123 case 3 3.19
id total
check order total AB123 669.42
. . .
Environments, configurations
Many factors can influence details of automation
− language, localization
− hardware
i f th t d t t− version of the system under test
− system components, like OS or browser
Test design can reflect these
− certain test modules are more general
− others are specific, for example for a language
But for tests that do not care about the differences, the
automation just needs to "deal" with them
− shield them from the tests

2/4/2014
40
Capture variations of the system under test in the actions and interface
definitions, rather than in the tests (unless relevant there).
Can be a feature in a test playback tool, or something you do with a global
variable or setting.
"Variations"
"Master Switch"
Actions, Interface Definitions
. . .
Variation Variation Variation
Possible set up of variations
linked variation
keyworded variation
Specify for example in a dialog when you start an execution:

2/4/2014
41
Non-UI Testing
Examples
− application programming interfaces (API’s)
− embedded software
protocols− protocols
− files, batches
− databases
− command line interfaces (CLI’s)
− multi-media
− mobile devices
Impact is mainly on the automation
test design should in most cases be transparent towards the specific
testing devices
− test design should in most cases be transparent towards the specific
interfaces
Often non-UI automation can speed up functional tests
that do not address the UI
Multiple System Access
Test Modules, driving either
one or multiple interfaces
Automation Scheme
protocol
access
UI
access
one or multiple interfaces
System (part)
Under TestAPI
access
access access
database
access

2/4/2014
42
Device Testing
Testing Host
Device
Software Under Test
Agent
ABT
Automation
Interface
I f
Device
Andr
oid
Info
Multimedia: The "Play List" Approach
Approach applicable for graphics, videos, sound
fragments, etc
The test includes "questions":
− what the tester should see or hear
− like "Are the matching areas blue?"
− actions like "check picture"
The test tool keeps a "play list"
− during the run items are captured and stored
− after the run, the tester is presented with the items,
d h hi i
and the matching questions
− the tester acknowledges/falsifies
− the system stores those passed items
− if during the next run the items are the same as
earlier passed ones, the tester is not asked again

2/4/2014
43
Performance Testing
The topic is complex, but to create tests can be quite
straightforward
− actions like "generate load <how much>" and "check response time <max
wait>"
− use one tool to generate load (like JMeter), another to run the "normal"
functional test
Often performance testing isn't testing, but more close to
research
− analysis bottle necks and hot spots (for example discontinuities in response
times, means buffers are full)
− application of statistical techniques like queuing theory
pp q q g y
− how to realistically mimic large scale productions situations in smaller test
environments
The three controls you can/should address:
hardware (equipment, infrastructure, data centers, etc)
software (programs, database models, settings, etc)
demands (1 second may cost 10 times more than 2 seconds)
See also: "Load Testing for Dummies", Scott Barber, gomez.com
Organization
Much of the success is gained or lost in how you organize the
process
− part of the teams
− who does test designwho does test design
− who does automation
− what to outsource, what to keep in-house
Write a plan of approach for the test development and automation
− scope, assumptions, risks, planning
− methods, best practices
− tools, technologies, architecture
− stake holders, including roles and processes for input and approvals
− team
team
− . . .
Assemble the right resources
− testers, lead testers
− automation engineer(s)
− managers, ambassadors, ...
Test design is a skill . . .
Automation is a skill . . .
Management is a skill . . .
. . . and those skills are
different . . .

2/4/2014
44
Life Cycles
Product life cycles, rather than task life cycles
The project planning and execution largely determines when the
products are created
system
development
test
d l t
development
test
automation
Typical Time Allocation
TEST DEVELOPMENT
efforts
AUTOMATION
time

2/4/2014
45
Keywords and ABT in Agile
Keywords are suitable for agile projects:
− tests are easier to create and understand, in particular for non-
programmers
th ll t t d l t ith t d f d t il th t h 't− they allow test development without a need for details that haven't
been defined yet
− automated tests can quickly follow changes in the system under test
Action Based Testing in itself is quite agile
− focused on products and cooperation
− flexible in process, in fact each test module can have its own process
− test modules are usually very suitable to drive system development
H ABT li hi h l l t t d i f b t
However, ABT relies on high level test design for best
results
− identifying test modules
− in larger scale projects this may require at least some overall test
planning activities that are not necessarily easy to do in a single
scrum team
Test Development and Automation in sprints
product
owner
team
prod owner
& team
Agile life cycle
Test Module
Definition
(optional)
Test Module Development
Interface Definition
Action Automation
Sprint Products
Product
Backlog
Test re-use
Automation re-use
Test Execution
User stories
Documentation
Domain understanding
Acceptance Criteria
PO Questions
Situations
Relations
Test development
Main Level Test Modules
Interaction Test Modules
Cross over Test Modules

2/4/2014
46
Automated testing in sprints
Try keep the main test modules at a similar level as the
user stories and acceptance criteria
− test modules can double as modeling device for the sprint
Aim for "sprint + zero", meaning: try to get test
development and automation "done" in the same sprint,
not the next one
− next one means work clutters up, part of team is not working on the
same sprint, work is done double (manually and automated), ...
Make sure you can do the interface mapping by hand
(using developer provided identifications)
(using developer provided identifications)
− can do earlier, before UI is finalized, and
− recording of actions will go better
Make sure to have sufficient technical access to the AUT
− for timing
− for data, conditions etc
Fitting in sprints
Agreement on the approach:
− questions like does "done" include tests developed and automated?
− do we see testing and automation as distinguishable tasks and
kill tskillsets
− is testability a requirement for the software
Understand subject matter and testing approaches
Automation technology should be readily available
Have a strategy for dealing with base and input data
M k t ti d t ti t f th l ti
Make testing and automation part of the evaluations
Address tests and automation also in hardening sprints
Just like for development, use discussions with the team
and product owners to deepen understanding:
− also to help identify negative, alternate and unexpected situations

2/4/2014
47
Summary
Keywords is one of the techniques for automated
testing, in addition to record & playback and
scriptingscripting
In itself keywords are not a silver bullet, it needs
a good approach, careful planning and good
organization to be successful
Keywords can work for GUI testing, but equally
well for a variety of other purposes
1. Testing Computer Software, Cem Kaner, Hung Nguyen, Jack Falk, Wiley
2. Lessons Learned in Software Testing, Cem Kaner, James Bach, Bret Pettichord, Wiley
3. Experiences of Test Automation, Dorothy Graham, Mark Fewster, Addison Wesley, 2012
4. Automating Software Testing, Dorothy Graham, Mark Fewster, Addison Wesley
Some References
5. Action Based Testing (overview article), Hans Buwalda, Better Software, March 2011
6. Action Figures (on model-based testing), Hans Buwalda, Better Software, March 2003
7. Integrated Test Design & Automation, Hans Buwalda, Dennis Janssen and Iris Pinkster,
Addison Wesley
8. Soap Opera Testing (article), Hans Buwalda, Better Software Magazine, February 2005
9. Testing with Action Words, Abandoning Record and Playback, Hans Buwalda, Eurostar
1996
10. QA All Stars, Building Your Dream Team, Hans Buwalda, Better Software, September
10. QA All Stars, Building Your Dream Team, Hans Buwalda, Better Software, September
2006
11. The 5% Solutions, Hans Buwalda, Software Test & Performance Magazine, September
2006
12. Happy About Global Software Test Automation, Hung Nguyen, Michael Hackett, e.a.,
Happy About
13. Misconceptions About Test Automation, Hans Buwalda, LogiGear Magazine, April 29th,
2013

Introducing Keyword-driven Test Automation

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (7)

Ähnlich wie Introducing Keyword-driven Test Automation

Ähnlich wie Introducing Keyword-driven Test Automation (20)

Mehr von TechWell

Mehr von TechWell (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Introducing Keyword-driven Test Automation