Comparative Study of Open Source Automated Web Testing Tools: Selenium and Sahi

Satheesh, Arjun; Singh, Monisha

doi:10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i13/109048

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Teridentifikasi pada beberapa penelitian bahwa untuk melakukan perbandingan dapat mempertimbangkan beberapa poin utama sebagai parameter pembanding. Parameter pembanding yang teridentifikasi adalah support to platforms and technology, functionality, usability, performance efficiency dan kelebihan serta kekurangan tools (Sandin, Yassin and Mohamad, 2016) (Satheesh and Singh, 2017) (Kannan, M;Lokeshwari, 2017) (Rana and Yousuf, 2019) (Gamido and Gamido, 2019). Dengan demikian, evaluasi parameter feature yang digunakan pada penelitian ini ditunjukkan pada Tabel 1.…”

Section: Evaluasi Parameter Featureunclassified

“…Aspek Kemudahan Instalasi Pada saat instalasi memiliki pengaturan konfigurasi yang sederhana yaitu tidak banyak yang harus diatur (Satheesh and Singh, 2017).…”

Section: Kategori Deskripsi Mudahunclassified

“…Aspek: Pemahaman Dokumentasi Tersedianya dokumentasi penjelasan tools, tetapi membutuhkan upaya lebih agar kinerja tools dipahami atau bahkan dokumentasi tidak tersedia (Sandin, Yassin and Mohamad, 2016) Aspek: Mudah digunakan Sebuah prosedur memiliki langkahlangkah penggunaan yang susah untuk diingat (Churm, 2017) Aspek Kemudahan Instalasi Pada saat instalasi memiliki pengaturan konfigurasi framework yang rumit yaitu banyak yang harus diatur (Satheesh and Singh, 2017) Tabel 5 menggambarkan perbandingan STARTS dan Ekstazi pada parameter usability berdasarkan aspek kajian tingkat kemudahan dalam pemahaman dokumentasi, kemudahan penggunaan tools dan kemudahan instalasi tools. Aspek dokumentasi membahas mengenai tingkat kemudahan dalam memahami informasi terkait instalasi dan penggunaan tool yang disediakan tool.…”

Section: Sulitunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perbandingan Kemampuan Regression Testing Tool Pada Regression Test Selection: Starts Dan Ekstazi

Maspupah¹,

Bakhrun²

2021

JTT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regression testing as an essential activity in software development that has changed requirements. In practice, regression testing requires a lot of time so that an optimal strategy is needed. One approach that can be used to speed up execution time is the Regression Test Selection (RTS) approach. Currently, practitioners and academics have started to think about developing tools to optimize the process of implementing regression testing. Among them, STARTS and Ekstazi are the most popular regression testing tools among academics in running test case selection algorithms. This article discusses the comparison of the capabilities of the STARTS and Ekstazi features by using feature parameter evaluation. Both tools were tested with the same input data in the form of System Under Test (SUT) and test cases. The parameters used in the tool comparisons are platform technology, test case selection, functionality, usability and performance efficiency, the advantages, and disadvantages of the tool. he results of the trial show the differences and similarities between the features of STARTS and Ekstazi, so that it can be used by practitioners to take advantage of tools in the implementation of regression testing that suit their needs. In addition, experimental results show that the use of Ekstazi is more precise in sorting out important test cases and is more efficient, when compared to STARTS and regression testing with retest all.

show abstract

Section: Evaluasi Parameter Featureunclassified

“…Aspek Kemudahan Instalasi Pada saat instalasi memiliki pengaturan konfigurasi yang sederhana yaitu tidak banyak yang harus diatur (Satheesh and Singh, 2017).…”

Section: Kategori Deskripsi Mudahunclassified

Section: Sulitunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perbandingan Kemampuan Regression Testing Tool Pada Regression Test Selection: Starts Dan Ekstazi

Maspupah¹,

Bakhrun²

2021

JTT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Selenium is an open-source software automation tool developed by Apache 2.0 license [14], which supports different types of testing in web applications. It is not just a single tool but it consists of four tools: Selenium IDE, Selenium RC, Selenium Web driver and Selenium Grid.…”

Section: Seleniummentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation onto the Software Testing Techniques and Tools: An Evaluation and Comparative Analysis

Shuaibu¹,

Musa²,

Ibrahim³

2019

IJCA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software testing are executed throughout all phases of software development life cycle (SDLC). It is though time consuming, labour intensive and now becoming expensive due to the used of an automated tool system. Errors and defect detection in software are identify using software techniques and tools. These techniques and tools are numerous and to improve on the software quality, there is the need to conduct a testing activity using a suitable technique so as to ascertained a product with an excellent quality features such as being; reliable, secure, efficient etc. In most cases, multiple automated techniques and tools are required to cover all the possible testing state, with the requirement of high skilled expertise, making it professional. The aim of this paper is to investigate on some kind of dynamic testing techniques (white, black and grey box) and an automated tools (load, web and mobile) given their comparative and evaluation analysis based on an established criterion. The conclusion of this investigation, has shown that choosing an appropriate techniques/tools increases test depth, software reliability and as well reduces their execution period with greater flexibility.

show abstract

“…The former provides an opportunity in validating MutateIFML's applicability to larger WAs, while the latter provides an opportunity in examining MutateIFML's parameter tuning and for discovering any consistency issues. In order to do this, the current resources and effort need to be improved by adding more testers and resources during the analysis of the validation results, and applying an advanced testing strategy such as the Selenium Grid that allows multiple tests to run across different machines in parallel [244]. Eventually, we suggest a comparative evaluation of MutateIFML to other SBT support tools to evaluate its performance after its parameter tuning (e.g.…”

Section: Crossover and Mutation Operatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using models to support the search-based testing of web applications

Yasin¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A web application model offers a high-level description of a web application's behaviour. Using the web application's model to derive test cases serves as a good starting point in testing, since the model is created based on the web application's specification. To improve the capabilities of the derived test cases in revealing faults in the web application's behaviour, these test cases can be improved using search-based testing. In this thesis, we propose a search-based testing approach that explores a large search space of possible combinations of a web application's behaviour. The approach evolves an initial set of model-based test cases to produce more test cases that are more effective in finding failures in the web application's behaviour. Firstly, we present a pseudo-Genetic Algorithm that evolves a set of model-based test cases by mutating or recombining their model-based genes to obtain a set of model-based offspring test cases. The algorithm transforms the offspring test cases into executable test cases. We incorporate the pseudo-Genetic Algorithm in a search-based testing tool called MutateIFML. We describe the model-based test representation which uses the Interaction Flow Modelling Language to model the test cases and the system under test. We define the mutation score of the population as the fitness function for MutateIFML. Secondly, we validate MutateIFML's capability and applicability using two web applications: OpenBiblio and RosarioSIS. We discuss our results and the achievements of MutateIFML in producing effective test cases that are measured by the capability of the population in killing faults that are seeded into these web applications. The validation of the approach reveals that enhancing the single fitness function with a coverage indicator can help in guiding the selection phase of the search-based testing approach. We discover MutateIFML's limitation in scaling up to larger more complicated web applications due to the initial manual task of fault-seeding, the absence of a suitable automated support tool for the testing framework and the complexities of MutateIFML. We then extend the single fitness function used in MutateIFML to include branch coverage. We validate the improved multi-objective fitness function with a small case study that focuses on a module of a web application to examine the viability of the multi-objective fitness function in killing additional mutant systems under test. Although the multiobjective fitness function is able to kill additional mutants, we realise that it can cause MutateIFML's testing cost to increase substantially. Finally, we suggest possible directions for future work. Financial support Scholarship support from the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (MoHE) and Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) in Malaysia is gratefully acknowledged. Temporary scholarship support and financial assistance from the

show abstract

Comparative Study of Open Source Automated Web Testing Tools: Selenium and Sahi

Cited by 8 publications

References 2 publications

Perbandingan Kemampuan Regression Testing Tool Pada Regression Test Selection: Starts Dan Ekstazi

Perbandingan Kemampuan Regression Testing Tool Pada Regression Test Selection: Starts Dan Ekstazi

Investigation onto the Software Testing Techniques and Tools: An Evaluation and Comparative Analysis

Using models to support the search-based testing of web applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About