Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Discussions > users > Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features?

maxq
Discussion topic

Back to topic list

Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features?

Author fcohen
Full name Frank Cohen
Date 2004-04-12 10:07:00 PDT
Message I like the idea too! And would like to participate in the design.

By the way, there is another commercial company:

http://www.soft.com/eValid/

that signed a license with Microsoft and uses IE as its Mozilla to
accomplish a test recorder environment.

In my opinion, the DOM inspector is nice to have to not necessary. The
bigger issue will be to create a GUI that rides along with Mozilla to
let the user control/edit the scripts as they are being recorded. I'm
thinking that most users will want to use the actual HMTL forms in
Mozilla to interact with the host. Also we need something to present a
simple GUI that controls playing a recorded session. For this I
contribute the design for TestMaker 5's recorder. I sent Philippe the
design document (that includes a screen shot walking tour of the GUI.)
I'll post this to the PushToTest site for your info.

Also, at some point a Wiki for this new generation of MaxQ would be
handy. I can offer that on the PushToTest Web site if needed.

-Frank




On Apr 12, 2004, at 9:36 AM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:

> Michael Peters wrote:
>> Wow! I really like this idea. If we write it as a Mozilla
>> plugin then it
>> wouldn't need the proxy right?
> Yep. No more need for proxies, since this would take within the
> browser.
> Many products in that space are done for screen scraping.
> The closest I have seen in concept is
> http://www.jstudio.d​e/English/LogOnENG.h​tm , a commercial product that
> IMHO falls short of being easy to use, to say the least. It is not
> using
> dom inspector, but similar function you can mimic using IE controls
> (active accessibility).
> It is also geared more toward web wrapper generation (which is
> something
> which we could also target as a transform : i.e. extractor/wrapper
> exposed as a web services, based on a transform of a recording...)
>
>
>> If we did it right, we could make the
>> assertions point and click easy. I also like the xml idea. Writing
>> transformations into other languages and testing formats
>> would be easy from
>> that point. I second these ideas. Writing plugins for mozilla
>> seems to be
>> fairly straightforward (I've looked at the XUL stuff before).
>>
>> I like either name. maxq++ gives props to the original
>> project but either is
>> fine with me. Keep me in touch as I would love to be involved.
>
> I had a discussion last week with one of the maintainers of the DOM
> isnpector.
> Here it is:
> Christopher A. Aillon wrote:
>> On 03/25/2004 10:22 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
>>> Thanks for your answer. I will dive more into the code, and
>> may ask some
>>> guidance here and there.
>>> Is the DOM wrapper mostly javascript and xul?
>>
>> The wrapper can be accessed using script. See the W3 docs. Our
>> implementation of most of it is in C++ native code. Look in
>> mozilla/dom
>> and mozilla/content/ of which I am also a peer.
>>
>>> I would have hopped some high docs, or a unit tests suite.
>>> I will probably setup the project either on sourceforge or Tigris.
>>>
>>
>> The API is very well documented at the W3 site. I recommend reading
>> that over any doc we could possibly provide. I believe they also
>> include a test suite.
> The key to have a good tool, is to make it really easy and simple to
> use. Like a camcorder.
> I have written at least two GUI recorders/code generators in the past,
> and the approach that worked best was to make a lot of assumptions and
> heuristics to get the stuff working most of the time, and always have
> the ability to override if it does not work.
> If the tool is easy and can genearte decent stuff fast, then the users
> are able to generate a lot of stuff until they get it right by trial
> and
> error. But they get feedback fast.
>
>
> Code wise, the point is that the stuff is mostly C++, and looks like
> out
> of the traditional plug-in kind of API.
> So maybe we could have a hook into their code, and write Java or Python
> from that point on.
> Using C++ only for the GUI stuff, and capturing events.
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Philippe
>
> philippe ombredanne | nexB - Open IT Asset Management
> 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
> http://www.nexb.com
>
>
>
> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@ma​xq.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at maxq dot tigris dot org
>
>
--
Frank Cohen, PushToTest, http://www.PushToTest.com, phone: 408 374 7426
Enterprise test automation solutions to check and monitor Web-enabled
applications for functionality, scalability and reliability.


--------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@ma​xq.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at maxq dot tigris dot org

« Previous message in topic | 5 of 14 | Next message in topic »

Messages

Show all messages in topic

[maxq-users] anybody want these features? petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> 2004-04-12 08:11:19 PDT
     RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? pombredanne Philippe Ombredanne 2004-04-12 08:44:52 PDT
         RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> 2004-04-12 09:03:17 PDT
             RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? pombredanne Philippe Ombredanne 2004-04-12 09:36:59 PDT
                 Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? fcohen Frank Cohen 2004-04-12 10:07:00 PDT
                     RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? pombredanne Philippe Ombredanne 2004-04-12 10:14:47 PDT
                         Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com> James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com> 2004-04-13 16:35:28 PDT
                             Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? fcohen Frank Cohen 2004-04-13 16:49:41 PDT
                                 RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? pombredanne Philippe Ombredanne 2004-04-13 20:21:54 PDT
                                 Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com> James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com> 2004-04-13 21:36:09 PDT
                                     Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? fcohen Frank Cohen 2004-04-14 07:10:10 PDT
                                         Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> 2004-04-14 07:56:46 PDT
                     Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> petersm <petersm at venzia dot com> 2004-04-12 12:22:13 PDT
                         RE: [maxq-users] anybody want these features? pombredanne Philippe Ombredanne 2004-04-13 16:26:42 PDT
Messages per page: