Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

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

maxq
Discussion topic

Hide all messages in topic

All messages in topic

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

Author petersm <petersm at venzia dot com>
Full name petersm <petersm at venzia dot com>
Date 2004-04-14 07:56:46 PDT
Message Frank Cohen wrote:
> And now for something radical... I propose that MaxQ merge with
> TestMaker. They are both open source. Both love unit testing, Java,
> and
> Jython. MaxQ could benefit from a better graphical interface and the
> object library. TestMaker could benefit from a next generation
> recorder. What do you think James?
>

I agree. That's the first thing I noticed when I saw TestMaker.

We had talked about making this project a plugin for Mozilla (FireFox). I've
been thinking about it for a bit and I have these ideas to hand out and see
what everyone thinks.

We should work off the original code base of MaxQ/Testmaker making it a
standalone program. If we record the tests in RDF/XML
(http://www.w3.org/TR​/rdf-syntax-grammar/​). We can then write as many
translators of the RDF as we want for whatever language/platform/format people
ask for. After doing this it would be trivial to write a Mozilla plugin that
would do this (since mozilla's XUL/Javascript plugin system makes using
RDF/XML datasources a breeze). That way we don't have such a huge mountain to
climb, and if we never get the mozilla plugin written we would still have a
cool/useful product.

So, this would be the first open source project that I have been a contributor
of from the inception. Where do we go from here?

Michael Peters
Venzia

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

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

Author fcohen
Full name Frank Cohen
Date 2004-04-14 07:10:10 PDT
Message Ok James. I'll take that as a blessing with a neutral vote.

What is the relationship between MaxQ and Tigris? Who manages the email
lists? Were you working on any designs for MaxQ?

-Frank



On Apr 13, 2004, at 9:36 PM, James Cooper wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 04:49:41PM -0700, Frank Cohen wrote:
>
>> And now for something radical... I propose that MaxQ merge with
>> TestMaker. They are both open source. Both love unit testing, Java,
>> and
>> Jython. MaxQ could benefit from a better graphical interface and the
>> object library. TestMaker could benefit from a next generation
>> recorder. What do you think James?
>
> that's fine by me. as you all have noticed, I'm pretty much out of
> the picture at this point, so I'll defer to the active developers in
> the group.
>
> -- James
>
> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
> 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

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

Author James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com>
Full name James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com>
Date 2004-04-13 21:36:09 PDT
Message On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 04:49:41PM -0700, Frank Cohen wrote:

> And now for something radical... I propose that MaxQ merge with
> TestMaker. They are both open source. Both love unit testing, Java, and
> Jython. MaxQ could benefit from a better graphical interface and the
> object library. TestMaker could benefit from a next generation
> recorder. What do you think James?

that's fine by me. as you all have noticed, I'm pretty much out of
the picture at this point, so I'll defer to the active developers in
the group.

-- James

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

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

Author pombredanne
Full name Philippe Ombredanne
Date 2004-04-13 20:21:54 PDT
Message And both Maxq and TestMaker share a BSD style license which makes things
easier...
I second that
vote: +1

--
Cheers
Philippe

philippe ombredanne | nexB - Open IT Asset Management
1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
http://www.nexb.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Cohen [mailto:fcohen at pushtotest dot com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:50 PM
> To: users at maxq dot tigris dot org
> Subject: Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features?
>
>
> Great.
>
> And now for something radical... I propose that MaxQ merge with
> TestMaker. They are both open source. Both love unit testing,
> Java, and
> Jython. MaxQ could benefit from a better graphical interface and the
> object library. TestMaker could benefit from a next generation
> recorder. What do you think James?
>
> -Frank
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2004, at 4:35 PM, James Cooper wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:14:47AM -0700, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> >
> >> So now we have a start of a plan...
> >> What does James Cooper thinks of this?
> >
> > hey guys,
> >
> > I think you guys should go for it.
> >
> > -- James
> >
> >
> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
> > 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
>
>
>
>



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

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

Author fcohen
Full name Frank Cohen
Date 2004-04-13 16:49:41 PDT
Message Great.

And now for something radical... I propose that MaxQ merge with
TestMaker. They are both open source. Both love unit testing, Java, and
Jython. MaxQ could benefit from a better graphical interface and the
object library. TestMaker could benefit from a next generation
recorder. What do you think James?

-Frank



On Apr 13, 2004, at 4:35 PM, James Cooper wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:14:47AM -0700, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
>
>> So now we have a start of a plan...
>> What does James Cooper thinks of this?
>
> hey guys,
>
> I think you guys should go for it.
>
> -- James
>
> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
> 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

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

Author James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com>
Full name James Cooper <pixel at bitmechanic dot com>
Date 2004-04-13 16:35:28 PDT
Message On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:14:47AM -0700, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:

> So now we have a start of a plan...
> What does James Cooper thinks of this?

hey guys,

I think you guys should go for it.

-- James

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

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

Author pombredanne
Full name Philippe Ombredanne
Date 2004-04-13 16:26:42 PDT
Message OK,
I have sent an email to James Cooper, the project lead for maxq to get
his direct feedback.
Let's wait a couple days before we make a move...
--
Cheers
Philippe

philippe ombredanne | nexB - Open IT Asset Management
1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
http://www.nexb.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: petersm [mailto:petersm at venzia dot com]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 12:22 PM
> To: users at maxq dot tigris dot org
> Subject: Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features?
>
>
> Frank Cohen
>
> > 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/
>
> I looked briefly at this and it seems ok, but designed to be used by
> non-programmers to create tests. I think the aim of this
> project should be to
> create testing scripts that programmers would use and
> augment/modify as they
> see fit. I initially didn't see a way to manually edit the
> tests from the
> eValid thing.
>
> > 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.
> This is fairly straighforward using XUL (XML UserInterface
> Language) which is
> used by Mozilla and all it's plugins. The code would be
> written in javascript
> and the XPCom objects that Mozilla presents/creates. If you
> want to look at
> how this is done, go to xulplanet.com for descriptions/tutorials.
>
> After everyone has looked at how that is done I have this
> question... Is that
> how we want to do it? I think there are several pros and cons.
>
> Pros.
> - It's embedded in the browser which makes it easy and
> eliminates the need
> for a proxy and having to turn the proxy on and off.
> - the controls are right there for recording, etc the tests.
>
> Cons
> - It will be Mozilla specific. This doesn't really bother me
> since it's
> probably the most standards compliant browser out there and
> FireFox is gaining
> popularity.
> - It is written mostly in Javascript. On my initial
> investigations, I haven't
> found that other languages are available.
>
> If we don't go with the Mozilla plugin route, then we should
> probably just
> make these improvements to MaxQ itself instead of spinning
> off for this project.
>
> Personally, I think it would be cool to do it as a Mozilla
> plugin, but I think
> we should decide as a group.
>
> >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.
>
> Yet another good idea.
>
> Michael Peters
> Venzia
>
> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@ma​xq.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at maxq dot tigris dot org
>
>
>
>



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

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

Author petersm <petersm at venzia dot com>
Full name petersm <petersm at venzia dot com>
Date 2004-04-12 12:22:13 PDT
Message Frank Cohen

> 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/

I looked briefly at this and it seems ok, but designed to be used by
non-programmers to create tests. I think the aim of this project should be to
create testing scripts that programmers would use and augment/modify as they
see fit. I initially didn't see a way to manually edit the tests from the
eValid thing.

> 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.
This is fairly straighforward using XUL (XML UserInterface Language) which is
used by Mozilla and all it's plugins. The code would be written in javascript
and the XPCom objects that Mozilla presents/creates. If you want to look at
how this is done, go to xulplanet.com for descriptions/tutorials.

After everyone has looked at how that is done I have this question... Is that
how we want to do it? I think there are several pros and cons.

Pros.
 - It's embedded in the browser which makes it easy and eliminates the need
for a proxy and having to turn the proxy on and off.
 - the controls are right there for recording, etc the tests.
 
Cons
 - It will be Mozilla specific. This doesn't really bother me since it's
probably the most standards compliant browser out there and FireFox is gaining
popularity.
 - It is written mostly in Javascript. On my initial investigations, I haven't
found that other languages are available.

If we don't go with the Mozilla plugin route, then we should probably just
make these improvements to MaxQ itself instead of spinning off for this project.

Personally, I think it would be cool to do it as a Mozilla plugin, but I think
 we should decide as a group.

>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.

Yet another good idea.

Michael Peters
Venzia

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

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

Author pombredanne
Full name Philippe Ombredanne
Date 2004-04-12 10:14:47 PDT
Message So now we have a start of a plan...
What does James Cooper thinks of this?
--
Cheers
Philippe

philippe ombredanne | nexB - Open IT Asset Management
1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
http://www.nexb.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Cohen [mailto:fcohen at pushtotest dot com]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:07 AM
> To: users at maxq dot tigris dot org
> Subject: Re: [maxq-users] anybody want these features?
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>



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

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

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

Author pombredanne
Full name Philippe Ombredanne
Date 2004-04-12 09:36:59 PDT
Message 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

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

Author petersm <petersm at venzia dot com>
Full name petersm <petersm at venzia dot com>
Date 2004-04-12 09:03:17 PDT
Message Philippe Ombredanne wrote
> On the topic of multiple languages generation, and GUI
> integration/assertion generation, Frank Cohen and I had a separate
> discussion.
>
> One tool that is great and that could be adapted for GUI based
> recording, to supplement the proxy based recording of MaxQ would be the
> Mozilla DOM Inspector, available both with Mozilla and Firefox.
> It has a complete access to the internals of the pages being browsed,
> AND a nifty little feature that let you click on some element on the
> page, and highlight that element in the displayed DOM tree in another
> pane, and with a green highlight box on the browser window.
>
> You could imagine to patch the tool (it is open source after all), so
> that a ctrl-click on a page element could generate an assertion, and may
> be a shift-click could hint the recorder that this element should be
> considered as a variable for tests execution purpose (i.e. a form
> field). To one click = one assertion, right while you are browsing!!
>
> You could also imagine that the output of a session would be emitted as
> XML, and that there would be a library of transforms available to
> generate Jython, Python, Junit/HttpUnit, Canoo web tests ant scripts,
> Cactus scripts, Perl, Groovy, ....
> See some of our exchanges below.
>
> This has been a itch for me for a while.
> Doing decent web gui unit testing and perf testing has been a real pain
> when you have to write manual tests...
> Peter, Frank, what about starting something?
> Would the maxq leaders welcome our efforts under their roof?
> Would we need another roof?
> What about OpenTests for a name? or maxq++?

Wow! I really like this idea. If we write it as a Mozilla plugin then it
wouldn't need the proxy right? 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.

Michael Peters
Venzia

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

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

Author pombredanne
Full name Philippe Ombredanne
Date 2004-04-12 08:44:52 PDT
Message On the topic of multiple languages generation, and GUI
integration/assertion generation, Frank Cohen and I had a separate
discussion.

One tool that is great and that could be adapted for GUI based
recording, to supplement the proxy based recording of MaxQ would be the
Mozilla DOM Inspector, available both with Mozilla and Firefox.
It has a complete access to the internals of the pages being browsed,
AND a nifty little feature that let you click on some element on the
page, and highlight that element in the displayed DOM tree in another
pane, and with a green highlight box on the browser window.

You could imagine to patch the tool (it is open source after all), so
that a ctrl-click on a page element could generate an assertion, and may
be a shift-click could hint the recorder that this element should be
considered as a variable for tests execution purpose (i.e. a form
field). To one click = one assertion, right while you are browsing!!

You could also imagine that the output of a session would be emitted as
XML, and that there would be a library of transforms available to
generate Jython, Python, Junit/HttpUnit, Canoo web tests ant scripts,
Cactus scripts, Perl, Groovy, ....
See some of our exchanges below.

This has been a itch for me for a while.
Doing decent web gui unit testing and perf testing has been a real pain
when you have to write manual tests...
Peter, Frank, what about starting something?
Would the maxq leaders welcome our efforts under their roof?
Would we need another roof?
What about OpenTests for a name? or maxq++?
--
Cheers
Philippe

philippe ombredanne | nexB - Open IT Asset Management
1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
http://www.nexb.com



Philippe Ombredanne wrote:

> Let's work it out.
> The stuff is called the DOM inspector.
> It has real time access to all the DOM representation of a page
> displayed in the browser, together with point and click capabilities.
> Like that you could imagine a context where instead of recording
> everything, you could do selective recording, or give hints on what
> specifically you would want to record for test assertions...
> You could also have a system where no proxy is needed, and therefore
> everything including https, can be part of a recorded session.
> The code is mostly C++ with some Xul.
> Check http://www.mozilla.o​rg/projects/inspecto​r/ and
> http://www.brownhen.​com/DI.html and
> http://books.mozdev.​org/html/mozilla-app​-b-sect-3.html
> Here is what it looks like:

Frank Cohen wrote:
>I like the benefits you list: selective recording, avoids https proxy
>problem
>There are a couple of things I would like to accomplish:
>If possible, write it in Java so I can plug it into TestMaker
>Make it so it outputs Jython scripts and Java classes
>Make its output able to plug into my XSTest framework - that turns unit

>tests into scalability and load tests.
>
>Check out these:
>http://jrex.mozdev.o​rg/index.html
>http://jazilla.mcbri​dematt.dhs.org/

Frank Cohen wrote:
>> If possible, write it in Java so I can plug it into TestMaker

Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> I am all for it. We develop all our software in Java and some Python.
> C++ is a pain...
> I like the two links you have sent below.
> Some of the things we could do:
> * I like the DOM inspector which already has all the logic,
> especially the point and click on wysiwyg stuffs in the pages
> to discover their DOM properties, without disturbing the
> browsing. It could be a way to do the selective marking of
> page elements eligible for recording. I.e. you could
> Ctrl-click on an input tag while browsing to make it part of
> the recording, or generate a specific assertion on the value
> of the element... Typically one way to get fairly robust
> access to a single element is a combination of :
> - tidy, and make the HTML well formed and XML well formed
> - get a relative anchor to some stable place in the HTML page
> (via regex or relative Xpath query)
> - from that node make absolute Xpath which will return stable results.
> The point and click could generate all the expressions
> necessary for that.
>
> Point and click may be hard to reproduce in an alternative
> Java implementation of Mozilla, but may-be not.
>
> * What we would need then would be a way that we can hook
> Java in the process, so we code most of our stuff in Java/Jython.
> It could be done may be with a simple JNI done just once to
> establish the hooks.

Frank Cohen wrote:
> >Make it so it outputs Jython scripts and Java classes
> >Make its output able to plug into my XSTest framework - that
> >turns unit tests into scalability and load tests.

Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> One idea could be to output recordings in a language neutral
> way, i.e. XML, and to create transforms to emit Java, Python,
> HTTPUnit java scripts, Canoo web tests scripts, Maxq scripts,
> TestMaker/XSTests scripts, and even possibly Java or Python
> wrappers to the web pages, that could expose the recorded
> session as a web service, that you could call over and over.
> Also create a binding so apps can receive events generated by
> the recording in the DOM explorer.

-----Original Message-----
From: petersm [mailto:petersm at venzia dot com]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 8:11 AM
To: MaxQ list
Subject: [maxq-users] anybody want these features?


Ok, after having used MaxQ for a few days, here are some ideas that I
would
like to run past everyone and see what the consensus is.

1 - I feel that MaxQ should easily be integrated into whatever other
tests
(unit, etc) that a team is doing on their web apps already. If we
provide
multiple language support (python, perl, tcl?, java?, etc) instead of
just
jython, then a team could use MaxQ to write tests that would be placed
with
their other tests and run at the same time. They would also be able to
manage,
update, modify, etc those tests as their project changes. I have already
begun
the research into making this possible with perl. I don't think it will
be
that hard to do. But maybe as we add more and more languages, we might
want to
consider changing the underlying structure to accomodate this. Or, maybe
not.
I'll find out more as I go along.

2 - Almost everytime I request a page I want to verify something other
than
whether it was successful or not. I want to check that the page contains
some
string or regular expression, etc. Maybe we could have someway to do
this from
the gui. It is easy enough to do this to the code afterwards but if I
could do
it in the gui as I am running my test and looking at the page that I
want to
test I feel it would be a great enhancement. Maybe something along these
lines
in the gui..

Test -> Page -> Contains (brings up a dialog box asking for a string to
use
for the test)
Test -> Page -> Contains RegEx (brings up a dialog box asking for a
regular
expression to use to test this page)

and maybe more as we think of them.

This would then generate the code right then and there.

Ok, now the invitation for feedback, criticism... :)
Go!

Michael Peters
Venzia

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






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

[maxq-users] anybody want these features?

Author petersm <petersm at venzia dot com>
Full name petersm <petersm at venzia dot com>
Date 2004-04-12 08:11:19 PDT
Message Ok, after having used MaxQ for a few days, here are some ideas that I would
like to run past everyone and see what the consensus is.

1 - I feel that MaxQ should easily be integrated into whatever other tests
(unit, etc) that a team is doing on their web apps already. If we provide
multiple language support (python, perl, tcl?, java?, etc) instead of just
jython, then a team could use MaxQ to write tests that would be placed with
their other tests and run at the same time. They would also be able to manage,
update, modify, etc those tests as their project changes. I have already begun
the research into making this possible with perl. I don't think it will be
that hard to do. But maybe as we add more and more languages, we might want to
consider changing the underlying structure to accomodate this. Or, maybe not.
I'll find out more as I go along.

2 - Almost everytime I request a page I want to verify something other than
whether it was successful or not. I want to check that the page contains some
string or regular expression, etc. Maybe we could have someway to do this from
the gui. It is easy enough to do this to the code afterwards but if I could do
it in the gui as I am running my test and looking at the page that I want to
test I feel it would be a great enhancement. Maybe something along these lines
in the gui..

Test -> Page -> Contains (brings up a dialog box asking for a string to use
for the test)
Test -> Page -> Contains RegEx (brings up a dialog box asking for a regular
expression to use to test this page)

and maybe more as we think of them.

This would then generate the code right then and there.

Ok, now the invitation for feedback, criticism... :)
Go!

Michael Peters
Venzia

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