The purpose of the software testing process is to distinguish all the imperfections existing in software design (Bahl, 2015, p. 316). It is the way toward practicing and assessing a framework or framework segments by manual or programmed technique to confirm that it fulfills determined necessities or to recognize contrasts amongst expected and genuine outcomes. People whose software evaluations are called testers. It requires an analyzer to assume the part of a client, and utilize all highlights of the application to guarantee its right conduct. Testers use specific guidelines to evaluate each web application (Bharti & Vidhu, 2015, p. 134). The purpose of this research is to perform an applied study on the manual and automated web-application testing tools. Consequently, the outcomes will be compared to evaluate the right tool for software testing.
tailored to your instructions
for only $13.00 $11.05/page
Background of study
In this fast-changing period and aggressive business condition, manual testing has made it troublesome for organizations to evaluate their sites and applications. As a result, software testers used an automated testing process that reduces the challenges of manual testing (Bhateja, 2015, p. 2). Web-application testing highlights the defects of most site applications. This kind of testing additionally guarantees that the usefulness of web applications and administrations that are identified with the web is working properly. It additionally offers reusability and extensibility of tests over numerous dialects, stage, and for various programs (Bhatt, 2017, p. 3). It is important to note that manual and automated testing provides different results on web applications. However, manual-testing tools have their challenges, which limit its usability. Manual testing is a tedious process, not reusable, has no scripting capability, and requires time and effort (Chaudhary, 2017, p. 2). Nevertheless, automated testing covers the issues of manual testing. Automated testing robotizes the stages of manual testing utilizing automated tools, for example, Selenium and QuickTest Pro.
Testing is a basic piece of the product advancement process. With the huge improvement in programming frameworks, the real concern to developers is quality and security (Chauhan & Singh, 2014, p. 3). An effective software-testing tool ensures quality, which influences user confidence. Numerous open-source applications are accessible for enhancing software quality by diminishing the product defects.
Online applications or web applications are programmable application software that keeps running in a web program and is made in one dialect and depends on a web program to render the application. Web programs are software applications (Google Chrome) that enable clients to show, recover, and communicate with content situated on the pages of a website. The communication process is carried out through a two-way data process between the server and the customer (Dubey & Shiwani, 2014, p. 7).
Sites or web applications support an interminable number of employments and functionalities on the web. Regular illustrations incorporate Amazon.com for shopping, Facebook for long-range informal communication, Google for Search, and Yahoo mail for an email to mention a few (Gautam & Nagpal, 2016, p. 4). Web applications are designed with three layers. Each layer has its specific functions and objective. The layers of a web-based application include the database layer, operational and user interface layer. The database layer stores the whole data of the application, including the creation, refresh, and ease of individual records, traits, and qualities in the application information. The operation layer directs all capacities that work the application (client solicitations and reactions). This layer can be considered as the administrator who guarantees that all assignments are finished and appointed to legitimate territories of work. The user interface layer enables clients to interact with the application capacities, for example, pictures, user profile, and the website navigations (Hanna, El-Haggar, & Sami, 2014, p. 6).
Automated software testing is useful for huge projects. It is dependable and effective for end-user applications. As a result, automated software testing tools are used to conduct tests with predefined activities, coordinates the built-up program, and genuine outcomes (Rathi & Mehra, 2015, p. 4). If the task prospects and results align, the application is working properly. However, if it does not align, the codes would be altered and the test initiated again.
Manual testing is a technique utilized by programming designers to run tests physically. There are numerous manual testing tools, which are completed physically and naturally. Manual testing tools include black box, white box, integration testing, system testing, and unit testing (Islam, 2016, p. 30).
as little as 3 hours
For upgrading information on software testing tools and practices for web applications, this research explores an applied study of manual and automated software testing tools (Shah, Shah, & Muchhala, 2014, p. 3). Consequently, the study compares both software-testing tools and prescribes the fitting extension and utilization that each instrument is most appropriate to serve (Mahmood & Sirshar, 2017, p. 53).
Selenium is an open-source test apparatus, which sustains diverse kinds of testing in web applications. Selenium is not only a solitary instrument, however, but it also comprises of four apparatuses: Selenium IDE, Selenium RC, Selenium Webdriver, and Selenium Grid. Selenium gives the capacity to make test contents in various programming dialects and to perform various types of testing, for example, utilitarian, relapse test to mention a few (Sharma, 2014, p. 17). Selenium can be integrated with different structures to give a hybrid structure, which makes the software testing easier.
The evaluation metrics include script generation, versatility, preparation for automation, utilization, and operating system, cost, test result generation, and other factors. The parameters for testing include Computer brand, operating system, RAM, processor, and browser. Figure 1 shows the test requirements for the web- applications
Figure 1. Software testing requirements.
|Computer brand||Hewlett and Packard|
|Operating system||Windows 10, 64 bits|
|Browser||Chrome or Mozilla|
|Software testing tools (Selenium IDE, Webdriver, and WATIR)||Mozilla application|
The functional tools were tested based on their reliability. The variables for testing include browser, program language, operating system, framework support, and web elements. Others include pop-up support, installation process, script implementation speed, learning curve, web compatibility, cost, database support, and test generation.
Keeping in mind the goal to compose the code for testing, the analyzer should generate and understand the HTML content for the site page. To recognize site page components, extraordinary program devices can be used (Patil & Temkar, 2017, p. 3).
The WATIR is another software-testing tool that supports most web browsers. Like Selenium, it does not give testing to windows applications. However, UFT/QTP functions admirably with both web and windows applications. It has a designed instrument for product categorization. The functional testing tool is compatible with most web add-on. However, QTP is not compatible with most recent renditions of programs and OS, although it integrates recent forms of Internet Explorer and a large portion of the Chrome and some of Firefox programs, and also, it performs API testing.
Generally, automated and manual testing is considered as unique and separate methodologies are utilized for their execution. Manual and automated software testing are complementary because one limitation is developed and solved by another. Manual testing can be valuable for discovering bugs in unique situations where the prerequisite changes persistently, and circumstances where automated trials cannot be guaranteed. Nevertheless, automated testing has numerous preferences, for example, repeatability, and consistency, better and powerful treatment of experiments (for circumstances where a substantial number of experiments should be executed). The contrast between manual and automated software testing is that automated testing is most proper for the circumstance where redundant work should be finished. Nevertheless, it cannot kill the bugs in the application without the assistance of manual testing. Along these lines, automated software testing tools are great at expansiveness, however, very little at profundity. After the general investigation, it is difficult to rank these devices given various factors as they were.
Selenium furnishes the opportunity to work with various kinds of programs, frameworks, and additionally adaptability to pick one among numerous programming dialects. However, its use is constrained to web applications. Thus, software-testing tools have favorable circumstances, restrictions, and usage for some specific kinds of testing, because of the extent of uses. None of this software-testing tool is perfect or best. Although, Selenium has been favored by most programming enterprises, analyzers, or engineers. Selenium’s assortment of highlights and functionalities, capacity to coordinate with different systems, its number of various programming languages, and its free cost gives its competitive edge. It is important to note that not all applications are web-based. Hence, there will dependably be interest in UFT or testing tools, which can perform testing in both web and window-based applications.
Bahl, K. (2015). Software testing tools & techniques for web applications. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(5), 316.
Bharti, T., & Vidhu, E. (2015). Functionality appraisal of automated testing tools. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 3(1), 134.
Bhateja, N. (2015). A study on various software automation testing tools. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 5(6). 1-3.
Bhatt, D. (2017). A survey of effective and efficient software testing technique and analysis. J.Institute of Engineering and Technology, 1(1), 1-4.
Chaudhary, S. (2017). Latest software testing tools and techniques: A review. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 7(5), 1-3.
Chauhan, R., & Singh, I. (2014), Latest research and development on software testing techniques and tools. International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 4(4), 1-5.
you can get a custom-written
according to your instructions
Dubey, N., & Shiwani, S. (2014). Studying and comparing automated testing tools: Ranorex and Testcomplete. International Journal of Engineering and Computer Science, 3(5), 1-8.
Gautam, S., & Nagpal, B. (2016). Descriptive study of software testing & testing tools. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 4(6), 1-8.
Hanna, M., El-Haggar, N., & Sami, M. (2014). A review of scripting techniques used in automated software testing. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1), 1-9.
Islam, N. (2016). A comparative study of automated software testing tools. Culminating Projects in Computer Science and Information Technology, 12(1), 1-92.
Mahmood, H., & Sirshar, M. (2017). A case study of web based application by analyzing performance of a testing tool. J. Education and Management Engineering, 4(1), 51-58).
Patil, R., & Temkar, R. (2017). Intelligent testing tool: Selenium web driver. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(6), 1-4.
Rathi, P., & Mehra, V. (2015). Analysis of automation and manual testing using software testing tool. International Journal of Innovations & Advancement in Computer Science, 4(2), 4.
Shah, G., Shah, P., & Muchhala, R. (2014). Software testing automation using Appium. International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 4(5), 1-4.
Sharma, R. (2014). Quantitative analysis of automation and manual testing. International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology, 4(1), 17.