My last post drew a hostile comment by Marc Guillemot, one of the committers to Canoo Web Test and HTMLUnit. I may have made some errors, but I am not aware of them. I think he may have been confused that I mentioned HTMLUnit uses HTTPClient, and assumed I meant that HTTPClient has all the features of HTMLUnit.
I found on his blog a biased comparison of canoo and selenium, that essentially backs up the points I was trying to make. It seems one of his chief frustrations is people not being aware of the two different ways web applications can be tested, which was the point of my last post. From what I can tell, his stance is that I’m an idiot, but that he agrees with me.
It’s nice to have company.
Through my own search, I found out about a tool that allows recording of Web Test scripts. There is in fact a web test recorder and I hope to try it out soon.
On my current projects, I’m committed to selenium, and as most of it’s fans know, it’s more than just a browser record & playback toy. As Marc and the Canoo company like to quote “Record/Playback is the least cost-effective method of automating test cases.”
I don’t have time or inclination to debate the one true testing tool, but I disagree that the answer is a complex browser-stub, though I commend the Canoo team for their efforts. I have used and will undoubtedly use Canoo in the future.
There is a place for both types of tools, and I had hoped to have stated that clearly in my last post.
I also learned about some other interesting tools: one that uses HTMLUnit and Jruby: Celerity, which has WATIR-like syntax; and Cubictest which is an eclipse plugin for writing Selenium and Watir tests.
Another interesting idea I found on some mailing list archive (can’t find the link) is to use Selenium IDE to generate WebTest scripts.