The Author Online Book Forums are Moving

The Author Online Book Forums will soon redirect to Manning's liveBook and liveVideo. All book forum content will migrate to liveBook's discussion forum and all video forum content will migrate to liveVideo. Log in to liveBook or liveVideo with your Manning credentials to join the discussion!

Thank you for your engagement in the AoF over the years! We look forward to offering you a more enhanced forum experience.

dkallen (8) [Avatar] Offline
#1
or other test automation tools?
On page 9, you write
"Instead of talking about test automation, letÂ’s call automating a check without distorting any information Automating Validation Without Changing Specifications. The fact that we need to automate validation without changing the original specification should help to avoid the horror of scripting and using technical libraries directly in test specifications. An executable specification should be unchanged from what it looked like on the whiteboard, it should not be translated to Selenium commands."
I am unsure whether to agree or disagree. I need your clarification. Are you saying that we should NOT use tools that translate our easily readable specifications into Selenium for purposes of automatig the validation? Or are you saying that if we do so, that is a behind-the-scenes activity we may have chosen to automate the validation of the specification. But the original specification should still be available?
gojko.adzic (18) [Avatar] Offline
#2
Re: What have you got against Selenium?
Hi,

I'll clarify that in the book. I wanted to say that we should keep the specification human readable - any kind of technical language should be pushed into the automation layer and not be in the specifications with examples. (so I have nothing against selenium as an automation tool, but selenium commands should be in the automation layer, not in the specification).

does that answer your question?

gojko
dkallen (8) [Avatar] Offline
#3
Re: What have you got against Selenium?
yes, that makes perfect sense. I agree completely. Specifications should remain easily readble by humans.
Thanks for clarifying.