[Webtest] Wrapping WebTest with FIT

Jeff Nielsen webtest@lists.canoo.com
Sat, 13 Sep 2003 10:03:33 -0400


Mitie, thanks for your response.  Glad to know that someone else is thinking
about it.  See my questions/comments below.

Dierk Koenig wrote:

> I have not yet taken the step, but I was actively thinking about it.
> Actually Frank Westphal, one of the FIT pioneers, urged me to do so.
>
> I do see the possible advantages but anyway there are some major
> differences to bridge.
>
> WebTest
> Test source follows implementation source in terms of source-control
> support. Tests get versioned along with the source versions.
>
> FIT
> No Test source control (?). please correct me, if I'm wrong.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.  The input to FIT is an HTML file,
which is of course ASCII text and can be put in source-control just as
easily as an XML file.  (FitNesse--as a Wiki--also comes with its own little
built-in source tracking system, whereby you instantly retrieve any version
of a page.)

>
> WebTest
> High integration into IDE in terms of writing tests with
> Syntax-Highlighting, Code-Completion, Starting Tests all from
> inside your IDE.
>
> FIT
> Very poor editor. Starts externally.

Since you're just creating HTML files, you can use any editor you want.  As
far as being able to start tests from within your IDE, that is exactly what
FitNesse gives you.  It is an integrated Wiki/test runner.  You pull up a
page, click on the "Run" link, and see the results instantly.  If you want
to edit the test, you just click on the "Edit" link, make whatever
modifications you want, save the test, then hit "Run" again.

Your points about syntax highlighing and code completion are good ones.
This is the beauty of XML.

>
> WebTest
> perfect integration into continuous integration tools like cruisecontrol.
>
> FIT
> well, there is a command-line starter, but anyway: how could you
> stop the build if a testcase fails? how do you report that? how do
> you assure consistency of source vs. test versions?
>

I don't understand this one well.  Anything you can launch from the command
line you can drive with ant.  We usually kick off our acceptance tests on a
different cycle than our unit tests.  I haven't yet thought enough about
failure reporting, beyond what FitNesse does out of the box.

> Currently I see the benefits of FIT in "the easiest way to collect
> test data". Whereas WebTest is superior when it comes to test
> logic. Why not use best of two worlds then?
> One could use FIT to assemble test data that get stored in e.g.
> property files that feed WebTest.
>

Can you explain more what you need by test logic?  Do you mean the issues
around starting/stopping/reporting test successes and failures?  You've
definitely got me thinking more about the details of integration with CVS,
etc.

> What do you think?

I hadn't thought about using property files to feed WebTest.  I guess I was
going down a slightly different "best of both worlds" path.  With what I'm
building, you can still specify the tests in XML, but link to them and
launch them via FitNesse.

Jeff

> Mittie
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: webtest-admin@lists.canoo.com
> > [mailto:webtest-admin@lists.canoo.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Nielsen
> > Sent: Freitag, 12. September 2003 19:10
> > To: webtest@gate.canoo.com
> > Subject: [Webtest] Wrapping WebTest with FIT
> >
> >
> > I am in the middle of a project to hook up WebTest to the FIT testing
> > framework (http://fit.c2.com).  The project makes it possible to "drive"
> > WebTest using FIT tables from an interface like FitNesse
> > (http://www.fitnesse.org)
> >