Features

Platforms

Decades of Leadership in the Software Testing Industry

AscentialTest has been forming in the minds of our founders for several years. After building QA Partner/SilkTest at Segue Software in the 90s, they got the opportunity to use their product extensively in the field. As consultants implementing test automation with various tools for more than 10 years, they’ve formed a thorough assessment of the state of the field. What they found surprised them: automated tests were too expensive to build.

Furthermore, the requirement for programming skills to move beyond the superficial tests that can be recorded left out too many members of the team. They also discovered that a large portion of test development time is spent ‘writing code’ to workaround object recognition deficiencies. Some users estimate that time to approach 80%. Clearly this explains why the decision to adopt automation is not always straightforward. With a fresh understanding of the challenges and our heads full of ideas, we’re energized and excited to bring about the next paradigm shift in test automation.

Brian has been working in the field of test automation for more than 30 years. Brian began as a QA Engineer using the testing tools available in the early 1980’s. He joined Segue Software in its infancy and served as the EVP of R&D during that company’s golden years. Brian formed Star Quality, a consulting firm specializing in test automation in the late 90s. After 12 years of experience in the trenches, he’s excited to be building the next generation testing tool that will increase the productivity and and effectiveness of test and development teams.

Dave is a pioneer in the field of automated testing. Dave developed ATF, one of the first automation tools, more than 20 yeas ago. He was a founder and Chief Architect of Segue Software, Inc., the original creators of QA Partner/SilkTest. Dave believes that no testing tool can be easy to use without a solid foundation. That’s why he is committed to providing AscentialTest’s universal agent with the most powerful object recognition engine in the industry.

Other Resources

What We Are Up To Next

TFS/Azure Integration

Check our new Azure extension for executing AscentialTest command lines in the Azure Marketplace.

We look forward to offering additional integration with Microsoft’s Team Foundation Server and Azure through defect tracking and version control soon.

Omnis Studio

Automated testing support for OMNIS Studio is coming soon. All OMNIS elements will be supported including complex grids, list boxes, tables and tree views.

Custom Objects

Add automated testing support easily for your custom application elements by responding to simple test API messages with json strings. This feature will open up the possibility of testing any GUI element and  will be offered free of charge.

Test Debugger

Set breakpoints in your automated tests, view global and local variables and execute statements to make it easier to debug tests running on any of our supported platforms.

Our Distribution and Consulting Partners

Appeon

Cigniti

Loop Software

Marlabs

Matryxsoft Tech

Novalys

OCS Consulting

Loading...

Case Studies

Testing the Back End Through the Front End in an Agile Development Environment
Tracking Performance, Verification of Uploads, and maintaining dynamic object IDs
Philips Significantly Reduces the Cost of Test Automation
Transitioning from manual to automated testing in a PowerBuilder Environment

New Features: Releases

Zeenyx Academy

Returning the Target Application to the Base State

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Introduction

The ‘start’ and ‘finish’ phases are essential components of an automated testing project. The ‘start’ phase defines what occurs before a test is run. The finish phase defines what occurs after.

AscentialTest is designed so that each test automatically has a start and finish phase. The start phase is mostly generated for the user through the App State wizards. The finish phase is left to the user. Recently we’ve discovered that many users are unaware of mechanics of the finish phase, so we decided to communicate best practices around the topic. This paper explains our intentions in designing the ‘Test’ class and how we envision the ‘OnFinish’ to be configured.

The Test Class

Every test created in AscentialTest derives from a class called ‘Test’ as shown below:

Returning the Target Application to the Base State

 

Because the ‘Test’ class is pretty much invisible, we all tend to take it for granted. When we click on the ‘Run’ icon in AscentialTest, we expect a test to run and it does because of the ‘Run’ method that is built into the class. But it isn’t just the body of the test that is being run. Every time a test is executed, the start and finish actions are also run.

Here is a brief explanation: When a test is executed in AscentialTest, the ‘Run’ method is called. The ‘Run’ method starts a timer and then calls another built-in method called ‘OnStart’. Most users are familiar with ‘OnStart’ because it is automatically generated by the App State wizards. In most cases, ‘OnStart’ includes the actions that launch and, if applicable, log in to the target application. Next the ‘Main’ gets called. The ‘Main’ includes all the steps and actions that make up the body of the test:

Returning the Target Application to the Base State

 

If an exception is raised during the ‘Main’, another method called ‘OnException’ gets called. Its job is to report the exception to the Results Output. Whether or not there is an exception, the ‘OnFinish’ method finally gets called. We expect the user to configure ‘OnFinish’ to return the target application to a known state that we refer to as the ‘base state’. It’s typically the state of the application when it is first invoked, after any login has been completed.

‘OnFinish’ is accessed by using the dropdown located above the steps/actions area in the App State Editor:

Returning the Target Application to the Base State

 

By default, ‘OnFinish’ is empty. That’s because the actions to return an application to its base state vary widely from application to application. It is not something that Zeenyx can provide universally. However we can offer guidelines and provide a function to help get you started.

OnFinish

To ensure that tests run reliably, it’s important that they are independent of each other and that each test starts and stops at the base state as defined above. A well-designed test includes steps that return the target application to the ‘base state’, which usually entails closing dialogs that were opened during the test. When a test fails and an exception is raised, there is often a break in the flow of the test. Control is passed to ‘OnException’ to raise the error and the application is often left in a state where the current test transaction is incomplete. This is where ‘OnFinish’ is called upon to return the target application to the ‘base state’.

To make it easier for users to configure the ‘OnFinish’, we’ve created a new function called ‘CloseActiveWindows’ partially pictured below:

Returning the Target Application to the Base State

 

‘CloseActiveWindows’ checks the state of the target application to determine if the application’s main window is active. If any dialogs or windows are opened, it attempts to close them. The built-in ‘Close’ action is called for each active window found. ‘Close’ attempts to click on the CloseBox (The ‘X’ in the upper right corner of a dialog) if it exists. Otherwise it types the <ALT-F4> keys. If the window is not successfully closed, ‘CloseActiveWindows’ takes additional steps to attempt to close it.

A call to ‘CloseActiveWindows’ should be placed in the ‘OnFinish’ method of your App State as pictured below:

Returning the Target Application to the Base State

 

The first parameter is the App Object name of the target application’s main window. The second parameter specifies the number of attempts that should be made to attempt to close any active dialogs.

We recognize that many applications will require further action to return the target application to the ‘base state’. The recommended approach is to create a custom ‘Close’ action for each dialog or window that requires addition steps. If a ‘Close’ action is defined for an App Object, it is that custom action that will be called by ‘CloseActiveWindows’ instead of the built-in Close action. A simple ‘Close’ actions may require a click on an ‘OK’ button. A more complex ‘Close’ action might entail the actions required to complete the current transaction. The amount of ‘statefulness’ in a given application determines the complexity of the ‘Close’ actions that will be required.

If you are reading this document, chances are that you already have ‘CloseActiveWindows’ in your possession.  If you do not, please contact us at [email protected] to obtain a copy. We are happy to discuss the finish phase requirements for your target application and will assist you with designing effective ‘Close’ methods.

Share the Post:

Related Content

Instructional Content

AscentialTest Error Tracking and Debugging

Instructional Content

Self-Guided PowerBuilder Tutorial

Instructional Content

Returning the Target Application to the Base State

Contact Support

Get Started For Free: 30 Day Trial

Click here to download the Host ID generator. The download package includes full instructions. Please send us your details below to speed the process along.

Thank you for submitting your inquiry!

We will get back to you ASAP.  We aim to respond to all inquiries within 24 hours.