Portable TestExecute
I was looking into the possibility of utilizing TestComplete for the purpose of automating a test process on a device for a client, and the client was wondering if it is possible to install TestExecu...
Forum Discussion
Hi,
I know at least one use case that requires TestComplete/TestExecute to be installed into <ProgramFiles> folder: access to web pages opened in Edge is allowed only from the system trusted folder.
Another use case is that in order to control some applications a helper service must be running on behalf of the system account.
TestExecute's footprint is not that big and TestExecute can be installed unattended from the command line. Considering that TestExecute can run only on the Windows platform, any real use case that prevents its install on the system?
It's primarily an issue of the client being concerned about getting FDA approval when the device had been tested with TestExecute installed, and needing to show that the footprint is minimal enough that its presence has no effect upon FDA decisions.
I believe that the client's intent is to avoid the problem entirely with a portable installation of TestExecute running on a USB, however if that is not possible than being able to present data suggesting that the FDA doesn't care about the presence of TestExecute would likely make a nice substitute for having a USB-only install of TestExecute.
As the client had already purchased multiple licenses of TestComplete before I began working with them, I believe that they truly want to utilize the system and are just concerned that they'll end up needing to spend time later proving to the FDA that TestExecute had no impact on the viability of the device. The problem is that although everything I've seen on TestExecute suggests that it is small enough that it could not be a problem, I can't seem to find any data to prove that it is true.
I apologize if this is a strange request as far as product information goes, but I'm pretty new to TestComplete as I have just begun learning it at their request to fill in for another individual who is leaving. Has anyone ever had to prove that TestExecute did not have any significant impact on a system? Any suggestions on how to go about doing it?
Well, this your explanation sounds reasonable enough.
Robert Martin (tristaanogre) communicated closely with SmartBear to get the same document for FDA. He posted once or twice here on the forum, so you may try to search for his posts. (One of the posts is at https://community.smartbear.com/t5/Functional-Web-Testing/FDA-Approval-or-Clearance/td-p/78053)
Otherwise, you may contact Support via the https://support.smartbear.com/message/?prod=TestComplete form and ask if they have some documents/procedure in place.
Another option (though brittle but possible) is to RDP into the windows machine and map the buttons with x,y coordinates (perhaps normalized). I've had to do this (it wasn't fun) for some games that were Flash AS2 (action script 2, which no one supports including Smartbear, as AS3 came out in 2006).
It wasn't fun but I managed to create a workflow to map the buttons and, in the end, it worked quite well.
You can use the position of the buttons as found on your local PC first and save them out to a file. Then, based on the screen resolution, of the rdp session vs the original button mapping session you can click on the respective x,y coords in the RDP window using LLPlayer.
Like I said, not fun, but it is doable and maybe you can reuse this for the future.
That way TE is not installed on the remote mahcine. It just clicks on the RDP window like a user would. That might satisfy the FDA.But if you want more info let me know and I'll whip up an example of mapping a single button and the workflow for it so it would work on Windows RDP.
Interesting approach...
Sure brittle, but can be a lifesaver for certain cases.
