nlazouzi
14 years agoContributor
Vote Yes or No to have the OBJECT SPY TOOL added to TestExecute !
Good morning everyone !
In the past few months, i've enountered different scenarios where during a test, a failure due to a window object of some sort would occur and troubleshooting this would require recreation of the same issue on the host that has TestComplete installed on it (The main controller) so that i can access the object spy tool . This is ok if the issue is a simple one and access to the window object is not so difficult.
However, in some instances, as the test grows and the failures start to show after a complicated number of configurations have taken place (especially in a multiserver environment) recreatuing this becomes a nightmare.
To avoid this headache i proposed to AUTOMATEDQA to add the object spy to TestExecute. That way it's available right where the problem occurs and object verification can take place immediately on the problematic host without having to go additional steps to recreate the issue.
I assume i'm not the only one that has encountered this problem and truly believe that the addition of the object spy to TestExecute would have tremendous benefits.
Please take 1 minute to respond with a
YES(i agree. The object spy would be good to have on the slave hosts)
or
NO (i disagree. No need for the object spy on the slave hosts)
You don't have to explain unless you want to. a YES or NO answer would be more than enough.
Thank you.
In the past few months, i've enountered different scenarios where during a test, a failure due to a window object of some sort would occur and troubleshooting this would require recreation of the same issue on the host that has TestComplete installed on it (The main controller) so that i can access the object spy tool . This is ok if the issue is a simple one and access to the window object is not so difficult.
However, in some instances, as the test grows and the failures start to show after a complicated number of configurations have taken place (especially in a multiserver environment) recreatuing this becomes a nightmare.
To avoid this headache i proposed to AUTOMATEDQA to add the object spy to TestExecute. That way it's available right where the problem occurs and object verification can take place immediately on the problematic host without having to go additional steps to recreate the issue.
I assume i'm not the only one that has encountered this problem and truly believe that the addition of the object spy to TestExecute would have tremendous benefits.
Please take 1 minute to respond with a
YES(i agree. The object spy would be good to have on the slave hosts)
or
NO (i disagree. No need for the object spy on the slave hosts)
You don't have to explain unless you want to. a YES or NO answer would be more than enough.
Thank you.