We help IT Professionals succeed at work.

Need an automation Test Tool for QA testers (.NET Website)

Need an automation test tool for QA testers

We are considering Selenium...

I need a test tool for non-programmers, because i need the following:

- The first test on a new feature is done by a human
- Before they start the test, the QA tester clicks the Start button.
- The QA tester clicks on various controls and enters various amounts of information
- The tester adds Assertions to the test script, that will be used by the automation to Pass or Fail the test
- When the test is done, the QA testers clicks Done

This is what I want. Does Selenium do this? Any programming required?

Or, are the other tools?

Not sure if it matters, but this is a .NET Framework website...

Watch Question

Fractional CTO
Distinguished Expert 2019
Not to my knowledge.

With Selenium, you design your tests.

What you're describing is an Event Recorder, like the old XRunner product.

Try the search - event recorders for website test capture - which turns up some good starting points.

Having worked with many unit testing tools over the years, you're requirement of "a test tool for non-programmers" will be hard to accomplish, because my guess is what you're really asking for is a tool for non-techies.

Generally automated testing tools require a fair bit of work defining all the tests (requiring some fairly intelligent people), then the automated tests run in background (no humans), till a test breaks, then the original intelligent people are required to fix the breakage.
curiouswebsterSoftware Engineer


Well, these testers are pretty sharp actually. And always eager to learn new things...but  full adoption of Selenium has been on the back burner for a long time.

Right now, in a single Sprint, we have first, second and third rounds of testing.

I am trying to make a business case for building a Selenium script for the first one, then coasting on the second and third rounds of testing.

So, I guess the only question is the comparison (in labor terms) between doing three rounds of testing  X 250 tests versus making 250 test scripts.

Then, these functional tests will be added to the regression tests with no further labor.

It sounds like with this kind of potential payback, it's smartest to dive in and start creating tests. If it turns out to be fools gold, it's easy enough to god back to the manual testing route...

Make sense?

I'm a QA tester, to my opinion coded tests (using Selenium or similar)  is very long to code and not replacing manual testing.

To save time I would prefer to code new material instead of loosing time by coding tests and have well experimented manual tester to test.

Coded tests may not cover everything, may have error, may be very similar to the existing code validation so may not worth the time to code it.

Having an experimented manual tester will find more errors, will be able to provide detailled step to reproduce and also give user feedback and recommendation.
curiouswebsterSoftware Engineer