Доклад будет посвящен выбору инструментов Автоматизации Desktop-ных приложений. Какие критерии (22) выбора инструмента существуют, подмножество наиболее важных и интересных заказчику, «исполнителю», менеджеру. Какие инструменты (16) представлены сегодня на рынке? Сравнительные характеристики каждого из инструментов по 22 критериям. Также затронем тренды в Автоматизации тестирования Desktop-ных приложений.

1. Anton Semenchenko
Сравнительный анализ
инструментов
Автоматизации Desktop
AUT

2. Agenda, part 1 (general)
1. Problem
2. Solutions 2016

3. Agenda, part 2 (tools and criteria's)
1. Tools to be compared (15)
2. How why we selected this list of tools?
3. Comparison criteria types (3)
4. Stakeholders oriented comparison criteria (7)
5. Mixed comparison criteria (7)
6. Tech stuff oriented comparison criteria (8)
7. How why we selected these lists of criteria's?
8. How to select proper criteria's for your project

4. Agenda, part 3 (comparison analyses)
1. Mixed comparison criteria
2. Tech stuff oriented comparison criteria
3. Stakeholders oriented comparison criteria
4. Define our “standard” context
5. Summarized scores
6. How to calculate scores
7. How to use scores / presentation
8. 4 summarized tables

5. Agenda, part 4 (tools, “how to” and examples)
1. How to define proper tool based on selected criteria's
2. How to link information from presentation to QA Automation
metrics
3. How to link information from presentation to Project Health Check
4. How to link information from presentation to QA Automation ROI
5. Tools tiny overview
6. Tools overview structure
7. Example of tool usage structure

6. Agenda, part 5 (trends, science and “what’s next”)
1. Define a Trend! Is it possible ..?
2. Trend – an option
3. Why so?
4. What’s next

7. Problem
• There is an implicit leader for Web automation

8. Problem
• It’s not that simple if to talk about desktop apps

9. Tools to be compared
• TestComplete Desktop
• Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
• Ranorex
• Telerik Test Studio
• Zeenyx AscentialTest
• MS VS Coded UI
• CUIT
• AUTOIT
• Sikuli
• Jubula
• Robot Framework
• Winium
• WinAppDriver
• QTWebDriver
• PyWinAuto

10. How why we selected this list of tools?

11. Comparison criteria types
1. Stakeholders oriented
2. Tech stuff oriented
3. Mixed

12. Stakeholders oriented comparison criteria
1. Approximate complexity of auto-test development
2. Approximate complexity of auto-test support
3. Approximate “entrance” level
4. Required technical skills level
5. Tests readability
6. How fast tests run
7. Ability to re-use "Business-Logic" layer in other technical context

13. Mixed comparison criteria
1. Supported platforms
2. Supported technologies
3. Licensing
4. Maturity
5. Record-Play system support
6. Standard actions pack

14. Tech stuff oriented comparison criteria
1. Programming languages support
2. Have tools for mapping
3. Self-Made architecture support
4. Data-Driven testing support
5. Test-Driven development support
6. Key-word driven
7. Behavior Driven Development support
8. Continues integration system support

15. How why we selected these lists of criteria's?

16. How to select proper criteria's for your project

17. Mixed comparison criteria

18. Supported platforms – “the best” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

19. Supported platforms
Tool Platforms Mark
TestComplete Desktop Windows
Unified Functional
Testing
Windows
Ranorex Windows
Telerik Test Studio Windows
Zeenyx AscentialTest Windows
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Windows
AUTOIT Windows
Sikuli Windows, Unix-like Good
Jubula Windows, Unix-like Good
Robot Framework Windows, Unix-like Good
Winium / WinAppDriver
;
QTWebDriver
Windows / Windows;
Cross-Platform
/ ; Good
PyWinAuto Windows

20. Supported technologies – “the best” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10.Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

21. Supported technologies
Tool Technologies Mark
TestComplete Desktop C/C++, WinForms, WPF,
Java, Qt
Unified Functional Testing WinForms, WPF, Java, SAP
Ranorex WinForms, WPF, Java, Qt,
SAP
Telerik Test Studio WPF Bad
Zeenyx AscentialTest Win Forms, WPF, Java Bad
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Win Forms (partial), WPF Bad
AUTOIT OS level Good
Sikuli Image recognition based Good
Jubula WinForms, WPF, Java Bad
Robot Framework Uses AutoIT (and co inside) Good
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
WinForms, WPF / Any ; QT Bad
PyWinAuto Win32 API, WinForms
(partial, Win32 API bases)
Bad

22. Licensing – “the worst” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

23. Licensing
Tool License Mark
TestComplete Desktop Paid Bad
Unified Functional Testing Paid Bad
Ranorex Paid Bad
Telerik Test Studio Paid Bad
Zeenyx AscentialTest Paid Bad
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Paid Bad
AUTOIT Free
Sikuli Open source Good
Jubula Open source Good
Robot Framework Open source Good
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
Open source Good
PyWinAuto Open source Good

24. Maturity – “the worst” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10.Jubula
11.Robot Framework
12.Winium
13.WinAppDriver
14.QTWebDriver
15.PyWinAuto

25. Maturity
Tool Maturity
TestComplete Desktop Good
Unified Functional Testing Good
Ranorex Good
Telerik Test Studio Good
Zeenyx AscentialTest
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Good
AUTOIT
Sikuli
Jubula
Robot Framework
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
Bad
PyWinAuto

26. Record-Play support – do we really need it?

27. Record-Play support
Tool Record-Play Mark
TestComplete Desktop Yes Good
Unified Functional
Testing
Yes Good
Ranorex Yes Good
Telerik Test Studio Yes Good
Zeenyx AscentialTest No
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT No
AUTOIT No
Sikuli No
Jubula No
Robot Framework No
Winium / WinAppDriver
;
QTWebDriver
No
PyWinAuto No

28. Standard actions pack – do we really need it?

29. Standard actions pack
Tool STD actions Mark
TestComplete Desktop No
Unified Functional Testing No
Ranorex No
Telerik Test Studio No
Zeenyx AscentialTest Yes Good
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT No
AUTOIT No
Sikuli Yes Good
Jubula Yes Good
Robot Framework No
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
No
PyWinAuto Yes / No (via SWAPY)

30. Tech stuff oriented comparison criteria

31. Programming languages – “the best” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

32. Programming languages support
Tool Language Mark
TestComplete Desktop Python, C#Script, JScript,
C++Script, VBScript,
DelphiScript
Good
Unified Functional
Testing
VBScript Bad
Ranorex C#, VB.Net
Telerik Test Studio C#, VB.Net
Zeenyx AscentialTest Own DSL Bad
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT C#, VB.Net
AUTOIT Own Basic-like language Bad
Sikuli Jython, Java
Jubula -
Robot Framework Own DSL, Java, Python
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
Java, JavaScript, PHP,
Python, Ruby, C#
Good
PyWinAuto CPython

33. Tools for mapping – “the best” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

34. Tools for mapping
Tool Tools for mapping Mark
TestComplete Desktop Yes Good
Unified Functional Testing Yes Good
Ranorex Yes Good
Telerik Test Studio Yes Good
Zeenyx AscentialTest Yes / No Good
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT No
AUTOIT No
Sikuli Yes / No
Jubula Yes Good
Robot Framework No
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
No
PyWinAuto No

35. Custom architecture – “the worst” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

36. Custom architecture
Tool Custom architecture Mark
TestComplete Desktop Yes / No
Unified Functional Testing Yes / No
Ranorex Yes / No
Telerik Test Studio Yes / No
Zeenyx AscentialTest No Bad
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes Good
AUTOIT No Bad
Sikuli Yes Good
Jubula No / Yes
Robot Framework Yes Good
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
Yes Good
PyWinAuto Yes Good

37. DDT support – “the worst” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

38. DDT support
Tool DDT support Mark
TestComplete Desktop Yes Good
Unified Functional Testing Yes Good
Ranorex Yes Good
Telerik Test Studio Yes Good
Zeenyx AscentialTest Yes Good
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes Good
AUTOIT No Bad
Sikuli Yes / No Good
Jubula Yes Good
Robot Framework Yes Good
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
Yes Good
PyWinAuto Yes Good

39. TDD support – “the worst” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10.Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

40. TDD support
Tool TDD Mark
TestComplete Desktop Yes / No Good
Unified Functional Testing Yes / No Good
Ranorex Yes / No Good
Telerik Test Studio Yes / No Good
Zeenyx AscentialTest No Bad
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes Good
AUTOIT No Bad
Sikuli Yes / No Good
Jubula Yes Good
Robot Framework Yes Good
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
Yes Good
PyWinAuto Yes Good

41. Key-word driven – “the best” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

42. Key-word driven support
Tool Key-word Mark
TestComplete Desktop No Bad
Unified Functional Testing No Bad
Ranorex Yes / No
Telerik Test Studio Yes / No
Zeenyx AscentialTest Yes Good
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes / No
AUTOIT No Bad
Sikuli Yes / No
Jubula No Bad
Robot Framework Yes Good
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
Yes / No
PyWinAuto Yes / No

43. BDD support – “the worst” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

44. BDD support
Tool BDD Mark
TestComplete Desktop No Bad
Unified Functional Testing No Bad
Ranorex Yes Good
Telerik Test Studio Yes Good
Zeenyx AscentialTest No Bad
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes Good
AUTOIT No Bad
Sikuli Yes Good
Jubula No Bad
Robot Framework Yes / No
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
Yes Good
PyWinAuto Yes Good

45. CI support – “the worst” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

46. CI support
Tool CI Mark
TestComplete Desktop Automated Build Studio
Unified Functional Testing Jenkins plugin
Ranorex Jenkins
Telerik Test Studio Bamboo
Zeenyx AscentialTest Test Execution
Management
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Any Good
AUTOIT - / Any
Sikuli - / Any Java-compatible
Jubula No Bad
Robot Framework Jenkins plugin
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
Any Good
PyWinAuto Any Good

47. Stakeholders oriented comparison criteria

48. Define our “standard” context

49. Approximate complexity of auto-test development
Tool Development Mark
TestComplete Desktop ~3h
Unified Functional Testing ~3h
Ranorex ~2h Good
Telerik Test Studio ~2h Good
Zeenyx AscentialTest ~2h Good
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT ~3h ; 2h ; Good
AUTOIT ~1h Good
Sikuli ~2h Good
Jubula ~2h Good
Robot Framework ~4h
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
~3h / 6h -> 2h / Bad -> Good
PyWinAuto ~1h Good

50. Approximate complexity of auto-test
support (per year)
Tool Support Mark
TestComplete Desktop ~3h Bad
Unified Functional Testing ~3h Bad
Ranorex ~2h Good
Telerik Test Studio ~2h Good
Zeenyx AscentialTest ~3h Bad
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT ~2h ; 1h Good
AUTOIT ~4h Bad
Sikuli ~5h Bad
Jubula ~2h Good
Robot Framework ~1h Good
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
~2h / 10h -> 1h Good / Bad -> Good
PyWinAuto ~2h Good

51. Approximate “entrance” level – “the best” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10.Jubula
11.Robot Framework
12.Winium
13.WinAppDriver
14.QTWebDriver
15.PyWinAuto

52. Approximate “entrance” level
Tool Level
TestComplete Desktop High
Unified Functional Testing High
Ranorex
Telerik Test Studio
Zeenyx AscentialTest
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT High
AUTOIT Low
Sikuli Low
Jubula
Robot Framework High
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
High ->
PyWinAuto

53. Required “technical skills” level – “the best” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

54. Required “technical skills” level
Tool Level
TestComplete Desktop
Unified Functional Testing
Ranorex
Telerik Test Studio
Zeenyx AscentialTest Low
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT High ;
AUTOIT Low
Sikuli Low
Jubula Low
Robot Framework High
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
High ->
PyWinAuto Low

55. Test readability – “the worst” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

56. Test readability
Tool Level
TestComplete Desktop
Unified Functional Testing
Ranorex
Telerik Test Studio
Zeenyx AscentialTest High
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT
AUTOIT Low
Sikuli High
Jubula High
Robot Framework - > High
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
- > High
PyWinAuto High

57. How fast tests run – “the best” tool?
1. TestComplete Desktop
2. Unified Functional Testing (UFT)
3. Ranorex
4. Telerik Test Studio
5. Zeenyx AscentialTest
6. MS VS Coded UI
7. CUIT
8. AUTOIT
9. Sikuli
10. Jubula
11. Robot Framework
12. Winium
13. WinAppDriver
14. QTWebDriver
15. PyWinAuto

58. How fast tests run
Tool Level
TestComplete Desktop Bad
Unified Functional Testing Bad
Ranorex
Telerik Test Studio
Zeenyx AscentialTest
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Good
AUTOIT Good
Sikuli Bad
Jubula Bad
Robot Framework Good
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
Good
PyWinAuto Good

59. Ability to re-use "Business-Logic" layer
Tool “BDD” Mark
TestComplete Desktop No Bad
Unified Functional Testing No Bad
Ranorex Yes Good
Telerik Test Studio Yes Good
Zeenyx AscentialTest No Bad
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT Yes Good
AUTOIT No Bad
Sikuli Yes Good
Jubula No Bad
Robot Framework Yes Good
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
Yes Good
PyWinAuto Yes Good

60. Summarized scores

61. How to calculate scores

62. How to use scores 

63. Stakeholders oriented score
Tool Score
TestComplete Desktop -2
Unified Functional Testing -2
Ranorex +3
Telerik Test Studio +3
Zeenyx AscentialTest +1
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT +1
AUTOIT +1
Sikuli +3
Jubula +2
Robot Framework +2
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
+2
PyWinAuto +6

64. Mixed score
Tool Score
TestComplete Desktop +1
Unified Functional Testing +1
Ranorex +1
Telerik Test Studio 0
Zeenyx AscentialTest -1
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT -1
AUTOIT +1
Sikuli +4
Jubula +1
Robot Framework +2
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
-2
PyWinAuto -1

65. Tech stuff oriented score
Tool Score
TestComplete Desktop +2
Unified Functional Testing 0
Ranorex +4
Telerik Test Studio +4
Zeenyx AscentialTest -1
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT +4
AUTOIT -6
Sikuli +4
Jubula +1
Robot Framework +4
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
+6
PyWinAuto +5

66. Summarized score
Tool Stub
TestComplete Desktop +1
Unified Functional Testing -1
Ranorex +8
Telerik Test Studio +7
Zeenyx AscentialTest -1
MS VS Coded UI ; CUIT +4
AUTOIT -4
Sikuli +11
Jubula +4
Robot Framework +8
Winium / WinAppDriver ;
QTWebDriver
+6
PyWinAuto +10

67. How to define proper tool based on selected
criteria's

68. How to
1. link information from presentation to QA Automation metrics
2. link information from presentation to Project Health Check
3. link information from presentation to QA Automation ROI

69. Tools tiny overview

70. Tools overview structure
1. Pros
2. Cons
3. What kind of project / product / problem / situation
certain tools could be used for!

71. Example of tool usage structure
1. Plus several examples of each tool usage
— Example structure:
• Values:
— Value the individual
— Act as a team
— Strive for excellence
— Focus on customer
— Act with integrity
• Prisms:
— Technology
— Delivery
— Leadership

72. Project A

73. Project A

74. Project A

75. Test Complete Desktop
1. Pros
• Low entrance level
• High level of test scripts’ flexibility
• Huge knowledge base (at about MSDN level)
• Wide choice of script languages which look like common languages
2. Cons
• Very expensive license
• Very specific own script languages

76. Unified functional testing
1. Pros
• Low “entrance” level
• High level of test scripts’ flexibility
• Good tech support
2. Cons
• Strict integration with other HP solutions
• Very specific own DSL

77. Ranorex
1. Pros
• Low “entrance” level
• Script tests are written on common languages (C#, VB,Net)
• Good tech support
2. Cons
• Paid license

78. Telerik Test Studio (Desktop)
1. Pros
• Low “entrance” level
• Great parameterization of Keyword tests
• DDT support using common formats (CSV, XLS, DB)
• Converting tests to common languages (C#, VB.NET)
2. Cons
• Only WPF-applications

79. Zeenyx
1. Pros
• Supporting complex logic
• Great organization of DDT
• Using standard .Net libraries support
2. Cons
• Need time to learn how to use
• Specific own DSL

80. MS VS Coded UI
1. Pros
• “Native” for Windows
• Supports a huge set of UI technologies
• Generated UI Map
• Ready to go infrastructure
• Good documentation and support
2. Cons
• License cost
• Relatively “low level” API

81. MS VS Coded UI + CUIT
1. Pros
• The same as for MS VS Coded UI
• Elegant “High level” API
2. Cons
• The same as for MS VS Coded UI

82. AutoIT
1. Pros
• Easy
• Universal
• Free
2. Cons
• There is no ready-to-use verification instruments
• Test = exe file
• There is no ready-to-use reports

83. Sikuli
1. Pros
• IDE is easy to learn and use
• Standard actions pack
• Supports an ability to write tests using common languages (Java, Python)
• Supports an ability to work on different platforms and with any applications
• Free
2. Cons
• Low test’s reliability
• Slow tests work
• No ability to work with texts
• Complicated to support tests

84. Jubula
1. Pros
• IDE is easy to use
• Supports an ability to work on requirement base
• Integrated DB for storing test data and results
• Free
2. Cons
• No flexibility which is ingrain to script tests
• No CI support

85. Robot Framework
1. Pros
• Their own not complex and easy-to-read Keyword-based language
• Plugins for different IDE’s
• Work with different Oss
• Different programming languages support
• Tools for creating user-own libraries
• Free
2. Cons
• High entrance level

86. Winium
1. Pros
• Familiar syntax and API
• Supports all the languages that are supported by Selenium WebDriver
• Free
2. Cons
• “Immature” testing tool
• Incomplete way of locating elements
• A lack of documentation

87. WinAppDriver
1. Pros
• Familiar syntax and API
• “Native” for Windows
• Free
2. Cons
• “Immature” testing tool
• Complicated (in special case usage)
• A lack of documentation

88. QTWebDriver
1. Pros
• Familiar syntax and API
• QT Applications oriented / “Native” (unique tool)
• Free
2. Cons
• “Immature” testing tool
• Complicated (in special case usage)
• A lack of documentation

89. PyWinAuto
1. Pros
• Extremely simple to use
• Easy to support
• Free
2. Cons
• Do not support all popular UI technologies
• CPython only

90. Define a Trend! Is it possible ..?

91. Trend
1. There is a potential leader for Desktop Automation

92. Why so?
“Scientific” technical prove of Trend
• Hegel’s dialectics
• Bifurcation mathematical apparat (Bifurcation Theory)
• Sedov’s law of hierarchical compensation
• Pannov-Snuks Vertical
• Big History

93. Why so?
Non-technical scientific prove of Trend
• Peter Drucker “Management. Challenges for the 21st Century”
Note: It’s a topic of the whole big conversation, and I’m sure we’re going to
get back to it, but not today…

94. How to
1. use this presentation on different project phases
2. use this presentation based on main project roles

95. What’s next (just a possible way)
• Shu
1. Use Presentation
1. Please, follow recommendations
a) “How to select proper criteria's for your project”
b) “How to define proper tool based on selected criteria's”
c) “How to link information from presentation to QA Automation metrics”
d) “How to link information from presentation to Project Health Check”
e) “How to link information from presentation to QA Automation ROI”
f) “How to use this presentation on different project phases”
g) “how to use this presentation based on main project roles”

96. What’s next
• Ha
1. Update a set of criteria's
2. Update a set of tools
3. Update Presentation
4. Read “Scientific” prove of Trend

97. What’s next
• Ri
1. Re-Read “Scientific” prove of Trend
2. Update a set of criteria's
3. Update a set of tools
4. Update Presentation
5. Predict the “Trend”
6. Manage the “Trend”

98. Next iteration 
• Move from static (Presentation) to dynamic (Application)
• For example, “https://telescope.epam.com”

99. CONTACT ME
Anton_Semenchenko@epam.com
semenchenko_anton_v
https://www.linkedin.com/in/anton-
semenchenko-612a926b
https://www.facebook.com/semenche
nko.anton.v
https://twitter.com/comaqa
Thanks for your attention
Anton Semenchenko
DPI.Solutions
EPAM Systems
www.comaqa.by
www.corehard.by