in reply to Web Application Test Suite Generator

I would be interested in a feature-by-feature comparison of your framework with CGI::Test.
  • Comment on Re: Web Application Test Suite Generator

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (gregorovius) Web Application Test Suite Generator
by gregorovius (Friar) on Jul 16, 2001 at 07:55 UTC
    The intent of Test::CGI is almost the same. It's about crafting test sequences that will be run against a web application in an automated fashion. That said, I think RoboWeb wins hands down, author modesty not withstanding:

    1. RoboWeb makes it much easier to generate a test suite, because test sequence scripts under it are almost completely machine generated, except assertions, which are easily inserted by entering regexps in the URL box as you browse through your app. Test::CGI instead requires that all HTTP requests be hand coded by the test writer.

    2. RoboWeb runs against a live web server, versus Test::CGI, which runs web apps as standalone CGI processes. Test::CGI is less complete in this regard, because it doesn't allow to test apps in the environment they'll be running on (e.g. mod_perl apps that rely on persitent variables are not testable with Test::CGI).

    3. The RoboWeb client (which uses LWP::UserAgent and an HTTP::Cookie jar) supports cookies, which allow it to test most web applications. Test::CGI does not support cookies.

    4. Test::CGI cannot request plain documents, whereas Roboweb can.

    5. Both RoboWeb and Test::CGI produce Test::Harness output.