importing data

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 10 years ago
  • Answered
Is it possible to import your data from let's say: Spreadsheets or from XML ? Or am I ahead of you and is this going to be implemented soon. Or could it be that you guys start working on this since I asked this?
Photo of joost.jongman

joost.jongman

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • waiting for this possibility

Posted 10 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Justin Hunter, Hexawise Founder

Justin Hunter, Hexawise Founder, Founder and CEO

  • 246 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Joost,

Thank you for your question / feature request. Please keep the suggestions coming.

We will be adding this feature. Currently, test plans can be created (and exported) very quickly but we do not yet allow users to import existing test cases.

Related points:

1) We currently allow users to export parameters, values, test cases, and coverage analysis metrics.

2) We agree that allowing users to import existing test cases would be a good feature to add; this is a feature in our pipeline.

Thoughts on why this would be a good feature to add:

1) If a user has already manually identified and/or executed, say, 100 tests, whether the user (a) thinks they are "done," (b) the user thinks they are "partially done," or (c) the user is doing regression testing and trying to determine how their regression tests could achieve higher coverage with fewer tests before they are run again, it will be cool to be able to import those 100 tests and:

A) Analyze the coverage achieved by the tests the user identified manually,

B) Compare that coverage to what coverage Hexawise would have been able to achieve in fewer scripts, (which will provide some concrete evidence that we deliver on our tag line of achieving "higher coverage with fewer tests") and/or

C) Have Hexawise tell the user - based on the tests that have already been completed - "OK. Let's treat those tests you've already run as a 'sunk cost,' to be as efficient as possible from here on out, these are the additional tests that you should execute. If your coverage goal is limited to achieving complete pairwise coverage, you will need to execute an additional of tests (as described in detail in the "Create Tests" tab of the tool) to achieve your coverage goals; if your coverage goal is to achieve complete 2-way coverage and also cover 80% of the 3-way combinations, you would need to execute an additional of tests (again, those tests described in the 'Create Tests' tab of the tool - up to the point at which 80% 3-way coverage is achieved)."

- Justin Hunter
Founder
Photo of joost.jongman

joost.jongman

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Justin,

Thank you for the speed of your reply!

Having an import option would definitely improve the tool. However, I would like to see an even bigger step.

How fine would it be if you could import the model (exported as an XML or any other standard which is supported by most modellingtools, from a modellingtool) directly into this tool. This way you would not need to define de variabels, parameters or anything else anymore (given that the model is complete and conform the standard.)

In that case the tester does not have to interpreted the model himself anymore. This would save huge amounts of time even before you have started testing. In this particular case the tester only have to execute the testcases given by the tool.

So how about it, less time, increased kwality and ofcourse the minimum amount of tests executed (with the correct teststrategy).

Do you think this is an option is good enough the nearby future?

Joost
Photo of Justin Hunter, Hexawise Founder

Justin Hunter, Hexawise Founder, Founder and CEO

  • 246 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Joost,

What Model Based Testing "MBT" tool(s) would you suggest we support?

What you're asking for sounds like it could be:
A) Very cool for fewer than half of our users but
B) Potentially difficult to implement (because it would likely require us to support multiple, potentially conflicting standards and tools). I suspect different MBT tools define parameters and values differently, define invalid pairs differently, etc.

In short, I like the idea (and enthusiastically welcome all such ideas to improve our Hexawise pairwise and combinatorial test design tool) but don't see this as an immediate priority. Having said that, if enough users request it (particularly our large, enterprise-wide clients), we'll re-prioritize and make it happen.

Justin
Photo of joost.jongman

joost.jongman

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Justin,

I would say: Start with supporting (Machine) State Diagrams / Activity Diagrams for functional testing wich are modelled in UML. I do not think you should consider using the XML output from a model made in MS Visio as they do not fully support UML. But what about the XML export from a model made in 'let us say' "Rational Rose"or "Aris (Platform)".

Do not get me wrong when I say this becase hexawise does work fast, intuitive and good. But there are several tools who are based on this principle. Still being forced to read to current model, retype the input in the tool and getting the testcases. Do not you want to be more then just all of them by including this. I almost guarantee too you that alot of the users will use this feature.

Having said that, I even suspect that users from similar tools will start using yours.

Joost

--edit: Typo --
Photo of Justin Hunter, Hexawise Founder

Justin Hunter, Hexawise Founder, Founder and CEO

  • 246 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Joost,

Thanks again for the suggestion. I like it. Thanks also for the complements about Hexawise!

I'll try to arrange a call with you next week to discuss pros/cons of a couple different implementation options available here.

Thanks again; I really do love customer feedback and suggestions.

Justin