改進自動化測試套件的可維護性（一）

Automated black box, GUI-level regression test tools are popular in the industry. Aclearcase/" target="_blank" >ccording to the popular mythology, people with little programming experience can use these tools to quickly create extensive test suites. The tools are (allegedly) easy to use. Maintenance of the test suites is (allegedly) not a problem. Therefore, the story goes, a development manager can save lots of money and aggravation, and can ship software sooner, by using one of these tools to replace some (or most) of those pesky testers.

　　自動化黑盒測試、GUI級回歸測試工具在行業中被廣泛應用。根據現在流行的說法，即使是只有很少的編程經驗的人都能使用這些工具快速創建各種測試套件。按照這種說法，這些工具易于使用，并且連測試套件的維護也不成問題。因此，一位開發部經理很自然地用這些工具之一去替代一些(或很多)麻煩的測試人員，這樣既省心又省錢，還能快速發布軟件。

　　These myths are spread by tool vendors, by executives who don’t understand testing, and even by testers and test managers who should (and sometimes do) know better.

　　以上說法被工具提供商和不懂測試的經理到處散布，甚至還包括那些應該對測試有更多了解的測試人員和測試經理們。

　　Some companies have enjoyed success with these tools, but several companies have failed to use these tools effectively.

　　事實上，一些公司成功地使用了這些工具，而另一些公司則沒能有效地利用它們。

　　In February, thirteen experienced software testers met at the Los Altos Workshop on Software Testing (LAWST) [2] for two days to discuss patterns of success and failure in development of maintainable black box regression test suites. Our focus was pragmatic and experience-based. We started with the recognition that many labs have developed partial solutions to automation problems. Our goal was to pool practical experience, in order to make useful progress in a relatively short time. To keep our productivity high, we worked with a seasoned facilitator (Brian Lawrence), who managed the meeting.

　　在二月，十三位經驗豐富的軟件測試工程師召開了為期兩天的Los Altos Workshop on Software Testing (LAWST)會議，討論了可維護性黑盒回歸測試套件的開發過程中的成功及失敗模式。討論的焦點是實際經驗。首先，我們承認很多實驗室已開發出解決自動化問題的實用方法。因此，我們的目的就是把這些實際經驗匯集到一起，在相對較短的時間內獲得較大進展。為了保持高效，我們與主持會議的經驗豐富的顧問Brian Lawrence一起工作。

　　These were the participants: Chris Agruss (Autodesk), Tom Arnold (ST Labs), James Bach (ST Labs), Jim Brooks (Adobe Systems, Inc.), Doug Hoffman (Software Quality Methods), Cem Kaner (kaner.com), Brian Lawrence (Coyote Valley Software Consulting), Tom Lindemuth (Adobe Systems, Inc.), Brian Marick (Testing Foundations), Noel Nyman (Microsoft), Bret Pettichord (Unison), Drew Pritsker (Pritsker Consulting), and Melora Svoboda (Electric Communities). Organizational affiliations are given for identification purposes only. Participants’ views are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the companies listed.

　　以下是與會成員：Chris Agruss (Autodesk), Tom Arnold (ST Labs), James Bach (ST Labs), Jim Brooks (Adobe Systems, Inc.), Doug Hoffman (Software Quality Methods), Cem Kaner (kaner.com), Brian Lawrence (Coyote Valley Software Consulting), Tom Lindemuth (Adobe Systems, Inc.), Brian Marick (Testing Foundations), Noel Nyman (Microsoft), Bret Pettichord (Unison), Drew Pritsker (Pritsker Consulting), and Melora Svoboda (Electric Communities). 大家只為同一個目標組織到一起。但成員們有他們自己的觀點，并不一定代表整個團體的觀點。

　　This paper integrates some highlights of that meeting with some of my other testing experiences.

　　本文綜合了本次會議的一些重點議題以及我的一些測試經驗。

　　What’s the Problem?

　　問題

　　There are many pitfalls in automated regression testing. I list a few here. James Bach (one of the LAWST participants) lists plenty of others, in his paper "Test Automation Snake Oil." [3]

　　自動化回歸測試有很多缺陷，我在這里只列舉了一些。James Bach(LAWST成員之一)在他的文章“Test Automation Snake Oil”中列舉了其它的很多種。

　　Problems with the basic paradigm:

　　基本規范的問題

　　Here is the basic paradigm for GUI-based automated regression testing: [4]

原文轉自：http://www.kjueaiud.com