UFT (QTP) Room for Improvement

Paul Grossman
Sr. Test Automation Engineer at a consultancy with 1,001-5,000 employees
It is important to note here that another Micro Focus product, ALM (aka Quality Center and Test Director), has long suffered from “click-itis” since its release. Nearly every dropdown is collapsed by default. Two option choices are implemented with dropdown lists rather than radio buttons. Most edit fields require opening an additional edit panel in the unlikely chance you need to bold or italicize a step summary. So navigation is a perpetual repetitive click-expand experience that quickly becomes a total turn off to the user. I mention this shortcoming of ALM because, unfortunately, this design is seeping into UFT as well. UFT 14.01 has eliminated the "Run" button from the shortcut menu bar when a function library window has the focus. In effect, where you could click just one button to run a script in UFT 12.54, you will now have to click the Test tab first to get the Run button to appear to be clicked. Fortunately, the F5 (Run) and F11 (Step-through) keyboard shortcuts still work regardless of the window with focus. It looks like User Acceptance Testing of the product is getting bypassed entirely because this design has precedence in UFT. Throwing an object to the Watch window almost always requires two attempts. So, train yourself to always click the Watch window tab first. More “Click-itis” for the user. UFT 14.01 did make one long awaited improvement that is very welcome. The object Spy utility can now be left open while writing code. This means you can paste multiple property names and values from the Spy into your object identification code without having to repeatedly close and reopen the Spy tool. Now, if two Spy windows could be launched to compare the properties of two similar objects, that would be another welcome click-reducing feature. The list of good features far exceed the bad. Here are a few that could be addressed in upcoming releases to get the tool to a perfect rating: * Double-clicking a function in the Toolbox window used to take the developer to the source code. Now, it throws a function call wherever the cursor happens to be. This runs the risk of breaking code. UFT 14.01 fixes a feature that would replace selected code. It now just jams the code in the middle of the selection, which is still not great. * Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function. * The Run results module counts the number of Fails and Warnings in a test, but not the total Pass results. Workaround: Roll your own results counter code. * No RegEx support of integers properties in the Repository and Descriptive Programming. If the tool just allowed [1-9]\d+ in the Height and Width properties, the returned object collections would exclude all non-visible objects. Workaround: All objects in an object collection need to be tested for height or width to ensure visibility, but slowing execution. View full review »
Director of quality assurance and testing at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved. I'd like to see more support for modern scripting languages. I believe they use .Net as their primary, and if we could use something like Java Script or Groovy, in addition, that would be helpful. I think that's possible with functional testing, a LeanFT, but I'd like to see more flexibility there eventually. View full review »
Qa engineer
Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification. So, if there's more coverage for different languages to detect in development, then that'd be a lot more helpful. Specifically this application which we use is Delphi-oriented, but I had a hard time trying to figure out what was going on with the application because of the language. View full review »
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, Tricentis, SmartBear and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: July 2019.
353,754 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Narendra Gadiparthy
Principal Consultant | Contractor Manager at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
It doesn’t support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this. It's also quite an expensive solution. View full review »
Initially, it was supporting only Internet Explorer. This was not an issue, as the corporate choice, was to use that browser. In the meantime, Firefox and Google Chrome became popular and were introduced within the company, hence scripting became more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support those additional browsers. View full review »
Francesco Pecchioli
Senior Digital Business Consultant with 51-200 employees
In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable. View full review »
Veeraswamy Palla
AST at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Integrating with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation). I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications. View full review »
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, Tricentis, SmartBear and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: July 2019.
353,754 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Sign Up with Email