VBScript is easier to learn than Java.

There are many new and old features in UFT 14.01 which are valuable.

In UFT 14.01, new support has been added for AngularJS 2.0 and 4.0. While most of the AngularJS objects were recognized out-of-the-box in UFT 12, 14.01 now also recognizes grid objects, such as Web tables.

Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator.

• Need 10 to 100 random city names?
• A range of random dates?
• What about a list of first and last names? Random numbers, emails and passwords? Even IP and MAC addresses?
• Need a list of random part numbers in a custom format? The Regular Expression data generator will fill your need.

This data can be exported to internal Excel data worksheets that give upfront visual access to data for starting data driven projects.

The UFT has multiple approaches for object identification including:

• Object Repository
• Descriptive programming
• Object collections
• Relational recognition (Below or right of another object)
• Insight objects (Image recognition)
• Virtual objects

Ensures you can find objects by the DOM, CSS and XPath, but descriptive programming is often easier to read.

Connections to MS Excel and popular databases allow users to move to the advanced frameworks of data acquisition with SQL queries.

The fully-redesigned Run Results module is simply beautiful. Someone tried to compliment me on rolling my own results page, and I admitted what they were looking at was completely out-of-the-box.

Let’s not forget being able to make external calls to supporting tools, like AutoIt, as well as the Windows API, to provide expanded functionality.

Lastly, support of version control in both the stand-alone tool and the ALM repository.

Our current project features more than a 1000 manual test cases, which took several days and resources to execute. Now, the suite executes in six hours and less than two when run on multiple machines.

With Jenkins connected, or the new cloud-based StormRunner Functional Testing, the tests can be launched anytime, even at the end of day, and be ready for analysis the next morning.

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.

I have worked with QTP/UFT for 13 years continuously. My projects over the years have included the tool along with the use of ALM (aka Quality Center or Test Director), Business Process Testing (BPT), and TAO for SAP.

The product is extremely stable. It's been my tool of choice for nearly two decades because it is solid.

Scalabiliy is entirely up to the framework design. While Record and Playback are available for new users, it will result in fragile high maintenance and unscalable test suites. That's true of most automation tools, so a hybrid framework design approach is always highly recommended. Fortunately, UFT is extremely flexible in design.

Advanced developers can go so far as to design a framework which translates to Plain English ("Click Ok Button") into script code (WebButton("InnerText:=Ok").click). This leads to function designs similar to Gherkin & Cucumber, bypassing the object repository entirely.

With BPT (Business Process Testing), non-technical users can easily build test cases inside of ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) from scripted components designed by automation engineers. Simply copy an existing test and add additional components that meet your test requirement.

Scaling to push multiple tests executions with different data sets is also easy to implement particularly with the new Data Generation Tool described above.

Lastly, scaling object class methods to add new functionality or modify the process of execution is achievable with just a few lines of code. The tool even provides a Function Definition Generator Wizard to help build the code the first time.

Micro Focus support is OK. Orasi support is outstanding.

Prior to using VBScript-based UFT/QTP, I used Mercury Interactive's C-based Winrunner before the product was discontinued.

Initial setup is very straightforward and takes about 45 minutes, including one system restart. The tool installs the bare minimum of add-ins. To add more, it takes about 15 minutes.

Installing the Terminal Emulator add-in is easy, but configuring it is a bit tricky. This being a bit of a horse and cart issue, as you can't see the configuration option unless the Emulator is up and connected first.

For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand.

While many will argue there are other tools available that are free, you may find it hard to find one which supports so many new and legacy web technologies, terminal emulators, and Windows thick client applications. It's the kitchen sink of tools with an easy to learn language, a solid history, and extensive support resources.

I only work QTP/UFT engagements, however I do compare functionality of other tools in my spare time, including Selenium, SmartBear TestComplete, and HPE LeanFT.

AngularJS support, Data Generation and New Spy features are great, but creeping “Click-itis” sours user experience.

There are so many features! The tool is easy to learn, flexible, and extensive.

Be sure to have new automation engineers trained beyond basic YouTube videos, and avoid on the job training. This will prevent rookie mistakes that will generate unmaintainable scripts and re-work in the future.

Micro Focus provides tool training, as does Orasi and RTTS in New York.

That we're able to test both the services, the API level and the GUI, across multiple technologies. At our company, we have everything from mainframe to modern web UI, and UFT allows us to test all of those sites.

I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well.

It helps improve efficiency in regression testing, specifically, and functional testing, in that we automate a lot of repeatable tasks. Not only do we use UFT for automated regression testing, we also use it for doing repeatable tests even for the business, in test environments and in the higher environments as well.

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.

I would say that UFT has been around for a long time, so it is very stable. When we have had any issues, the support team has been able to help us.

We've got global licenses, so we use it on a world-wide scale, and so far it's been great. We even use it on virtualized servers, so it can scale just fine.

We actually have our tech support through a partner and work with them very closely. So far, so good. We haven't had a problem they couldn't resolve. We have yet to have an issue escalated to Micro Focus.

I was not involved in the initial setup. It was there when I got there. But I upgraded the licenses to a global license and we got both the full licenses and Run Time, so we're able to run it from continuous integration. That was

straightforward. Fairly easy.

When selecting a vendor to work with the most important criteria would be somebody that's going to be there for the long haul. Somebody who's dependable. Somebody who has active support and supports the latest technology. As we modernize it, the technology stays fresh.

If you have legacy tools like PowerBuilder and Oracle and a variety of others, not just web, then UFT is the best choice. If you're only doing web, you might be able to get away with some open source tools. But if you have a variety of technologies, UFT is great and you can also build your own keyword frameworks on top of that.

Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier. We have a lot of repeatable tasks which we perform over at the hotel, rolling dates for different applications mainly. We do monthly swap testing or regression testing for every month's window batches and so on. That's mainly what we use it for.

It's definitely cut down on a lot of time by using this application. We have about ten environments; ten times in every environment manually would've taken most of the day, rather than doing it simultaneously. It saves me hours.

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.

I'd say it's a very stable application. I'm still kind of learning UFT, so, it varies by application. I run into issues sometimes with object identification, but, other than that, it's a pretty solid application.

Right now, we're using it more for some of my smaller tasks, but eventually I'd like to grow it, at least in our QA department, towards more applications.

Their tech support is good. They respond in a reasonable amount of time. They definitely keep contacting you until the problem is resolved.

To someone researching UFT: It's a very good tool. It hits other applications versus just web apps, which is one of the main things. I think that is why our company purchased it in the first place.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: What they're currently doing, then what their outlook is, e.g., what they plan on doing to their products and how they're going to innovate them. Then just kind of base the decision off of what other companies (in the same vertical) are currently using or if they like the same products.

The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation.

It's improved the way our organization functions by automating test cases that were previously done manually. It also improved the robustness and execution time of these test cases.

It doesn’t support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this. It's also quite an expensive solution.

We've been using it for one year in my project.

We've had no issues with deployment.

It's been stable for us.

No issues with scalability.

8/10

8/10

I've used UFT for many years as this tool is the most user-friendly solution for automating tests.

The initial setup was a straightforward, step-by-step process.

Our in-house admin team implemented it.

It's an expensive solution.

This tool is awesome for automation even though it is expensive.

For HPE UFT, you can automate your testing for a lot of different platforms. It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications.

For test automation, it helps to speed up the testing and to speed up the software delivery, especially for HPE UFT because you have lots of test automation tools. Also, if I compare HPE UFT with the HPE QTP solution, then HPE UFT is more user-friendly in its use. You still have to program it, but you don't have to program it all of the time; so for a user who isn't used to working with code, he can do other things in HPE UFT.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the HPE StormRunner Functional. If it's possible to do it in a good way from the cloud, and you don't have to install it. I've seen that working for the HR manager and ALM solutions, so it would be very helpful. You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out.

I have used HPE Unified Functional Testing (UFT) for one and a half years, whereas the HPE QuickTest Professional (QTP) for a couple more years before that.

We have to download it, then install it on our own machines and the machines sometimes aren't stable; since we have PDIs, also the UFT isn't stable and I don't know yet where the connection is.

Scalability is a little difficult because you need to have the machines and then, have to install it. It is less scalable than the other products. For example, the HR manager just takes another workspace in the cloud and then, you work.

I'm more happy with the SaaS support for the HR manager and ALM than with the off-premises support, that I have to so through for UFT. This is because, often, when I have an issue with UFT, I get slow responses and most of the times, it is in regards to the things that I have already Googled and tried to figure out myself. So, it doesn't always help me.

HPE UFT is quite complex to set up.

I, myself mostly, have experience with the HPE tooling and I haven't been in the position where I could decide what tooling to choose. I'm hired because I have this knowledge but I would say usability of the tools, (i.e., how you can use it) is the most important criteria while selecting a vendor

Its ease-of-use. It doesn’t take long to train staff on it. We use a third-party to develop the scripts for us, and they find it easy to up-skill staff to use UFT.

We use it mainly for regression and it's very useful for that. We reduce a lot of stats around cost savings in the regression packs that we run.

Cost is one area where there is room for improvement. We have to start looking at a leaner team and moving into using the Selenium scripts. We have a lot of areas using Selenium, as well, within the bank. I'm trying to get out of using it, only just for regression, as well.

We don’t have any stability issues at the moment. Some of the issues that we've had really would be around browsers and browser compatibility. But that's mainly to do with in-house issues, because the industry that I'm in can be a bit slow to adapt new browsers and new software. It's more the way that it interacts with that, than the application itself that causes stability problems.

We have 12 licenses at the moment. Cost is one factor that pushes us to use another tool as well.

I would have been involved in the initial setup when it was originally installed. It was too long ago. It was originally QTP. That was a good few years ago. I used to look after the licensing, and the license servers, and all that kind of stuff and that's fine. It is very, very simple. The new licensing model is a lot easier.

Well, you got just automation, basically, that's what you wanted. You get rid of manual testing, which is a huge improvement.

Well, I'm not an expert but from a deep technical perspective, it has been odd-neat, except for the small failures we had due to particular environments. I haven't got a good idea though, I'm not deep into it.

We have been using the product since 2012. We use both ALM and UFT together, as a team.

UFT is stable. Not a problem.

From my experience, UFT is scalable. Our very first project was quite a demanding project. We had a form of testing hosts of around 40 to 60 and we never had to worry about performance or scalability.

The technical support is pretty good. It probably depends on the support contract type you have. Our contract works pretty well as we have dedicated support engineers for our product.

They are knowledgeable and responsive. Sometimes you need a little bit more, but then HP help us to find it as they're knowledgeable troubleshooters. So we never had a problem to get issues fixed when we found that particular person. It was very effective I guess.

When considering vendors we look for stability, support and reliability. And that's probably it. So we probably are not going for small vendors.