Hi Bret! Thanks for answering. My initial intention was to send this
to you, then I decided to open it up here. Ended up getting both.
> I've got a project to come up with a way to record user action in Ruby
> code that can be executed by FireWatir. My idea is to parse the output
> from TestGen4Web or Selenium-IDE. This idea was proposed in the ruby-
> talk mailing list and in the Ruby Central SoC ideas page.
> There is one thing though: what makes that different from just using
> Selenium-IDE? Selenium can record, it can output Ruby code, and it can
> then play it back in the browser.
> I had read that Selenium had to be installed server-side, but then I
> read that with Selenium-IDE being a Firefox extension it becomes a
> trusted host and can run its own webserver and test any website it
> So would this idea be redundant? Is there any substantial difference
> between Selenium and (Fire|)Watir that would justify doing this?
Let me make some alternate suggestions for how to you could help
support web testing in Ruby.
1. Help create a Watir-api to selenium. Many people like watir's API,
but prefer Selenium's platform support. Here is a spike of the
This idea goes very well with number 4 (which is the SoC application
itself). If Watir and Selenium end up having a common back-end with
different APIs, it'd be good to have Selenium-IDE output Watir code
that could then drive Selenium without breaking already-existing Watir
And as Selenium-IDE already outputs Selenium code, the process of
transforming its output into Watir code might shed a light on how to
accomplish the idea of a Watir API to Selenium.
2. Help with the FireWatir port of Watir. We are running into some
inconsistencies between FireWatir and Watir::IE (aka Watir). See the
FireWatir mailing list for details. These are a problem for people who
want to run tests using either browser.
Is this being discussed in the Watir-general list? That's the only one
I found. If there's one specific for FireWatir please show me where.
3. Help integrate FireWatir, Watir::IE and SafariWatir. Right now they
are separate tools, but by rights they really should share common
code. We've had some discussion of this, and have agreed on basic
principles, but no one has really had the time to do it.
This seems indeed reasonable and desirable. But I feel like it would
be too big of a bite for me to chew right now. If I get approved for
this SoC project (<ahem>, <ahem>) I will be a lot more familiar with
these tools and codebases and might have a better idea of how I can
take this next step. Maybe a SoC for next year?
4. I do think that Modifying Selenium IDE so that it could generate
Watir code would also be a benefit.
5. You should know that the Watir-recorder team recently released
their Watin Recorder -- there may be things to learn there.
Thanks for the heads up. All I could find was a short release note.
There seems to be close to no documentation at all. Do you know if
there is any outside the openqa website? Do you know what's the
difference between Wati*R* Recorder and Wati*N* Recorder?
All in all, what we really need is not yet another tool, but rather
help in getting these different open-source tools to work together and
This really seems like the way to go. As I'm new to everything
concerning these tools, I really needed some light to see if I was
getting it right. The project still seems relevant, but there's a lot
more I hadn't thought of. Thanks for the broader view.
Now, do you think any of the ideas you gave has greater priority and
should be done before the Selenium-IDE-outputs-Watir-code idea? I
don't know if I can change my application objectives in mid-flight,
but if there's something that's more urgent for the community and that
still can be done in 3 months, I'd love to make it work.
It might also simply help to provide up-to-date comparison information
on Watir vs. Selenium. Several have been done, but they are all over a
year old (that i've seen) and all the tools have improved
substantially in that time.
Tell me about it. I've been rushing through old blog posts, old
tutorials, old everything about them to get a grasp about what makes
them different and when I think I've nailed it I find something a bit
more recent (but still old) aying it's all changed. I'll start
documenting my findings and then I'll try sum it up on a blog post or
On Mar 29, 10:46 pm, "Bret Pettichord" <bpettich...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 9:33 am, "Helder Ribeiro" <hel...@gmail.com> wrote: