参考:
http://wiki.openqa.org/display/WTR/Comparison+of+Watir+with+Silk+Test
这篇文档从脚本运行时间、可靠性、可维护性、代码行数这几个方面比较了一下Watir和SilkTest。不过由于文章是2005年写的,今天无论是Watir还是SilkTest都有了更多的改进,因此仅作参考用。
Two scripts are being used to do the comparison. --> What type of an app was being tested? Where are the samples of these 2 scripts?
We used the following criteria to compare the two tools:
- Elapsed time
- Reliability
- Maintainability
- Lines of Code
Each script was run 15 times to get the elapsed time and test out reliability.
Import script | Watir | SilkTest | |
Lines of Codes | 60 lines of code | 200+ | |
Elapsed Time (average of 15 runs) | 25 seconds | 60 seconds | |
Reliability | No failure when ran 15 times in a row | 87% with 15 runs | |
Maintainability | All changes are readily "seen" via View Source or getHTML command. Compare files can be done and changes can easily be made. | Changes in B1 code require updates to the page declarations. This can take between 10 and 30 minutes. | |
Analysis/Positions script | Watir | SilkTest | |
Lines of Codes | 105 lines of code | 250+ | |
Elapsed Time (average of 15 runs) | 52 seconds | 120 seconds | |
Reliability | No failure when ran 15 times in a row | 80% with 15 runs | |
Maintainability | All changes are readily "seen" via View Source or getHTML command. Compare files can be done and changes can easily be made. | Changes in B1 code require updates to the page declarations. This can take between 10 and 30 minutes. | |