评估GUI测试自动化工具的投资回报
Estimating Return on Investment for GUI Test Automation Tools
摘要：
自动化的图形用户界面（GUI）测试可以减少手动测试活动并增加测试频率。这促使了手工测试用例向自动化GUI测试的转换。然而，考虑到GUI自动化脚本添加到代码库并且随着系统的发展需要维护，这种自动化是否具有成本效益还不清楚。在本文中，我们介绍了一种方法，估计维护成本和投资回报率（ROI）的自动GUI测试（AGT）。该方法利用现有的源代码更改历史，并可用于评估其他测试或质量保证自动化技术。我们评估了一个真实世界的方法，工业软件系统，并比较两个根本不同的AGT工具，即硒和EyeAutomate，估计和比较他们的投资回报率。我们还报告了它们的缺陷发现能力和可用性。定量数据还得到了对案例公司员工的采访的补充。该方法被成功地应用和估计的维护成本和投资回报率为这两种工具的报告。总体而言，该研究支持早期的结果表明，实施时间是引入AGT的主要成本。研究结果进一步表明，虽然EyeAutomate测试的实现速度明显更快，但Selenium测试需要更多的编程背景，但维护较少。
英文摘要：
Automated graphical user interface (GUI) tests can reduce manual testing activities and increase test frequency. This motivates the conversion of manual test cases into automated GUI tests. However, it is not clear whether such automation is cost-effective given that GUI automation scripts add to the code base and demand maintenance as a system evolves. In this paper, we introduce a method for estimating maintenance cost and Return on Investment (ROI) for Automated GUI Testing (AGT). The method utilizes the existing source code change history and can be used for evaluation also of other testing or quality assurance automation technologies. We evaluate the method for a real-world, industrial software system and compare two fundamentally different AGT tools, namely Selenium and EyeAutomate, to estimate and compare their ROI. We also report on their defect-finding capabilities and usability. The quantitative data is complemented by interviews with employees at the case company. The method was successfully applied and estimated maintenance cost and ROI for both tools are reported. Overall, the study supports earlier results showing that implementation time is the leading cost for introducing AGT. The findings further suggest that while EyeAutomate tests are significantly faster to implement, Selenium tests require more of a programming background but less maintenance.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
