Evaluation Ranorex Framework
Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:36 am
Hi,
I am in the final phase of evaluating Ranorex.
I have a code module that I wrote for a certain part of the application, let's say I created a Module with "Business logic" and it has a lot of methods like: validate, sort, select, and variations with different signatures. These methods, the only way to call them in Ranorex framework is by using the action table and then create a Test Case for them.
My painful point is that I am finding myself creating code modules ( the module 'table') just to call methods in the "Business Logic" class and then creating variables and then creating a test case and again binding to variables. I would really want to skip that part of creating stuff in the tabular mode, which from what I see inserts the method calls to the run space in the "code module".
I would want to save time and I would prefer to code the test cases my self were I can call the methods that I want to execute.
Hopefully my explanation is clear, please advise how to achieve that.
Thanks.
I am in the final phase of evaluating Ranorex.
I have a code module that I wrote for a certain part of the application, let's say I created a Module with "Business logic" and it has a lot of methods like: validate, sort, select, and variations with different signatures. These methods, the only way to call them in Ranorex framework is by using the action table and then create a Test Case for them.
My painful point is that I am finding myself creating code modules ( the module 'table') just to call methods in the "Business Logic" class and then creating variables and then creating a test case and again binding to variables. I would really want to skip that part of creating stuff in the tabular mode, which from what I see inserts the method calls to the run space in the "code module".
I would want to save time and I would prefer to code the test cases my self were I can call the methods that I want to execute.
Hopefully my explanation is clear, please advise how to achieve that.
Thanks.