Windows 11 Upgrade Guide. My Quick Test Professional License key has expired and I have called the customer service but they seem not to be aware of what it is. I need to find out the price and appropriate website or number to call. Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask the community. Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for. Unified Functional Testing UFT allows you to automate your functional and regression testing and supports the widest range of applications and technologies. Whether you're looking to reduce your testing windows, increase your test coverage or free up your testers, UFT One is the perfect choice.
UFT One is available on perpetual or term licenses, while also providing open source integration with Selenium. It even covers Safari testing on macOS.
AI provides numerous benefits, including:. For example, you may have existing Selenium scripts for the web, or use CI tools such as Jenkins to run your automation. This integration protects your investment while allowing for greater coverage and testing across your full software landscape. This released testers from routine tasks, freeing them for more important work, supporting and protecting quality and reputation.
This improved their release quality and reliability, reduced business risks and costs, and eliminated release delays. I feel like it is a little expensive, but I never honestly understood the enterprise software space. For example, with Camtasia, if you look at the price of that, and you're like, "That just seems expensive.
Why is it so expensive? I would love to see them do some things to make it a bit more affordable. We have shifted around our licensing techniques because of the price. We started off with all concurrent users, but that was nearly twice the price of a seat license. So, we just kept a couple of concurrent licenses.
We also shifted to a couple of run-time licenses. We have equal thirds: run-time, seat, and full concurrent licenses. This is because of the costs. I wish you could look at them and price out each individual technology, but I have a feeling it would end up being more costly then. You are getting a lot there. I would love to see if there's anything they can do to reduce the price.
We bundle to save, and there is always the ability for them to add discounts. It is like going to the store, where they are like, "Hey, this is on sale. The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one.
Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.
I expected the AI to require an upfront extra cost in addition to the subscription, and it didn't. There was no cloud service required for it, so I didn't have to go through security hoops because it all runs local.
It has more than 10 technologies that it uses. If you are only using two of them, then why pay for all 10? I guess we have just gotten so used to it, e.
They are an enterprise product. I get that they are expensive. Somehow, I wish they could be cheaper. I don't know how they could do it. If I could pick on them for one thing, their licensed portal is just abysmal.
It is so hard to use. So, the licenses come via three fashions:. I usually can go into the portal, as long as it is working, but it's not always the most obvious thing to work with. I can see that they're making it better. It's just not best yet. One of the biggest reasons that UFT One was chosen from some others at the time was one of the big projects was bringing on a. NET desktop application to replace an old green screen app.
So, we knew that we wanted the web, but we had no idea that we were ever going to have a mobile app. I don't think mobile was supported nine years ago, but we knew we wanted it for the desktop app and web. Obviously, if we were only doing web, then we could have chosen other less expensive things, but we really needed it to do that. We evaluated some other products at the time to determine what would interact well with it.
The inclusion of its integration with ALM Octane is a big deal for us because we can control a lot of things from there. It just pairs very well. The results could be a tiny bit better for UFT One. I have gotten used to them, and they're good. However, I am starting to see other tools go further with test results, and there are some tools that have no test results so I probably shouldn't complain.
I know that they have an answer for it, and I'm holding because I feel like it's going to change. Then, I can also use C. I shouldn't complain. So, I'm not likely to change. If you are looking to implement any tool, not just UFT One, you should always go into it with some form of use case or expectation of what you want to do.
Opening up a tool and tinkering is never a good idea. If I sit you down in front of Photoshop, and just say, "Have fun. But, if you go into it, and say, "Well, I need to be able to touch up these photos. I need to be able to do this," then those are use cases.
Everybody starts with a super-duper happy path. However, with any automation tool, there is the totality of the language, and you probably only need to know 15 percent of it to do that automation. You don't need all those other structures. Abstraction is your friend. It can make your future maintenance costs incredibly low.
Without abstraction, regardless of the tool you use, you are setting yourself up for a maintenance nightmare. Planning out the actions that you want to take are absolutely key.
We started off with the AI bits. We did tinker a bit, but with any tinkering you realize, "Okay, I'm just kind of playing around, not really doing anything with nothing productive to show.
I might have accidentally made something, but I didn't purposely do anything. API testing comes with the products. You are already paying for it, and it is an absolute dream to work with. What is cool is even just from 15 to They are continually adding to it and making it better to use. We can build tests faster, then we can repeat the testing that we are doing faster. I don't think it will ever decrease the defects, but we can test with automations sooner and earlier.
Theoretically, I don't need the application to do the test building. I just need it to proof the test. So, if a UX markup person can give me some screens, like in Photoshop, of what it will be, then we can technically build our automation against that, using just a screen.
Or, if a developer can send me some screenshots or give me a sneak peek, then I can get screenshots and we technically should be able to automate and have things built when a release is done. Right now, we are just doing so much new feature development that we haven't been able to do that yet.
I don't think it will ever reduce the number of defects, but hopefully it will allow us to find them more reliably and earlier. The one thing I think will help us out quite a bit is data permutations. For example, you are registering for site A, B, C, or D, there are a lot of permutations of data that you can push through there. For manual testing, you might pick the top 10 out of 50 because you only have so much time. However, we don't have to do that anymore. We can just send them all through with automation.
I think it will help us have those scripts earlier and have them be more stable. There is technically nothing preventing the dev team from running tests.
So, a possibility is we can convince them to run some more tests before they actually deliver the app to us. I would rate this solution as an eight point five to nine out of You learn to love it.
People are really great at picking on things the moment they start using it. They look for reasons to hate it. That is not the way you should think about things for any tool. In my 10 plus years of hands-on experience using QTP QuickTest Professional and UFT Unified Functional Testing , I have observed that there has been a lot of confusion among the testing community on what the difference is between the two tools.
QTP is a functional and regression automation tool originally developed and marketed by Mercury Interactive which HP acquired in It is also important to note that on February 28, End of Support Life for QTP 11 was reached which meant that a company had to upgrade to UFT to get technical support and access to patches, documentation, etc.
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT This is especially important for providing evidence that healthcare, insurance, defense, financial services, and mortgage companies might need, especially to furnish proof to auditors.
UFT has at least one distinct advantage over Open Source tools. That is since UFT is an Enterprise tool, you do not have to download anything from the Internet which is good for Security reasons. Most Open Source tools that I am aware of require some form of download from the Internet which results in being less secure.
Note, UFT came out with a feature called InsightObject that has the ability to identify any object by taking an image of the object. Furthermore, by using the GetVisibleText the user has the ability to get the text off of the InsightObject even though it is essentially an image. The InsightObject feature is so helpful that I thought it was worthy to dedicate a special section with screenshots along with an explanation of how the InsightObject feature works as shown below.
After selecting the object that you want to add to the Object Repository, notice how the perimeter surrounds it.
Notice the small image in the code of UFT that represents lower left image with text "70 microns. The actual VBScript Code is pasted below. Note how after the code was executed the text "70 microns" was extracted from image as shown from Print Log. Browser "Space Images Circumstellar".
UFT has improved our organization because when we have regularly occurring releases of an application, we can have any QA team member execute a set of tests i. We have a script that does this by retrieving all the links on a page and then reporting the Status for each link. For example, if the Status returned is we know that the link is broken. Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory.
On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis.
When considering UFT for your organization, I would first evaluate how large your QA department is and if you will have a business need to automate your functional and regression tests. HP recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free.
Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period. If your company is going to invest in UFT, I would encourage the company to do their due-diligence in making sure that they hire an Automation Engineer well experienced with the HP tools.
This person must be very good at writing VBScript and knowing all of the advanced tips and tricks in getting UFT scripts developed so they will run without stopping unexpectedly. The QA Automation Engineer must be able to write functions from scratch and know the difference between passing a parameter by Value and by Reference. The reason for this is that it is much easier to maintain the Citrix environment with respect to patches, Browser versions, etc.
Also, Citrix can have multiple sessions and be accessed remotely. The previous version was UFT The most probable reason for not using version 13 is that the number 13 is still perceived by some as a superstitious number. The following are the new License names and the associated products included with them.
When developing automated test scripts, getting data can be time consuming because almost every company uses data indigenous to its propriety systems.
Furthermore, to develop an effective automated script, you need data for both positive test cases, and just as importantly, data that will throw an exception or error i. The Test Combinations Generator makes this task significantly easier by utilizing a Regular Expression to generate the type of data you want including the specified format.
For example, you can now quickly generate dates, URLs, passwords, confirmation numbers, shipping numbers, etc. By this I mean that the time and cost previously used to generate data is now minimized, so the QA team now has more time to focus on testing versus having to generate data. In my opinion UFT Pro is the tool that has the most significant enhancements.
Another significant change is that UFT Pro i. Furthermore, it supports the latest versions of Firefox and Chrome, which was expected. Screenshot of UFT Now we can use the Spy Comparison Tool to get properties of both objects and compare at the same time as shown below. It is too early to see how the transition to Micro Focus will change things. I believe a lot of long-time customers would like to see things run like they were back in the Mercury Interactive days, which was one of the most innovative software companies of its time.
If Micro Focus develops the right strategy, they could become the dominant player in the software testing market. At a previous company we actually used QTP to automate this process that took an Excel input file with a field for Customer Name, email address, the text verbiage for the body of the email, and an indicator for which specific documents to attach and send using Outlook. We placed the documents in specific directories to be uploaded depending on the indicator in the input file.
This automated process was very efficient and time-saving by sending out a large volume of emails with respective attachments with minimal problems. This entailed downloading the data from the legacy system and importing the data into 12 separate Excel input files and running on multiple computers.
This is an example of an unconventional but cost effective use of a QA automation tool. For example, if one pre-populated field had a certain code, the script would use logic to programmatically enter the corresponding data into other fields.
This saved the company time and resources by not having to hire people to enter the data manually. This one automated process saved the department sixty hours per week or 3, man hours per year. I updated this product review for UFT We primarily use the solution as a front end for testing for our customers, to automate installations, for behavior testing, and for various types of API testing.
We mostly use the technology on our websites, and sometimes on older technologies, such as for Oracle Forms applications.
One of the ways the product has improved our organization is that we are able to quickly get detailed information about the behavior of our applications, and we can provide this information to our customers through screenshots and additional information so that they can also easily check the reason for the defect or bug. We can work together without our customers needing special knowledge of programming.
This is very important. UFT allows us to install our applications much more easily, without our customers having to do anything. We can use UFT One to install via scripts. This eases the installation process. The solution has allowed us to reduce test execution time. If we use it in continuous integration or in headless mode, it improves performance. Between the normal run mode with debugging, and the fast mode in Jenkins, it can reduce it by about 30 percent.
That's a lot. We can run the solution on virtual machines. This greatly affects our ability to control machine configuration and allocate appropriate resources for testing. We wouldn't be able to conduct tests or to carry out work without this solution.
This is both very helpful and useful and we consider this a necessity. These features allow us to provide good functionality to all our customers without the overhead of maintenance costs, while at the same time allowing us to work with many customers with varying capabilities on different projects. With only a few technicians we can help a lot of customers. Running the solution on virtual machines allows us to run tests in parallel. It reduces a lot of the time it takes to test or to do certain kinds of work.
We are dealing with customers who give an API to their customers and they're using our tools in the background. As a result we must use it to scale the load for these tests. This is a very important and useful feature. There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT. Most of the time, administrative rights are required which necessitate much trouble to integrate it seamlessly.
When integrated, it works fine, but to maintain it in CI, special systems and privileges must be utilized. This is challenging for us. This can lead to the Jenkins server crashing. Another issue is that we can't address the UFT output to the Jenkins console. This means that when carrying out our tests in a continuous integration server, we cannot know what the UFT tested, step-by-step.
The usability can also be improved. When we receive new versions of UFT, some of the icons are altered so that things are not recognizable to us or to the customer. Another issue is that the application requires slow work. If you go too fast while debugging, the Step Over button may easily change to the Stop button. The Git integration is also a point when it comes to continuous integration. There are aspects that are not recognized by Git.
We cannot do a side by side comparison of changes, such as comparing the QSL side and the object repository side. When they updated UFT from version 14 to 15, they changed the data table structure of UFT, such as the first data line turning into the column name. This is a problem as our customers may have different versions of UFT.
An example would be if we wish to change the data table of version 15 but a customer has version 14, it can be problematic. This destroys the tests. Another question we have is why everything is in read mode during the execution. Also on our list is the fact that UFT allows you to work on 11 or 12 tests. If you want to change something with search and replace, you can only change it in the 11 or 12 tests that are open in the solution. But what if we have a 13th test case that is not included in the solution?
We then need to open that test after we have already searched and replaced. That's a little bit inconvenient because other IDEs give you the opportunity to make those changes everywhere, in every script, not only the 11 or We have already addressed some of these issues with technical support, but not all of them have been handled.
For example, we brought up the issue of the icons changing with every version some years ago and nothing has happened. It gets worse and worse from version to version. We also have menus and instructions for our customers, but because all the screenshots become outdated with the next version, we have to do maintenance on them all the time.
We end up having to do a lot of work without any need for it. The old VBS language can be a nuisance. It could be easier to use and it could be better integrated in continuous integration pipelines.
And it could always be faster. We have been using it since inception. The stability is very good, except for the example I mentioned regarding the data table. Most of the time you can switch to the next version without any problems. The old features and behaviors are, in terms of the code base, the same. We use the product as often as we can. Between 50 to people are using the solution. We are constantly looking for additional customers and projects so we have ongoing plans to increase usage.
The overall scalability is very good and utilizing the licensing server allows us to scale the solution as we need. One area which can be improved involves the running of instances on a single machine.
Overall, if you are able to reproduce an issue, their technical support can help you. But sometimes it can be very hard to find a technician with a high level of technical background and knowledge of the product, so that they can understand the situation, the problem, and the behavior.
This can be a challenge. Sometimes we have had to escalate to get a technician with the necessary background and knowledge. We found the initial setup to be very easy. It is very robust and leaves no room for making errors. The availability of config files for setting up all the installations from a single master configuration is nearly perfect. The customer would have no problem simply opening the machine and using it. As for deployment, the time can vary. Sometimes there are only minor changes and sometimes there are a lot more changes.
Micro Focus support has advised us that, in case of an error or a problem with upgrades, they cannot be sure whether that problem would exist on a clean installation. So we always uninstall the entire product and install it on a clean system.
We use one or two people for deployment and maintenance, in the role of test automation engineers. Even without being able to provide exact figures, this product has given our company a return on its investment.
If you use it all the time and for different use cases then it is a good price. If you only use it one time a day for half an hour then it is pricey. The ability of the solution to cover multiple enterprise apps, technologies, and environments is very important to us and it forms part of our company policy. It is a point we had to validate before going with this solution. The reason for this is that we must meet the technical needs of our customers, many of whom lack a technical background.
UFT One provides cross-browser and desktop application support, although the cross platform support, which is not good, is not so important to us at the moment. These capabilities are important to us because our customers are using different kinds of technologies, some that are newer, some that are very old, and all kinds that are in between. To provide a good solution, the cross-browser and cross-platform functionalities are very helpful and necessary. Dhanasekar Subramaniam.
Hi guys Are you sure about it?? Jitendra Sharma. Suggest you to contact HP Local Sales in your region. They are the best people to help you on prices. Ansu Raj. Hi friends, Dont buy it will make big hole in ur pocket. If you want to use for learning purpose then go and search Crack on net. It is easily available.
I'm also needing to know QTP's license price, and apparently none of you have an idea of the real value. Suggestions like "check with HP customer care" are tottaly useless, since it's obvious that we already tried that. That guy who said he's got QTP for bucks: Could you please tell us what was your point of contact? Srinivas Uga. Mason W.
0コメント