- This topic has 22 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Is video recording becoming more prevalent in testing? I heard recently that some companies require proof that test were completed and that testers are asked to record themselves performing the tests? This seems strange to me but those it happen?
Would you record tests anyway for your own benefit?
That use of video just sounds over the top … but I’ve found videos to be an excellent way to report defects that are:
1) Difficult to reproduce : record a testing session for 30 minutes to catch that one moment that the bug appears, then snip the video.
2) Very ‘visual’ defects: if the application is highly graphical or image based (maps / computer games / animation)
3) Difficult to explain: just like a screenshot, a video can tell 1000 words. Especially when sending the bug report to another office/location/countryAlso videos can be used to record test sessions where many users are interacting quickly.. too quickly to manually follow.. and then slowly analyse the recording afterwards.
Screenshots are now easy to attach to bug tracking software.. videos are too large and a link to a shared location can be added to the bug ticket.
Yes I do.
Screen capturing (video) is cheap, disk space is cheap, cloud space is cheap. Why wouldn’t you use it?
It is the ideal tool to capture what you are doing and you can use it as basis for your reports.
Especially when I am on a security assignment or when I am conducting exploratory testing I make sure to use screen capturing.Yes I use, Screncastify a Chrome Plugin which records your screen and saves it as as a MP4 file om your system for free.
I don’t agree with recording test execution for checking up on testers – but there are many other benefits to recording test execution sessions. For example, you can record the steps so that you have a much better history during triage sessions if defects are detected and developers need more information. You can also compare test execution sessions where you are not sure whether you did exactly the same things (when identical test sessions produced different results). You can also use it to set a reference against which you can compare subsequent test execution runs. We aren’t there yet but this is certainly functionality which we believe is going to add value and which we feel needs to be part of our test process as we mature the test process. There are different aspects that can be recorded (video output, serial output, IR keys) – all of which can be really useful.
I feel that video is a best tool other than screenshot to capture the defect.
This will make the work of a developer easy to find the solution to the defect.
I strongly disagree with the fact of capturing video for keeping an eye on the testers.
I feel there are so many other ways for tracking the progress of tester.I agree with all of the above. I actually just start a meeting in Lync/Skype , then hit record. I am the only one in the meeting and I can ‘present’ my whole desktop, one or two apps, record my voice. Saves the file to mp4.
A couple of years ago I was a part of the Mozilla Firefox QA team and I for some of the bugs I would attach a video screenshot of how it could be reproduced. The main reason for this was because we would communicate mostly offline with the developers at Mozilla (they are spread all over the world which involves different timezones).
To sum up, a video recording of how a bug can be reproduced can be helpful.I agree, video recording can be very helpful when developer is trying to reproduce some nasty bugs.
It seems like video recording your sessions is the way to go. I see what you are saying @allanwilson. Recording the whole test session does seem a bit much but how do you know when you are definitely will need it?.
@mergan-velayudan some of your thoughts are very interesting. Just out of curiosity, why do you say that with test execution runs we are not there yet?@ronan , I was referring specifically to our organization’s progress towards recording test execution output and using it as a regular part of the testing process – we are not using off-the-shelf tools for this purpose.
Hi Ronan,
I find video recording of tests very useful. It works well when a problem is found but to reproduce the issue you need a lot of time because the test/test suite may need several hours to run completely or you may need specific resources like virtual machines, database configurations etc.
Video recording gives you as a tester an easy way to explain the behavior. This may be useful when you have to report the problem to external teams. It saves time also on the developers side because they understand faster the issue when watching the recording.
It can help you also as a tester when the test fails for random reasons. For example when it makes a wrong identification of a button to open a page by selecting another button; even if on that step the report tells you that the button was correctly identified and clicked, the video will show you that the other button was clicked, so the test failed because the wrong page was opened.
Regards,
AlinActually that’s a good tip. I have sometimes sat for up to 1 hour watching an autotests suite run on a specific envirobment. I could just connect the remote session, hit record and go for a coffee.
Video recording is quite useful for software with a high user interface dependence (not too much for software where settings is done through script and special settings), it helps to track bugs on specific circumstances, common user errors, recommended workflow description, etc.
,Definitely, recording the actions on the screen can save the time to write reproduction steps, and there exist some bugs which are nearly unable to prove other way. Recently I explored the great tool to record films in GIF format – that tool is GifCam. Great stuff for easy things!
Other tool I used is Screenpresso, but you need some plugin to convert into MP3.And waht tools do you use to record the things?
I have been using video recording to explain defects to the developer for quite some time now. The defects are clear to understand and it reduces unnecessary communication with the developer. This certainly saves time for both ends, but more importantly, the developer can act on the defect faster.
When it comes to recording of testing sessions, I started that recently and I found it to be very helpful. It saves a lot of time specially in cases where you accidentally come across a defect and do not remember what exact steps you had taken. So you do not end up wasting time in trying to find out how to reproduce the defect. It also ensures that the defect is reported and does not go unnoticed just because you do not remember how to reproduce it. And ofcourse, you always have a proof of the defect.
But having said that, I totally agree that recording for the sake of keeping a watch on the tester is a big NO.
It’s not actual video recording, but Windows has Steps Recorder built in and it takes screenshots, records input/clicks and saves in a zipped mht file. It’s pretty neat.
A propos of using recording to check on testers’ performance. I’m not sure that it’s very likely that’s what it’s used for in many places, But on critical systems the Client/Sponsors can get very edgy about gathering evidence. It’s not quite the same as checking up on the tester. If there are big problems in Production then it may “get all contractual” and evidence of what was or was not tested/observed may be required to resolve the case. I’m not advocating it, just sayin’.Recording/ Screen Capturing a test sequence in extremely beneficial if there occurs some non reproducible bugs.
It can be realized when an overnight automated test sequence was executed and you figure out in the morning that there are some test cases which failed and now impossible to reproduce.
Nowadays videos are the most convenient and easy way to share data when it comes to testing again it proves very helping you can easily share the phenomenon with your team member who willing to have full information for a test case. Also, bugs can be easily detected if any.
Seems there are two questions discussed in this topic here:
1. If you are using a recording tool for all the testing you are performing.
> No and I will not use one.
2. If you are using a recording tool for illustrating the reproduction of a bug.
> I’d prefer not to have to use it and just discuss with the devs/project managers if there are inconsistencies with a bug report or my explanation.
It depends on the type of bugs that you found when testing. Using record and playback feature of Automation testing tool like UFT, Katalon Studio, Testcomplete,… is actually a recording video action that can show you how the bug reproduce. I often record the screen when using this feature for the critical bugs to convince my clients that no bug found after committing the new code.
@oliverhorward I will second your approach.
Also came across some freelance websites which instruct their testers to record their Test case execution.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.