Smart practice of mobile testing

Abstract: Monkey, traversal, and functional testing must be familiar to everyone. Monkey has strong randomness and can find hidden problems, but it is random, uncontrollable, and inefficient. The traversal process is controllable, but often requires a high time cost to write and maintain related script. MQC has been working in the field of automated testing for many years, and has created a new testing tool Ripper for compatibility testing while fully absorbing the advantages of various testing methods.

1. Application Quality & Development Speed

Most companies tend to consider three aspects when developing apps: time cost, development cost, and failure cost.

• Race against time
• Development cost
• Failure cost

2. Testing Status & Pain Points

Manual testing

• A lot of repetitive work, slow testing speed
• A lot of points to pay attention to, high QA cost

Automated functional testing

•Fast changes, requiring frequent revisions, high maintenance costs
•Duplicated processes, hard to find crashes
•Use case failures are often caused by scripting or setting problems

three. Compatibility Test Tool

Compatibility Test Monkey

• Uncontrollable actions and low coverage
• Time-consuming testing
• Difficulty in locating problems during development

Compatibility Test Traversal

• Improve detection coverage
• Lack of specific business scenarios
• Lack of problem location

Compatibility test ripper

•More actions: multi-finger operation (zoom), combo, Chinese input
•Precise control, high concurrency, high test efficiency
•Perftool
•Scenario

4. Compatibility test capability comparison

In order to compare the test effect of Ripper and monkey, we wrote a property page structure App that contains various controls (viewpager, listview, fragment, imageview, etc.).