HP UFT/QTP Web Automation testing challenges and mitigations

1. Web application Objects which are specific to technology(Ex: SAP, .Net, Java Applets, Oracle Applications..etc) doesn't identify by default QTP addins
Mitigation:
in HP QTP/UFT there are below listed addins available and we can recognize objects once we install those based on the technology used in the application under test.
• .Net
• Delphi
• Flex
• Java
• Oracle
• peopleSoft
• PowerBuilder
• Qt
• SAP
• Web
• VisualAge
• WPF

2.Reading data from Web integrated PDF files
Mitigation:
Till HP QTP 11.0 version:
install AcroRd32.exe and make enable AcroExch object to recognize PDF files content
From UFT 11.5 Version:
There is a content checkpoint feature added. From that we can read the data from different files ex: PDF, HTML, RFT, txt, doc, etc: easily.

3. Recognizing Custom Objects in AUT (Application Under Test)
In UFT 11.5 version on wards there is an option to record objects with Insight Recording. With that option you can learn an object’s (or images) different states and convert that into a recognizable object within the object library.

4. Running web application batches with takes more than 2-3 minutes time to run and then verify for results once the batch is completed
Mitigation:
Keep periodic wait time till it compleates 2-3 minutes and after executing batch verify for the results

5. Object property values are keep on getting changed on each release
Mitigation:
Make all objects completely generic with their properties also keep in mind that objects are getting identified uniquely

6. Identifying run time generated objects
Mitigation:
use descriptive programming or use regular expression in object property values to recognize run time generated values

7. Verifying web page content with alignment, auto numbering, paragraphs..etc
Mitiagation:
It is not possible to verify web page content with alignment, auto numbering, paragraphs..etc

8. Double/Triple click on objects or clicking on object without page loading properly
Mitigation:
QTP doesn't supports such actions with script execution. It only perform action on object once the page is completely loaded

9. Handling certain popups during automation execution. For example, sometimes during execution of automated test, application throws popup and QTP hangs up at this point.
Mitigation:
The only solution is to kill the session. Write VB code to handle the popup and call the script separately.

10. QTP/UFT is installed in Machine A and Application is available in Machine B and required script creation and run on the application
Mitigation:
QTP/UFT and Application should be available on single machine to record/run script

11. Multi Browser Testing: Recording script in other than IE browser
Mitigation:
Recording script in Mozilla, Saffari, Chrome..etc not possible, Script only can run on these browsers

12. Not able to automate E2E scenarios. For example, consider a scenario where order is placed in Web application and needs to be validated in another integrated component such as Outlook/Mainframe. The backend system takes time to reflect the order and the QTP script fails to validate the same.
Mitigation:
If the time gap is more, it is not feasible to add more wait time. This would have impact on total execution time. In this case, a separate script to validate the backend system or interfaces can be prepared and executed separately.

13. Object Identification issues with all the version of the Mozilla even with the patches and QTP/UFT
Mitigation:
1. XPath or CSS identifier property
2. .Object property to access the Firefox DOM 
3. Event Identifiers
4. Embed or Run JavaScripts in Your Web Pages.
features of QTP/UFT should be used to over the issue with Object Identification while automating creating and running QTP script on Mozilla browser

14. Automation Testing in a Multi-Country / Multi-Lingual Deployment Scenario:
Large web applications projects often involve multi-country roll-outs wherein the application has to be rolled out in multiple languages. Such rollouts are also characterized by a common set of functionality applicable across all countries (core requirements) in addition to certain unique country specific requirements (localization requirements).
Mitigation:
In such a multi-country deployment scenario the following salient points need to be considered:
1) Prioritization of Test Cases for Execution - It is advisable to initially do an assessment on the
criticality of the requirements for each country. Post this exercise, a prioritization of the test cases for automation should be conducted for each country.

2) Changes in Automation Approach -Normally, automation tools identify test objects used in the application by means of the text displayed on the GUI of the object. For example, a button with caption “Submit” will be recognized by the text “Submit” displayed on it. When the application is deployed in multiple languages, this becomes a serious problem for the reusability of the scripts across different languages. This difficulty is easily overcome in Web applications, as all the objects used in a Web application have a unique repository ID which can be utilized to uniquely identify the object. This ID remains same even when the GUI text of the object changes for different languages. The framework designer must enforce the use of repository ID as the object identifier in all automation scripts if they are intended to be used for multiple languages.

Reporting structure of the automation framework should also be amended to store the country-specific results separately. This adds one layer of complexity on the reporting structure of the automation framework, but offers long-term benefits by providing a clear picture of the test execution result for individual countries.

3) Stress on Re-usability - As long as repository ID is used as the identifying property of the Web objects used in the automation scripts, the same scripts can be used for all countries. Care should be taken for situations where a particular Web object is present for one country but is absent for another country due to localization requirements. This type of scenarios must be handled individually for each country.

15. Managing reusability of functionalities and dynamic test data.
Mitigation:
A well defined test automation framework with definded guidelines and best practices to be used.