OpenText UFT Developer Reviews

The most valuable feature is the possibility to code the test framework with C# and Java and therefore, use the development teams.

The technical part of test automation does not need a separate technology for developing test suites for end-to-end testing, regression testing and user acceptance testing.

Improvement is still needed for stability and performance. Still, it is at the beginning of a technological shift for HP test automation. The tool would be best if HP made the OR functionality and performance similar to the HP UFT one.

The solution has been used in a pilot alpha testing project.

Yes – deployment was not yet production ready.

For several browsers it needed some special settings which affected the stability of the product.

Scalability was not an issue for the pilot, and it's not expected to be an issue in the future, as all development resources can be used on an as needed basis.

The support in the alpha/beta test phase was especially good.

The technical support was perfect as we could talk directly to architects developers and product managers.

Previously we used HP UFT and Selenium because there was actually no alternative products at the market.

The setup was well-prepared, but quite complex. When related to our environment, there have been setup problems. These problems could be resolved by an intimate technical customer service.

The implementation happened in-house.

You could cut the technical part of the test automation processes by about 50%.

Setup cost was around €10,000. Day-to-day processes would be 0 as the technical part of test automation will be integrated completely into development. This will save the extra part of technical test automation, which sums up to the yearly license costs.

All options in the test automation market are evaluated at all times. Rational Robot, Tosca, Soap UI, etc.

Make sure that you have test management at the same level as test automation otherwise money will be lost.

I believe the main feature for using it is the flexibility across different platforms. For example, I can use it whether it's Eclipse using any of the programming languages. The multi-platform usage of LeanFT is really useful.

It's still in the early days, but still I see that we'll move over to it fore the effort savings once the LeanFT roadmap comes into place.

It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari. That's a very key requirement for my organization.

It's very scalable. Given the power that it provides in terms of any programming language and any development platform you can use it on, such as Eclipse or any ID platform. So definitely it's more scalable but still there will be room for improvement in terms of the Mac browsers compatibility/support.

We hardly have incidents. There hasn't been much activity as compared to UFT. We will see how it goes in the future.

The complexity was pretty much okay, it's acceptable, so that was good. Once you implement the infrastructure within the organization, the complexity is pretty much similar to any other automation tool.

We didn't actually choose it. Our customers provide LeanFT, so we started using it.

We're still early on with our use but there are a lot of good things that have been promised. Those results have to be realized now. What has been told so far as well as the roadmap which I have been told should come into place pretty quickly.

LeanFT is used a lot more by our less experienced testers and developers who want to get more point-and-click type automation. Then obviously I also manage the automation team, so we use UFT for a ton of all of our XLC automation as well as anything with a UI. So we also bring it into our business functions as well. If we need to do clean-up, data entry, management of manual tasks where you're putting yourself in a UI scenario, we'll run scripts for that for productivity.

We pretty much use that to streamline workflow and enable productivity in a business context in our business unit as well as in our IT shop, so just reducing workload on IT people as well as testing. It's used pretty extensively beyond that.

I'd like to not have to use Selenium. I'd like to be able to do headless scripting and not just always be UI serving.

It's stable.

We're already at enterprise scale, so it's used across the enterprise. I would say that we're at that point.

I have an entire team, so I'm a director and I have an entire tools team that does that. I did get involved in the planning and the strategy of how we're going to do it. My team said that first installation is relatively easy. When we go to upgrade and migrate, that's where there's pain.

We're still trying to get the adoption on that for the user community. It's very usable though. I rate adoption pretty high, so when people are using it, for instance, UFT, I'd definitely give that a ten because we use that a lot. I'd like to see some enhancements in the product, and we're working with HPE on that.

Have a well-defined process, have a strong reporting structure, meaning in your process you want a lot of measurability. If you define your output, the reports and the questions you need to answer from what you're doing, which your process should be managing for you. In our company, we are very specific about what our executives and stakeholders want.

We have a very well-defined set of measurements that we have to take. We then put a process designed to ensure those measurements are always taken. That then allows you to deal with your outputs and your reporting structure, which then allows you to properly architect your tooling. The technology is very flexible. You have to decide as a client area how you really want to use it and that's going to start with what your business needs are the values that you're trying to get out of it.

That's the biggest advice that I have, it's not even on the technology. The technology will do great things for you if you have a plan and a structure and you know what you want it to do for you. Half the time they don't know, they want the tool to do it for them and it's the other way around. So that's what I advise people to do.

Think about it, have a vision, have a plan, tie that to outcomes, and measure those outcomes. If you're answering the right questions and asking the right questions, your technology will really enable you. You've got to look at it from that standpoint.

I primarily use this solution for the automation of regression testing in SAP.

The most valuable feature is stability.

This is a script-based tool and the usability needs to be improved.

Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful.

In the future, I would like to see module-based tests instead of scripting.

I have been working with UFT for about one year.

The stability is quite good and we haven't had any issues.

Scalability is not an issue except that you need to create quite a few scripts. It is not easy to just create new test cases for new solutions. When you have to consider other solutions or applications then it's a bit tricky.

The number of people using the UFT application is quite limited, at perhaps three or four. However, there are a couple of hundred people responsible for performing the tests it creates.

I would rate the technical support as okay, but not better. There are bugs between UFT and HTLM that they have not been able to solve. 

The initial setup is complex because of the integrations. A lot of knowledge is required to do the scripting, we did not have it, and it is difficult to find. Our deployment took about two months.

A consultant assisted us with the deployment and we were satisfied with the service.

Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

Basically, before LeanFT was introduced by HPE, I was looking at a solution similar to Selenium to integrate some scenarios that UFT was doing well for us; we had to look for other solutions with LeanFT-like leverage. The most important thing about LeanFT is that it gives us the opportunity to introduce developer testing. Initially, because UFT was VBScript based and because of the infrastructure, developers wanted to contribute toward testing, but could not, so they used VBScript and went to eLanguages, which they can use with their development like Java or C#.

They can use the same language that they're using for their unit testing, so they can contribute to that in the very beginning of the lifecycle instead of after the application has been fully developed, at which point it is tested and comments are made on the features.

That is the main aspect: we can put the developer into the testing scenario.

Initially, although they developed some in-house tools, we were looking for a third party to lower the speed provided. With LeanFT, we are trying to create a kind of hybrid infrastructure where we can use our existing scripting and in the same infrastructure we can use LeanFT.

I think the one thing we're basically asking for should be JavaScript support, but I think they will start adding JavaScript support in the future. We haven't moved into that; we’re still into LeanFT. We're still finding out what's in there. Once we know what we can really do in LeanFT, then I think we can start providing feedback regarding enhancements we want to see in the solution.

LeanFT is very new to us (we started six months ago). We are still in the process of using it and converting our scripts with it. That means we still need to see all of the built-in capabilities, but it is getting better and better.

Obviously, we are planning to scale in the future because with LeanFT via the service pack, we can do user checking with continuous integration tools, which was initially not possible with the UFT, so we are trying to convert as many scripts from UFT to LeanFT. It will give us the most flexibility with more ways of working with the CPU.

Technical support has been good so far. Sometimes it takes minutes, sometimes they take more time, but most of the time they're good.

We are doing a lot of testing and there are some scenarios where UFT does not fit into the scenario. Since then, we have been looking for a solution. Initially, we were looking at an open-source solution such as Selenium or some third-party tool to learn. We also wrote some of in-house processes, but they are not getting combined with ALM into the single repository, so we are looking for a sub-solution. We kept telling HP that we needed a solution; otherwise, we had to move from UFT and ALM. Ultimately, they told they came up with LeanFT and you can use it with either Eclipse or Visual Studio code.

I won't say initial setup was complex, but it was not clear how to setup because there was an issue with the licensing. The same licensing was not working with UFT that used to work before, but we got in touch with HP customer support, they got back to us and since then it has been very smooth sailing.

It depends on whether you already have a testing tool that is based on a different infrastructure, such as UFT or Selenium. Then, see how smooth the transition will be. However, to start from scratch, start with LeanFT as opposed to another solution because it can give you the power of managing your tests in ALM and the single repository so you don't have to worry about it. Once you install it, it is kind of the best tech with web-based infrastructure, so you don't have to worry about quality control and so on.

The most valuable features are the ability to customize, if needed, and to integrate with ALM because its our test management. The ability to implement with Jenkins for dev ops is also a valuable feature.

In our case, because we’re in the insurance industry, we have technologies from 20 years old to brand new. That’s one reason that LeanFT is so great -- because it can support all those technologies, even the older ones.

In the next release, I'd like to see ties into C# and Java, enabling us to work more closely with development. However, from what I’ve seen, LeanFT object recognition looks great. The identifiers for an object can be the same for multiple objects, and test automation can detect that. But LeanFT object identification center allows you to see that the identifiers are not necessarily unique, which is very beneficial.

The issues were variable. If you’re using the tools capabilities and the actual traditional test automation you put into a script, it can be unreliable. We try to use descriptive programming, but it becomes more of a test driver rather than creating automation for its test capabilities.

It depends on how you design your solution. If you design a good framework then you can design a scalable solution.

Technical support was not very good. We do reach out, but often they're unable to help. Customer support was similar.

We are a subsidiary, so decision making was limited. Most recently they decided ALM would be the enterprise standard. For automation they decided to use UFT.

Fairly straightforward because it integrates well with ALM. One issue is that if you're using compass, which has its own Java versions etc., it can conflict with LeanFT.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor is compatibility with my systems, applications, platforms, and whatever apps I am using.

Automate where you can and also try to shift your testing to the left. Testing management is key.

I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective.

Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously.

I have been working with the product for three years. 

I rate OpenText UFT Developer an eight out of ten. I recommend it, but you must prepare the environment and infrastructure before applying the tool. You need to scan with user growth in mind. We needed to set up the environment to use it.

We are an IT-based company. We have our own product. I am primarily using Micro Focus UFT Developer for SAP applications such as SAP ECC and SAP HANA.

It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good.

UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner.

It is also quite expensive.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It is quite stable.

It is quite scalable. It can be used for multiple applications. It doesn't only cater to SAP applications. It can also be used for UI-based applications and mobile applications.

We have started with five developer licenses, and we are planning to have more licenses in place for more application automation.

It is deployed directly on my desktop. 

Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users. 

It is a great tool. It is not really rocket science. Once you learn it, you can easily adopt it.

I would rate Micro Focus UFT Developer an eight out of ten.