What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

The solution should have additional features, but not much. It already has some sort of artificial intelligence that must be developed. It needs to be in trend. The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible. Often, people with open-source tools and only open-source knowledge take projects that OpenText should have taken.

The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy.

The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.

One area for improvement is its occasional slowness.

A person who buys the solution for the first time will not have a step-by-step approach to using it. I have worked with Cypress, Selenium RC, WebDriver, and other tools. I have been automating applications for the last ten years. I have never seen a solution that is difficult to learn. Learning was a challenge for me with UFT One. The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features. It provides paid training. Understanding the tool's complete architecture took me one or two weeks. The product should provide free training for basic features like how to capture an object, create a new test case, connect the test cases, and create libraries. The product should explain each function and feature on the left side of the menu bar in a step-by-step way. The product should provide a mechanism for online reporting accessible to every stakeholder. When I used to create test cases and execute them, I used to get the local reports. There should be a live online reporting mechanism. The live application must be available for every stakeholder, whether a manager, developer, or QA.

They should include AI-based testing features in the solution for assessment and identifying potential databases.

They should improve the solution's tracing functionality. There should be an automated feature to load the backlog of test requirements.

It is script-based. We'd like it to have less scripting. It might make it easier to use. Newer tools have a nicer user interface. We'd like something more aligned with SAP. Technical support could be more responsive.

Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field.

In the past, we used Internet Explorer to run our scripts and when it was decommissioned we switched over to Google Chrome but we had some compatibility issues in the beginning. The issues were corrected with Chrome but I would like both Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge to be compatible with the solution. We used to have difficulty with some of the Guidewire application objects because they would often change, requiring us to write many lines of code for a single object. Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient.

It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower.

Last year, we had a discussion with Micro Focus, and they said they have plans to switch from DBS to Python - or at least to offer Python as an additional programming language for building automation scripts. Then, there was no progress in these plans. That's our main concern with UFT. PBS, as the programming language, is pretty old-fashioned, and a lot of things would be much easier with Python. We had problems with the last version of the solution. There seems to be something wrong with the loading of external data into the internal data sheets. We loaded Excel sheets dynamically during test execution and stored them into the built-in data sheets of UFT, and it seems that sometimes you cannot reuse already existing internal sheets for storing new data in it from outside, from external Excel sheets. We used it a lot, and we didn't have any problems with that in the previous version. This is a new issue, and we tried to isolate this problem, and then we wanted to discuss it with Micro Focus directly. We have yet to contact them. The solution is expensive.

I'd like to see reporting included in the solution, particularly test case-related reports.

The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails.

The AI functionality has a lot of room for improvement, as it has just started. For example, when a particular object is found, you have to scroll down, rather than have it done automatically. The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well.

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.

I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better.

The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute. The solution's size could be improved because it takes up a lot of space.

The solution does not have proper scripting, which impacts the solution. We are currently deciding whether we want to keep the UFT and will decide by the end of December. We paid a lot of money for the UFT, and we will only drop it as a last option.

I believe there are a few problem statements, but the one that comes to mind first is that execution on SAP systems is time-consuming. It takes time. We spend a lot of time executing the scripts. For us, for example, the execution is time-consuming, in SAP, I have a regression suite for SAP, it would be close to 300 business scenarios, where every scenario, will have a minimum of 20 to 30 pieces. I'm referring to a business scenario, not a test scenario or a test suit. I would have 300 business scenarios, but I just want to click a button and have it execute in an external common feed result. That kind of comfort that I have never felt here. Every script we have to run, as well as any manual intervention. Someone has to be present. We have a lot of challenges ahead of us. The second issue is test data management, which is a little cumbersome for this tool, and the third is that Microsoft only works with certain SAP modules. It performs well, but it doesn't work as well on the web GUI as it does on Tosca, Selenium HQ, or Worksoft. Micro Focus, in my opinion, lacks more SAP versions. Another issue is anywhere SAP has this overnight batch scripting that needs to stay where I have to run certain parts of the script for today, then wait until tomorrow for the batch jobs to run, and then execute the same script from where it left off. Those kinds of scenarios are extremely difficult to replicate in UFT. I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason. Because when we first started 10 years ago, I thought QTP would be the tool for SAP automation, but I no longer believe that. There are so many competitors in the same landscape. They must understand their UFT position in the market and position themselves accordingly. It is relatively easy for people to go to UFT when necessary. Even if the client, prefers Worksoft or Tosca, quick list automation tools. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has done anything differently over the years to keep their market share, or if they even agree on a strategy.

The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java.

Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent.

The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile.

When it comes to pricing Micro Focus is expensive, and it doesn't support test case panel execution. I think that over time, Micro Focus has not really understood the market needs. They are still improvising the UI. They need to really understand how this tool fits into the DevSecOps ecosystem. We have been giving that advice, but they have not taken it into account. I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps.

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. In addition, UFT One has a Jenkins plugin that provides us the connection we need to Micro Focus so that we can obtain our UFT test cases. The problem is that the plugin does not come with exception handling, meaning that if we enter the wrong credentials we don’t know why it does not work. 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. With other IDEs, like Visual Studio, you can change the variables while you execute or debug something, and this is not possible in UFT. It's only in read mode, so you can’t play with variables or objects. 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 12. 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. And it’s not because of new functionality. Most of the time, only the icon style and the design is changing and sometimes it’s the positioning that changes and we are not able to reconfigure it. 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.

From a sales pitch perspective, everyone is now looking for scriptless automation, whether they are using the feature or not. So, if UFT One is made as a scriptless tool entirely, that would be very good. UFT also has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts.

There are a few limitations when it comes to automating desktop-based application testing. You need a medium to run the test cases. We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work. We have other apps which help us to integrate all the tests into a dashboard. So one area for improvement would be to allow us to run that test suite. We would also like to see improvement when it comes to generating reports.

The one thing that has been throwing us for a loop is that they have been changing labels, e.g., how marketing people like to flip-flop around five or six terms. So, there has been a lot of maintenance needed for that. So, the cool thing is that if the "Available Balance" label changed to some other term, then I would just have to go into the script and just plunk the new term in there. Because we are using real devices (apps), AI versus traditional automation can't really make it faster, i.e., for a screen to load on a phone is a screen to load on a phone. Unfortunately, I don't know anything that can make that faster. Emulators might, but I am not really sold on emulators. I want to use real devices. For execution, the only thing that we can do is just run it in parallel, e.g., run one test on multiple phones at the same time, as opposed to phone A, then phone B, and then C. For execution, you are stuck. That is one thing with device testing. With browsers, they had headless browsers, and that made things faster. However, I don't really think you will ever have that with mobile. I could theoretically represent the data bits with API testing, but I still want to be testing the app. Unfortunately, at this point, I don't see how it could ever be faster, shy of using parallel execution. I used to say, "I would like to see them do something more with innovation in it," but then they came out with this AI thing. That kind of blew my mind to think that not only is this technology which is available in a tool that most people have written off, because it is not getting the market share that it once had because people just won't give it a chance. I haven't had a chance to tinker with it yet, but I would be intrigued to see its integration with Git. Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact. There are podcasts out there for everything, and they usually tackle a new topic on a weekly basis. It would just be great to have them do something more like that. Where you send in a letter, and someone picks up the letter, then they answer it for the community talking to the people.

The solution makes test automation really difficult to maintain. The design of the test framework isn't ideal. They should work to improve it. The concept is really old. It needs to be integrated with EMM, due to the fact that, obviously, EMM is the one to manage your test. It's almost difficult to manage test automation as a project. It's good for video testing, however, it's not good for a project. The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded.

In terms of what could be improved, they need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user and if we're going to spread this throughout the organization, we'll need to spend a whole lot of money. The company can afford it, but we're going to try to promote Selenium as the open source automation tool. All of these automation tools are a tad finicky. They tend to freeze on us once in a while and we get an 85% pass ratio every time we run them, but 15% of the time these tools will fail. And it's not the tool, it's that the browser that they're opening may freeze up when it's time to do something on an application. I haven't looked at Selenium yet. I'm going to get some exposure to it later in the year or next year. But that's the tool that I'm going to focus on and replace QTP with. Because Selenium is free of charge and it's the standard in large corporations these days. As for what should be included in the next release, I don't know much about that because I haven't used QTP in a while. I don't know how much better Selenium is than QTP except for the fact that it's open source. But as far as the features are concerned, I was okay with using QTP back in 2007 when I used it.

We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes. In the next release, I would like to be able to see multiple scripts at the same time.

Improvement could be made in the cost of the solution and the support time involved in solving issues. This is something that is quite tricky. I try to get the support on a ticket, but it takes time for it to be managed. This part is always quite tedious and that's in addition to the renewal process for licensing. It's not managed very well by Micro Focus. We're looking into more open source products. I'd like to see a change in the programming language so that the product would support modern programming languages. It would improve agility which I believe the product needs.

The problem with the solution is that you need to have highly specialized skills in order to make the scripts. Also, the scripts that you're developing for less scripted scenarios should be more productive. The product needs to be simplified overall. They should look to competitors for ways to make things easier and less complex. It would give them a better market position. For example, they need to make it easier to compose a guest case and combine their modules and then create a test case from combining the modules together rather than scripting. If they simplify the product and work with building blocks, users won't need to do all the scripts. The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients.

One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement. I have had problems with the parameterization chaining. Given that there is a lot of competition in the market from similar tools, the price should be reduced. There should be line numbers in the code.

It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS.

In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable.