There are a lot of features that I love within Tosca. To name a few:
- Model-based automation
- Scripting knowledge is not required
- Requirement traceability
- Usage of built-in aid packs
There are a lot of features that I love within Tosca. To name a few:
Before implementing Tosca, the average time that we took for completing regression was about four days. After we started using Tosca, it has been reduced to six hours.
I personally feel like the pricing is a little bit on the high end.
I have been using Tosca for almost four years.
As of now, I have not encountered any deployment issues.
I have not encountered any stability issues.
I have not encountered any scalability issues.
Tosca customer service is one of the best in its class.
Technical Support:The people involved in technical support really know what they are doing. This significantly reduces the amount of time it takes the end user to find solutions.
I was using a different solution, but it required scripting knowledge, which most of my team members did not have.
An in-house team implemented it.
Pricing is a bit on the higher end.
Tosca Testsuite is a model based automation tool and it doesn't require an explicit framework, unlike other automation tools.
Tosca very efficiently helps us manage the time taken for automation, its very user-friendly and easy to work with.
I feel that the Tosca tool should be improved for handling Siebel applications. My team has tried the automation for a few different types of applications with Tosca. One of them was a Siebel application. We faced the most difficulties in the automation of that Siebel application. Tosca doesn't handle Siebel applications as well as it handles other platform applications. We had to try a lot of workarounds to complete the automation. That was one issue we faced when we worked with Tosca.
Almost 10 months.
There are very minor issues. They can be easily resolved.
Tosca Testsuite is very reliable and stable.
Not much. I Haven't faced any such issues until now.
The support team of Tricentis is really excellent. The support portal and the support teams work and help is really appreciated.
I prefer TOSCA over other tools.
The initial setup was not that easy or not that complex. I can say it was moderate.
It was in-house.
TOSCA Testsuite is a very good automation tool. It supports a wide variety of application automation. This tool provides a very efficient way of automation and also it is compatible with many other tools involved in the testing process like Quality Center, etc.
Overall, it is quite a different experience in using it. It does not contain any code, and builds from the requirements as a model of what the actual application will contain. The catch being that initially you do not need to define your test cases from the application end and things might not even be in sequence of what the actual final application would look like.
I have an analogy for this – a human body is composed of head, body, hands and legs. Each one has its own “attributes”, which in turn have “instances”. This is what is called the ‘Model-based approach’. Each hand will have attributes such as fingers, nails, elbow, fore-hand, wrist, etc. Then, all these attributes will have instances – long fingers, short fingers, thick fingers, etc. Now to build a body, you need to join all these “attributes” into a seamless body with the various parts working in tandem. This is what a test case would look like in TOSCA. With the initial parts of the body being the Test Case Design part. The joining together of the parts being the test case and the final infusion of blood being the execution and reporting [have not used Frankenstein here, as TOSCA tends to create a human rather than it’s alternate :-)]
TOSCA takes its roots in Object Oriented Modelling, employing concepts such as separation of concerns and encapsulation. In TOSCA, you can create classes, attributes and instances (objects). This modular breakdown makes the understanding and management of the actual requirements fairly simple; without going into how the final system under test would look like. I find this a very cool thing; although it took me some time to understand the concept in relation to the current bombardment of the existing Test Frameworks and Tools.
Again, the interface has a very intuitive design, which can be modelled according to the needs and quirks of the person working with it. People might argue here, that it is the same with Eclipse and other such tools like MS Visual Studio Test Professional, but the concept is totally different with TOSCA. You have the drag & drop capabilities, combined with a good integration across all the functionality provided from putting in the requirements to the final reporting; all in a single interface and tool, with support from a dedicated and technical team to get over the initial hiccups of using it.
The next good part, I found, was its capability to extend its technology adaptors (adaptors are used to automate tests against systems developed in various technologies, such as HTML, Java, .NET, Mainframe, Web Services, etc.) using the ubiquitous and simple VBScript and VBA; which is prevalent as the development language of choice in the Testing Community. I found this quite interesting, as we can now easily use TOSCA with almost any system, which we can code to make the underlying adaptor understand. For example, we had a hybrid mainframe green screen application to test (a rich Java GUI with an embedded mainframe emulator), which after a week’s work was ready to be tested with TOSCA; I have not come across such quick development cycles with other tools I worked with/on. That said, TOSCA has the capability to extend itself to different backend databases with the ease of just creating a simple module for it and using that module throughout your test cases to create a connection and then run your customized SQL queries.
If you start from the Requirement Definitions part, you can easily put in your current requirements and provide a measure of weight-age for each.
Then comes the part where you can extremely easily define the actions you can do on the objects which form your test cases. TOSCA by default defines 6 such actions – Do Nothing, Input, Output, Buffer, Verify and WaitOn, which take care of how a particular attribute defined earlier in the Test Design is taken action on.
TOSCA has been promoted by Tricentis in Australia for the past 3+ years now and has risen from being an unknown tool in the ANZ markets to now in the 2nd position after the ever prevalent QTP (although under HP’s banner, it has undergone a lot of iterations and name changes also now). Tricentis has used the MBT principles to create TOSCA as an easy to use and implement tool. It allows the test team to concentrate on creating the actual workflow of the application, from the ‘artifacts’ provided in the initial ‘Requirement’ and ‘Test Case Design’ sections. From then, it is a simple case of either matching these test workflows with the appropriate screen objects (‘Modules’), or running them manually [yes, you can run 'Test Case' created in TOSCA as manual or automated tests]. TOSCA provides a section for ‘Reports’, which is in PDF format or from the ‘Requirement’ tab, which provides an overview of what has been created, what is automated and what has passed/failed. The ‘Execution List’ tab provides a simplistic way to define the different ways (and environments) in which you can run your test cases.
As I wrote in my previously, TOSCA should be started from the Requirements of the application, where the application is broken into workflows and each is assigned a weight-age This provides the base for creating the test cases in our ‘Test Case Design’ section.
The ‘Test Case Design’ is the interesting part (and claimed by Tricentis, as not being used by any other tool, as yet). Here you need to dissect the requirements and application to create each attribute and assign its relevant ‘equivalence partitioning‘. Sometimes this may not be necessary and the TCD acts like a data sheet for the test team.
For most automation tools, you begin with the application and then match it with the requirements. TOSCA wants you to start from the requirements and build it to the actual tests. Then you add in the actual application and you are on the way to creating a well thought out automation or manual test practice.
With TOSCA v9.x, a new Cross-Browser testing concept called TBox has become the mainstay of the Standard and new modules to be created, giving users a great amount of flexibility. This allows you to create a ‘Module’ in one of the main browsers, and be used across IE, Chrome and FF.
Also, the Wizard has improved tremendously and has become a single point for different types os applications. It is now fairly easy to use the Wizard to dientify and open a Browser or a Desktop application and scan it quickly with good identification of the objects on the screen.
The only irritation that I find, is the change of the Context Menu (right-click), where an irritating feature of having additional (basic) features of the Right-Click being put as a small pic above the actual right-click context menu, where is it not noticeable properly and most of the time you are confused and looking for where those options went.
Another new feature that has been added to v9.3 is the Analytics Web Interface, which allows the Management or the Team to check the status of the Tests created and executed. Also introduced is a new REST API, which can be extended to connect directly to the Multi-User Repository and allow it to be accessed using the Web Interface.
A tighter integration with Agile tools like JIRA and TeamCity has also been introduced as a plug-in.
Hi Gagneet. I really appreciate the above information you have provided on Tosca TestSuite. I feel it would really help people know about the tool. Very well written.
While we started implementation with a focus on testing automation, the Risk Management feature is one we are seeing as very valuable in our environment, allowing us to better focus on critical testing.
It has allowed us to have a highly reusable Regression Test suite. We have already been able to run it for an SAP upgrade and plan on using it on a regular basis (weekly) going forward.
The record and play is still a new feature and while SAP has been added to the latest version, it is still lacking usefulness for common repository setups.
We've been using it for about 8 months
We've had no issues with deployment.
We've had no issues with stability.
We've had no issues with scalability.
We have had great customer service so far. Support has been responsive and helpful.
Technical Support:Technical support has been pretty responsive so far. They have provided solutions to most of our challenges and provide work arounds when no solutions were available.
The tool is very different than other testing tools and it is important to explain some of these different to all the stakeholders to ensure they really understand the benefits at their level.
By that I mean that a tester might see benefit in the ease of automation but a business user will see benefit in the risk coverage visualization, for example.
I have worked a lot with Tosca for the past year, and it has helped our organization complete many tasks which most of the other tools couldn’t.
Being a scriptless tool was pretty helpful for me, as I don't have a great knowledge of coding. Its features helps us complete the work soon, and in an easy way.
It’s been one year I have been using this tool and it's been pretty good working with it.
5/5
Technical Support:5/5
It was easy, and a straightforward approach.
With it being a scriptless tool, it helps people without coding knowledge to work with ease.
The amazing features provided by Tricentis takes automation to a different world and it's fun working with it.
I wouldn't usually describe user automation as a key feature but it is a key feature. The ability to scan the application and for it to have all of the attributes and things you need and put them into the test is the most valuable feature for us.
We did a full-blown POC. It was super successful and we were able to automate a large number of our scripts and save a lot of time and also automate a lot of our testing. We're now able to to build and get tests resolved. It has totally automated our testing, which is great. Now we are extending it across all of our teams.
We haven’t really defined this yet. Some tools we are trying to use, like virtualization, haven't been used yet, but this is really something on our end. What we can’t do we have customizations available. We know there’s a feature in the next release which automates even more, and we are trying to find a stop time so we can upgrade and get that feature.
It may be different for other companies, but for us, establishing a set of procedures to get people trained was important. The tool is fairly easy to use, but it's important that you have consistency and standards in place when using it.
I've been using it for seven months.
It's very easy to install and easy for people to use.
There have been no bugs, and it's very stable.
We are rolling it out to five of our companies. We are trying to control things internally but the solution itself is 100% scalable.
We have had them here on site nearly every week. If they aren't here they are just a phone call away. We have happily invested to get extra training. From our standpoint we have to control the roll-out speed.
The initial set up is easy, not very complex at all. You can choose how you want to do it. Depending on the size of your company. You can choose how you want to do it.
We had been a HP UFT user for a long time. We tried other tools, but this far and above exceeds this in terms of ease and flexibility with test scripts. For a lot of the tools you don’t need an automator.
The best feature is the speed in which we are able to get our automation up and running. We had an unorganized library of regression test cases. We have, within the first six months, been able to automate 85% on our critical business processes and we have been able to maintain that while keeping our BCR ratio down. We have also seen about 234 defects per month in production to less than 8.
We are able to allocate more resources on projects instead of maintenance. Our maintenance has dwindled down to two employees and we have the confidence to try and other things and explore other units.
The only thing I am not happy about is not so much the product, but it's that we don’t a good way to control licenses. Sometimes people are using licenses at their desk and when they go home, they still have the license. There is no good way to control this. When we have an issue that someone tries to log in and they can’t, it’s down to the fact that someone has walked away with 3 licenses and they aren’t using them.
I've used it for one year.
There we're no issues with the deployment.
It’s been absolutely perfect for our organization. For a year and a half, we have been constantly running regressions and the results have been 100% consistent. If we do miss something and it misses production, it’s only due to a manual oversight and has nothing to do with the solution. When we follow our process, it’s consistent.
I am about to test it in a really big way. So far it has scaled to my needs. I am taking it organization- and vendor-wide in the next 6 months. Let’s see what happens when we bring a Cognizant on.
I would say it’s excellent. We have the best support ever. They have just gone over to the Magic Quadrant. I hope they are scalable with that move and we still get the same support.
We have used previous versions so this was down to an upgrade.
The use of the data sheet is not as clear-cut as we might think it would be. Some grasped it quickly and some did not. It depends on skill level whether or it is straightforward or complex. When it clicked, it worked well. It took a little longer than we would have liked.
I would say, take the training and go in to the product and use it the way they recommend to use it. They trained as and it works well. Some listen and kindly say we will use it the Tricentis way and don’t, they end up seeing problems. If I were to make a recommendation, Tricentis is as the top of the list.
This solution allows you to create an entire automated framework where it allows you to easily manage everything in one place.
It's given us the ability to do automated tests which has made some things a lot quicker.
A part of our problem is that we don’t necessarily have staff 100% dedicated to it, so that's a problem in our area. We should have had more done and taken on some huge projects, so it’s more that we haven’t had the time to use it to the greatest extent possible.
Our stability problems mentioned below notwithstanding, I am sure the new release will address everything that we need. We are going to convert to the new version and we have to address a problem with one of our apps first. We recently went through some training, our staff was excited about that and being able to see the new version was great.
The biggest roadblock for us in getting the newest version right now is accommodation of our application. The current version makes our lives easier, but we're still holding off on some testing until the accommodation issues has been resolved.
I've used it for a year and a half.
We've had no issues with deployment.
I think the version we're using is fairly stable, but I think the new version is not so stable, and that’s what's stopping us from moving over to it. We're having application problems, but once that's resolved, we'll move over to the new version.
It's scaled for our needs so far.
Overall, I'd say that technical support is good. When I have had interaction or problems, I let them know and they provide me with get instant feedback. I have been happy with that.
We didn't use a previous solution, but I've personally worked with other tools. Testsuite is versatile, and that was the big thing about choosing it. We're using Power Builder, which Testsuite can support, along with other applications. So it's great having one tool instead of many.
I think it’s important to get the training that is provided and really make sure you get hands-on time with the product. That’s our problem -- we haven’t been able to dedicate ourselves to it. If we had the time to stay with it and learn it then we could move forward.

Bhavana, can you provide any insight from the workarounds you had to perform when completing the automation?