Ideas to Improve Ranorex

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us at Ranorex Uservoice.

  1. Add a recording module action for calling another recording module including databinding if needed

    Add a recording module action for calling another recording module including databinding if needed.

    For me as Testautomation Engineer it is not that difficult to write some Usercode to do this but for a Tester with no programming language background it is not.

    e.g. : In our application we searching for medicaments, after a successful search we can do several actions with the search result. Therefore this search operation will be used many times and I sepparated this to sepparat recording module that consums the medicament as a parameter. If you do not want to use a user code action…

    54 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your input.

    However, this behavior is possible on test suite level by using several recordings one after another.

    Letting the user call a recording from an action would make things like circular calls possible, and would make reporting core complex. Also, since data bindings don’t work on recording level, but on test case level, there would be confusion with how the data binding works. And in the end it would make “spaghetti code” possible (as this would effectively be a “goto” statement), something we really don’t want to promote at all, especially not on a non-code level where there are non-coders using the tool that may not be aware of the dangers of goto statements.

    However, depending on the exact use case, there might be other solutions that could solve your issues that do not involve calling modules from other modules. We would love to learn from…

  2. Make "Wait for exist" action for Web more robust

    At the moment when I click on web element that causes load of a new or reload of an existing page and I want to validate/make use of web elements on that page I need to make sure that those elements exits in DOM. I do that using "Wait for exist [web element]" action. The problem is that "wait for exist" does not always work reliably in that case returning true when web element is not fully load or accessible yet as part of DOM. To work around that I have to precede "wait for exist" action with "Delay" action…

    47 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your input.

    However, the exact ways of how “WaitFor” interacts with a web page differ extremely. We always want to improve our existing functionality, especially since we know that these issues can get extremely annoying.

    However, there is no “general approach” that we can take to tackle this issue, it can’t be a “feature” for us.

    If you have actual examples of web pages where a WaitFor doesn’t work as intended, please reach out to our support team. If you can provide us with enough information (usually access to your web application) that we can analyze the issue, we will be very happy to do so and to find a solution for this actual problem.

    So, if you have said issues, please reach out to our support team, and we will very likely do a bug fix for that.

    Best Regards,
    The Ranorex Product Management Team

  3. Management Overview of Report content

    Our reports are frequently sent to management. They usually complain that there is far too much content they are not interested in. They just need the “failed/success”, sometimes not even for each TC.
    A setting would be nice which lets either the entire report be generated in a “management view”, or a live switch to “management” at the end of normal report creation.

    (submitted via email and analogously translated to match the purpose of this platform)

    40 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  4. Easier web service testing

    Although you have your blogs how to do web testing with Ranorex in general, it would be awesome if there is more out-of-the-box support which makes it easier to test my web service

    (submitted via email and analogously translated to match the purpose of this platform)

    34 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your input.

    We focus on GUI testing, and web services and all forms of APIs are not our company strategy. If you want to test those services with Ranorex, that is only possible using code modules. The “language” that Ranorex understands are GUI components, and we have no medium-term goals to change that.

    Best Regards,
    The Ranorex Product Management Team

  5. Independent datasources for SETUP & TEARDOWN

    It would be great to be able to associate data sources to setup and teardowns independent of their parent test case.

    22 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your input.

    However, in the way that our data connectors work at the moment, they always bring iterations with them, and iterations of setup and teardown actions don’t make any sense.

    It is possible to bind a parameter to a variable in setup and teardown, though. This should also be a solution to this use case.

    Best Regards,
    The Ranorex Product Management Team

  6. Support End to End testing (i.e. Testcase execution on at least two machines)

    When your testcase deals with client and server applications (referring to thick client server applications)
    Part of the testcase has to be executed on Machine A (Server) and then part of the testcase has to be executed on Machine B (Client) and finally verify test has executed successfully or not. We should have ability to execute part of the test in a specified target machine and get result of execution.

    Example scenario:
    Machine A: Create test data through some X number of UI operations
    Machine B: Execute workflow as data should have been received from machine A.
    Machine A: Now…

    18 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your input.

    This is indeed possible, you just need two test suites doing what has to be done on “their” side, and then you have to start them simultaneously on the corresponding machine, for example using a CI system or a batch file together with Agents.

    You just have to “synchronize” these solutions manually by adding enough WaitFor actions on either side.

    Best Regards,
    The Ranorex Product Management Team

  7. Ranorex Script should run in headless mode

    As Ranorex script requires a active desktop. It is always not possible to open the desktop in case script is integrated with the build. Ranorex script must be executed in headless mode similar to selenium.

    15 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your input.

    However, the way that Ranorex works (taking control over mouse and keyboard) always requires an active user session.

    The reason why Selenium can do headless testing is because the underlying browsers (!) implement this functionality, this functionality does not come from Ranorex. Not a single desktop technology that Ranorex automates supports this.

    If you want to have headless testing for your specific (desktop) framework, write an email to your technology vendor/provider and ask them for this. We also see the need for it, but as long as we automate (for example) a WinForms application, but the WinForms infrastructure doesn’t have a headless mode, there is nothing that Ranorex can do. A WinForms application always needs an active desktop, this requirement does not come from Ranorex, but from the UI technology itself.

    Best Regards,
    The Ranorex Product Management Team

  8. Multi threaded Ranorex Application: Dedicated UI and Log threads

    The main application thread can delegate data logging (report generation) responsibilities to another thread. This logger thread generates reports in sequential (FIFO) manner to avoid any synchronization issue or cluttered output. This will improve overall performance of Renorex test application. Usage of TPL (Task parallel library) thread further improves the performance by taking advantage of Multi core and Multiple CPUs present in a test machine.

    15 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your idea.

    Unfortunately, this is not possible without rewriting the complete reporting and test suite runner code.
    According to our development department, it wouldn’t bring the performance benefit the user is expecting since we would still need to synchronize the reported item and the test run.

    Best regards
    The Product Management Team

  9. Toggle Button for Turbo Mode

    Simple on/off button for Turbo Mode applicable in all recording modules would be fine. I believe that most of us would appreciate this enhancement. Thank you

    15 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your input.

    We don’t really want to promote the Turbo Mode too much, because it can have strange side effects on some technologies that are really hard to pin down. Only a fraction of our customer base even knows about the Turbe Mode, and we are frankly quite happy with it, because Turbo Mode is often responsible for flaky tests and strange test behavior that doesn’t arise when Turbo Mode is not enabled.

    Best Regards,
    The Ranorex Product Management Team

  10. Action Mouse Move+Click

    When testing a HTML form, before performing a click in an item it is recommended to perform a move operation to avoid clicking in mistaken positions of the screen, This two operations (move and click) will resolve the item path independtly increasing not only the execution time but also the length of the test. It would be nice to have an integrated move+click action.

    15 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    9 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your input.

    A Ranorex click action by default contains an explicit move action. Using the properties, the exact timings of the move time and the click can be configured.

    Best Regards,
    The Ranorex Product Management Team

  11. Ranorex on Mac

    It would be a really great idea to have Ranorex being able to test Mac Desktop app. .NET Core has been released for Linux and Mac, so it would be something interesting to look in order to make this possible

    14 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your input.

    A support for Mac is not on our roadmap. We are deeply rooted in the Microsoft infrastructure, and even if .NET Core is out, our plugins and Ranorex Studio itself won’t make that jump for quite some time due to backwards compatibility.

    We might bring some solutions also for Mac in the (not so near) future, but it won’t be Ranorex Studio.

    Best Regards,
    The Ranorex Product Management Team

  12. Image Compare

    The Implementation off Image comare is actually not so convined for Web testing. An Image compare will fail with Other Browsers. we need differet images for differet Browsers. We have a lot of different Images for other customers. It is not easy to handle lot off Images. Also would be nice to have different algorithm to comapare Images.

    14 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    declined  ·  2 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  13. Integrated Password Encryption

    I realize uservoice suggestions regarding password encryption have been reviewed and declined in the past. I'm proposing something a bit different.

    Back when I was using Quick Test Professional, they had a little password encryption tool where you could run your password through and use the output string in a set secure method during automation.
    I'd like to see a similar integration in Ranorex. I could build something out myself, but the encryption keys would be either be in the code base or I'd have to distribute dll files.

    Ranorex is in a better position to provide this relatively simple…

    12 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    The problem with this is that – at some point in time – Ranorex will definitely need the plain text value, because it has to use this value to do some action. If the value is encrypted, Ranorex will have to decrypt it. For this it needs a key. Either this key is saved (again, in plain text) or it requires a user interaction (a password), which defeats the purpose of an automated test.

    If there are several actions that require this encrypted value, this password is required every single time. If Ranorex should save that password (because you don’t want to enter it in several places during the test run), it has to be saved somewhere – again in plain text.

    And even then, at some point, Ranorex has to decrypt the value, and at this point the plain text value is there in the memory, even it is…

  14. Multiple Window support for Ranorex Studio

    It would be great if Ranorex Studio support a full integration for multiple windows like other Windows Programs do. With Ranorex 6.x there ist the possibility to undock a studio tab, but it would be great if this support would be enlarged.

    12 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  15. Symlink in Repository

    It would be good to have the possibility to create 1 repository item and link it in multiple sektion in the repository.

    For example you create for each test case a folder which contains all required items for this specific test case.

    Instead of copying the same repository item (which means you have to change it item if the xpath changes) i would like to have a main item which can be linked in the repository.

    You only have to change the main item and all linked repository items will be changed automatically.

    This would allow a more structured repository,…

    10 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your input.

    All of the things that you want would either:
    - be possible by using a Rooted Folder or
    - be possible by using RanoreXPath that is unspecific enough.

    The repository is a simple 1-to1-mapping (in the trivial case at least), so if you have a specific element, you would also have a specific repository item for it.

    If you want to use a more general approach that does some additional fancy stuff, you would probably have to use a code module where you build your required repository items yourself.

    We won’t implement another complex and potentially hard-to-understand concept for a very niche use case.

    Best Regards,
    The Ranorex Product Management Team

  16. Encrypt passwords in recording actions and report files

    Hello,

    In authentication recording modules, we need in key sequences to mention userids and passwords to authenticate to the system under test.

    But this password is visible in the recording module, and worse, in the report files.

    It brings to a security breach.

    It would be more than useful to have the possibility to encrypt any confidential key sequence or variables.

    10 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    declined  ·  5 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  17. Ranorex remote from Visual Studio

    It would be great if you could allow us to access Ranorex Remote features from visual studio.

    10 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  18. Python Support

    Python was supported in Previous Ranorex version. This was the decisive point why we decided to go for Ranorex. We use Python to test other Interface e.G. SCSI. Actually we run Pyhton script as a Process. It would be much more convinied if had direct access to python inside Ranorex.

    9 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi!

    Thanks for contributing to the Ranorex UserVoice. We’re always happy to hear about our users’ ideas and encourage you to bring them in. However, we do not see Python support as part of our scope of test automation. We are currently not planning to add support for this language in future releases.

    Best regards,
    Ranorex Product Management Team

  19. xpath relationship operator to return an HTML cell, based of cell found in row and column

    Currently, there is no way to define an xpath, which would return a cell, based of cell found in HTML row and given table column.

    Here is an example of simple HTML table:
    <!DOCTYPE html>
    <html>
    <body>

    <table style="width:100%">
    <tr>

    &lt;td&gt;ID&lt;/td&gt;
    
    &lt;td&gt;Col_A&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td&gt;Col_B&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td&gt;Col_C&lt;/td&gt;

    </tr>
    <tr>

    &lt;td&gt;ABC123&lt;/td&gt;
    
    &lt;td&gt;3&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;

    </tr>
    <tr>

    &lt;td&gt;CDE456&lt;/td&gt;
    
    &lt;td&gt;11&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td&gt;22&lt;/td&gt;
    &lt;td&gt;33&lt;/td&gt;

    </tr>
    </table>

    </body>
    </html>

    Now let's say, I want to define an xpath, which would return a value from column "Col_B", but only from the row, in which is found cell value "CDE456". Something like this is currently not possible with single xpath.

    There…

    8 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for your input.

    The problem here is that everything in Ranorex evolves around a “tree” view. All GUI elements have a specific place within that tree, and a cell in a specific row and column would require two “parent” elements, which just isn’t allowed within our framework. Changing this behavior would mean to make significant changes in the Ranorex Core.

    We can only suggest to use workarounds like the /.. operator here, which should get you to similar results.

    Best Regards,
    The Ranorex Product Management Team

  20. Change License Manager behavior - idle agents and studio consume keys

    According to Ranorex support staff the current state of the product license manger is as below.

    I would like to propose a setting in studio and in the agent by where the locking of a floating license can be modified per system to where only when a test is running does a key get reserved.

    At this time I have agents sitting idle yet they are using up one of my keys. This has caused me to run into a false error state of no more keys available when in fact nothing is actually running.

    If we had this switch…

    8 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi everyone!

    Although this idea is already declined, I wanted to inform you about an important change. We are planning to remove the license consumption for agents with the next Release. This means, that only the text execution will consume a license, but the Ranorex Agent won’t.

    Best regards,
    Ranorex Product Management Team

← Previous 1 3 4 5
  • Don't see your idea?

Ideas to Improve Ranorex

Categories

Feedback and Knowledge Base