I have been doing a research for quite a sometime but unable to find a good solution - therefore thought of asking on StackOverflow.
I have automated the testing using Selenium Webdriver for different browser but lately I had seen there were some issues which came for Chrome's older version - now, the question I had was if there is any way through which I could run the script for different versions of browsers e.g. test should run on Chrome 48 - Chrome 59 (covering majors versions only).
The two solution I got from my research was -
1.
Overriding the chrome binary location like the below link:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/16562068/6738995
I then started my research on how to download the binaries for Chrome and I found the official repo also - http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chromium-browser-snapshots/index.html
2. Use Selenium Webdriver on cloud solution provider like BrowserStack or SauceLabs etc who provides multi-version-browser support
Now, I want to exhaust all the options related to the 1st approach i.e. if there is no proper/easy way to implement the solution then I would have go for the 2nd approach.
The reason I am reluctant to go for 2nd approach is that I might loose control(I am speculating that there might be some restrictions on using that platform, I might be wrong and could only find out the try after tring that) and also there will be learning curve associated with this and I would also have to spend time & resources in order to stabilize with the chosen technology.
Thanks in advance.
If resource isn't a concern/constraint for you, then you can use a Virtual Machine, like VMWare and simulate separate test environments with different web browsers. However, if you are looking for the best solution, then you have to use Cloud solutions like SauceLabs or BrowserStack.
I've been trying to run a TCL/TK script in a browser so people with minimal computer knowledge can run it (my script) on all devices.
I've come across the TCL/TK plugin from 2006 but I can't get it to work. Even if I could, it doesn't contain the user friendliness I am looking for.
I also came across a website that runs TCL scripts in-browser but doesn't seem to recognise TK commands....
So far to distribute it to people I wrapped it into a .exe but people are requesting it to be used on mobile devices (with more mobility than a windows laptop).
Any one got some information to do this without rewriting all of my code?
Or an easy way to port a TCL/TK script to iPhone/iPad or Android (I don't think there will be any easy solution for this, that is why the browser concept made most sense to me)
Unfortunately, the browser plugin depends on the browser supporting the NPAPI specification, and that's now been largely removed from browsers (and was never supported on mobile devices). This has irritated quite a few other people too, and I don't think there's much you can do to fix it directly. So instead, let's look at some workarounds…
You might be able to use the NaCl support in Chrome on desktop systems, or you could package things up in a starpack (ActiveState's TDK is a commercial version of that, among other things) and for deployment to Android you can use Androwish (which I personally recommend). I'm nothing like as certain about solutions for iOS.
For plain Tcl try EmTcl, Tcl compiled with emscripten.
Now that TideSDK is effectively dead, I've been looking into alternative 'wrappers' to run HTML/CSS/JS applications as stand-alone desktop applications. The three viable options I have run across so far, are NW.js (formerly node-webkit), brackets-shell, and Electron (formerly atom-shell).
The problem is that there does not appear to be a sufficiently complete comparison between the three in terms of feature set, compatibility, etc. I'm hoping to turn this into a more-or-less canonical thread on the (objective) differences between the three, in particular regarding:
Platform support; operating systems, dependencies, etc.
Language feature support, as far as HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript are concerned. Think things like "does HTML5 video work, and if yes, what codecs are available?"
Non-standard extra features, such as tray icons, popup notifications, and OS-rendered menu bars.
Extensibility; eg. ability to 'plug in' native code, talk to Node.js, and so on.
Architecture; in particular the architectural differences that affect daily usage as a developer.
Debugging; included development tools, compatibility with commonly used tools like node-inspector, etc.
... and so on.
What are the objective, technical differences that matter when making a choice between them as an application developer?
I did similar research about two months ago, and in the end I went with node-webkit. The biggest upside on node-webkit is node.js and npm. The package management of npm is really nice, and node has well done filesystem access.
Brackets-shell looked interesting, but other than a nice IDE I didn't really get what made this one as good or better than the rest. They are very clear that "The brackets-shell is only maintained for use by the Brackets project ", that screams run away to me.
https://github.com/adobe/brackets-shell#overview
Atom-shell seems to be recently active, but it seems much like brackets in that they are really writing and editor/IDE that just happens to be attached to a webkit runtime. It also is built on top of node.js. This one has the downside of being difficult to search for stuff online without being reminded of your middle school chemistry.
I really don't want an new editor, and most programmers have their favorite already. For the actual application development, they pretty much work the same, and should, since they all use webkit. You basically write 90-95% of it like a website, and then deal with the native parts, and some config.
These things are true for all three of them
platforms - runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux
language support - HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript : since they run javascript you can download and run nearly any library/framework that you want.
The big caveat on webkit is codec support. Typically you will have problems with non-free video codecs, unless you rebuild the dll/so to support them. For example the shipped node-webkit won't play mp4 video.
I've been playing with Atom-Shell over the last few days, and I am loving it so far.
The best part about it is that it's backed by GitHub.. which should allow you to settle into the platform for the long term, especially if it gains a large following. It's also made possible by direct Node.js improvements courtesy of a contract with StrongLoop, who is a major Node.js contributor (they claim to employ more Node.js core developers than any other company, even Joyent).
I've also found it rather comfortable to get started. It took me about a day to learn the structure and get my first proof of concept running. Very cool.
Bullet Points:
Platform support: Windows, Linux, Mac OSX (More Info Here)
Language feature support: HTML5, CSS3, JS via Chromium - so far, zero issues, but I have not tested video specifically.
Native Features: Native App Menus, Task Tray Support, Global Hotkeys, Protocol Handler Support (that I've seen so far)
Extensibility: Excellent Node.js integration, both the client and server can "require" Node.js modules and natives. I've also successfully tested Bower libraries (incl jQuery) without issue.
Architecture: Covered in the other points, but in general its very smooth.
Update (11/25/14): I've not yet found use case for Atom-Shell in any official capacity, but I have used it to build a few small apps for my own use, the most complex being an app that pulls my time logs from my PM software and creates Paypal invoices.
My opinion of the platform remains positive. It's pretty awesome.
On my time invoicing app I successfully brought in Bootstrap 3's Dashboard Example Template and a few node modules (bluebird, Paypal SDK, Teamwork PM Client) to create a mildly complex app. It took me a few days and does its job well.
I really cannot think of anything negative to say about Atom-Shell, its solid, stable, fast, and easy to code for. I hope this helps someone.
Besides fully support Web standards, NW.js supports a list of non-standard features for native app development including:
Protect JS source code by compiling them into machine code: https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/wiki/Protect-JavaScript-source-code-with-v8-snapshot
Jailed devtools: https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/wiki/Devtools-jail-feature
Additional security model with which you can do more in DOM: https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/wiki/Security https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/wiki/Changes-to-DOM
enhanced file dialog: https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/wiki/File-dialogs
kiosk mode: https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/wiki/The-Kiosk-mode
supports for a growing list of chrome.* API, include chrome.webRequest so you can intercept HTTP requests from DOM: https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/issues/518
support for rich notifications, print preview, many more chrome.* APIs, Chrome Apps and other Chromium features starting from 0.13.0-alpha0
There is much more to see in the wiki including Menu, Tray, etc.
I've been working with brackets-shell for some time now, here are some of my findings:
brackets-shell is primarily developed as a shell under the brackets IDE project, but the project can run any web application. You just need to point it to your own html page. Clint Berry wrote an excellent tutorial about doing just this: http://clintberry.com/2013/html5-desktop-apps-with-brackets-shell/
The project is backed by Adobe and has a lot of activity
Documentation could be better
platform support They support Windows, Mac and Linux. An installer package can also be created. I only tested it on Win and Mac, it works great.
feature support html5, css3, js. Html5 video does not work out of the box, but is very easy to enable (by default the ffmpegsumo.dll is not copied into the installer, if you change the script to copy it it will work).
native features menu bar, 'open file with', file system access. I am not using any of these, as all I need is the communication with the node process.
extensibility a nodejs is built in, and you can communicate with node from your web application. In this way, you can use node to access the filesystem etc.
architecture The project is well set up, keeping a nice separation between the shell project and your own web app running inside it. In your own application, a global appshell object is available which gives you access to the brackets functionality (filesystem access, communication with node process, ...).
One thing to note (if you care), is that the Electron officially does not support Windows Vista. Vista's market share is about halfway between OSX 10.9 and 10.10 (both of which are fully supported by Electron). Vista is also still supported by Microsoft until 2017.
NW.js works fine in Vista, as well as OSX 10.9+. NW.js works on Ubuntu, Debian, Zorin, Manjaro, Arch, and most other Debian based Linux OS's. Electron has refused PR's to fix Ubuntu specific bugs on their platform which is concerning.
NW.js works in XP too. Currently 18% of the market is still on XP. So if you're desktop application is more general purpose or wants to have access to the late adopters still on XP, you're probably better off with NW.js (0.14.7) as Electron only supports Win 7 and up.
If you use NW.js 0.12.3 you can also support OSX 10.6+ and very old versions of Debian based Linux OS's like Ubuntu, and Win XP+. It is recommended that you do special builds just for those legacy systems though and use the newer versions of NW.js for newer OS's.
Redmond has a good idea occasionally:
The next-gen Windows will come with a new programming foundation, letting developers build native apps with the same techniques they use for Web applications. Microsoft calls this new variety "tailored apps."
There is always a steep learning curve for developing GUIs; each new toolkit you learn is different enough that it takes a lot of time and effort and frustration. Thus developing in HTML with CSS begins to look very appealing: it's much easier and much more portable; and with HTML 5 and CSS 3, it is very powerful.
Is there any support yet on Ubuntu (or even better, a cross-platform toolkit) for developing native applications that use HTML/CSS for the GUI? To minimize overhead, I do not want to start a full browser session. (That's not very good desktop integration.) I am particularly interested in answers for native JavaScript or Python 3, but any language would be alright (easier to learn a new language than a new GUI toolkit, in my book).
Edit: I have found this page, but have not had time to read it all or test it. It linked to Python XULRunner, but again I have no previous knowledge of it.
This was asked on Ask Ubuntu back in August of 2011.
In summary, the options are:
SeedKit
The JavaScript bindings for GNOME.
There are more options, but those are the two "big ones".
You can write native apps in HTML/CSS and Javascript using node-webkit, is an app runtime based on Chromium and node.js, you can use node.js modules into your apps. it's available on Linux, Mac OSX and Windows
I would like to add QtWebKit to the list. It's like SeedKit with better support.
I'm using it personally on a project where we have native (C++) code for the data layer, business logic and the presentation layer is done via HTML5 and heavy use of JavaScript. As far as I know Qt can be used with python as well so perhaps you could use it for all the business logic.
I'm involved in some browser-compatibility testing, and we're looking at tools and so forth. One thing we need to do is visual inspection of our site in a range of different browsers on different OSs and platforms.
My question is whether there are documented differences (or someone can post some HTML+CSS) where a page will render differently in IE6 on Windows 2000 than it will in IE6 on Windows XP (say). Or IE7/XP vs IE7/Vista. Or Safari4/MacOSX Leopard vs Safari4/MacOSX Snow Leopard.
We're hoping to be able to slim down the count of combinations.
I've seen this other SO question, and don't think it's quite the same thing. The answers direct me to quirksmode.org. We're not looking for a breakdown of which elements/CSS-rules are supported in which browsers; we've got an existing site that for better or worse uses what it uses, and we'd like to get it under test to be able to make changes more safely.
You can submit to http://browsershots.org/ multiple times, eventually a different OS version will get called for the same browser version. This is not the ideal solution.