Related
I have a reportviewer control to which I feed a SSRS report.
The report that gets generated is fairly large to fit in single view.
So when we see that report in reportviewer on Firefox 11+ or chrome 15+ the tables rendered are overlapped but it runs perfectly well in IE.
Is there any generic solution for these.
Refer Image:
I have some bad news for you, I'm afraid. Browser support outside IE in version 9.0.0.0 (the 2008 version) is... terrible. As Microsoft states on the corresponding MSDN page.
Internet Explorer is recommended if you want to use all of the available functionality. Although you can use other browsers to view a report, Internet Explorer is the only browser that is guaranteed to support the complete set of features used for working with reports.
With version 10.0.0.0 things improved. In our experience, they improved a lot. This MS blog post from 2009 also mentions this:
Significantly improved browser compatibility. We’ve put a huge amount of effort into improving our support across browsers. We’ve seen plenty of reports of extra scrollbars or other problematic renderings in Firefox, Safari, and standards mode in general. The initial feedback on these changes has been very positive.
The corresponding MSDN page on ReportViewer 10.0 is also quite a bit less "pushy" about users having to resort to IE. There's still a few things that are IE-specific (printing and zooming, for example).
We've experienced the same issues, such as overlapping tables... and then some. Trying to override the styles that were causing this turned out hard, if not impossible. However, just about all of those issues with layouting were gone after we upgraded to 10.0.0.0.
So, I started my answer with "I have some bad news", so here it is: AFAIK you can't reasonably solve these issues without upgrading to the newer Report Viewer.
I'm developing a very simple web site, with only one web page, but i need the one single page to look as it should in all the browsers. Now, for testing purposes, i have installed a bunch of web browsers on my windows 7 machine (FF, Chrome, Opera, Safari, Netscape etc.) and after doing some markup changes, i've got the same looking webpage on all the browsers.
Now the question is, does "the way" a browser renders a web-page depend on the operating system the browser is running on? Should I install linux (or other os) and test again or it will just be fine?
You should definitely be testing sites cross-platform, others may disagree, but the rendering is definitely different.
In addition to base-rendering, you may also be missing fonts, have alternate fonts with the same name, have anti-aliasing enabled/disabled on different platforms/configurations and much more.
To see exactly what I mean, on a base install of Windows 7 with Firefox 5, OSX with Firefox 5 and Linux with Firefox 5, when using the font 'Arial' or 'Verdana', you will clearly see the differences, even if those fonts do exist on all platforms.
On top of the differences you'd see above, even your positioning could be out if you're using non-absolute values (hell, even if you are using absolute values such as px it could be out!), so it's always best practice to check your sites cross-platform, it's as important as checking cross-browser, in my opinion.
Even if the same fonts exist on different OS they might look different.
So yes if you want to be sure that the page look satisfactional on the OS you should test..
As rudi_visser said, you should be doing cross-platform testing. It's a bit of a bother, but absolutely worth it.
You can start by using a service like browsershots.org to quickly check if your site looks ok. To check older versions of IE, Microsoft provides some virtual machine images you can run in Virtual PC to really test the sites. Alternatively, there's this site which is like browsershots.org, only faster and IE-only. Please note, that screenshot services are no substitute for actually testing the site on a certain platform/browser, but it's a quick way to see if something's working at all.
I would definitely recommend checking your site in the older versions of IE, since IE has a rich history of, well, not working quite right. IE9 (which I assume you're using) is a big improvement, but a lot of people are still on versions 6-8. Since IE6 was around for ~9 years without major changes, IE 7, 8 & 9 have each had a lot of catching-up to do, so they're all very different.
As for other browsers, their rendering is more consistent across versions, but they may not be consistent across platforms. Again as rudi_visser said, elements might shift around, and especially text can look different. For instance, Mac OS X uses a different font-smoothing technique from Windows, so a line of text may appear longer/shorter, bolder/lighter from one to the other. A cross-platform browser like Firefox will use the OS' font-rendering, so even though the browser's the same on the different platforms, it can still look different. (The exception is Safari on Windows, which, I think, insists on using Mac-like font-smoothing instead of Windows' own).
We're looking for a tool that would allow us to script and run tests across multiple browsers including Chrome, FF 3,4, IE 6,7,8 and during the running allow a human to visually inspect each page / action. This must support javascript so a simple browsershots approach will not work. Something like Selenium Grid may work but I haven't seen anything that would act like a console so that a human could visually inspect each test step. Ideally the answer to this question would be a tool that runs a scripted front-end test and displays those tests on each browser in a grid so that a human could visually inspect the look of each page while the test was testing the html content.
How about Cucumber Sauce?
I've not tried it purely because I do not need to run tests in parallel across multiple browsers or headless. However, I am using Cucumber BDD for almost all my web application testing. Cucumber Sauce looks like it might have solved the parallelism problem so it might work for you.
How about Telerik Test Studio http://www.telerik.com/automated-testing-tools.aspx? It can do FF 3 & 4, IE7, 8, 9 (but not IE6), Chrome and Safari. It literally hooks into the browser and drives it as if a real person was sitting there clicking things and typing text.
A couple months ago I ran into a browser that allowed users to see how different rendering engines displayed their site: Lunascape, and here are its features. As far as it validity, or accuracy goes, I cannot vouch for it (I have never used it); I can link you to a CNET review though: CNET.
So my best idea would be to use lunascape (to allow your tester to see all the engines side-by-side), then script the tests in javascript which is included in every page.
Good luck, and hope this helps.
TestComplete can do this: http://www.automatedqa.com/products/testcomplete/
You can record any interaction with an application and when the tests run you can watch them.
It supports:
Internet Explorer 6—9 support (both 32- and 64-bit versions)
Firefox 3.5—4.0 support
Open source tool Selenium, which supports many browsers and can be run as a simple record / playback tool or from code but the browser compatibility varies a bit depending on which method you choose. Google uses Selenium in a big way these days and there are plenty of good articles such as this one on their testing blog.
Very good question.
The closet tool that i think of will be HP load runner for :
the ability to visually inspect each page while the test is running and inserting break point if needed
Javascript is supported but you might have problem with asynchronous request (ajax)
Since there is alway a but :
Not all browsers are simulated.
Browsers are simulated also ...
The report will print the performance and not what was shown on the page.
The price
I do not think that visual inspection falls into automated test. Automated test is about performance and to detect regression. Visual inspection on the other side is to check if the layout is properly rendered.
Doesn't this testing depend on the size of the site to be tested? If I have a 5-10 page site, I would use some of the tools mentioned above, handle it manually (i.e. walk through the site in each browser on each platform), use browsershots.org, or use a tool within Safari, such as simulating a browser.
If the site is large, then these options become very difficult and time consuming, and my experience is that the best thing to do is make sure that each page is standards compliant, and try different pages in a few browsers.
Hope this helps.
I am working in creating a website and I want to check in multiple browsers for Browser Compatibility test automatically by using Automated Test Tool. Do you guys know if there is any software/tool where I can just give a link and it loads the page in multiple browsers?
I've used Browser Shots before and it's ok if you don't mind waiting for an hour or two.
I'd also recommend checking out some of the links on Delicious.
You're looking for litmus, from the people who brought you doctype, part of the League of Justice. 14-day passes to test your layouts in 24 browsers currently cost $39.
I'm a fan of XenoCode's "Spoon Browser Sandbox" myself.
You can use Selenium RC (Selenium 1) or Selenium 2 (WebDriver) for automated test. But You have to record the test using Selenium IDE on Firefox browser and writing some tests on it. Selenium supports FF, Chrome, IE, Safari and Opera.
If the website is publicly visible then there are web based services that you can use such as http://crossbrowsertesting.com/.
If your website is internal only, then you're going to struggle to find support I think. We tried to find one but all we found were services that require a publicly visible website - no good for testing pre-go-live.
Are you talking about a compatible design or compatible JS? Because AJAX functionality is difficult to test with the usual cross-browser tools.
For the latter, look at httpUnit, though I'm not sure it can simulate multiple browsers.
There's Microsoft Expression Web SuperPreview, but I haven't tried it so can't comment on if it's good or not.
Their opening quote makes me laugh though, mainly because of how sucky IE6 is:
About 7 years ago, the browser wars
were over. Internet Explorer had
become the de facto standard, and for
a while, there were very few
compatibility issues in web page
design.
Check it out though, might be worthwhile. Especially if you are a .NET developer, however it might be useful to web developers in general.
Adobe has BrowserLab. It requires an Adobe account (free) and gives you Firefox 2.0 - 3.5 (WinXP, OSX), IE 6-8 (WinXP), Safari 3-4 (OSX) and Chrome 3.0 (WinXP).
Is anyone writing applications specifically to take advantage of google chrome?
Are there any enterprise users who are considering using it as the standard browser?
Yes, I have started to pay very good attention to Google Chrome for my applications. Recent analytics show that between 6%-15% of my users are accessing my applications (varies between 6 to 15 in different applications) on Chrome. And, this number looks on an upward trend.
Thus, I can't really ignore it for testing right now.
As far as taking it as a standard goes, thats a long way off. I still have to test for IE6! :( Though, we have been planning to start using features like Gears (inbuilt in Chrome - downloadable elsewhere) once Chrome crosses the 25% mark. Thats when I believe that we will be looking at Chrome to be our preferred browser. I hope that we have Chrome 1.0+ by then! ;)
I switched to Chrome and haven't looked back except for the occasional site which doesn't work properly, forcing me to load it in Firefox. All my existing web applications work fine on it, and I'm using it for primary testing on my current development project.
I'm not actually targeting chrome, but I have added chrome to my browsers to test sites on. I've found some odd quirks in this product where some plugins cause the browser to hang, or run really slow in some environments, but they are still in beta in active development. But I definately now make sure sites I work on render well in chrome, as well as firefox, latest versions of IE, safari, Konquerer and opera. I usually check out how it looks on lynx as well, that helps me catch "un-alternated text" in images. Yeah, I know that isn't a word, but some people will understand what I'm saying.
Because chrome uses the webkit to render HTML, you can be assured if it works in safari, it'll work under chrome, however it's rendering engine isn't up to scratch quite yet. I think writing applications that take advantage of it is similar to writing iPhone applications, remember chrome is expected to be adopted by android to make it similar to iPhone. That way it pretty much takes advantage of all those iPhone apps.
Would I install it as the browser of choice? not yet - but i'll certainly work on valid web pages that will render across all browsers.
One of our major customers has outlawed Chrome because it installs on the C drive without asking. They deploy a standard image with a small C drive and large D drive so they can easily re-clone the system part of the image on C without destroying the client's personal files on D. Most software allows you to choose the install directory. Anything that violates this is disallowed, and they're a big enough company to have some weight with most vendors.
We have enough headaches trying to support
Firefox
Two versions of IE which have their own iffy bugs
Safari
I'm not sure why we continue to support Safari. Most of our users (corporate) use IE6 or IE7. We try to make sure that things work in both of those.
Maybe not for programming purposes but Chrome w/ Google Reader makes for the most powerful RSS reader. Can handle up to 1500 feeds w/ performance still ok, managing subscriptions still functioning.
I'm using it on my work machine, but that's about it. It's been stable for me, and I like the barebones UI. I'll still switch to Firefox for the web developer extensions however.
I'm liking some of GoogleChrome- the Start page with your 9 most recent is the winner for me. The interface takes a little getting used to, but the speed is impressive, especially with Gmail.
However, it glitches with Java, which rules it out for serious work at the moment. I use FireFox mostly and have Chrome for the "other" websites at work.
I'm considering using GWT on an intranet project and considering suggesting to the users that use Chrome to take advantage of the enhanced Javascript performance. Any AJAX-heavy app would be a great candidate to target Chrome.
At my company, we're not targeting it, but we're definitely paying attention to it. My boss is using it as his primary browser, and I have implemented browser detection for it in our scripts in case we ever to need to target it for some reason.
Chrome has the .png opacity bug where the transparent parts of the .png are a solid color if you try to transition the opacity from 0 to 1. In IE7 the opaque parts are black, and in Chrome, they are white. Today, I decided to go ahead and account for this bug in my JavaScript. I don't really test sites on Chrome that often, but I am actually using it for almost all of my browsing.
I will target Chrome as soon as a stable Linux and OSX client is available.
Targeting Chrome/Chromium right now, I think is like targeting Konqueror web browser. It will get popular, but you should wait to a more stable beta, and/or some Linux and OS X client.
My website statistics shows 3.xx % visitors using Chrome which arrived just few weeks back. And Opera is only 4.xx % which has been around for several years.
Easily you can see that rate at which Chrome is picking up.
You can see how easily Google takes over all areas of your computing world and personal world too.
Since Chrome uses Webkit, it has the same rendering engine and DOM support as Safari (not necessarily the same revision of Webkit though). By testing in Safari, you can generally get by without worrying about Chrome. Any differences you find are probably just bugs that you should file on instead of work around.
However, because Chrome uses a different JS engine, there may be a few incompatibilities with Safari. So, if you're doing anything with JS, you might as well fire up Chrome and see if there's anything obviously wrong.
Generally though, you don't target browsers, you target rendering engines (with their associated DOM support and JS engines).
I am using Google Chrome, so far all the web apps I have work fine in it with no modifications.
No.
Why help Google further build an evil empire? In this particular case it is so obvious that they do not care about users but only obsessed with gathering usage info.
It's not any major player yet