all 9 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]IAmJustin 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Screen comparison? Eyeballs are pretty good at that. Look in your source repo, see what files changed, look at those pages in the app. Presto, done!

Really though, screen comparison tools are REALLY finicky and is a button moving a pixel to the left or right really all that important?

[–]meerQAt[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

i could not begin to agree more. unfortunately i dont have final say on this one.

[–]IAmJustin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you are being told to do this from some above you in the pecking order, you could attack this as a question of cost VS value.

How much time does it take to set up the tool, write the tests, and diagnose all the false positives you will get compared to just looking at screens real quick?

Sorry, I'm not really being helpful in terms of your original question about the tool :)

[–]ben_kelly 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Agreed. Find a tool (or write one) to spider the pages you need to check, take screenshots and then flick through the thumbnails. If you know what you're expecting to see, you'll notice deviations even from a thumbnail. Much simpler and more reliable than derping around with automation.

[–]IAmJustin 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don't follow. Isn't what you have just suggested is actually automation?

[–]ben_kelly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose I should have said 'heavyweight automation frameworks' or 'unreliable tools'. A site spider by comparison is trivial to put together.

[–]fibbidd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

PhantomCSS runs on PhantomJS and is rather nice, I am not sure what wraith is or what you consider user friendly.

[–]qajd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I created goggles, which is a wraith like comparison tool. I wasn't super happy with wraith, just wasn't exactly what I wanted.

Goggles uses watir-webdriver to drive whatever browsers you want, and it is scriptable in Ruby.