Sign In to Follow Application
View All Documents & Correspondence

A System And Method For Browser Compatibility Testing Of A Web Application

Abstract: The present invention relates to a system and method for compatibility testing of a web application with different internet browsers and their respective versions over multiple operating systems on a common testing framework. Further, the invention provides a method for supporting functional and GUI testing of a web application.

Get Free WhatsApp Updates!
Notices, Deadlines & Correspondence

Patent Information

Application #
Filing Date
04 October 2011
Publication Number
15/2013
Publication Type
INA
Invention Field
COMPUTER SCIENCE
Status
Email
Parent Application

Applicants

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED
NIRMAL BUILDING,9TH FLOOR,NARIMAN POINT,MUMBAI 400021,MAHARASHTRA,INDIA.

Inventors

1. ASHOKKUMAR SAHOO
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES,IT/ITES SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE,PLOT-35,CHANDAKA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,PATIA,CHANDRASEKHARPUR,BHUBANESWAR-751024,ORISSA,INDIA.
2. SIDHARTH SAHOO
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES,IT/ITES SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE,PLOT-35,CHANDAKA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,PATIA,CHANDRASEKHARPUR,BHUBANESWAR-751024,ORISSA,INDIA.
3. ARUNRAJ C
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES,IT/ITES SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE,PLOT-35,CHANDAKA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,PATIA,CHANDRASEKHARPUR,BHUBANESWAR-751024,ORISSA,INDIA.
4. BIPLAB PATRA
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES,IT/ITES SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE,PLOT-35,CHANDAKA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,PATIA,CHANDRASEKHARPUR,BHUBANESWAR-751024,ORISSA,INDIA.

Specification

FORM 2
THE PATENTS ACT, 1970
(39 of 1970)
&
THE PATENT RULES, 2003
COMPLETE SPECIFICATION
(See Section 10 and Rule 13)
Title of invention:
A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR BROWSER COMPATIBILITY TESTING
OF A WEB APPLICATION
Applicant:
TATA Consultancy Services Limited
A company Incorporated in India under The Companies Act, 1956
Having address:
Nirmal Building, 9th Floor,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021,
Maharashtra, India
The following specification particularly describes the invention and the manner in which it is to be performed.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION:
The present application generally relates to browser compatibility testing. More particularly, the invention relates to the field of cross-browser compatibility testing of a web application over various operating systems.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION:
Tremendous growth and development in internet based browsing technologies have made available to user, different web browsers and their respective versions. Such web browsers provide different functional and graphical user interface (GUI) support to a user. With the help of web browsers, the users have the access to different web based applications. However, the compatibility of the web applications differs from browser to browser and their respective versions of such browsers. The contents of the web applications such as text, still images and other GUI controls may be interpreted differently in different browsers. Hence, ensuring the compatibility of the web applications with the different versions of respective browsers, on the different operating system has become a challenging issue.
The process of validating the web applications and making them compatible with different browsers is tedious, time consuming and error prone process. In the prior art, various approaches have attempted for tes ting the compatibility of the web applications, but most of them are restricted either to limited browsers and their respective versions over limited platforms, such approaches also employ manual testing which is a time consuming process. It also becomes redundant for the user to write test scripts each time while testing the compatibility with different browsers and their respective versions for the same web application.
Web application testing tools available in the prior art are capable enough for testing the functional differences of the web application over different types of browsers and

their versions, but determining the page layout of the web applications or the GUI controls still remains an unsolved problem. The inconsistencies of the page layouts make it very difficult for the user for ensuring the correctness of the appearance of the web applications with different type of browsers and various versions thereof.
Thus, it is evident that, there is a long felt need for a solution that enables a system and method capable of supporting functional testing of the web application and page layout of GUI testing on a common testing framework. There is also an inevitable need to provide a system and method for compatibility testing of a web application with different internet browsers and their respective versions over multiple operating systems on a common testing framework.
OBJECTS OF THE INVENTION
The primary object of present invention is to provide a system and method for compatibility testing of a web application with different internet browsers and their respective versions over multiple operating systems on a common testing framework.
Another object of the invention is to provide a functional and GUI testing of the web applications on the common testing framework.
Yet another object of the present invention is to provide a system and method for enabling a user to select standard base browser for web application testing and comparing it with other web browsers.
Yet another object of the present invention is to enable a method for generating a comprehensive report, including screen shots of the web applications across different browsers and compile comparison report of various web browsers with the standard base browser.

Yet another object of the invention is to enable a method and system for highlighting differences while testing the web applications with different types of web browsers and their respective versions.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Before the present system and methods, enablement are described, it is to be understood that this application is not limited to the particular system, and methodologies described, as there can be multiple possible embodiments which are not expressly illustrated in the present disclosure. It is also to be understood that the terminology used in the description is for the purpose of describing the particular versions or embodiments only, and is not intended to limit the scope of the present invention.
The present invention provides a system and method for cross-browser compatibility testing of web applications over multiple operating systems using a common testing framework. The system is capable for supporting functional as well as GUI testing on a common testing platform.
In an aspect of the present invention, a method is provided for identifying cross-browser visual and performance divergence of an application in a computing environment, the said method comprises of:
a. selecting a browser from a plurality of browsers as a base browser;
b. launching an application through the selected base browser to record
an object functionality of the launched application and successively
crawling through an URL of the said application;
c. integrating the recorded object functionality of the said application
with a data repository input file, the said data repository input file is
further inputted through a testing framework;

d. allowing the user to select one or more pre-defined conditions before
executing a compatibility testing for a each selected browser;
e. playing back the integrated object functionality of the said application
based on the user selected pre-defined conditions and running such
integrated object functionality across the plurality of versions of the
each selected browser;
f. selecting one or more of a plurality of computing environment and
running the each selected browser and the plurality of versions thereof
in a the selected computing environment; and
g. generating a compatibility report of cross browser application
divergence in each of the selected computing environment upon
execution of the browser compatibility testing, wherein the said
compatibility report further comprises of:
at least one screen shot upon execution of the object functionality of the application across the different browser versions for identifying visual rendering and functional performance of the application for the each selected browser in the each selected computing environment.
In an another aspect of the present invention, a system is provided for identifying cross browser visual and performance divergence of an application in a computing environment, the said system comprises of:
a. a launching unit configured for allowing a user to select a browser as
a base browser from a plurality of browsers and further launching an
application through the selected base browser;
b. a recording unit configured for recording an object functionality of
the launched application and further integrating the recorded object
functionality of the said application with a data repository input file,
the said data repository input file is inputted to a testing unit;

c. a data processing unit configured for allowing the user to select one or
more pre-defined conditions before executing a compatibility testing
for a each selected browser;
d. the said testing unit configured for playing back the integrated object
functionality of the said application and further running such
integrated object functionality across the plurality of versions of the
each selected browser over multiple computing environment; and
e. a report generating unit configured for generating a compatibility
report of cross browser application divergence in each of the selected
computing environment upon execution of the browser compatibility
testing, wherein the said compatibility report further comprises of:
at least one screen shot upon execution of the object functionality of the application across the different browser versions for identifying visual rendering and functional performance of the application for the each selected browser in the each selected computing environment.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The foregoing summary, as well as the following detailed description of preferred embodiments, is better understood when read in conjunction with the appended drawings. For the purpose of illustrating the invention, there is shown in the drawings various stages of the invention; however, the invention is not limited to the specific apparatus and method disclosed in the drawings.
Figure 1 illustrating block diagram of the system (100) for compatibility testing of a web application.
Figure 2 illustrating block diagram of the functional components (200) for compatibility testing of a web application.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
The invention will now be described with respect to various embodiments. The following description provides specific details for a thorough understanding of. and enabling description for, these embodiments of the invention. The words "comprising," "having," "containing," and "including," and other forms thereof, are intended to be equivalent in meaning and be open ended in that an item or items following any one of these words is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of such item or items, or meant to be limited to only the listed item or items.
In an embodiment of the present invention, a system and method is proposed that enables cross-browser compatibility testing for web applications upon multiple operating systems on a common testing framework. The system comprises the common testing framework capable for testing the compatibility of the web applications with different browsers and their respective versions upon multiple operating systems and generates a comprehensive report. The common testing framework is capable for supporting functional and GUI testing. The framework records the functionality of the web applications by the use of selenium IDE in a standard base browser and plays back and executes the recorded test cases with different browsers and their respective version over multiple operating systems. The standard base browser, order of preference of execution, report path of screen shots for the browser comparison report can be selected by the user. The common testing framework takes the recorded and scripted test cases as an input and generates the comprehensive report. The generated report includes the screen shots and coordinates comparison analysis of the web application with different browsers and their respective versions. Also a customized HTML report is generated including screen shots for the failed test steps. The coordinate comparison analysis highlights all page layout or GUI differences of the tested web application across different types of browsers and their versions. Thus, a common testing framework enables the

user to test and analyze the functional as well as coordinate differences of the GUI controls in a single report.
Figure 1 is the data flow diagram of the system (100) illustrating the multiple embodiments of the present invention. The system (100) comprises of the web application (102) whose compatibility is to be tested on different browsers and their respective versions upon multiple operating systems. The web application is passed through the user selected standard base browser (104) such as Firefox and the functionality of the web application is recorded by the use of the selenium IDE. User is allowed to select any one of the browser as the standard base browser. Also the user is allowed to select the order of preference of execution and report path of screen shots for the comprehensive report. The common testing framework (106) takes the recorded and scripted test cases as the input and executes them with a set of different browsers and operating systems (108) for testing the compatibility of the web application (102) and generates the comprehensive report. The generated comprehensive report comprises of screen shots (110) and coordinated comparison report (112) of the web application (102) with the set of different browsers and operating systems (108). Also a customized HTML report (114) is generated including screen shots for the failed test steps. The coordinate comparison analysis highlights all page layout or GUI differences of the tested web application across different types of browsers and their versions. Thus, a common testing framework enables the user to test and analyze the functional as well as coordinate differences of the GUI controls in a single report.
Figure 2 illustrating block diagram of the functional components (200) for compatibility testing of a web application. The functional components (200) of the present invention comprises of a user-end (202) wirelessly connected by a means of a wireless communication (218) to a server-end (212). The said user-end (202) is further comprises of a launching unit (204), a recording unit (206), a data processing unit (208) and a displaying unit (210). And the server-end (212) further comprises of

a testing unit (214) and a report generating unit (216). A user residing at the user-end (202) side selects a browser as a base browser from a plurality of browsers. A web application whose compatibility is to be tested across different browsers and their respective versions upon multiple operating systems is launched through the selected base browser by the launching unit (204). Upon launching the web application through the user selected base browser, a functionality of the web application is recorded by the means of selenium IDE which is stored in the recording unit (206). The said functionality is the object functionality of the web application which includes scripted test cases. The recorded functionality of the said web application is integrated with a data repository input file. The said data repository input file can be an excel file, a word file or any form of data repository file. In the present invention the data repository input file in the excel file which is inputted to the testing unit (214) residing at the server-end (212). Before starting the execution of the browser compatibility testing, the data processing unit (208) allows the user to select predefined conditions such as selecting an order of preference of execution and a path of the screen shots for browser comparison report. After inputting the excel file to the testing unit (214) and setting the said user-defined preferences, the testing unit (214) further proceeds the execution of said browser compatibility testing. The said testing unit (214) then plays back the recorded and integrated functionality of the said web application and runs it across different browsers and their respective versions upon multiple operating systems. The said testing unit (214) is configured for testing the compatibility of the said web application with different browsers and their respective versions upon multiple operating systems and generates a comprehensive report. Further, the testing unit (214) is also capable for supporting functional and GUI testing. The report generating unit (216) residing at the server-end (212), is configured for generating the comprehensive report. The generated comprehensive report comprises of screen shots (110 of figure 1) and coordinated comparison report (112 of figure 2) of the web application with the set of different browsers and operating systems. Also a customized HTML report (114 of figure 1) is generated including screen shots for the failed test steps. The coordinate comparison analysis

highlights all page layout or GUI differences of the tested web application across different types of browsers and their versions over multiple operating systems. Along with the report generation, the said report generating unit (216) further transmits the said comprehensive report to the display unit (210) residing at the user-end (202). Whereas, the display unit further displays the screen shots (110 of figure 1), coordinated comparison report (112 of figure 2) of the web application with the set of different browsers and operating systems and a customized HTML report (114 of figure 1) is including screen shots for the failed test steps. Thus, a common testing framework enables the user to test and analyze the functional as well as coordinate differences of the GUI controls in a single report.
Although the invention has been described in terms of specific embodiments and applications, persons skilled in the art can. in light of this teaching, generate additional embodiments without exceeding the scope or departing from the spirit of the invention described herein. Accordingly, it is to be understood that the drawing and description in this disclosure are proffered to facilitate comprehension of the invention, and should not be construed to limit the scope thereof.

We Claim:
1. A method for identifying cross browser visual and performance divergence of an application in a computing environment, the said method comprises of:
a. selecting a browser from a plurality of browsers as a base browser;
b. launching an application through the selected base browser to record
an object functionality of the launched application and successively
crawling through an URL of the said application;
c. integrating the recorded object functionality of the said application
with a data repository input file, the said data repository input file is
further inputted through a testing framework;
d. allowing the user to select one or more pre-defined conditions before
executing a compatibility testing for a each selected browser;
e. playing back the integrated object functionality of the said application
based on the user selected pre-defined conditions and running such
integrated object functionality across the plurality of versions of the
each selected browser;
f. selecting one or more of a plurality of computing environment and
running the each selected browser and the plurality of versions thereof
in a the selected computing environment; and
g. generating a compatibility report of cross browser application
divergence in each of the selected computing environment upon
execution of the browser compatibility testing, wherein the said
compatibility report further comprises of:
at least one screen shot upon execution of the object functionality of the application across the different browser versions for identifying visual rendering and functional performance of the application for the each selected browser in the each selected computing environment.

2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the functional performance of the application at each selected browser comprise of a reasoned outcome of each of the rendered object, the reasoned outcome identifying a one or more reasons of the detected visual and performance divergence.
3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the divergence in each element of the application is denoted through a relative coordination positioning of the element across the browsers.
4. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the application includes a web application, an internet application, any set of internet resource or combination thereof.
5. A system for identifying cross browser visual and performance divergence of an application in a computing environment, the said system comprises of:
a. a launching unit configured for allowing a user to select a browser as
a base browser from a plurality of browsers and further launching an
application through the selected base browser;
b. a recording unit configured for recording an object functionality of
the launched application and further integrating the recorded object
functionality of the said application with a data repository input file,
the said data repository input file is inputted to a testing unit;
c. a data processing unit configured for allowing the user to select one or
more pre-defined conditions before executing a compatibility testing
for a each selected browser;
d. the said testing unit configured for playing back the integrated object
functionality of the said application and further running such

integrated object functionality across the plurality of versions of the each selected browser over multiple computing environment; and e. a report generating unit configured for generating a compatibility report of cross browser application divergence in each of the selected computing environment upon execution of the browser compatibility testing, wherein the said compatibility report further comprises of: at least one screen shot upon execution of the object functionality of the application across the different browser versions for identifying visual rendering and functional performance of the application for the each selected browser in the each selected computing environment.
6. The system as claimed in claim 5, wherein the functional performance of the application at each selected browser comprise of a reasoned outcome of each of the rendered object, the reasoned outcome identifying a one or more reasons of the detected visual and performance divergence.
7. The system as claimed in claim 5, wherein the divergence in each element of the application is denoted through a relative coordination positioning of the element across the browsers.
8. The system as claimed in claim 5, wherein the application includes a web application, an internet application, any set of internet resource or combination thereof.

Documents

Orders

Section Controller Decision Date

Application Documents

# Name Date
1 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 26(23-11-2011).pdf 2011-11-23
1 2832-MUM-2011-Written submissions and relevant documents [25-08-2020(online)].pdf 2020-08-25
2 2832-MUM-2011-Correspondence to notify the Controller [10-08-2020(online)].pdf 2020-08-10
2 2832-MUM-2011-CORRESPONDENCE(23-11-2011).pdf 2011-11-23
3 2832-MUM-2011-FORM-26 [10-08-2020(online)].pdf 2020-08-10
3 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 5(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
4 2832-MUM-2011-Response to office action [10-08-2020(online)].pdf 2020-08-10
4 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 3(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
5 2832-MUM-2011-US(14)-HearingNotice-(HearingDate-11-08-2020).pdf 2020-07-10
5 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 2(TITLE PAGE)-(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
6 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 2(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
6 2832-MUM-2011-ABSTRACT [12-10-2018(online)].pdf 2018-10-12
7 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 18(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
7 2832-MUM-2011-CLAIMS [12-10-2018(online)].pdf 2018-10-12
8 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 1(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
8 2832-MUM-2011-COMPLETE SPECIFICATION [12-10-2018(online)].pdf 2018-10-12
9 2832-MUM-2011-DRAWING(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
9 2832-MUM-2011-FER_SER_REPLY [12-10-2018(online)].pdf 2018-10-12
10 2832-MUM-2011-DESCRIPTION(COMPLETE)-(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
10 2832-MUM-2011-OTHERS [12-10-2018(online)].pdf 2018-10-12
11 2832-MUM-2011-CORRESPONDENCE(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
11 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 4(ii) [11-09-2018(online)].pdf 2018-09-11
12 2832-MUM-2011-ABSTRACT.pdf 2018-08-10
12 2832-MUM-2011-CLAIMS(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
13 2832-MUM-2011-ABSTRACT(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
13 2832-MUM-2011-CORRESPONDENCE(19-1-2012).pdf 2018-08-10
14 2832-MUM-2011-CORRESPONDENCE.pdf 2018-08-10
14 ABSTRACT1.jpg 2018-08-10
15 2832-MUM-2011-DESCRIPTION(PROVISIONAL).pdf 2018-08-10
15 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 2.pdf 2018-08-10
16 2832-MUM-2011-DRAWING.pdf 2018-08-10
16 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 2(TITLE PAGE).pdf 2018-08-10
17 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 1.pdf 2018-08-10
17 2832-MUM-2011-FER.pdf 2018-08-10
18 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 1(19-1-2012).pdf 2018-08-10
19 2832-MUM-2011-FER.pdf 2018-08-10
19 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 1.pdf 2018-08-10
20 2832-MUM-2011-DRAWING.pdf 2018-08-10
20 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 2(TITLE PAGE).pdf 2018-08-10
21 2832-MUM-2011-DESCRIPTION(PROVISIONAL).pdf 2018-08-10
21 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 2.pdf 2018-08-10
22 2832-MUM-2011-CORRESPONDENCE.pdf 2018-08-10
22 ABSTRACT1.jpg 2018-08-10
23 2832-MUM-2011-ABSTRACT(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
23 2832-MUM-2011-CORRESPONDENCE(19-1-2012).pdf 2018-08-10
24 2832-MUM-2011-CLAIMS(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
24 2832-MUM-2011-ABSTRACT.pdf 2018-08-10
25 2832-MUM-2011-CORRESPONDENCE(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
25 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 4(ii) [11-09-2018(online)].pdf 2018-09-11
26 2832-MUM-2011-DESCRIPTION(COMPLETE)-(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
26 2832-MUM-2011-OTHERS [12-10-2018(online)].pdf 2018-10-12
27 2832-MUM-2011-DRAWING(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
27 2832-MUM-2011-FER_SER_REPLY [12-10-2018(online)].pdf 2018-10-12
28 2832-MUM-2011-COMPLETE SPECIFICATION [12-10-2018(online)].pdf 2018-10-12
28 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 1(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
29 2832-MUM-2011-CLAIMS [12-10-2018(online)].pdf 2018-10-12
29 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 18(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
30 2832-MUM-2011-ABSTRACT [12-10-2018(online)].pdf 2018-10-12
30 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 2(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
31 2832-MUM-2011-US(14)-HearingNotice-(HearingDate-11-08-2020).pdf 2020-07-10
31 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 2(TITLE PAGE)-(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
32 2832-MUM-2011-Response to office action [10-08-2020(online)].pdf 2020-08-10
32 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 3(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
33 2832-MUM-2011-FORM-26 [10-08-2020(online)].pdf 2020-08-10
33 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 5(29-12-2011).pdf 2011-12-29
34 2832-MUM-2011-CORRESPONDENCE(23-11-2011).pdf 2011-11-23
34 2832-MUM-2011-Correspondence to notify the Controller [10-08-2020(online)].pdf 2020-08-10
35 2832-MUM-2011-Written submissions and relevant documents [25-08-2020(online)].pdf 2020-08-25
35 2832-MUM-2011-FORM 26(23-11-2011).pdf 2011-11-23

Search Strategy

1 2832_MUM_2011_09-01-2018.pdf