Exploratory Testing on ScrapeAnyWeb.site(SAW)
Published: 2024-07-03 14:23:48

In today's blog post, I'll be walking you through the [SAW](https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9mzxn37vw0s2?hl=en-us&gl=NG) application I tested using the Exploratory testing technique. Exploratory testing is a technique which provides an element of freedom to manually test a site in a sensible fashion by investigating and discovering the functionality without pre-defined scripts or test cases. Exploratory testing can take place as soon as software is available, but a tester's involvement should begin much earlier. Without carrying out exploratory testing, there’s an increased risk of missing not only significant functional issues but also the small details that users will notice. When you follow a script or a strictly defined set of test cases, you'll be focusing so much on making sure the software matches what’s written down that you miss things around you. Whereas, When you explore software, you’re looking for anything that seems out of place such as testing values and inputs that people may not have considered. 

During my exploratory test experience on the SAW website. I carefully navigated through the functionality, user experience, compatibility, and performance to identify where the software is broken, and how it can be improved. 

While at the exercise, I identified several key issues which includes the following:
- **Absence of pointer cursor change:** Buttons do not show a cursor change to indicate they are clickable.
- **Slow page load times:** there were noticeable delays of about 2-3 seconds before the intended actions are executed when buttons are clicked. An instance of occurrence was for "change" button and "add URL" button.
- **Application unexpected closure:** The application unexpectedly closes, causing interruption.
- **Statistic mismatch:** the scrape statistic did not match the derived data.
- **Inadequate error message:** an error message was not received when the "Start Scraping" button was clicked upon without providing a URL link. You can find the full bug report [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hXHJvWIr7IYsj5qNzQ6Pz9mTppYEE8znT3bwDT9sF7g/edit?usp=sharing).

In lieu of the issues highlighted above, I'll suggest the following suggestions;
- **Absence of pointer cursor change:** Update the code to ensure all buttons change the cursor to a pointer when hovered over.
- **Slow page load times:** Review and optimize the code executed when the "Change" or "add URL" button is clicked to ensure efficiency.
- **Application unexpected closure:** Conduct extensive stability and stress testing to identify and fix crash-inducing issues. Also, allow for recovery after unexpected closures.
- **Statistic mismatch:** Implement validation checks to ensure that the number of derived data entries matches the reported scrape counts.
- **Inadequate error message:** Display clear error messages when required fields are left blank, guiding the user to correct the issue. For a detailed overview, please refer to the full bug report [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hXHJvWIr7IYsj5qNzQ6Pz9mTppYEE8znT3bwDT9sF7g/edit?usp=sharing).

In conclusion, When you explore software, you’re looking for anything that seems different. Testers are always on the lookout for inconsistencies, values and inputs that people may not have considered. Having explored testing the [SAW](https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9mzxn37vw0s2?hl=en-us&gl=NG) website, it is expedient that the developers would make a better decision when the suggestions are implemented. And in turn, make a better software for users.