Mobile Testing Using Physical Devices – Testing on physical devices gives you the foremost accurate test results because you’re testing on the particular device on which your software will run. Physical devices eliminate the possibility of erratic test results thanks to unforeseen differences between a true software environment and an emulated one.

For this reason, testing on physical devices may be a good idea after you need test results to be as accurate as possible.

That said, it’s important to keep two factors in mind regarding physical devices.

First

There’s no assurance that physical devices will perfectly model management environments in cases. While there’s no emulation or simulation at play, other variables still exist within the equation.

They include not only runtime variables that will be set up differently on end-users’ devices than they are on the physical devices you test on, but also the likelihood of hardware modifications or malfunctions, which might make your test environment but a likeness of your production environment.

Second,

Weigh the prices of physical device testing against the advantages. One in all these costs is monetary; with the newest iPhone costing one thousand dollars, for instance, gaining a mobile device collection can get expensive.

This can be very true after you consider that you will just need one in all for each kind of mobile device that your app runs on. Your real-device testing infrastructure could easily cost you a load of thousands of dollars to realize if you set it up yourself.

Even if the monetary cost isn’t a problem, sometimes testing on physical devices is too costly from a time standpoint because the configuration is too sophisticated.

Let me provide you with an example. Two months ago, I used to be doing a little mobile testing and had a range of mobile devices at my disposal.

The matter I bumped into, however, was that there wasn’t a practical way of connecting the mobile devices to my lab environment. My lab comprised a few dozen different virtual machines, all within the 192.168.0.x address space. While it’s possible to manually configure some mobile devices to use a static IP address of your choosing, doing so just wouldn’t add to this case.

Problem

The problem was that the building’s Wi-Fi network used a special address range. Had I configured the devices with a 192.168.0.x address, the mobile device wouldn’t be ready to find my lab environment, because there was no route defined between the wireless access point and my lab environment?

While it would have conceivably been possible to make a route, or to use a special address space within the lab, doing so would have undermined all the hassle that went into keeping the lab isolated from the assembly environment.

Because there were no easy thanks to connecting a physical mobile device to my lab environment, they forced me to use an emulator for testing. During this case, the emulator ended up being a much better option, while physical devices were available.

It’s best to limit physical device testing to situations where highly accurate test results are definitely worth the time and money required. In many situations, physical device tests are done.

The foremost sense for software that’s on the verge of being delivered into management and have already been observed by emulators and simulator testing to search out most of the issues.

Conclusion:

Physical devices are often the simplest platform for testing mobile applications. There are situations within which using physical devices just isn’t practical. In these cases, simulators and emulators may provide a testing environment that’s more flexible, which costs but uses physical devices.

Contact us:

redcrix.com
9988098200
mail : contact@redcrix.com
Skype id: contact_91170