Is it a good idea to use HP Quality Center for Continuous Integration?

Question

We need to compile our code after check - ins, be notified if compile fails, run tests, be notified of test results and publish our application (publish a website or create an msi file for a desktop app) on a daily basis.

We are using SVN and were considering using TeamCity or CruiseControl.NET for continuous integration server for our .net projects which have msunit tests.

My project manager came up with HP Quality Center and Quick Test Professional (it is already purchased) and suggested using them for issue tracking (currently we are using Jira) and continuous integration.

Does it make sense?

Answer 1

We have lots of customers who integrate QC defect and test tracking into pipelined continuous integration. But QC is not driving the process, it's being integrated into the CI and CID process.

Answer 2

NO. I'm using now at a client, and hate it. It does not support non-MS browsers (ActiveX, etc), so on OS X, we are stuck with VMs, etc. Moreover the interface it quite clunky & slow. It's ancient, horrible, legacy tech. There are much better options.

Answer 3

We use QC to run what are called Test Sets. We have been very successful running in this manner. You can use QC to notify you on a failed execution. This would of course notify you if something did not compile on QTP's end. You also set up other QTP and LoadRunner scripts to run if a script fails.

Answer 4

Not a good idea, I've done a POC for QC and Borland tools (for HP), and although possible, there are too many area where the synchronization has to be perfect, and the slow response time of QC sometime due to network etc to trigger right file, get result of compilation and publish is a bit shaky. Again technically via API it is completely feasible.