Skip to main content
Testing Qt GUIs

Insights: GUI Testing Best Practices for Qt-Built Interfaces 

Teams building applications with Qt or open-source Qt often start from a position of strength. Qt provides a mature, flexible framework for creating rich, cross-platform user interfaces using Qt Widgets, QML, and Qt Quick. Development teams move fast, reuse code across platforms, and deploy consistent user experiences on desktop, mobile, and embedded systems.

GUI testing, however, frequently follows a different path. This guide looks at why that happens, and how Qt teams can simplify and strengthen GUI testing by using tools designed specifically for Qt.

Unlock full insights

About the contributor

For this guide, we interviewed Karim Boussema, Solutions Engineer at Qt Group, drawing on his first-hand experience across dozens of real-world development projects. His perspective reveals common GUI testing patterns, recurring pain points, and the moments when teams realize their current approach no longer scales. The result is a practical reality check for teams developing interfaces built with various technologies and frameworks, and a clearer view of when it’s time to rethink how GUI testing is done.

Untitled design-21-1-1

I have a background in R&D and support development and QA teams in adopting Squish for GUI test automation, Coco for code coverage, and Test Center for QA insights. I work on a wide range of projects across desktop, web, mobile, and embedded platforms. My focus is on helping teams establish practical, maintainable testing workflows for both Qt and non-Qt applications.

 

The Current Reality for Teams Using Open-Source Qt

Open-source Qt gives teams freedom: no forced tooling, flexible licensing, and full control over how applications are built and tested. Many organizations take advantage of this by assembling their own testing stacks from open-source or cross-platform automation tools.

Over time, these setups often encounter common limitations:

  • Limited or indirect access to Qt and QML internals

  • Heavy reliance on selectors, screenshots, or coordinate-based interaction

  • Fragile tests that break as UI structure evolves

  • Extra effort required to keep tests consistent across platforms

  • CI/CD integration that works, but feels bolted on rather than native

None of these issues are unusual. They are a natural consequence of using tools that treat Qt applications like generic GUIs rather than Qt-native systems.

As applications mature, teams spend more time maintaining tests than benefiting from them.

When Qt-based GUIs Outgrow Generic Testing Tools

Many Qt teams begin GUI testing with manual checks or by adapting general-purpose automation tools such as Selenium, Appium, or custom-built wrappers. In early stages, these approaches can be effective enough to support development and catch obvious issues.

As the user interface grows and evolves, however, limitations start to surface. Tests increasingly depend on fragile mechanisms such as selectors, screen coordinates, or image matching, so small and often harmless UI changes (layout adjustments, renamed components, or visual refinements) can break large portions of the test suite.

Over time, teams start spending less time validating new functionality and more time fixing broken tests. Once maintenance effort grows, confidence in results drops, and GUI automation turns from a safety net into a bottleneck, this is often the moment teams recognize that generic testing tools are not built to keep pace with the structure and evolution of modern Qt applications.

QtFramework-UI-CrossPlatform

 

Testing frameworks vs. testing tools: a distinction open-source Qt teams often miss

Many teams building GUIs with Qt and open-source Qt conflate testing frameworks, testing tools, and CI/CD systems, which leads to misplaced expectations about what each can realistically deliver.

In Qt-based projects, this confusion often results in teams over-engineering custom test frameworks or wrapper layers around generic tools. While these setups may work initially, they quietly consume increasing amounts of development capacity as the UI evolves, shifting effort away from product development toward maintaining test infrastructure.

A testing framework provides building blocks rather than a complete solution. Examples include unit test frameworks or low-level automation libraries. They offer flexibility, but expect teams to design and maintain synchronization, object identification, retries, diagnostics, and reporting themselves. Ownership cost is high and grows with system complexity.

A CI/CD system may execute tests, but it is not a testing solution. Tools like Jenkins, GitHub Actions, or GitLab CI orchestrate execution and reporting, but do not understand application state, object relationships, or behaviour. They depend entirely on the robustness of the tests they run.

Open-source automation tools often treat applications as generic GUIs. Tools such as Selenium, Appium, or image-based open-source solutions can automate interactions, but typically rely on selectors, coordinates, accessibility layers, or screenshots. As Qt interfaces become more dynamic or custom, tests become fragile and require increasingly frequent maintenance.

Custom-built wrappers attempt to close gaps in existing tooling. Teams often build wrapper layers to standardize object access, synchronization, and error handling. While helpful initially, these wrappers evolve into proprietary testing tools that must be maintained alongside the application, increasing long‑term ownership cost.

Get a free copy of the guidebook!

In this book you are not going to read about futuristic robots. Instead, you will see real-time examples of how AI is transforming procurement today and tomorrow.