DEV Community: jerrywang

Development diary: Implement folder‑based batch JSON comparison

jerrywang — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 15:31:13 +0000

Hi everyone 👋
In my previous update, I talked about why single-file JSON comparison is not enough for real regression testing.
Today I want to share my actual development process while building the core feature: folder-based batch JSON comparison for my offline QA toolkit.
The real pain with single-file comparison
When doing API regression testing, testers rarely compare only one pair of JSON files.
A full regression cycle usually generates dozens or hundreds of API response JSON files. Manually picking and comparing files one by one is extremely repetitive and time-consuming.
Existing diff tools either:

Lack dedicated batch folder comparison for QA scenarios
Cannot ignore dynamic fields in batch mode
Fail to export clean, ticket-ready evidence in bulk What I’m building right now I’m currently developing the batch JSON diff module with QA regression workflow in mind:
Load two entire folders (old version vs new version API responses)
Auto-match corresponding JSON files by filename
Skip predefined noisy fields (timestamp, traceId, requestId) in batch tasks
Batch-generate standardized HTML comparison reports Key technical challenges I’m solving
Batch field filtering consistency Single-file filtering is simple, but batch mode requires global rule persistence. I optimized the ignore-key configuration to take effect on all batch comparison tasks, ensuring unified filtering standards for the whole regression suite.
Missing & new file detection During version iteration, some API files will be added or removed. The tool will mark new-added / deleted files separately in the final report, which is critical for full regression tracking.
Batch HTML report generation Instead of generating separate messy files, I’m designing a structured batch report overview, so testers can quickly locate which API cases have differences. Current progress & next step Core folder traversal and file matching logic is nearly finished. I will complete the full batch comparison and batch export functions in the next few days. Once this feature is shipped, the toolkit will officially support full-scale API batch regression testing — the most demanded feature from enterprise QA teams. Quick question for QA testers What’s your biggest headache during batch API regression? Too many noise changes? Disorganized evidence? Feel free to drop a comment.

Follow me for more build-in-public progress of my offline QA desktop toolkit.

Milestone Update: Screenshot Tool + JSON/PDF Diff + HTML Report Export Finished (Alpha)

jerrywang — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 14:50:08 +0000

Hi everyone 👋
I’ve made huge progress on my offline QA toolkit. The core alpha functions are now fully working.
All features are built from scratch in my spare time, no company code or internal resources reused. Everything runs 100% locally on Windows with zero data upload.
Here’s what’s finished in this update.
✅ 1. Lightweight QA Screenshot & Annotation Tool
Bug reporting requires frequent screenshotting and marking. Heavy image editors are too slow for daily QA work.
I built a dedicated capture tool for testers:

Full-screen & regional screenshot
Quick annotations: arrow, rectangle, text note
No watermark, no network dependency
One-click save for bug evidence It simplifies the entire process of preparing visuals for defect tickets. ✅ 2. Single JSON File Comparison (QA-Optimized) Generic diff tools always treat dynamic API fields as valid changes, which creates massive noise during regression testing. My toolkit solves this:
Custom ignore-key configuration (skip timestamp, requestId, traceId, random tokens)
Only displays real business-level field changes
Visual difference highlighting for quick review ✅ 3. Single PDF Text Comparison Test reports, requirement documents, and version logs are often released in PDF format. This tool extracts plain text from two PDFs and compares content differences, ignoring pure format changes. Perfect for validating report updates between test cycles. ✅ 4. Export Standalone HTML Test Reports (Key Feature) This is the most practical feature for real QA workflows. After JSON or PDF comparison finishes, users can export a single independent HTML report:
Open directly in any browser, no software required
Clear highlighting for added / modified / deleted content
Retains your ignore-field rules (no noisy dynamic data)
Ready for Jira / defect ticket attachment No more blurry screenshots or manually organized evidence files. The exported HTML file serves as standardized regression testing proof for team review and archival. Why this works better than generic tools Tools like Beyond Compare focus on developer scenarios. This toolkit is QA-workflow oriented:
No redundant dev features, lightweight and fast
Prevent data leakage with fully offline execution
Filter API noise automatically
Output ticket-ready evidence directly Current Limitations & Next Roadmap This is still an alpha version. These critical features are under development:
Batch folder comparison for JSON (full API regression batch testing)
Batch PDF document comparison
UI optimization and user guide
Basic license control for stable release Want to test it? I will release the alpha downloadable version after batch comparison functions are completed. If you’re a QA engineer, SDET, or software tester, feel free to comment your most wanted features. I’ll prioritize high-value suggestions.

Follow me for continuous updates of this offline QA productivity toolkit.

Why Generic Comparison Tools Fail QA Testers (And I’m Fixing It)

jerrywang — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 15:52:15 +0000

If you’re a QA engineer or SDET, you’ve definitely felt this frustration:
Developer tools don’t fit testing workflows.
Tools like Beyond Compare, VS Code diff plugins, and online JSON viewers are amazing for developers. But for daily regression testing, they create more noise than value.
This is exactly why I’m building my dedicated offline QA toolkit — to fix the gaps that generic software ignores.

Too many “false differences” in API testing In every API regression cycle, JSON responses contain massive amounts of dynamic data:
timestamp
requestId / traceId
random nonce / token
auto-generated sequence numbers Generic diff tools treat every changed value as a valid difference. As a result, QA testers waste minutes or even hours manually filtering noise just to find real business changes. For developers, this is trivial. For QA, this is daily repetitive torture.
Online tools = huge data security risks Many testers rely on web-based JSON diff and PDF comparison tools. But in enterprise environments:
API response data contains internal logic, user data, and business details
Uploading internal files to third-party websites causes potential data leakage
Many companies strictly block external web tools for security reasons Online tools are convenient — but never safe for corporate test data.
Desktop tools are powerful, but bloated for QA Professional desktop comparison tools have dozens of advanced features:
Git integration
FTP sync
code syntax analysis
folder sync deployment QA testers never use 80% of these features. We only need simple, stable, test-oriented comparison functions. Heavy software means slow startup, complex settings, and a steep learning curve — overkill for daily QA work.
No native QA-style report output This is the biggest missing feature in all generic tools. Developer-focused diff results are raw and technical. QA engineers need reports that can be:
directly attached to bug tickets
easily understood by product managers and developers
used as official regression evidence Current tools cannot natively generate standardized, clean QA comparison reports. So testers have to take screenshots, crop images, organize files, and explain repeatedly. How my upcoming QA toolkit solves these problems I’m building this tool by a QA, for QA. All core logic is designed around real testing pain points:
Auto ignore dynamic fields: No more manual filtering noise in JSON comparison
100% offline local execution: Zero data upload, completely secure for enterprise test data
Simplified lightweight UI: No redundant developer functions, focused only on testing scenarios
QA-ready HTML reports: One-click export, directly available for defect management
Batch folder comparison: Perfect for full API regression testing Project Update I’m currently developing the core JSON diff and PDF comparison modules from scratch. No company code, no copied logic — fully independent personal side project. I will keep publishing my development progress here. Let’s discuss What’s your most repetitive and annoying work during regression testing? Do you also feel that current tools are not tailored for QA scenarios? Drop a comment — I’m collecting real feedback to make this toolkit better for all testers.

Follow me for more QA efficiency tool development and testing workflow optimization.

Building a QA-Exclusive Offline Toolkit (From Scratch, No Company Code)

jerrywang — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 14:12:33 +0000

Hi everyone 👋
I’m a full-time QA & Automation Engineer, and for a long time, I relied on general comparison tools for my daily testing and regression work.
Tools like Beyond Compare are powerful for developers, but they are not built for QA workflows.
That’s why I’m building my own lightweight, offline-only Windows toolkit — completely from scratch in my spare time.
No company code, no internal resources, just pure personal side project development.
The real pain every QA knows
In daily API regression and report validation, generic file comparison tools always create unnecessary trouble:

They mark dynamic fields like timestamp and requestId as differences, causing tons of false positives
Web-based diff tools force you to paste internal test data online, bringing data leakage risks
Enterprise network environments often block public web tools
Professional tools are expensive and full of developer-focused features that testers never use I got tired of adjusting filters manually every single day. So I decided to build a toolset designed only for QA testers. Why I’m rebuilding everything from zero I have used similar internal tools at my full-time job. However, all company code, logic, and resources belong to the employer. For this personal side project:
✅ 100% rewritten from scratch in my free time
✅ New tech stack encapsulation, independent logic and parsing rules
✅ Brand-new UI, report templates, and error handling
✅ No internal corporate code or assets reused This is a completely independent personal project focused on solving public QA industry pain points. What I’m building (QA-focused features) This toolkit will include core utilities that fit regression testing and bug reporting workflows:
Smart JSON Diff (QA optimized) Auto skip dynamic noise fields (timestamp, requestId, random nonce). Only display real business-level changes. Support single file comparison and batch folder comparison for API regression. Export clean HTML reports that can be directly attached to bug tickets.
PDF Test Report Comparison Focus on test report text validation. Highlight effective differences and ignore format-only changes, perfect for version iteration verification.
Screenshot & Annotation Tool Fast capture and mark bug screenshots without opening heavy image software. Optimized for rapid defect submission.
Bulk Test File Rename Batch rename screenshots, logs and test artifacts to standard QA naming conventions, saving repetitive sorting time. Core advantage vs generic tools Tools like Beyond Compare are universal for developers and DevOps. This toolkit is purpose-built for QA testers:
No manual filter configuration out of the box
No redundant developer functions, lighter and faster
100% local & offline — zero test data upload
Output reports tailored for test management workflows Project Status (Building in Public) This project is actively under development. No official release or download version is available yet. I will continue posting development progress, feature iterations, QA workflow optimization ideas, and tool design logic here. If you are a QA engineer, SDET, or software tester: What repetitive manual work do you want a desktop tool to eliminate? Feel free to leave comments — I’m collecting real pain points to optimize this toolkit.

Follow me for upcoming updates, stable release announcements, and QA efficiency tool sharing.

Building Offline‑First Windows QA Utilities: Solving My Own Testing Pain Points

jerrywang — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:06:28 +0000

Hi everyone 👋, I’m a full‑time QA & automation engineer.

Like many testers, I spend a lot of time on repetitive manual work during daily testing and regression cycles.
Online web‑based diff tools are convenient, but they bring real pain for QA teams working with sensitive API response data:

Paste internal JSON or report content to third‑party websites, risking data leakage
Corporate intranet environments block external web tools completely
VS‑Code plugins require installing an editor just for one quick comparison task

That’s why I started building a collection of lightweight Windows desktop utilities written in Java.
All tools run 100% locally on your machine. No test data gets uploaded to any remote server. Privacy is the top priority.

What tools am I working on right now?

PDF Text Comparison
Compare two PDF report files, highlight text differences for test result validation.
Enhanced Screenshot Tool for Bug Reporting
Quick capture, annotate screenshots for bug tickets without opening heavy image editors.
Single JSON File Diff
Load two local JSON files, show added / removed / changed keys, export differences as HTML report for bug attachments.
Batch Folder JSON Comparison
For API regression testing. Compare two folders full of JSON response files in one click.
Skip noisy dynamic fields such as timestamps or requestId. Export full summary HTML report.
Bulk File Rename
Rename large sets of test screenshots and test artifacts in batches.

More small utilities will be added gradually.

Why local‑only desktop tools matter for QA

Many existing solutions are browser‑based or editor plugins. They work great for public data.
But for internal test artifacts, API responses and confidential test reports:

✅ Everything stays on your local disk
✅ Works offline, no internet connection required
✅ Double‑click to run, no editor installation, no browser needed
✅ Export HTML reports you can attach directly to bug tickets

Build‑in‑public note

I am building these tools in my spare time.
I will share development progress, real‑world QA workflow pain points and tool‑design thinking here.

If you are a QA or SDET, I would love to hear about your daily repetitive tasks.
What manual work do you wish a small desktop tool could eliminate for you?

📬 For feedback and feature suggestions, feel free to reach out via email: wangjiade5@gmail.com