Increase selenium tests stability via java script
Download as PPTX, PDF6 likes4,017 views
The document discusses using JavaScript instead of WebDriver to increase the stability of Selenium tests. UI tests are unstable due to complex, asynchronous modern user interfaces. Many interfaces are based on pre-made components that may not be thoroughly tested individually. These components often have internal APIs that are more reliable than WebDriver for interacting with them. The document provides examples of using JavaScript to synchronize tests and work around issues like multiple frames and custom controls. It emphasizes using JavaScript as a temporary workaround and understanding why standard WebDriver approaches do not work in certain cases.
Increase selenium tests stability via java script
- 1. Increase Selenium tests stability via JavaScript Igor Khrol http://www.khroliz.com
- 2. About myself • Igor Khrol • QA Automation Team Lead at Wargaming • >8 years in test automation • Dozens of projects • Engineer, trainer, consultant, manager, speaker • Working experience with Selenium >5 years • My blog: http://en.khroliz.com
- 3. Agenda • Theory and some reasoning • Practical cases
- 4. Dependency between testing level and support Support Test count Tech level
- 6. UI-tests are unstable One of the reasons – modern user interfaces: – Complex – Asynchronous
- 7. Modern user interfaces are based on prepared and already made components
- 8. Modern user interfaces are based on prepared and already made components
- 9. Already made components could be less tested by ourselves
- 10. Custom components could be tested separately
- 11. Majority of modern UI has internal API
- 12. API benefits • Build to interact with UI components • Synchronous (or there are methods to sync)
- 13. 1. UI based on already made components 2. Already made components could be left untested or could be tested separately 3. Components have its own API 4. That API is more reliable thanWebDriver API Use JavaScript API instead of WebDriver
- 14. Life example
- 15. User interface characteristics: • Lots of frames • ActiveX
- 16. Initial solution driver.findElement(By.id(“fancy-id”)).click(); WebDriver API Browser
- 17. Difficulties • Interface is very asynchronous, methods work unstably • Lots of frames (more than five nested) – hard to reach required control • Impossible to work with ActiveX
- 18. Browser Script API http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B40099_02/books/OI Ref/OIRefBrowseScript.html Browser Script HTTP Server Script
- 19. Examples
- 20. Final result • Quick • Reliable • Synchronous
- 21. Problems
- 22. Synchronous methods and Alert • Method call is not finished while Alert is not closed • alert.accept() can’t be called as previous command is not finished yet
- 24. Lost 100% end user simulation
- 25. Other cases for such approach
- 26. jQuery based sites - 60%
- 27. Synchronization
- 28. Convert jQuery objects to WebElement and vise versa
- 29. Find elements
- 31. Ease interaction with complex elements Calendar Thanks to @barancev
- 32. Custom controls
- 33. Custom controls
- 34. Common schema Web Server Browser HTTP Tests Visible UI Library API Components Core WebDriver API WebDriver API JavaScriptExecutor
- 35. Temporary workaround existing WebDriver issues
- 36. Workaround wisely • Only temporary workaround • Important to understand why standard approach doesn’t work
- 37. Summary • Digging into technical details allows writing more reliable tests • Learning JavaScript and UI-libraries – natural next step for UI test automation • But we have to understand what we are missing and find balance
- 38. Thank you! Questions? Igor Khrol http://en.khroliz.com i_khrol@wargaming.net / khroliz@gmail.com