Upgrading WebdriverJs to Selenium 3

Yes, I know that Selenium 3 has been out for a while, but I’ve finally got around at looking at updating our end-to-end tests to use it. Newer versions of Firefox require Geckodriver which require Selenium 3.3+ so it’s a forced upgrade of sorts.

Continue reading “Upgrading WebdriverJs to Selenium 3”

Waiting for AJAX calls in WebDriver C#

I was trying to work out how to wait for AJAX calls to complete in C# WebDriver before continuing a test.

Whilst I believe that your UI should visually indicate that AJAX activity is occurring (such as a spinner) and in this case you should be able to wait until such an indicator changes, if you don’t have a visual indicator and you use JQuery for your AJAX calls, you can use a JavaScript call to jQuery.active to determine if there are any active AJAX requests, and wait until this value is zero.

I wrapped this into a WebDriver extension method on Driver, so you can call it like this:

Driver.FindElement(By.Id("name")).Set("Alister");
Driver.WaitForAjax();
Driver.FindElement(By.Id("next")).Click();

The actual extension method looks like this:

public static void WaitForAjax(this IWebDriver driver, int timeoutSecs = 10, bool throwException=false)
{
  for (var i = 0; i < timeoutSecs; i++)
  {
    var ajaxIsComplete = (bool)(driver as IJavaScriptExecutor).ExecuteScript("return jQuery.active == 0");
    if (ajaxIsComplete) return;
    Thread.Sleep(1000);
  }
  if (throwException)
  {
    throw new Exception("WebDriver timed out waiting for AJAX call to complete");
  }
}

I hope you find this helpful if you’re ever in the same situation.

Five automated acceptance test anti-patterns

Whilst being involved with lots of people writing automated acceptance tests using tools like SpecFlow and WebDriver I’ve seen some ‘anti-patterns’ emerge that can make these tests non-deterministic (flaky), very fragile to change and less efficient to run.

Here’s five ‘anti-patterns’ I’ve seen and what you can do instead.

Anti-pattern One: Not using page-objects

Page objects are just a design pattern to ensure automated UI tests use reusable, modular code. Not using them, eg, writing WebDriver code directly in step definitions, means any changes to your UI will require updates in lots of different places instead of the one ‘page’ class.

Bad

[When(@"I buy some '(.*)' tea")]
public void WhenIBuySomeTea(string typeOfTea)
{
Driver.FindElement(By.Id("tea-"+typeOfTea)).Click();
Driver.FindElement(By.Id("buy")).Click();
}

Better

[When(@"I buy some '(.*)' tea")]
public void WhenIBuySomeTea(string typeOfTea)
{
     MenuPage.BuyTea(typeOfTea);
}

Complicated set up scenarios within the tests themselves

Whilst there’s a place for automated end-to-end scenarios (I call these user journies), I prefer most acceptance tests to jump straight to the point.

Bad

Scenario: Accept Visa and Mastercard for Australia
 Given I am on the home page for Australia
 And I choose the tea menu
 And I select some 'green tea'
 And I add the tea to my basket
 And I choose to checkout
 Then I should see 'visa' is accepted
 And I should see 'mastercard' is accepted

Better

This usually requires adding some special functionality to your app, but the ability for testing to ‘jump’ to certain pages with data automatically set up makes automated tests much easier to read and maintain.

Scenario: Accept Visa and Mastercard for Australia
 Given I am the checkout page for Australia
 Then I should see 'visa' is accepted
 And I should see 'mastercard' is accepted

Using complicated x-path or CSS selectors

Using element identification selectors that have long chains from the DOM in them leads to fragile tests, as any change to that chain in the DOM will break your tests.

Bad

private static readonly By TeaTypeSelector =
            By.CssSelector(
                "#input-tea-type > div > div.TeaSearchRow > div.TeaSearchCell.no > div:nth-child(2) > label");

Better

Identify by ‘id’ (unique) or ‘class’. If there’s multiple elements in a group, create a parent container and iterate through them.

private static readonly By TeaTypeSelector = By.Id("teaType");

Directly executing JavaScript

Since WebDriver can directly execute any arbitrary JavaScript, it can be tempting to bypass DOM manipulation and just run the JavaScript.

Bad

public void RemoveTea(string teaType)
{
  (driver as IJavaScriptExecutor).ExecuteScript(string.Format("viewModel.tea.types.removeTeaType(\"{0}\");", teaType));
  }

Better

It is much better to let the WebDriver control the browser elements which should fire the correct JavaScript events and call the JavaScript, as that way you avoid having your ‘test’ JavaScript in sync to your ‘real’ JavaScript.

public void RemoveTea(string teaType)
{
  driver.FindElement(By.Id("remove-"+teaType)).Click();
}

Embedding implementation detail in your features/scenarios

Acceptance test scenarios are meant to convey intention over implementation. If you start seeing things like URLs in your test scenarios you’re focusing on implementation.

Bad


 Scenario: Social media links displayed on checkout page
   Given I am the checkout page for Australia
   Then I should see a link to 'http://twitter.com/beautifultea'
   And I should see a link to 'https://facebook.com/beautifultea'
 

Better

Hide implementation detail in the steps (or pages, or config) and make your scenarios about the test intention.


 Scenario: Social media links displayed on checkout page
   Given I am the checkout page for Australia
   Then I should see a link to the Beautiful Tea Twitter account
   And I should see a link to the Beautiful Tea Facebook page
 

I hope you’ve enjoyed these anti-patterns. Leave a comment below if you have any of your own.

Lock down your browser versions if you run WebDriver tests

Recently our WebDriver tests that run in Chrome via a Windows service all suddenly stopped working even though we hadn’t made any changes to our tests. It seems Chrome had automatically updated itself on our WebDriver agents introducing a Chromium 38 bug meaning WebDriver won’t work at all (full details here and here). Getting these tests running again has been very painful, mainly due to Google not having standalone Chrome installers for any previous versions of Chrome publicly available.

If you run any WebDriver tests I highly recommend you lock down your browser versions to stop this happening to you in the future. Here’s how:

Firefox

Firefox is fantastic in this regard as they make every back version easily accessible as well as a simple way on all platforms to stop automatic upgrades. I tend to lock down to Firefox ESRs (Extended Support Releases) such as versions 24 and 31 which are listed on this comprehensive Wikipedia page.

To stop updates all you do is open preferences, advanced, update and select ‘never’.

Firefox Prevent Updates

Chrome

Chrome is a P.I.T.A. in both being able to install a previous version or lock down the currently installed one. Google prefer a Chrome web installer which always installs the latest version of Chrome, and if you want a specific version you need the alternate (offline) installer (for all users if you use a Windows service), but they only provide the latest installer. It’s hard if not impossible to find older alternate (offline) installers on the web, even oldapps.com can’t host them.

Once you have a version of Chrome on Windows that you want to keep, you need to download a group policy template, and disable automatic updates before running Chrome (so it doesn’t automatically update before you set the group policy). I won’t go into full details but you should be able to find all details here. Some sites mention using a plugin to stop updates but this doesn’t work so you’ll need to go down the group policy path.

Summary

Locking down browser versions avoids having to suddenly work out why your entire WebDriver test suite fails.

100,000 e2e selenium tests? Sounds like a nightmare!

This story begins with a promo email I received from Sauce Labs…

“Ever wondered how an Enterprise company like Salesforce runs their QA tests? Learn about Salesforce’s inventory of 100,000 Selenium tests, how they run them at scale, and how to architect your test harness for success”

saucelabs email

100,000 end-to-end selenium tests and success in the same sentence? WTF? Sounds like a nightmare to me!

I dug further and got burnt by the molten lava: the slides confirmed my nightmare was indeed real:

Salesforce Selenium Slide

“We test end to end on almost every action.”

Ouch! (and yes, that is an uncredited image from my blog used in the completely wrong context)

But it gets worse. Salesforce have 7500 unique end-to-end WebDriver tests which are run on 10 browsers (IE6, IE7, IE8, IE9, IE10, IE11, Chrome, Firefox, Safari & PhantomJS) on 50,000 client VMs that cost multiple millions of dollars, totaling 1 million browser tests executed per day (which equals 20 selenium tests per day, per machine, or over 1 hour to execute each test).

Salesforce UI Testing Portfolio

My head explodes! (and yes, another uncredited image from this blog used out of context and with my title removed).

But surely that’s only one place right? Not everyone does this?

A few weeks later I watched David Heinemeier Hansson say this:

“We recently had a really bad bug in Basecamp where we actually lost some data for real customers and it was incredibly well tested at the unit level, and all the tests passed, and we still lost data. How the f*#% did this happen? It happened because we were so focused on driving our design from the unit test level we didn’t have any system tests for this particular thing.
…And after that, we sort of thought, wait a minute, all these unit tests are just focusing on these core objects in the system, these individual unit pieces, it doesn’t say anything about whether the whole system works.”

~ David Heinemeier Hansson – Ruby on Rails creator

and read that he had written this:

“…layered on top is currently a set of controller tests, but I’d much rather replace those with even higher level system tests through Capybara or similar. I think that’s the direction we’re heading. Less emphasis on unit tests, because we’re no longer doing test-first as a design practice, and more emphasis on, yes, slow, system tests (Which btw do not need to be so slow any more, thanks to advances in parallelization and cloud runner infrastructure).”

~ David Heinemeier Hansson – Ruby on Rails creator

I started to get very worried. David is the creator of Ruby on Rails and very well respected within the ruby community (despite being known to be very provocative and anti-intellectual: the ‘Fox News’ of the ruby world).

But here is dhh telling us to replace lower level tests with higher level ‘system’ (end to end) tests that use something like Capybara to drive a browser because unit tests didn’t find a bug and because it’s now possible to parallelize these ‘slow’ tests? Seriously?

Speed has always seen as the Achille’s heel of end to end tests because everyone knows that fast feedback is good. But parallelization solves this right? We just need 50,000 VMs like Salesforce?

No.

Firstly, parallelization of end to end tests actually introduces its own problems, such as what to do with tests that you can’t run in parallel (for example, ones that change global state of a system such as a system message that appears to all users), and it definitely makes test data management trickier. You’ll be surprised the first time you run an existing suite of sequential e2e tests in parallel, as a lot will fail for unknown reasons.

Secondly, the test feedback to someone who’s made a change still isn’t fast enough to enable confidence in making a change (by the time your app has been deployed and the parallel end-to-end tests have run; the person who made the change has most likely moved onto something else).

But the real problem with end to end tests isn’t actually speed. The real problem with end to end tests is that when end to end tests fail, most of the time you have no idea what went wrong so you spend a lot of time trying to find out why. Was it the server? Was it the deployment? Was it the data? Was it the actual test? Maybe a browser update that broke Selenium? Was the test flaky (non-deterministic or non-hermetic)?

Rachel Laycock and Chirag Doshi from ThoughtWorks explain this really well in their recent post on broken UI tests:

“…unlike unit tests, the functional tests don’t tell you what is broken or where to locate the failure in the code base. They just tell you something is broken. That something could be the test, the browser, or a race condition. There is no way to tell because functional tests, by definition of being end-to-end, test everything.”

So what’s the answer? You have David’s FUD about unit testing not catching a major bug in BaseCamp. On the other hand you need to face the issue of having a large suite of end to end tests will most likely result in you spending all your time investigating test failures instead of delivering new features quickly.

If I had to choose just one, I would definitely choose a comprehensive suite of automated unit tests over a comprehensive suite of end-to-end/system tests any day of the week.

Why? Because it’s much easier to supplement comprehensive unit testing with human exploratory end-to-end system testing (and you should anyway!) than trying to manually verify units function from the higher system level, and it’s much easier to know why a unit test is broken as explained above. And it’s also much easier to add automated end-to-end tests later than trying to retrofit unit tests later (because your code probably won’t be testable and making it testable after-the-fact can introduce bugs).

To answer our question, let’s imagine for a minute that you were responsible for designing and building a new plane. You obviously need to test that your new plane works. You build a plane by creating parts (units), putting these together into components, and then putting all the components together to build the (hopefully) working plane (system).

If you only focused on unit tests, like David mentioned in his Basecamp example, you could be pretty confident that each piece of the plane would be have been tested well and works correctly, but wouldn’t be confident it would fly!

If you only focussed on end to end tests, you’d need to fly the plane to check the individual units and components actually work (which is expensive and slow), and even then, if/when it crashed, you’d need to examine the black-box to hopefully understand which unit or component didn’t work, as we currently do when end-to-end tests fail.

But, obviously we don’t need to choose just one. And that’s exactly what Airbus does when it’s designing and building the new Airbus A350:

As with any new plane, the early design phases were riddled with uncertainty. Would the materials be light enough and strong enough? Would the components perform as Airbus desired? Would parts fit together? Would it fly the way simulations predicted? To produce a working aircraft, Airbus had to systematically eliminate those risks using a process it calls a “testing pyramid.” The fat end of the pyramid represents the beginning, when everything is unknown. By testing materials, then components, then systems, then the aircraft as a whole, ever-greater levels of complexity can be tamed. “The idea is to answer the big questions early and the little questions later,” says Stefan Schaffrath, Airbus’s vice president for media relations.

The answer, which has been the answer all along, is to have a balanced set of automated tests across all levels, with a disciplined approach to having a larger number of smaller specific automated unit/component tests and a smaller number of larger general end-to-end automated tests to ensure all the units and components work together. (My diagram below with attribution)

Automated Testing Pyramid

Having just one level of tests, as shown by the stories above, doesn’t work (but if it did I would rather automated unit tests). Just like having a diet of just chocolate doesn’t work, nor does a diet that deprives you of anything sweet or enjoyable (but if I had to choose I would rather a diet of healthy food only than a diet of just chocolate).

Now if we could just convince Salesforce to be more like Airbus and not fly a complete plane (or 50,000 planes) to test everything every-time they make a change and stop David from continuing on his anti-unit pro-system testing anti-intellectual rampage which will result in more damage to our industry than it’s worth.

Getting an element’s parent in WebDriver in C#

I was looking for an easy inbuilt way to access an element’s parent in WebDriver in C# today, similar to this method in watir-webdriver:

b.text_field( name: 'q').parent

but I couldn’t find one. This is needed when you have two elements next to each other (siblings), and you want to access one via identifying the other. A classic case is where you have a label element which you use to identify, and then want to get its input sibling to enter some text.

sample html

The only way I could do this in WebDriver was to write a C# extension method that uses an xpath expression to locate the parent element

public static IWebElement GetParent(this IWebElement e)
{
return e.FindElement(By.XPath(".."));
}

I believe it would be useful to have this built into WebDriver but I won’t be holding my breath for it to happen as according to Simon Stewart:

“It was left out because webdriver isn’t a tool for doing random walks of a webpage and because there are already mechanisms to get hold of the parent element that don’t add additional methods to one of the core interfaces.”

So, I’m wondering. Is this xpath really the only way to get an element’s parent? Is there a better way? Would you find this useful to be in built?

Github is little known

“Little-known social coding start-up GitHub Inc. has raised $100 million in its first round of funding, in a sign of how big investment bets are continuing in Silicon Valley.”

Last week, The Wall Street Journal wrote about Github’s first round of funding calling the company ‘little known’. The software development community was outraged: how dare you call Github ‘little known’!

But Github is little known. Sure, they’ve just reached 1 million users, but compare that to Gmail with over 450 million and Facebook set to reach 1 billion within a month and it’s tiny. Anecdotally, no-one I know that doesn’t work in software development has ever heard of Github, and half of the people I know who do (including a lot of testers) have either never heard of or never used Github.

This is an classic example of the strange tech bubble we live in. Recently I was shocked to meet a couple of software engineers who had never heard of Selenium. I was like, oh my god, how could you have not heard of Selenium. Then I realised I myself was living in my own tiny little tech bubble, where I just assumed that something commonplace to me was commonplace to everyone. But it’s not.

That’s one of the reasons I think we design shit software. Because we think our users will know/do stuff that we know/do, even though they don’t and won’t. Hence the common occurrence of PEBKAC, ID10T and user-errors.