Selenium Jupiter for tests with less boilerplate code

Following on my recent discovery of Selenium Manager, I checked out another project by Boni Garcia called Selenium-Jupiter.

It uses some advanced features of JUnit 5 (aka Junit-Jupiter) to make tests easier to write with less boilerplate code, part of that is using WebDriverManager to automatically instantiate WebDriver instances without downloading chromedriver, putting it in the path, setting path in properties or as an environment variable, etc.

It starts with an JUnit 5 Extension — similar to JUnit 4 Runners – but you can have more than one extension.

class MyTest { ... }

Then you can pass a WebDriver instance as a parameter to your test method (without having to create the instance — the Extension takes care of that for you.

void testWithChrome(ChromeDriver driver) { ... }

Or you can specify a different driver, for example FireFoxDriver, EdgeDriver, SafariDriver, etc.

void testWithFirefox(FirefoxDriver driver) { ... }

You can also specify whether to conditionally run a test with a specified driver, if docker containers are available, or if a site is up, and many other options available for WebDriverManager.

For instance, run this test only if you’re on a mac

class SafariTest {
    void testWithSafari(SafariDriver driver) { ... }

Or run this test only if your Selenium server is up:

class RemoteWebDriverTest {
     void testRemote(@DriverUrl("http://localhost:4444/") { ... }

Or if Appium is running:

class AppiumTest {
     void testMobile(AppiumDriver driver) { ... }

Are companies getting worse at QA testing?

Melissa Perri posed this question on Twitter:

Aaron Hodder had a great response on Linkedin:

He talks about how companies are giving up on manual testing in favor of automation. Definitely worth the read.

My response about the ramifications of automation vs manual testing (it doesn’t have to be either / or):

There are two mistakes I often see around this:

  1. Attempting to replace manual testing with automation
  2. Attempting to automate manual tests

Both are causes for failure in testing.

People often think they will be saving money by eliminating manual QA tester headcount. But it turns out that effective automation is *more expensive* than manual testing. You have to look for benefits in automation, not cutting costs. Not only is someone experience in developing automation going to cost more than someone doing manual testing, but automated tests take time to develop and even more time to maintain.

That gets to my second point. You can’t just translate manual tests to automation. Automation and manual testing are good at different things. Automated tests that try to mimic manual tests are slower, more brittle, and take more effort. Use automation for what it’s good for — eliminating repetitive, slow manual work, not duplicating it.

Manual testing has an exploratory aspect that can’t be duplicated by automation. Not until AI takes over. (I don’t believe in AI.) And automation doesn’t have to do the same things a manual tester has to do – it can invoke APIs, reset the database, and do all sorts of things an end user can’t.

SeleniumManager (beta) released with Selenium 4.6.0

So I was working with WebDriverManager this morning and one thing led to another, and I ended up browsing the Selenium source repo (as one does) and saw some curious commits (like these):

mark Selenium Manager implementations as beta

fix the framework conditionals for Selenium Manager

Add Selenium Manager support for Linux & Mac

from an old friend Titus Fortner.

I reached out to ask him about SeleniumManager — and it turns out it’s a replacement for WebDriverManager incorporated into the Selenium codebase (written by Boni Garcia, the original author of WebDriverManager, in Rust).

The various language bindings wrap a Rust binary (which for reasons I didn’t ask can’t be cross compiled with Selenium’s frankenstein 3rd or 4th generation custom build tool) so the SeleniumManager binary is packaged with the source.

Very cool, I thought, and then asked when it’s coming out.

Turns out, it was released today with Selenium 4.6.0

Here’s the official Selenium blog announcement:

Introducing Selenium Manager

Selenium 4.6.0 released

Looking for a Tester with GoLang experience

I was just talking with a recruiter looking for a QA engineer with experience using Go programming language for testing. While Go is gaining popularity – especially among systems application developers (for example, Docker is written in Go) and for developing microservices, not a lot of testers have much experience with Go.

That’s because Go is relatively new, and if you’re testing something as a black box (as QA typically does) then it doesn’t matter what programming language you use to write tests in.

Go does have testing capabilities — primarily targeting unit testing go ci, and at least one general purpose test framework I know of (Testify) and a couple BDD style frameworks (Ginkgo, GoConvey) and an HTTP client testing library (httpexpect), but for UI driven automation, while it is technically possible (WebDriver client libraries exist — tebeka/selenium) it is less complete and user friendly than in other programming languages (which testers may already know).

This post on by Zara Cooper has a great reference for testing tools in Go.

The main reason to choose Go for writing tests, is if you are already writing all your other code in Go. Which means that you’re writing developer tests (even if not strictly unit tests), not user focused tests (like QA typically does).

By all means, if you’re writing microservices in Go, write tests for those services in Go too. (I recommend using Testify and go-resty or httpexpect.)

But there is no real advantage to use Go for writing test automation, especially if you’re testing a user interface (which is not written with Go).

I suggested that if you are set on looking for people to write automated tests with Go, that you either look for people experienced with go — look for projects that are written in Go (like Docker) and look for people who have worked on those projects — in the case of Docker, unless you’re developing the core of Docker itself you probably aren’t using Go. If someone has extensive experience using Docker that is no indication they have Go experience. This would be hard to do, and may still not find anyone with QA experience.

Rather, you should look for someone with QA aptitude and experience who has experience with at least 1 other programming language (Java, C#, Python, C, etc.) preferably more than one. And then account for some time for them to learn Go and get up to speed.

Good developers love learning new things — especially new programming languages, and good testers are good developers. If you’re hiring for someone based only on their experience with a particular programming language, or not looking for people who are comfortable learning more than one, then you lose out on people who are adaptive and curious, two traits that are way more important for testers than knowing any particular tool.

#golang #testing