Skip to main content

6 Ways to Speed Up Selenium Tests

Having finally achieved more stable end to end tests via Selenium, we figured it would be worth while sharing how we achieved this. The following are six steps we've found that you can do to make Selenium tests more stable.

  1. Turn off automatic updates for your browser/plugins
  2. Set your IIS (or equivalent) app timeouts to zero
  3. Create a base Selenium Fixture for use in your tests
  4. Update to the latest version of Selenium
  5. Warm up your apps prior to testing
  6. Ditch Selenium - test at the API level

Turning off automatic updates seems like a no brainer, but after a fresh install we forgot to do this once and spent some time figuring out why Firefox would not load on the CI server. It turns out that the "You've just updated" window was blocking the test from continuing as it had stole focus.

The second point is with regards caching and the general responsiveness of your application. We have a few applications that take about thirty seconds to fully warm up due to the huge data set they rely on. If we can build this cache once, then store it for as long as possible, subsequent hits to the app should be instant. In other words, we try to mirror our live environment as much as possible.

Our custom test fixture attribute enables the ability to modify all Selenium tests in one go. We found that from 3am to 5am our databases undergo maintenance, therefore we do not run our regression tests during this time. All this took was one change within the attribute to apply to all tests. For example:

We simply inherit from NUnit's TestFixtureAttribute and use this custom attribute rather than the standard TestFixture attribute. The inheritance is required to ensure that third party tools such as test runners still work as expected.

Previously we were using Selenium 1.x with Sauce RC. Having ditched this and upgraded to Selenium 2.x we've been able to update our browsers to the latest versions, in turn this allows improved speed and stability when running the tests.

On our local development machines the application you are working on is often in memory, meaning subsequent hits should be much faster after all dependencies are loaded and cached. The issue we discovered on our CI server was that after a fresh build of the whole codebase, the initial hits to the applications would be very slow. To combat this we added a warm up step to our build. Just before the tests are run we would perform a HTTP GET to invoke our applications start up processes. This added somewhere in the region of thirty seconds to the build, but the increase in stability is staggering. No longer will Selenium report timeouts.

Finally the fastest end to end tests come from not using Selenium. Ditching the browser completely and testing as high up in your API is the quickest, and most stable solution. Combining this thinking, with a handful of dumb Selenium tests that just check for the likes of 404s seems to be the most optimal solution currently.

Having done these at some point over the past few months we're starting to get to a more stable point with our Selenium tests. We'll be looking to take this forward with future tests and hope to enjoy continued stability.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…

Coding In the Real World

As a student when confronted with a problem, I would end up coding it and thinking - how do the professionals do this?For some reason I had the impression that once I entered the industry I would find enlightenment. Discovering the one true way to write high quality, professional code.It turns out that code in industry is not too far removed from the code I was writing back when I knew very little.Code in the real world can be:messy or cleanhard or easy to understandsimple or complexeasy or hard to changeor any combination of the aboveVery rarely will you be confronted with a problem that is difficult. Most challenges typically are formed around individuals and processes, rather than day to day coding. Years later I finally have the answer. Code in the real world is not that much different to code we were all writing when we first started out.If I could offer myself some advice back in those early days it would be to follow KISS, YAGNI and DRY religiously. The rest will fall into plac…

Feature Toggles

I'm a fan of regular releasing. My background and experience leads me to release as regularly as possible. There are numerous benefits to regular releases; limited risk, slicker release processes and the ability to change as requirements evolve.The problem with this concept is how can you release when features are not functionally complete?SolutionIf there is still work in progress, one solution to allow frequent releases is to use feature toggles. Feature toggles are simple conditional statements that are either enabled or disabled based on some condition.This simple example shows a feature toggle for an "Edit User" feature. If the boolean condition is false, then we only show the "New User" feature and the "Admin" feature. This boolean value will be provided by various means, usually a configuration file. This means at certain points we can change this value in order to demonstrate the "Edit User" functionality. Our demo environment could …

Reused Abstraction Principle

This is the second part of my series on abstractions.Part 1 - AbstractionsPart 3 - Dependency Elimination PrincipleThe Reused Abstraction Principle is a simple in concept in practice, but oddly rarely followed in typical enterprise development. I myself have been incredibly guilty of this in the past.Most code bases have a 1:1 mapping of interfaces to implementations. Usually this is the sign of TDD or automated testing being applied badly. The majority of these interfaces are wrong. 1:1 mappings between interfaces and implementations is a code smell.Such situations are usually the result of extracting an interface from an implementation, rather than having the client drive behaviour.These interfaces are also often bad abstractions, known as "leaky abstractions". As I've discussed previously, these abstractions tend to offer nothing more than simple indirection.ExampleApply the "rule of three". If there is only ever one implementation, then you don't need …