Skip to main content

How to Achieve More Stable End to End Tests

Recently myself and another colleague wrote an acceptance test for a feature that had yet to be implemented. For this end to end test we used Selenium, after all we wanted to test the whole feature so this made sense. Our test performed some simple user input, performed a calculation and checked the response. The problem with the test was it was very brittle. If the application had not recently been used, the massive data set the application relied on would not be cached.

To get around this we added a few Thread.Sleep() statements into the test. This worked rather well for the majority of test runs, but sometimes these pauses were not long enough. On the other hand sometimes the data was cached, meaning these sleeps would be unnecessary. One resource which has recently done the rounds was regarding useful advice about using WaitForPageLoad() and WaitForCondition(). WaitForCondition will only execute once a condition has been met, such as a element becoming visible. This meant that for the times when the dataset was in memory the test would be executed immediately, while the times when the data was being loaded, the test would simply wait until the test was ready to move on. This was a very simple, yet highly effective tweak to our tests. The execution time went from roughly thirty seconds, to just less than ten seconds in one case.

This was not the end of the battle to achieve more stable Selenium tests. Some of our tests were still rather flaky. Some mornings we would enter work, notice the red build and discover that the several failed tests were down to Selenium timeouts. During the daytime however, we rarely had these issues. In order to fix these problems I increased the frequency of builds. The idea being the more we run our builds the more chance we have of spotting the errors. After all, if something was to fail at 2am, I am unlikely to care. 2pm however, and the team will be all over it. By making the problem more visible, we would be forced to fix the outstanding issues.

The aim was to make the tests as fast as possible, while maintaining stability. One thing the excellent Growing Object-Oriented Software (Goos) touches on is the aspect of not needing to perform end to end testing at the GUI all the time. The benefit of not touching the UI is huge. Your tests are faster, they're more stable and a heck of lot easier to write. The other nice benefit of testing from an API point of view, rather than the browser is it forces you to decouple your app from the views. If you're not writing fat models and skinny controllers, you'll have adapt in order to test as much of your application as possible without hitting the UI.

What about the remaining part of your feature that is not covered by the application? I like to imagine this part as the tip of an iceberg. As this area is small enough the actual UI testing you need should be minimal. So here we can let Selenium do what it is good at. Click things. Selenium is great at this. All you need to do at this level is check for 404s, incorrect page titles and a few other mundane aspects of the UI. There should be no need to check if your actual application is correct at this level. For correctness, you should have a large suite of fast, isolated, unit tests.

Another point to consider is how often your view actually changes, in comparison to your actual underlying API. A designer should be free to move things, rename content, add images and so forth without breaking tests. As long as there is a calculate button somewhere on the page, and said button takes you to a result page, who cares about everything else? Likewise the code underneath can be consistently changing behind the scenes, as long as the API remains constant, our tests should always be valid.

For the technical low down on some of the ways we are achieving more stable end to end tests, check out six tips to speed up Selenium tests.


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 …