Skip to main content

The Problem with Auto Updating Browsers

At the time of writing the latest version of Firefox (version 13) has just been released. Bear in mind that a week ago I updated our Selenium bindings so that we could use Firefox 9+ for running our browser tests.

The latest release is another great release for the Firefox team, except there is software out there will be broken. The software in question I'm talking about is any code that uses Selenium 2.22.0 that was released 2012-05-29. It turns out the bindings only work for Firefox 12 or less.

For whatever reason any tests that used Selenium this morning just stopped working for us - and others. The tests in question caused the runner to hang as no window could be opened. I'm not sure what causes this, as the browser is essentially the same to the end user, bar some new features. Not being a Selenium developer I cannot comment how or why this has happened, nor can I suggest the Selenium team should be version agnostic.

Our solution in the end was simple. Turn off the auto updating and downgrade the browser. I've blogged about this in the past, but since Firefox 10 - the team are adopting a "silent" update process. This is great for end users. Imagine the countless man hours saved if IE6 had shipped with an auto update feature? The problem now seems to be in the hands of developers.

Another attempt to make this problem more obvious has been to add a check prior to our tests running to ensure that it can open a window. If this fails or hangs, we display a useful error message indicating that the browser in question is not compatible. This is due to the fact that it is not immediately obvious what the problem is. More confusion occurs when some machines will execute the tests with no problems at all.

Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> Update Tab

So if you use Selenium and Firefox - ditch the auto updating. Manually update your bindings and check compatability for now...


Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

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…