- Avoid using a GUI when it’s not required
- Prefer to split tests across multiple files
- Limit the use of
- Ensure tests do not leave the browser logged in
- Tag tests that require Administrator access
The majority of the end-to-end tests require some state to be built in the application for the tests to happen.
A good example is a user being logged in as a pre-condition for testing the feature.
But if the login feature is already covered with end-to-end tests through the GUI, there is no reason to perform such an expensive task to test the functionality of creating a project, or importing a repo, even if these features depend on a user being logged in. Let’s see an example to make things clear.
Let’s say that, on average, the process to perform a successful login through the GUI takes 2 seconds.
Now, realize that almost all tests need the user to be logged in, and that we need every test to run in isolation, meaning that tests cannot interfere with each other. This would mean that for every test the user needs to log in, and “waste 2 seconds”.
Now, multiply the number of tests per 2 seconds, and as your test suite grows, the time to run it grows with it, and this is not sustainable.
An alternative to perform a login in a cheaper way would be having an endpoint (available only for testing) where we could pass the user’s credentials as encrypted values as query strings, and then we would be redirected to the logged in home page if the credentials are valid. Let’s say that, on average, this process takes only 200 milliseconds.
You see the point right?
Performing a login through the GUI for every test would cost a lot in terms of tests’ execution.
And there is another reason.
Let’s say that you don’t follow the above suggestion, and depend on the GUI for the creation of every application state in order to test a specific feature. In this case we could be talking about the Issues feature, that depends on a project to exist, and the user to be logged in.
What would happen if there was a bug in the project creation page, where the ‘Create’ button is disabled, not allowing for the creation of a project through the GUI, but the API logic is still working?
In this case, instead of having only the project creation test failing, we would have many tests that depend on a project to be failing too.
But, if we were following the best practices, only one test would be failing, and tests for other features that depend on a project to exist would continue to pass, since they could be creating the project behind the scenes interacting directly with the public APIs, ensuring a more reliable metric of test failure rate.
Finally, interacting with the application only by its GUI generates a higher rate of test flakiness, and we want to avoid that at max.
The takeaways here are:
- Building state through the GUI is time consuming and it’s not sustainable as the test suite grows.
- When depending only on the GUI to create the application’s state and tests fail due to front-end issues, we can’t rely on the test failures rate, and we generate a higher rate of test flakiness.
Now that we are aware of all of it, let’s go create some tests.
Our framework includes a couple of parallelization mechanisms that work by executing spec files in parallel.
However, because tests are parallelized by spec file and not by test/example, we can’t achieve greater parallelization if a new test is added to an existing file.
Nonetheless, there could be other reasons to add a new test to an existing file.
For example, if tests share state that is expensive to set up it might be more efficient to perform that setup once even if it means the tests that use the setup can’t be parallelized.
- Do: Split tests across separate files, unless the tests share expensive setup.
- Don’t: Put new tests in an existing file without considering the impact on parallelization.
Limit the use of
before(:all) hook to perform setup tasks with only API calls, non UI operations
or basic UI operations such as login.
capybara-screenshot library to automatically save screenshots on failures.
This library saves the screenshots in the RSpec’s
If there is a failure in
after hook is not called and so the screenshots are not saved.
Given this fact, we should limit the use of
before(:all) to only those operations where a screenshot is not
necessary in case of failure and QA logs would be enough for debugging.
after hook should only be used for non-UI operations. Any UI operations in
after hook in a test file
would execute before the
after hook that takes the screenshot. This would result in moving the UI status away from the
point of failure and so the screenshot would not be captured at the right moment.
All QA tests expect to be able to log in at the start of the test.
That’s not possible if a test leaves the browser logged in when it finishes. Normally this isn’t a problem because Capybara resets the session after each test. But Capybara does that in an
after block, so when a test logs in in an
after(:context) block, the browser returns to a logged in state after Capybara had logged it out. And so the next test will fail.
For an example see: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/34736
Ideally, any actions peformed in an
before(:context)) block would be performed via the API. But if it’s necessary to do so via the UI (e.g., if API functionality doesn’t exist), make sure to log out at the end of the block.
after(:all) do login unless Page::Main::Menu.perform(&:signed_in?) # Do something while logged in Page::Main::Menu.perform(&:sign_out) end
We don’t run tests that require Administrator access against our Production environments.
When you add a new test that requires Administrator access, apply the RSpec metadata
:requires_admin so that the test will not be included in the test suites executed against Production and other environments on which we don’t want to run those tests.
Note: When running tests locally or configuring a pipeline, the environment variable
QA_CAN_TEST_ADMIN_FEATURES can be set to
false to skip tests that have the