Cypress vs Selenium vs Playwright vs Puppeteer: SpeedMonitoring as codeUnite E2E testing and monitoring in one developer-focused monitoring as code (MaC) workflow. Synthetic MonitoringOpen Source based E2E automation to monitor your web app continuously.
Migrating from Puppeteer to Playwright | Checkly
The switch from Puppeteer to Playwright is easy. But is it worth it? And how exactly does one migrate existing scripts from one tool to another? What are the required code-level changes, and what new features and approaches does the switch enable? UPDATE: you can use our puppeteer-to-playwright conversion script to quickly migrate your Puppeteer codebase to Playwright. Puppeteer and Playwright tod
Testing in the Twenties
[This fragment is available in an audio version.] Grown-up software developers know perfectly well that testing is important. But — speaking here from experience — many aren’t doing enough. So I’m here to bang the testing drum, which our profession shouldn’t need to hear but apparently does. This was provoked by two Twitter threads (here and here) from Justin Searls, from which a couple of quotes:
On the Diverse And Fantastical Shapes of Testing
Pyramids, honeycombs, trophies, and the meaning of unit testing There's been a recent resurgence on twitter and the like about how teams should divide up their testing efforts. In particular, Tim Bray argues compellingly in favor of taking automated testing seriously. Anyone familiar with my writing will know that I'm very much in agreement with him. One of the points he raises in his post refers
「ã•ã‚ˆãªã‚‰ Flaky 。ä¸å®‰å®šãªãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆã®æŽ¢ã—æ–¹ã€ã¨ã„ã†ãŠè©± - Cybozu Inside Out | サイボウズエンジニアã®ãƒ–ãƒã‚°
ã¿ãªã•ã‚“ã“ã‚“ã«ã¡ã¯ã€‚サイボウズã®ä¸‰è‹«ã§ã™ã€‚ 本日ã¯ç‰¹ã«ã©ã“ã®ã‚¤ãƒ™ãƒ³ãƒˆã§ã‚‚発表ã™ã‚‹äºˆå®šã‚‚ãªãã€å®Ÿéš›ã«ç™ºè¡¨ã•ã‚Œãªã‹ã£ãŸã€ä¸å®‰å®šãªãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆ(Flaky Test)対ç–ã®ãŠè©±ã‚’スライド & トークスクリプト形å¼ã§å…¬é–‹ã—ã¾ã™ã€‚ ä¸å®‰å®šãªãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆå¯¾ç–ã¯ã€ã©ã“ã®ç¾å ´ã§ã‚‚継続的ã«ã•ã‚Œã¦ã„ã‚‹ã‹ã¨æ€ã„ã¾ã™ãŒç§ãŸã¡ã®ä¸€ã¤ã®äº‹ä¾‹ãŒçš†æ§˜ã®å¯¾ç–ã®ä¸€åŠ©ã¨ãªã‚Œã°å¹¸ã„ã§ã™ã€‚ ã•ã‚ˆãªã‚‰ Flaky 。ä¸å®‰å®šãªãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆã®æŽ¢ã—æ–¹ 皆ã•ã‚“ã“ã‚“ã«ã¡ã¯ã€‚サイボウズã®ä¸‰è‹«ã¨ç”³ã—ã¾ã™ã€‚本日ã¯ã€Œã•ã‚ˆãªã‚‰ Flaky 。ä¸å®‰å®šãªãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆã®æŽ¢ã—æ–¹ã€ã¨ã„ã†ãŠè©±ã‚’ã—ã¾ã™ã€‚ ç§ãŸã¡ã®ãŠæ‚©ã¿ã”㨠早速ã§ã™ãŒç§ãŸã¡ãŒæŠ±ãˆã¦ã„ãŸæ‚©ã¿ã€ã¤ã¾ã‚Šå‰æã¨ãªã‚‹èª²é¡Œã‹ã‚‰ãŠè©±ã—ã¾ã™ã€‚ サイボウズ㮠kintone.com 基盤ãƒãƒ¼ãƒ (ç§ã®æ‰€å±žã™ã‚‹ãƒãƒ¼ãƒ )ã¯E2Eテストを使ã£ã¦ AWS 上ã«æ§‹ç¯‰ã—ãŸåŸºç›¤ä¸Šã§ kintone ã¨ã„ã†ã‚µãƒ¼ãƒ“スã®å‹•ä½œä¿è¨¼ã‚’ã—よã†ã¨ã—ã¦ã„ã¾ã—ãŸã€‚ 幸é‹ã«
Test Flakiness - One of the main challenges of automated testing (Part II)
There are two main reasons for flaky automated tests. 1) Poor Locator Strategy. Find a methodology that is testable before you have to depend upon it in your automated testing. I just posted a video on this topic a week ago, which shares why our team exclusively utilizes xPath for some of the most reliable locators you can build. Realize xPath has got a bad rap and is often demonstrated online in
Reducing flaky builds by 18x
AI & MLLearn about artificial intelligence and machine learning across the GitHub ecosystem and the wider industry. Generative AILearn how to build with generative AI. GitHub CopilotChange how you work with GitHub Copilot. LLMsEverything developers need to know about LLMs. Machine learningMachine learning tips, tricks, and best practices. How AI code generation worksExplore the capabilities and be
Test Flakiness - One of the main challenges of automated testing
What I would like to see is a breakdown of how many failures fall into which category. And of the above categories, while useful for root cause analysis and eventual fix, for sake of triaging results, and disposition of what to do if hitting such a failure, it seems that whether or not the failure is a true product failure is a HUGE difference from the other three. For the other three, the major r
A machine learning solution for detecting and mitigating flaky tests - Engineering Fitness
If you are a developer you’ve probably experienced flaky tests or flakes and the first thing that comes to your mind is either frustration or annoyance. In this post we are going to discuss how we are dealing with flaky tests here at Fitbit and what our plans are for solving this problem. Before we go into any details, let’s level set on what flaky tests are, why they are bad and also go through s
自動テストã«é™ç•Œã‚’æ„Ÿã˜ãŸç§ãŒãªãœå½¢å¼æ‰‹æ³•ã«é…了ã•ã‚ŒãŸã®ã‹ - è‹¥ããªã„何ã‹ã®æ‚©ã¿
長らã自動テストã¨ãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆå®¹æ˜“è¨è¨ˆã‚’生æ¥ã¨ã—ã¦ãã¾ã—ãŸãŒã€æœ€è¿‘ã¯è‰²ã€…ãªé™ç•Œã‚’æ„Ÿã˜ã¦å½¢å¼æ‰‹æ³•ã«å–り組んã§ã„ã¾ã™ã€‚ ã“ã®è¨˜äº‹ã§ã¯ã€æ—¢å˜ã®è‡ªå‹•ãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆã®ã©ã“ã«é™ç•Œã‚’æ„Ÿã˜ã¦ãªãœå½¢å¼æ‰‹æ³•ãŒå¿…è¦ãªã®ã‹ã®ç§è¦‹ã‚’説明ã—ã¾ã™ã€‚ãªãŠã€ç§ã‚‚ã¾ã 完全ç†è§£ã«ã¯ç¨‹é ã„ãŸã‚é–“é•ã„ãŒã‚ã‚‹ã‹ã‚‚ã—ã‚Œã¾ã›ã‚“。ã”指摘やã”æ„見ã¯ãœã² Kuniwak ã¾ã§ã„ãŸã ã‘ã‚‹ã¨å¬‰ã—ã„ã§ã™ã€‚ 著者ã«ã¤ã„㦠プãƒã‚°ãƒ©ãƒžã§ã™ã€‚開発プãƒã‚»ã‚¹ã‚’よãã™ã‚‹ãŸã‚ã®è‡ªç™ºçš„ãªè‡ªå‹•ãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆã‚’支æ´ã™ã‚‹ä»•äº‹ã‚’ã—ã¦ã„ã¾ã™ï¼ˆçµŒæ´ï¼‰ã€‚ã“ã“一年㯠R&D çš„ãªä½ç½®ä»˜ã‘ã§å½¢å¼æ‰‹æ³•ã‚‚ã‚„ã£ã¦ã„ã¾ã™ã€‚ 自動テストã®é™ç•Œ 自動テストã¨ã¯ ç§ãŒã“ã“æ•°å¹´æ‚©ã‚“ã§ã„ãŸã“ã¨ã¯ã€iOS ã‚„ Web アプリãªã©ã®ãƒ¢ãƒ‡ãƒ«å±¤ã®ãƒã‚°ã‚’従æ¥ã®è‡ªå‹•ãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆã§è¦‹ã¤ã‘られãªã„ã“ã¨ã§ã—ãŸã€‚ãŸã ã€ã„ããªã‚Šã“ã®è©±ã§å§‹ã‚ã‚‹ã¨ç†è§£ã—ã¥ã‚‰ã„ã¨æ€ã†ã®ã§ç°¡å˜ãªä¾‹ã‹ã‚‰å‡ºç™ºã—ã¾ã™ã€‚ ã“ã®è¨˜äº‹ã§ã„ã†è‡ªå‹•ãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆã¨ã¯ä»¥ä¸‹ã®ã‚ˆã†ã«ãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆå¯¾è±¡ã‚’実際ã«
Should I Test Private Methods?
should i test private methods?
Testing on the Toilet: Tests Too DRY? Make Them DAMP!
I get what the author is going for here, but I don't totally agree with them. I think the easiest and cleanest approach is to move the list of users out of set up and into the test (as the author recommends), but personally I would keep the loops and reorganize the code a bit to make it easier to read, so kind of like a DRY DAMP approach? pseudo code: def register_list_of_users(user_list): to_retu
レガシーコードã¯å—æ–—è–拳(外ã‹ã‚‰æ”»ã‚ã‚‹)。新è¦é–‹ç™ºã¯åŒ—斗神拳(内ã‹ã‚‰æ”»ã‚ã‚‹)ã€ãƒ¬ã‚¬ã‚·ãƒ¼ã‚³ãƒ¼ãƒ‰æ”¹å–„ガイドèªæ›¸ä¼šãµã‚Šã‹ãˆã‚Š - 未æ¥ã®ã„ã¤ã‹/hyoshiokã®æ—¥è¨˜
社内テスト勉強会ã§ãƒ¬ã‚¬ã‚·ãƒ¼ã‚³ãƒ¼ãƒ‰æ”¹å–„ガイドèªæ›¸ä¼šã®å ±å‘Šã‚’ã—ãŸã€‚ èªæ›¸ä¼šã‚’地味ã«é–‹å‚¬ã—ã¦ãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆã®ä¾¡å€¤è¦³ã‚’共有ã§ããŸã®ã¯éžå¸¸ã«ã‚ˆã‹ã£ãŸã€‚ãã—ã¦å®Ÿéš›ã€è‡ªåˆ†ã®ãƒ—ãƒã‚¸ã‚§ã‚¯ãƒˆã«è©¦ã—ã¦ã¿ãŸäººãŸã¡ã®å ±å‘Šã‚‚ã‚ã£ãŸã€‚ 一方ã§ç¤¾å†…èªæ›¸ä¼šã®èª²é¡Œã‚‚見ãˆã¦ããŸã€‚ã‚„ã¯ã‚Šã€å‚åŠ è€…ã®ã‚¹ã‚±ã‚¸ãƒ¥ãƒ¼ãƒ«èª¿æ•´ãŒé›£ã—ã„ã“ã¨ã€å°‘ã—ãšã¤å‚åŠ è€…ãŒæ¸›ã£ã¦ã—ã¾ã†ã“ã¨ãªã©ã§ã‚る。皆忙ã—ã„ã—ã€æ™‚ã«ã¯çªç™ºã®ãƒˆãƒ©ãƒ–ルã§ã‚¹ã‚±ã‚¸ãƒ¥ãƒ¼ãƒ«ã©ãŠã‚Šã«å‚åŠ ã§ããªã„事ã¯ã‚ã‚‹æ„味致ã—æ–¹ãªã„。忙ã—ã„ã¨èªæ›¸ä¼šã©ã“ã‚ã§ã¯ãªãã€ãã‚Œã«å‚åŠ ã—ã¤ã¥ã‘るモãƒãƒ™ãƒ¼ã‚·ãƒ§ãƒ³ã®ç¢ºä¿ã‚‚難ã—ã„。*1 レガシーコード改善ガイドèªæ›¸ä¼šView more presentations from Hiro Yoshioka. 今ã‚るレガシーコードã¨ã©ã†å‘ãåˆã†ã‹ æ–°è¦ã«ã‚½ãƒ•ãƒˆã‚¦ã‚§ã‚¢ã‚’ä½œã‚‹å ´åˆã¯TDDã§ãƒ¦ãƒ‹ãƒƒãƒˆãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆã‚’書ã„ã¦ã„ã‘ã°ã„ã„。ã“ã®æ–¹æ³•è«–ã«ã¤ã„ã¦ã®å ±å‘Šã€å‚考書ãªã©ã¯è±Šå¯Œã«ã‚る。 レガシーコードã¨ã„ã†
Truth 1.0: Fluent Assertions for Java and Android Tests
Post a Comment The comments you read and contribute here belong only to the person who posted them. We reserve the right to remove off-topic comments. TotT 98 GTAC 61 James Whittaker 42 Misko Hevery 32 Anthony Vallone 27 Code Health 27 Patrick Copeland 23 Jobs 18 Andrew Trenk 12 C++ 11 Patrik Höglund 8 JavaScript 7 Allen Hutchison 6 George Pirocanac 6 Zhanyong Wan 6 Harry Robinson 5 Java 5 Julian
リリースã€éšœå®³æƒ…å ±ãªã©ã®ã‚µãƒ¼ãƒ“スã®ãŠçŸ¥ã‚‰ã›
最新ã®äººæ°—エントリーã®é…ä¿¡
j次ã®ãƒ–ックマーク
kå‰ã®ãƒ–ックマーク
lã‚ã¨ã§èªã‚€
eコメント一覧を開ã
oページを開ã
Justin Searls on Twitter: "People love debating what percentage of which type of tests to write, but it's a distraction. Nearly zero teams wri… https://t.co/pZDIJBePOE"
How to Make 100 Releases Per Day with Only 6 Quality Engineers
GitHub - sorry-cypress/sorry-cypress: Open-source, free, self-hosted alternative to Cypress Dashboard
GitHub - microsoft/playwright: Playwright is a framework for Web Testing and Automation. It allows testing Chromium, Firefox and WebKit with a single API.
組織ã«ãƒ†ã‚¹ãƒˆã‚’書ãæ–‡åŒ–ã‚’æ ¹ä»˜ã‹ã›ã‚‹æˆ¦ç•¥ã¨æˆ¦è¡“（2019å¤ç‰ˆï¼‰ / Strategy and Tactics of Building Automated Testing Culture into Organization 2019 Summer Edition
ReportPortal test automation analytics platform and real-time reporting, powered by Machine Learning | ReportPortal
{{#tags}}- {{label}}
{{/tags}}