Revisions to Selenium testing using checksums of html

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackSQA/status/253329215833903107

occurred Oct 3, 2012 at 3:02

added 71 characters in body

Source Link

edited Oct 2, 2012 at 20:49

151
6

I am new at selenium testing and am writing a bunch of tests for a webpage that relies heavily on javascript user interaction.

At first I wrote a lot of assertions of the style

 If I press button A then
      assert number of visible rows = x,
      assert checkboxes checked are such
      assert title = bar
      .... [20 more]

and so on.

Then I switched to checksumming the HTML using MD5:

 If I press button A then 
     assert md5(html) = 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c.

And it made my life a whole lot easier...

But is this a bad practice in any way?

example

I know a HTML file a.htm is working correctly, I copy it as a_test.htm as a testcase I make all checksums using selenium in dictionary.txt ('show_all' : ' 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c, 'hide_all' :3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1, 'filter_by_id_click' : 3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1) and so on..
The use cases are done in selenium (driver.findbuttonShowAll.click(), assert(md5(html)==dict['show_all])
Further development that doesn't brake expected html output is safe, when assertion fails I diff the htmls...

UPDATE : Note that taking this approach can check dynamic behaviour, because of the fact that the md5 strings are build browserspecific from html in memory. The html is extracted from a selenium webelement that in its turn is taken from the current webdriver state.

I am not changing the way selenium handles things, just comparing the underlaying html.

To get dynamic content, I pass the loaded webdriver to a helper method that extracts the outerHTML of a given xpath expression (python)

def get_md5_of_outerHTML_by_xpathget_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression):
    outerHTMLwebelement = get_outerHTML_by_xpathp_driver.find_element_by_xpath(p_xpath_expression)    
    outerHTML= p_driver.execute_script("return arguments[0].outerHTML" , p_xpath_expressionwebelement)    
    return get_md5_of_string(outerHTML)

I am new at selenium testing and am writing a bunch of tests for a webpage that relies heavily on javascript user interaction.

At first I wrote a lot of assertions of the style

 If I press button A then
      assert number of visible rows = x,
      assert checkboxes checked are such
      assert title = bar
      .... [20 more]

and so on.

Then I switched to checksumming the HTML using MD5:

 If I press button A then 
     assert md5(html) = 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c.

And it made my life a whole lot easier...

But is this a bad practice in any way?

example

I know a HTML file a.htm is working correctly, I copy it as a_test.htm as a testcase I make all checksums using selenium in dictionary.txt ('show_all' : ' 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c, 'hide_all' :3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1, 'filter_by_id_click' : 3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1) and so on..
The use cases are done in selenium (driver.findbuttonShowAll.click(), assert(md5(html)==dict['show_all])
Further development that doesn't brake expected html output is safe, when assertion fails I diff the htmls...

UPDATE : Note that taking this approach can check dynamic behaviour, because of the fact that the md5 strings are build browserspecific from html in memory. The html is extracted from a selenium webelement that in its turn is taken from the current webdriver state.

I am not changing the way selenium handles things, just comparing the underlaying html.

To get dynamic content, I pass the loaded webdriver to a helper method that extracts the outerHTML of a given xpath expression (python)

def get_md5_of_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression):
    outerHTML = get_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression)
    return get_md5_of_string(outerHTML)

I am new at selenium testing and am writing a bunch of tests for a webpage that relies heavily on javascript user interaction.

At first I wrote a lot of assertions of the style

 If I press button A then
      assert number of visible rows = x,
      assert checkboxes checked are such
      assert title = bar
      .... [20 more]

and so on.

Then I switched to checksumming the HTML using MD5:

 If I press button A then 
     assert md5(html) = 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c.

And it made my life a whole lot easier...

But is this a bad practice in any way?

example

I know a HTML file a.htm is working correctly, I copy it as a_test.htm as a testcase I make all checksums using selenium in dictionary.txt ('show_all' : ' 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c, 'hide_all' :3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1, 'filter_by_id_click' : 3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1) and so on..
The use cases are done in selenium (driver.findbuttonShowAll.click(), assert(md5(html)==dict['show_all])
Further development that doesn't brake expected html output is safe, when assertion fails I diff the htmls...

UPDATE : Note that taking this approach can check dynamic behaviour, because of the fact that the md5 strings are build browserspecific from html in memory. The html is extracted from a selenium webelement that in its turn is taken from the current webdriver state.

I am not changing the way selenium handles things, just comparing the underlaying html.

To get dynamic content, I pass the loaded webdriver to a helper method that extracts the outerHTML of a given xpath expression (python)

def get_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression):
    webelement = p_driver.find_element_by_xpath(p_xpath_expression)    
    outerHTML= p_driver.execute_script("return arguments[0].outerHTML" , webelement)    
    return outerHTML

added 215 characters in body

Source Link

edited Oct 2, 2012 at 20:27

Peter

151
6

I am new at selenium testing and am writing a bunch of tests for a webpage that relies heavily on javascript user interaction.

At first I wrote a lot of assertions of the style

 If I press button A then
      assert number of visible rows = x,
      assert checkboxes checked are such
      assert title = bar
      .... [20 more]

and so on.

Then I switched to checksumming the HTML using MD5:

 If I press button A then 
     assert md5(html) = 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c.

And it made my life a whole lot easier...

But is this a bad practice in any way?

example

I know a HTML file a.htm is working correctly, I copy it as a_test.htm as a testcase I make all checksums using selenium in dictionary.txt ('show_all' : ' 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c, 'hide_all' :3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1, 'filter_by_id_click' : 3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1) and so on..
The use cases are done in selenium (driver.findbuttonShowAll.click(), assert(md5(html)==dict['show_all])
Further development that doesn't brake expected html output is safe, when assertion fails I diff the htmls...

UPDATE : Note that taking this approach can check dynamic behaviourcan check dynamic behaviour, because of the fact that the md5 strings are build browserspecific from html in memory. The html is extracted from a selenium webelement that in its turn is taken from the current webdriver state.

I am not changing the way selenium handles things, just comparing the underlaying html.

To get dynamic content, I pass the loaded webdriver to a helper method that extracts the outerHTML of a given xpath expression (python)

def get_md5_of_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression):
    outerHTML = get_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression)
    return get_md5_of_string(outerHTML)

I am new at selenium testing and am writing a bunch of tests for a webpage that relies heavily on javascript user interaction.

At first I wrote a lot of assertions of the style

 If I press button A then
      assert number of visible rows = x,
      assert checkboxes checked are such
      assert title = bar
      .... [20 more]

and so on.

Then I switched to checksumming the HTML using MD5:

 If I press button A then 
     assert md5(html) = 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c.

And it made my life a whole lot easier...

But is this a bad practice in any way?

example

I know a HTML file a.htm is working correctly, I copy it as a_test.htm as a testcase I make all checksums using selenium in dictionary.txt ('show_all' : ' 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c, 'hide_all' :3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1, 'filter_by_id_click' : 3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1) and so on..
The use cases are done in selenium (driver.findbuttonShowAll.click(), assert(md5(html)==dict['show_all])
Further development that doesn't brake expected html output is safe, when assertion fails I diff the htmls...

UPDATE : Note that taking this approach can check dynamic behaviour, because of the fact that the md5 strings are build browserspecific from html in memory.

To get dynamic content, I pass the loaded webdriver to a helper method that extracts the outerHTML of a given xpath expression (python)

def get_md5_of_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression):
    outerHTML = get_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression)
    return get_md5_of_string(outerHTML)

I am new at selenium testing and am writing a bunch of tests for a webpage that relies heavily on javascript user interaction.

At first I wrote a lot of assertions of the style

 If I press button A then
      assert number of visible rows = x,
      assert checkboxes checked are such
      assert title = bar
      .... [20 more]

and so on.

Then I switched to checksumming the HTML using MD5:

 If I press button A then 
     assert md5(html) = 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c.

And it made my life a whole lot easier...

But is this a bad practice in any way?

example

I know a HTML file a.htm is working correctly, I copy it as a_test.htm as a testcase I make all checksums using selenium in dictionary.txt ('show_all' : ' 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c, 'hide_all' :3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1, 'filter_by_id_click' : 3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1) and so on..
The use cases are done in selenium (driver.findbuttonShowAll.click(), assert(md5(html)==dict['show_all])
Further development that doesn't brake expected html output is safe, when assertion fails I diff the htmls...

UPDATE : Note that taking this approach can check dynamic behaviour, because of the fact that the md5 strings are build browserspecific from html in memory. The html is extracted from a selenium webelement that in its turn is taken from the current webdriver state.

I am not changing the way selenium handles things, just comparing the underlaying html.

To get dynamic content, I pass the loaded webdriver to a helper method that extracts the outerHTML of a given xpath expression (python)

def get_md5_of_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression):
    outerHTML = get_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression)
    return get_md5_of_string(outerHTML)

deleted 67 characters in body

Source Link

edited Oct 2, 2012 at 20:14

Peter

151
6

I am new at selenium testing and am writing a bunch of tests for a webpage that relies heavily on javascript user interaction.

At first I wrote a lot of assertions of the style

 If I press button A then
      assert number of visible rows = x,
      assert checkboxes checked are such
      assert title = bar
      .... [20 more]

and so on.

Then I switched to checksumming the HTML using MD5:

 If I press button A then 
     assert md5(html) = 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c.

And it made my life a whole lot easier...

But is this a bad practice in any way?

example

I know a HTML file a.htm is working correctly, I copy it as a_test.htm as a testcase I make all checksums using selenium in dictionary.txt ('show_all' : ' 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c, 'hide_all' :3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1, 'filter_by_id_click' : 3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1) and so on..
The use cases are done in selenium (driver.findbuttonShowAll.click(), assert(md5(html)==dict['show_all])
Further development that doesn't brake expected html output is safe, when assertion fails I diff the htmls...

UPDATE : Note that taking this approach can check dynamic behaviour, because of the fact that the md5 strings are build browserspecific from html in memory.

To get dynamic content, I pass the loaded webdriver to a helper method that extracts the outerHTML of a given xpath expression (python)

def get_outerHTML_by_xpathget_md5_of_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpathExpressionp_xpath_expression):
    webelementouterHTML = p_driver.find_element_by_xpathget_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_xpathExpression)  
    outerHTML= p_driver.execute_script("return arguments[0].outerHTML" , webelementp_xpath_expression)    
    return get_md5_of_string(outerHTML)

I am new at selenium testing and am writing a bunch of tests for a webpage that relies heavily on javascript user interaction.

At first I wrote a lot of assertions of the style

 If I press button A then
      assert number of visible rows = x,
      assert checkboxes checked are such
      assert title = bar
      .... [20 more]

and so on.

Then I switched to checksumming the HTML using MD5:

 If I press button A then 
     assert md5(html) = 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c.

And it made my life a whole lot easier...

But is this a bad practice in any way?

example

I know a HTML file a.htm is working correctly, I copy it as a_test.htm as a testcase I make all checksums using selenium in dictionary.txt ('show_all' : ' 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c, 'hide_all' :3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1, 'filter_by_id_click' : 3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1) and so on..
The use cases are done in selenium (driver.findbuttonShowAll.click(), assert(md5(html)==dict['show_all])
Further development that doesn't brake expected html output is safe, when assertion fails I diff the htmls...

UPDATE : Note that taking this approach can check dynamic behaviour, because of the fact that the md5 strings are build browserspecific from html in memory.

To get dynamic content, I pass the loaded webdriver to a helper method that extracts the outerHTML of a given xpath expression (python)

def get_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpathExpression):
    webelement = p_driver.find_element_by_xpath(p_xpathExpression)  
    outerHTML= p_driver.execute_script("return arguments[0].outerHTML" , webelement)    
    return outerHTML

I am new at selenium testing and am writing a bunch of tests for a webpage that relies heavily on javascript user interaction.

At first I wrote a lot of assertions of the style

 If I press button A then
      assert number of visible rows = x,
      assert checkboxes checked are such
      assert title = bar
      .... [20 more]

and so on.

Then I switched to checksumming the HTML using MD5:

 If I press button A then 
     assert md5(html) = 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c.

And it made my life a whole lot easier...

But is this a bad practice in any way?

example

I know a HTML file a.htm is working correctly, I copy it as a_test.htm as a testcase I make all checksums using selenium in dictionary.txt ('show_all' : ' 8548bccac94e35d9836f1fec0da8115c, 'hide_all' :3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1, 'filter_by_id_click' : 3fdec30c2731d22e2516b1cd1261a1e1) and so on..
The use cases are done in selenium (driver.findbuttonShowAll.click(), assert(md5(html)==dict['show_all])
Further development that doesn't brake expected html output is safe, when assertion fails I diff the htmls...

UPDATE : Note that taking this approach can check dynamic behaviour, because of the fact that the md5 strings are build browserspecific from html in memory.

To get dynamic content, I pass the loaded webdriver to a helper method that extracts the outerHTML of a given xpath expression (python)

def get_md5_of_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression):
    outerHTML = get_outerHTML_by_xpath(p_driver, p_xpath_expression)
    return get_md5_of_string(outerHTML)

added 398 characters in body

Source Link

edited Oct 2, 2012 at 19:57

Peter

151
6

Loading

added 162 characters in body

Source Link

edited Oct 2, 2012 at 19:47

Peter

151
6

Loading

added 548 characters in body

Source Link

edited Oct 2, 2012 at 16:12

Peter

151
6

Loading

Source Link

asked Oct 2, 2012 at 15:43

Peter

151
6

Loading

Stack Exchange Network

Return to Question