Skip to main content

Headless Miracles: Chromedriver Headless VS Chromdriver

You may have heard that we are running the cases in the headless mode so that we could accelerate the execution of the test cases.  So is this true all the time? In this post, I have a little test to compare the headless mode in Chromedriver with version 2.33 and Chromedriver. The tests were run in Windows.

I am using Capybara, I have around 200 test cases written in Cucumber. Tests are running parallel with 15 execution lines. This execution is controlled by tags so we can get the execution time when a tag finished. With this way, we can compare the tag specific time differences and the total time difference. I am using the following Chromedriver instances written in env.rb file in the project.

TAGS Chrome Headless DIFF
signup 90.0009999275 70.003000021 22.22%
login 100.000999928 80.003000021 20.00%
basket_a 120.000999928 120.003000021 0.00%
order_d 160.001999855 150.003999949 6.25%
search 180.003000021 180.003999949 0.00%
filter_ps 180.003000021 190.003999949 -5.56%
order 290.004999876 280.006000042 3.45%
view 310.004999876 290.006000042 6.45%
address 330.006000042 310.006000042 6.06%
guest_checkout 380.006000042 350.006999969 7.89%
order_3d 380.006000042 360.006999969 5.26%
basket 390.006999969 370.006999969 5.13%
filter 410.006999969 430.007999897 -4.88%
order_credit 450.007999897 450.009000063 0.00%
member 520.009000063 500.013999939 3.85%
TOTAL 530.009000063 510.015000105 3.77%

You can see the result of the test in the table below. In total, we have got 3.77% gain in time with running the chromedriver in headless mode. What about the required resources for running the test. The following images show that the performance indicators of the machine that the tests run. Check the memory usage, processor usage, and network usage over time.

Chromedriver in Headless Mode Windows Perfmon 
Chromedriver Windows Perfmon 

To sum up, the headless miracle is not true for chromedriver since getting 3,77% gain in time and almost the same resource requiring is not that good enough reason for calling it a miracle. If you say You are using Phantomjs, so it is better than Chromedriver, read this post. I am planning to test this for my case, when I do it I will add the result of the test.

Popular posts for software testing and automation

Selenium Error "Element is not currently interactable and may not be manipulated"

Selenium webdriver can drive different browsers like as Firefox, Chrome or Internet Explorer. These browsers actually cover the majority of internet users, so testing these browsers possibly covers the 90% of the internet users. However, there is no guaranty that the same automation scripts can work without a failure on these three browsers. For this reason, automation code should be error-prone for the browsers you want to cover. The following error is caught when the test script run for Chrome and Internet Explorer, but surprisingly there is no error for the Firefox. Selenium gives an error like below: Traceback (most recent call last):   File "D:\workspace\sample_project\", line 10, in <module>     m.login()   File "D:\workspace\ sample_project \", line 335, in login     driver.find_element_by_id("id_username").clear()   File "C:\Python27\lib\site-packages\selenium-2.35.0-py2.7.egg\selenium\webdriver\r

Change Default Timeout and Wait Time of Capybara

One of the biggest challenge for automation is handling timeout problem. Most of the time, timeout is 60 seconds but it may sometimes not enough if you have badly designed asynchronous calls or the third party ajax calls. This makes handling timeout more complex. set large enough to tolerate network related problems. For Selenium based automation frameworks, like Capybara, default Webdriver timeout is set to Net::ReadTimeout (Net::ReadTimeout) Changing ReadTimeout If you have timeout problem for Capybara, it gives an error like above. This means that the page is not fully loaded in given timeout period. Even you can see that page is loaded correctly but webdriver wait until the Ajax calls finish. class BufferedIO #:nodoc: internal use only def initialize (io) @io = io @read_timeout = 60 @continue_timeout = nil @debug_output = nil @rbuf = '' end . . . . . def rbuf_fill beg

Create an Alias for Interactive Console Work: Selenium and Capybara

If you are working on shell most of the time Aliases are very helpfull and time saving. For testing purposes you can use Alias for getting ready your test suites. In this post, I want to explain both running Selenium and Capybara on console and creating aliases for each.  This post is for Windows machines, if you are using Unix-like see   this post . Creating Scripts for Selenium and Capybara First of all, it is assumed that you have installed Selenium and Capybara correctly and they work on your machines. If you haven't installed, you can see my previous posts. I am using the Selenium with Python and the Capybara with Ruby. You can use several different language for Selenium but Capybara works only with Ruby.  Create scripts in a directory called scripts (in your home folder, like as  ~/scripts ) for your automation tool as following, save them as capybara.rb, :  Creating Aliases Depends on your favourite shell, you need to add the alias to .bashrc bash

Page-Object Pattern for Selenium Test Automation with Python

Page-object model is a pattern that you can apply it to develop efficient automation framework. With the page-model, it is possible to minimize maintenance cost. Basically page-object means that your every page is inherited from a base class which includes basic functionalities for every page. If you have some new functionalities that every page should have, you can simple add it to the base class. Base class is like the following: In this part we are creating pages which are inherited from base page. Every page has its own functionalities written as python functions. Some functions return to a new page, it means that these functions leave the current page and produce a new page. You should write as much as functions you need in the assertion part because this is the only part you can use the webdriver functions to interact with web pages . This part can be evaluate as providing data to assertion part.   The last part is related to asserting your test cases against to the

Performance Testing on CI: Locust is running on Jenkins

For a successful Continuous Integration pipeline, there should be jobs for testing the performance of the application. It is necessary if the application is still performing well. Generally performance testing is thought as kinds of activities performed one step before going to live. In general approach it is true but don't forget to test your application's performance as soon as there is an testable software, such as an api end point, functions, and etc. For CI it is a good approach to testing performance after functional testing and just before the deployment of next stage. In this post, I want to share some info about Jenkins and Locust. In my previous post you can find some information about Locust and Jenkins. Jenkins operates the CI environment and Locust is a tool for performance testing. To run the Locust on Jenkins you need command line arguments which control the number of clients ,   hatch rate,  running locust without web interface and there should be so