By the way, the current patch will only switch to the newer version of
selenium. It does not use WebDriver which is what would be necessary
to use HtmlUnit.
For that to work, we need to replace the old setup in SeleniumTestCase:
final Selenium selenium = new DefaultSelenium(commandProcessor);
With something like:
final WebDriver driver = new FirefoxDriver();
final Selenium selenium = new WebDriverBackedSelenium(driver, baseURL);
It would probably make sense to set things up so testng.xml can
specify FirefoxDriver, HtmlUnitDriver, etc.
This should let us run all the tests without an issue in theory, but
in practice there may be a few that will need to be tweaked as
WebDriverBackedSelenium emulates DefaultSelenium, but not perfectly.
Once you have an instance of WebDriverBackedSelenium, you can get the
WebDriver to use that API using:
WebDriver driver = ((WrapsDriver) selenium).getWrappedDriver();
I've been working on a patch for SeleniumTestCase that will do that
but I'm running into problems getting selenium to start without
conflicting with the existing code. I wonder if it wouldn't make more
sense to do something like WebDriverTestCase.
Mark
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Mark, this is very useful. I continue to be a firm believer of
> htmlunit (see e.g.
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/TYNAMO/2010/07/30/) because
> HtmlUnit-based functional tests simplify the testing environment and
> running them within the IDE, and also because they run much faster
> than the Selenium (1) tests. Using the WebDriver could improve
> execution speed and Selenium 2 also allows using HtmlUnit as the
> WebDriver (although it's somewhat questionable what the extra
> abstraction layers buy you in that case). It would be an interesting
> exercise to rewrite some tests to use the WebDriver and compare
> execution times of different drivers, namely against HtmlUnit.
>
> > I've attached a patch in case anyone wants to test it out. I filed a JIRA
> > issue TAP5-1599, but for some reason I can't seem to upload an attachment to
> > JIRA.
>
> Is the patch really big? There may be a file size limit.
>
> Kalle
>
>
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I ran some tests on Ubuntu Linux using Firefox 3.6. To run Selenium
> >> 2, I changed the dependency in tapestry-test and added a method that
> >> was required by the new interface. If there are two test times
> >> listed, I ran the test twice.
> >>
> >> Here are the results:
> >>
> >> 5.2.6 Selenium 1 & Maven
> >> 6 min 14 sec
> >>
> >> 5.3 with Selenium 1 & Gradle
> >> 7 min 5 sec
> >> 7 min 14 sec
> >>
> >> 5.3 Selenium 2.3 & Gradle
> >> 7 min 26 sec
> >> 8 min 1 sec
> >>
> >> So in my tested configuration, a switch to Selenium 2.3 doesn't add
> >> any significant amount of time to the build as long as you stay on the
> >> browser that today we are forced to use. It might be slower on newer
> >> browsers, but that isn't a fair comparison because we can't use them
> >> right now anyway.
> >>
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> My experience is that using the old Selenium APIs with WebDriver 2.0
> >>> is about 100% slower (i.e., execution takes twice as long).
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> It looks like Selenium 2.0 can run using WebDriver where it directly
> >>>> works with the browser or emulating the older Selenium RC approach.
> >>>> Is WebDriver slow or is it when you try to run 2.0 using the older
> >>>> style tests? I thought part of the point of WebDriver was to be
> >>>> faster.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mark
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> I've been using Geb (a Groovy wrapper around Selenium 2.0) and I've
> >>>>> been having a lot of trouble since Selenium 2.0 changes things; just
> >>>>> swapping out the new code takes a huge hit on performance. I might
> >>>>> take a go at this, but I'd rather start thinking in terms of
> >>>>> deprecating the selenium support inside tapestry-test and seeing about
> >>>>> adopting Geb as a better solution that embraces Selenium 2.0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> >>>
> >>> Creator of Apache Tapestry
> >>>
> >>> The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
> >>> learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
> >>>
> >>> (971) 678-5210
> >>> http://howardlewisship.com
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
