dotnet
Run Selenium tests on Playwright via an adapter [experiment]
This is just an experiment to see what the team thinks.
Premise
Even though the Selenium-based E2E tests have been very reliable for more than a year now, we still incur costs from them:
- Keeping the Selenium dependency itself up-to-date is expensive: we have to keep doing manual processes, and the updates don't always just work. For example, we're really struggling to update it in this PR.
- Longer term, it's obvious that Selenium is not particularly modern and carries lots of legacy baggage. If we were starting from scratch, we'd surely choose Playwright instead.
But we can't just casually rewrite all these tests in Playwright. For one thing, there are a lot of them and this would be many weeks (maybe months) of effort, but also there's a huge amount of subtle thought behind they way they are constructed. For example they are testing things like which UI updates should occur synchronously vs asynchronously, and when certain updates should not occur. A casual rewrite is likely to end up producing tests that pass but don't capture all the behaviors we captured before, and we lose vital coverage.
An adapter
If the problem isn't the existing tests themselves, but rather is the having to depend on Selenium's underlying technology stack (and keep updating it, etc.), then what about if we had an adapter so the existing tests could run on Playwright?
This PR is a quick experiment to see how practical that might be. I've set up a new test project and pulled in an existing test fixture (StandaloneAppTest.cs) via shared-source. To make it build, I've made a set of APIs equivalent to the shape of Selenium's APIs, and their implementation uses Playwright. This does work and the existing test code from that fixture passes. I did have to skip the fixture's Dispose method but otherwise the test code is unchanged.
If we were to do this fully, the test coverage should be unchanged, and the payoff would be:
- We could remove the actual Selenium dependency and all the processes around updating it
- If we wanted, the existing tests could be run against other browsers than Chrome (maybe even against a WebView too)
- Since all the real Playwright APIs are also available, any new or updated tests can simply be written using Playwright directly without needing any further infrastructure
There are certainly drawbacks though:
- The test code is then strange. A casual reader will think it uses Selenium (it even imports namespaces like
OpenQA.Selenium) but it actually doesn't. - The adapter has to do loads of sync-over-async (e.g., evaluating
someTask.Resultor callingtask.Wait()). Obviously that's horrible, but what else can an adapter like this do?- Longer term we might hope to migrate away from Selenium's API patterns but at least we can do so incrementally.
- We might make mistakes in how we map Selenium semantics to Playwright's APIs. We would have to be careful.
- There's still a lot of work involved in making this into a real, complete adapter sufficient to run all the existing E2E tests.
- Playwright isn't exactly a utopia of simplicity either. Trying to make it download the right versions of the browsers it wanted took me at least an hour this morning. This is probably because of the massive stack of C#/Xunit/MSBuild customizations and abstractions we've already built around it (honestly I don't know what most of
Microsoft.AspNetCore.BrowserTestingdoes, or what we've done to make things run in Helix).
Let's come up with a plan
I'm OK with discarding this approach if people aren't into it. If we were going to do something like this, we would need to make a plan for finishing the work, i.e., switching over each of the test fixture classes (possibly incrementally) and expanding the adapter API surface as we go to make it all still build and pass.
Playwright isn't exactly a utopia of simplicity either. Trying to make it download the right versions of the browsers it wanted took me at least an hour this morning. This is probably because of the massive stack of C#/Xunit/MSBuild customizations and abstractions we've already built around it (honestly I don't know what most of Microsoft.AspNetCore.BrowserTesting does, or what we've done to make things run in Helix).
Can you share more on this? Would you say most of the difficulty came from complexity in our repo or with Playwright itself?
The test code is then strange. A casual reader will think it uses Selenium (it even imports namespaces like OpenQA.Selenium) but it actually doesn't.
Agree with this! Although I think we can alleviate this a little bit by putting all the tests that use the adapter in a separate directory or otherwise labeling them in a way that says "this isn't really selenium, it just looks like it".
Can you share more on this? Would you say most of the difficulty came from complexity in our repo or with Playwright itself?
It's been a few months so I don't have a fresh memory of it, but some of the issues were:
- ... from our repo: trying to reverse-engineer exactly how our custom system causes settings for Playwright get into it at runtime, and which settings would actually get used or ignored. It's an antipattern that commonly that arises in large codebases like ours, rather similar to the inner platform effect. In this case, we've customized a lot how the build mechanism works and how Playwright get used, so the standard defaults from other projects no longer work for us, forcing us to customize even more things - a vicious cycle.
- ... from Playwright itself: despite an hour or so of going through docs repeatedly and running experiments, it was very tough to make it acquire and use the right version of the Chromium driver. The disconnect may be something to do with the NPM acquisition path being treated as more first-class than the .NET one. Most likely others wouldn't face this issue as they would be in a more default environment, so you could argue this is just another manifestation of the first issue.
Looks like this PR hasn't been active for some time and the codebase could have been changed in the meantime.
To make sure no breaking changes are introduced, please remove the pending ci rerun label to kick off a new CI run.
I'm closing this now since it's been here for months and we don't have any immediate plan to take action on it. It could be reopened if we change our minds. @mkArtakMSFT