{"id":32113,"date":"2017-04-19T11:15:45","date_gmt":"2017-04-19T09:15:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/q-leap.eu\/automation-tests-anti-pattern-with-multi-browser-verification\/"},"modified":"2024-06-07T10:01:33","modified_gmt":"2024-06-07T08:01:33","slug":"automation-tests-anti-pattern-with-multi-browser-verification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/q-leap.eu\/en\/automation-tests-anti-pattern-with-multi-browser-verification\/","title":{"rendered":"Automation tests: Anti-pattern with multi-browser verification"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Using the same automated check for all browsers means you’re likely to miss some browser-specific aspects. So why not take this into account and look for the right information. Avoid anti-pattern”, stressed Stefan Papusoi, test specialist at q-leap.<\/p>\n

Recently, I was reading a discussion on the Test Community Automation Slack channel, in which one of the members was asking others for options for extending their smoke checks to run on multiple browsers. The others gave excellent advice on using tools such as Sauce Labs or virtual machines, which is perfectly valid, but without realizing it, they fell into a trap. They demonstrated what I believe to be an important anti-pattern when it comes to audits, which I’d like to discuss today.<\/p>\n

What is this anti-pattern and why is it an anti-pattern?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Consider that we’re writing a check that does the following using WebDriver that we want to run on different browsers:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Complete and submit a simple HTML form.<\/li>\n
  2. Check that the backend redirects us to a new page.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Running this check on multiple browsers is the anti-pattern. Why? Well, it boils down to what we think we’re checking. So let’s look at different assumptions we could make about what we’re verifying:<\/p>\n