4 ms·
I cannot provide too many details without violating anonymity of this anonymous account. I can say that in my primary test suite I have about 85 tests each whic
by throwaway0asd 4y ago
I cannot provide too many details without violating anonymity of this anonymous account. I can say that in my primary test suite I have about 85 tests each which comprise a variable number of user events and assertions totaling about 290 total assertions. When I was using HTTP that would take about 45 seconds to execute. When I switched to a home grown websockets solution the test time went down to about 6.5-8.5 seconds. Also, if you want things to be lightning fast try to shy away from using querySelectors.
- quickthrower2 4y agoNice info, thanks for that.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y agoseems suspect that http and querySelector are the bottleneck. i remember selenium being slow but playwright and puppeteer are pretty fast.
- throwaway0asd 4y ago85 tests and nearly 300 assertions in under a minute is still orders of magnitude faster than what I see elsewhere. There isn’t a single magic bullet performance killer. Extreme performance comes from absolutely everything: faster approach to testing, better hardware, super fast application to test, faster transmission, faster reporting and assertions, and everything else. You can’t know what’s faster unless you are measuring things in isolation and making incremental improvements to a bunch of different bottlenecks. For example people love to tell me how fast their framework, their application, or whatever is but it’s clear that these are almost always anecdotal observations that are not measured or compared to anything. When looking at performance it does not matter how fast something is, which makes anecdotal observations worthless. The only thing that matters is the difference in speed between things compared, the performance gap.