3 ms·
yes, I don't mean not doing what a user does. My main concern is test execution speed. When you have a system that's not that fast and a lot of long tests, that
by fedeb95 4y ago
yes, I don't mean not doing what a user does. My main concern is test execution speed. When you have a system that's not that fast and a lot of long tests, that can quickly add up. My idea is to avoid redo redundant steps.
Let's say that a user can book a flight and after it's booked he can manage his flight. I can have two tests: one to book a flight, and one to manage a booked flight. The second one doesn't need to book another flight as precondition, it can use the one booked when executing the first test. Hope this makes my point clearer.
- austin-cheney 4y agoThat depends on whether the combination of those two tests can result in different outcomes when combined or executed in slightly different ways. You want to cover as many permutations as possible in your test automation because test automation is intended to be faster than human testing and cover repetition that humans are bad at. To increase performance I use websockets for everything. The Google answer for maximum network speed is gRPC with protobuf. That is supposedly 10x faster than JSON over HTTP, but protobuf is a pain in the ass. The way I execute websockets is 8x faster than HTTP and more convenient. Since I am not dealing with binary transform to protobuf my websocket approach with JSON serialization might actually be faster than (or at least as fast as) the Google solution.
- fedeb95 4y agothanks this is interesting. It's not something I'm an expert at but I'll research the topic