3 ms·
headless browser drivers are the devil. They are by far the slowest part of any test suite, they usually have to use hacks like setting up timers to wait (doing
by pmarreck 3y ago
headless browser drivers are the devil. They are by far the slowest part of any test suite, they usually have to use hacks like setting up timers to wait (doing nothing and wasting precious dev time over and over again) while repeatedly checking for things like whether a dom element has finished setting up, and they run quite non-deterministically, resulting in random test fails, which are literally the worst.
Not only is it too soon for that, it's too evil for that.
- rijoja 3y agoI bet that you can use webdrivers badly and or for evil, but then again isn't that true for any non-useless tool? Wouldn't it be helpful for the ladybird development team, to use to check for regressions? Apart from that, if Ladybird could be used in a test suite, wouldn't that be massively beneficial for it's adoption? My thinking is that if it became praxis among hard core open source fanatics to test their webpages thoroughly in ladybird, it would after a while more or less become "best practice" to do so, with said fanatics serving as "early adopters". What also speaks for this argument is that hard core open source fanatics, often go for simple and no-nonsense designs such as the very page we are using to discuss this on? I'm sure HN is perfectly usable in ladybird, even though I haven't checked it out myself!