JSoup defence for Selenium

Selenium problems

It may happen, Selenium causes problems. There can be at least 2 major things:

  • Selenium test case lasts very long

Selenium request is really expensive. Especially when executing the tests through hub-node (selenium grid) infrastructure. The request is sent from the build machine to selenium hub, then to selenium node, then on selenium node to the browser. The response travels all this way back. When the performance problem shows up during test case execution, the cause is often related to the fact Selenium sends too many requests. We often are not aware how often requests are sent.

  • the page which is to be automated is getting refreshed often

Sometimes we need to assert the page which is automatically refreshed in specific time interval. This problem causes notorious StaleElementReference exceptions. When refresh event happens after Selenium grabs WebElement but before it invokes a method on it the exception surfaces.

 The real life problem

Recently I was dealing with such a problems and was trying to think of a solution.

In my case I was iterating through the table to assert the specific cell in each row.

So the code was more less like this:


The performance was very poor and staleness problem was present in almost each run.

Notice, java is sending requests to web browser at all marked lines. Surprisingly, it is the case for every iteration in the loop as well!

When page refreshes during driver chain method, you will get stale element reference exception. The same thing will happen when page gets refreshed anywhere during loop execution. The list of web elements which is used during the test cannot be refreshed until loop is completed!

How to solve such a problem? The solution is either to try to catch the exception so that processing starts at the beginning of the refresh interval or to decrease number of Selenium requests to minimum and move processing to memory as much as possible. The first solution turned out to be impossible as the loop was lasting 3 times longer than page refresh rate…

Here comes the cavalry

JSoup (https://jsoup.org) is the ultimate solution for all such a problems. Not only it is great library extremely easy to use with great documentation and intuitive methods but also it allows to extremely smooth code refactor because of the fantastic feature it supports: CSS selectors.

Just take a look:

The table is extracted using Selenium and then the processing is passed to JSoup completely for the looping time:

  • JSoup creates document of the html table, which is kind of snapshot of the data present at the time document was created which assures data consistency
  • the document is then queried using CSS selectors – completely offline from Selenium point of view and entirely in memory
  • the result is converted back to Selenium WebElement to continue Selenium methods

Now, the web browser interaction is reduced to only 2 places.

The solution is staleness proof and significantly improves execution performance: one just needs to catch StaleElementReference exception when Selenium is in play:

The only thing to consider in this specific example is to decide if we can accept the situation page was refreshed after grabbing the table but before sending getLocation request. Notice, it is perfectly save if there is no page refresh at all.

As for performance, even using local web browser and very small table the difference is noticable (on selenium grid the difference is really huge, believe me!):

Sum up

If there is a problem with multiple Selenium requests which cause performance issue or are making tests unreliable because of StaleElementReference exception – switch to offline processing with JSoup. Just remember, you need to understand the number of Selenium requests in your code, the exact cause of staleness and the impact offline processing brings to your test case consistency.


The Great 4 Variables and how to use them to tame the heavy tests instability

The Great 4 Variables

In world of testing we just need to care of the 4 Variables. If we can test all the combinations of values they can have we can be 100% sure our software works. Unfortunately, they are really big ones:

  • code
  • configuration
  • data
  • environment

The code is where we focus most often: unit tests, integration tests, system tests. We now the stuff.

The configuration: is less obvious variable. Most often system under test is using default configuration and we miss important aspect of it. We definetely should create and use configuration tests to learn if the configuration is actually working and how it affects the system.

The data is the real nightmare. The infinite number of possible combinations both internal data (application’s database) and external (data coming from outside) can be spoiled, corrupted or just unsupported is turning the risk of the system under test to fail into the sure thing.

The environment is very much underestimated thing: there are really strange OS configurations, versions and patches which can magically render our fantastic application unusable.

This is a real source of all the variety of defects we encounter when assuring the quality!

I do not want to be writing more details about the 4 Variables, I can recommend the great book which discusses the topic in detail (and other topics as well):  Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation

The actual topic I want to cover in this post is the problem of heavy tests instability, and I want to use the Great 4 Variables to solve the problem.

The problem of heavy tests – pass, fail, error

We all know heavy tests. We often refer to them as system or large tests. They need application runtime. They start slowly, work slowly and most often after long period of time instead of saying pass or fail they just say ERROR. Welcome to the world of passfailerror 🙂

Everything related to the heavy test is slow: it is slow to create it, it takes much time to run it and finally it takes very much time to find the reason of error or failure. If we could only reduce error rate to minimum…

The solution

Let’s imagine we are in the project with many heavy tests which often produce error result. We need to make small steps to decrease the unwanted status. Firstly we need to know the reason of test errors and we need to be able to get this information as quickly as possible when looking at the test result.

Let’s use the 4 Variables for that purpose.

We just need to realize, our testing code is just the same application as any other one. It is also affected by the Great 4 Variables. To execute the heavy test we need the testing code, testing configuration, test data and test environment. We are going to be asserting things in some way and assertions may contain defect. We may be configuring the test in a way it doesn’t work or produces error results. Our test data may be changed by previous test run and thus produce errors or even worse: not credible pass/fail results. Finally our test environment may be malfunctioning or just not working at all (the simplest example is when using docker’s container which is set up at the beginning of the tests unsuccessfully and thus doesn’t work when test starts).

But how can we apply that knowledge? We just need to test all the Variables BEFORE test is started to have confidence it will produce credible result of pass or fail and will not produce any error.

  1. test code – this is going to be real life scenario: I was using Cucumber testing framework as DSL in the project with some nice Selenium back end. The tests were quite stable, the results were clear. What a surprise – for few days they were completely wrong. Because of the defect in Cucumber layer they were reporting PASS no matter what the real result was. The lesson learnt is: always create unit tests for the testing code!
  2. test configuration – when the testing code should enter some special state for the specific test suite we can test if the state is correct. For example, if we have some DSL which has configuration for the application end point is uses (REST, custom client, GUI) it is possible to test if the test code is in GUI mode when GUI test starts.
  3. test data – when there is any chance the test data may be corrupted before testing starts it is neccessary to test if it didn’t change. Again, the real life scenario is I was working with the heavy tests which in certain circumstances when application under test was interrupted abnormally were corrupting the test data. So, if the test data is not safe for some reason it is good idea to check if it is correct before test starts.
  4. test environment – this is very well known issue test environment is down. Either docker container failed to start or maybe the problem is caused by the fact the test environment is used by other teams which planned the machine restart just when our tests start… But I would say we can not only test if it is up, but also do more precise checks like if it has sufficient resources to run the test (memory, processor, disk) or if the test user has some needed permissions for the test to start.

Once we have the checks in place they should be visible as separate items in our pipeline so that we know if our heavy test started at all and if not, what was the reason it failed to start: was it the code, configuration, data or environment failure?

After this we can make improvement actions so that is doesn’t repeat again. We do not loose any time to analyse long log files just to realize after 15 minutes the red status doesn’t mean our application under test has defect in critical area but that the test environment just ran out of space.

Of course, when any of the Variables is not problematic in our pipeline and never cause any problems we can safely skip it. We just need to monitor the Variables which are causing the instability of the heavy tests.


When creating the pipeline to have continuous delivery or at least continuous integration in place we cannot afford to loose time on understanding the results. The message has to be clear for the small, medium and large tests at least for the fact if we actually are having a defect or not. We need to know it instantly.

It is hard to achieve especially for large/heavy tests. In my opinion the best way to solve the problem is to test the Great 4 Variables which are concerning our tests to filter out any failures which are not related to application under test.

Let’s use the saved time for more important tasks.





Improving coverage – automating state transition approach 2.0

Approach 2.0

(This is improved approach in comparison to the idea of state transition testing described HERE.)

I was presenting in my past articles the approach which allows to generate test cases for combinatorial problems. This is very large group of aspects we encouter when dealing with problem of assuring the quality.

Still, there is an area where we need more general approach. Let’s think about simple GUI application which allows you to log in and fill in some form which can be saved. We have combinatorial aspect when filling in and saving it as we can do it in many ways.
But what about the situation we just cancel form filling? Or else we will fill in many form in the row? As you most probably know state transition diagram comes in hand. This is test design technique focusing on most general aspect of the application which is application state and transition context.
I would like to show in this article how to practically model application using this technique and most importantly how to automatically generate test cases with specific coverage which will be instantly executable.

State transition diagram coverage

Speaking about the coverage: according to my idea the coverage for diagrams is basing on how many times each transition is used: I call it N-tn coverage. So when I say 2-tn coverage it means each transition which is present in the diagram will be used at least twice. It is worth to notice this is something different in comparison to what you can find in QA literature where you can find N-switch coverage. As you probably now, 0-switch coverage means you test single transition (no states), 1-switch coverage means you test 2 transitions (the piece of diagram with 2 transitions and 1 state) and so on. This is nice but I think hard to use in pratice. Why? Because to test specific part of diagram you have to render the application into specific state: you have to execute all the states and transitions which lead you to the state you choose as starting point (setting the state of application without executing the path – like updating database, caches and other stuff manually – is very risky in my opinion and should be avoided). It is just better to avoid complex setup process.

The complexity

Unfortunately the complexity which is hidden behind the diagram is enormous: it is actually infinite. Let’s imagine application which has only 2 states and 1 transition:

simplest diagram

simplest diagram

How many test cases can we have? Infinite…
1. A-B-A (1-switch coverage, 1-tn coverage)
2. A-B-A-B (2-switch coverage, 1-tn coverage as T2 is used only once)
3. A-B-A-B-A (3-switch coverage, 2-tn coverage)
4. A-B-A-B-A-B (4-switch coverage, 2-tn coverage as T2 is used only twice)
5. A-B-A-B-A-B-A (5-switch coverage, 3-tn coverage)

and so on until infinity is reached which is never of course…
Repeating transition once, twice and thousand times are all different test cases. Here you can clearly see how many test cases you miss to reach 100% confidence your application is working as expected.
Anyway, theory is very nice but let’s apply it in practice to make it useful finally.

Practical example

In general, we need just the same as what was the case for combinatorial problems: we need a model, generated test cases in xml format and generated test cases in domain language.
Let’s assume we would like to test Notepad’s functionality related to tabs and text direction. Let’s start with plain old diagram:

state transition diagram example

state transition diagram example

It looks very nice but we cannot do anything useful with it right now. Let’s write it in XML format with domain language part:

Now it is becoming unreadable for humans but it is much better for a machine…

Please note, expected results for each transition is “notepad GUI is visible” which is quite trivial. This should be more meaningful when doing real diagram model.
At this point we need some software to find valid paths through the diagram with given N-tn coverage. I couldn’t find anything useful in the internet so I wrote myself the piece of software. You can view the code under automatic-tc-generation-from-diagram-another-approach branch HERE. This is: src/test/java/com/passfailerror/diagram2sequence_generator/Diagram2SequenceGenerator.java class.

The algorythm is quite simple:
– diagram is converted into state transition table
– starting state row is chosen as 1. item
– state transition table is shuffled and scanned; when matching row is found (according to diagram logic) it is appended to valid path and transition table is reshuffled
– this process repeates until diagram path is built with specific N-tn coverage (each transition is visited at least N times)
– notice, it makes sense to generate more than one diagram case as each time specific N-tn coverage is generated different path is chosen.

After running Diagram2SequenceGenerator there is result XML file which I call diagram cases generated which we need to convert into executable diagram cases as it is not executable yet:

We can do the convertion with enhanced version of testcase generator which was used in my previous articles which were dealing with combinatorial problems. You can see the source in :
src/test/java/com/passfailerror/testcases_generator/Generator.java class which receives extra parameter TestcaseSourceType which in turn allows to generate test cases both for TCases output file and diagram cases output file.

The executable test case is:

The sequence of WHENs and THENs is diagram case, while single WHEN-THEN pair would be a test case according to my terminology. Just to repeat: it is valid to have more than one diagram case for given N-tn coverage as the sequence of transitions which is generated is always different.
Now, it is just the matter of running the output as it is directly executable:

Approach 2.0 sum up

First we draw a diagram:



Then we translate it into XML (unfortunately manually):

diagram as XML

diagram as XML

Then diagram cases are generated (automatically):

generated diagram cases

generated diagram cases

Finally executable test cases are generated (automatically):


generated DSL executable test cases

The DSL which is used here (internal domain language implemented in Java) as well as framework (Sikuli) doesn’t really matter. They are used only as an example. Most often it is Selenium, or maybe some kind of strange things like Protractor which will be used in practice and Cucumber or other behaviour driven development library on top of this. The most important thing is that when using approach 2.0 the only important thing is to use any kind of domain language so that it can be used in HAS elements in model file in order to generate diagram cases automatically.


State transition diagram test design technique starts to be useful finally – I have never seen anybody applying this in pratice which is weird as this is about all applications which have at least 2 transitions. Or maybe I didn’t see much?
There are a few important points behind all this: it was very simple problem illustrated here where only few states and few transitions resulted in so many actions. It means the complexity hidden behind simple application is very large and so when modelling more complex applications we have to focus on small coverage or choose only part of application to be tested in this way. Also, I didn’t say anything about invalid paths through the diagram: we should also be checking if invalid paths are really invalid and how system behaves in such situation.

Anyway, I am sure this is very useful technique to deal with problems which are modelled by state transition diagrams.


Automatic test case generation for state transition diagrams (approach 1.0)

Approach 1.0

This article is left here for historical reason. Please read newest version of the idea which is described HERE.

Increase automatic test case generation

I was writing about 2 things in the past: state transition based testing and automatic testcase generation. This is actually about 2 complementary test design techniques: state transition diagrams and decision tables respectively (I do not want to write about details of these techniques now – this is a subject for separate post I hope to write in the future). In the latter post I showed how to automate test case generation for decision tables, the goal for today is to show how to start automation when diagram is the starting point.

Combinatorial nature of a problem can be expressed as decision table and can be translated into xml for TCases application to process it and produce output which contains optimal set of test cases (automatic testcase generation). However, the most general way to analyze application under test is the state transition diagram. I already showed how to use this technique in order to achieve the coverage but I showed only the manual approach. Still, we need automatic test case generation!

When diagram is in use, the trouble begins: how to process it automatically? How to generate set of test cases from a diagram? It was quite a while until I came up with some reasonable solution.

I recently thought I could try TCases for this purpose. Although this is meant to identify variables and its values, if transitions of the diagrams could be considered as variables and their dependencies were described in TCases xml input file, I could get valid set of transitions and each transition would be used at least once in basic coverage setting. 

Practical example

Create model

Let’s use the same problem as in state transition based testing. We want to test if Notepad is working when switching between tabs and changing text direction inside each of them as well as writing text in each of them. This is very simplified model but it is enough to ilustrate the concept. The state transition diagram looks like this:


Now, it is required to translate it into XML representation which will be parsable for TCases (I was writing about TCases HERE). This is it:

INPUT is the state name, VAR is the transaction.

COMMAND in HAS elements contains domain language sentences which are executable after simple processing by domain language generator.

WHEN elements describe needed dependencies to allow only valid combinations of transactions.

EXPECTED in HAS elements shows we just assert if Notepad GUI is visible after each set of transactions is run.

There is one problem with this file: in line 16 we need to give all the sequence of transactions needed to reach SELECT2TAB as TAB_1_IS_SELECTED state has 2 outgoing transactions. This shows there is a disadvantage of modeling the diagram in this way if there are states using very many transactions.

Generate executable test case

After generator is run, the set of test cases is produced. Generator reference is

The link to the source code is shown at the end of this post if you are interested.

When using basic coverage which is 1-tuple coverage it will mean each transaction will be used at least once. Because each transaction is marked as TRUE or FALSE (decision about transaction is valid when dependencies are met) the set of transactions will contain both TRUE and FALSE: it means in the generated test case there can be all valid transactions but also part of them as well. This is 1-tuple coverage:

With generated test cases (tc3 is missing as it consists of FALSE values only and generator wisely skips such test cases):

Now, when creation process of test cases is automated it is very easy to increase the coverage. This is 2-tuple coverage:

With generated test cases:

Running the testcases

It is time to run the test cases. The generated test cases are just pasted into JUnit class:

And the class is run as shown here:

If curious, you can view all the code HERE under automatic-tc-generation-from-diagram branch.

Sum up

Even if not perfect this is a solution to automatically generate test cases from state transition diagram. Together with automatic test case generation for combinatorial problems described by decision tables it is very solid approach to quickly achieve optimal coverage and thus assure quality in the application under test.

More about the coverage – let’s get it right and fast automatically


I was writing once about superb TCases software which allows to put pair-wise testing into practice. I said it was a giant leap towards the right coverage. In this short article I would like to go much further. This is not going to be another leap, it is going to be a flight 🙂

The problem

When dealing with a problem in QA practice it has often combinatorial nature. There are many possible combinations of either data, actions or other “inputs” which constitute the testing space. The testing space always tends to be infinite or at least extremely large as not only must one take into consideration the fact all the inputs have to be used in test runtime but also all the relations between them. Such a relations can only be tested when specific combinations of inputs will be used. Thus, the main problem to solve is how to choose those combinations. Well, this one is already solved here.

When testing combinations are known next problem arises quickly. There are always many combinations to test. There is huge work to do to create automated tests out of generated combinations not to mention manual testing. And there is even more work to do when system under test changes as the tests have to be adjusted accordingly. Let’s solve this problem.

The solution

Automation is the process which started quite long time ago. We are not testing manually, we have set of automated tests to run. We can use them on all the testing levels: small, medium and large tests are automated and used in development process continuously. However before we can run the test we have to write it. It takes time as it is still manual process nowadays. It is now time to move on and start creating test cases automatically!

It looks more less like this:


old process

It is important to move to such a process:


new process

When speaking about combinatorial testing problem we have TCases at hand which utilizes pair-wise testing concept and generates the set of testcases to be created. After that, such a raw testcases need to be translated into executable test cases:


automatic test cases design time


There are domain specific languages in use at present. I wrote shortly about it here already. I am going to use internal domain language that is a language crafted from Java itself.

Let’s assume, we want to test the behaviour of Notepad++ application in terms of new document settings with regards to format, encoding and default language. These settings are available at: Settings->Preferences->New Document.

I am going to use all the available formats and 5 languages and encodings for the sake of simplicity (in reality, one needs to use all of them in the testing space of course).

We have 3 variables: format, encoding and default language. Each variable contains information related to testing space that is which values are possible and at the same time it contains information related to domain language (Has attributes). Domain language contains two kinds of information: the one related to GIVEN and WHEN clauses (command) and the one related to THEN clause (expected).

The testing space looks like this (input.xml):

So, for example when “format_isChecked” variable will have FORMAT_WINDOWS value, it will mean:

translated later into:

All the hashes and asterisks are used as placeholders only. It is much easier to write dsl related info when using external domain language like Cucumber. Dealing with internal one like in this example (Java) is more problematic because of braces and dots.

Anyway, each variable value will be translated into GIVEN/WHEN and THEN sentences and each variable value which belong to the same testcase will be concatenated with each other to create a single dsl test case.

To achieve this, we need to create output xml file with raw testcase which are not executable yet (they are manually executable though). I use 2-tuple coverage:

After TCases is run we get (output.xml):