Architecture Decision Record
← Decision record examples

Architecture decision record: browser automation framework fo E2E testing (Playwright vs Selenium)

1. Context

We dey di process to select browser automation framework for our end-to-end (E2E) testing pipeline. Dis framework go be integral to our CI/CD processes, to run tests wey simulate real user interactions on our platform. Specifically, di tests go cover scenarios like user sign-up/sign-in, file uploads, dashboard interactions, and report downloads.

As startup, our focus na agile development, and we need to iterate and evolve rapidly. Our team mostly dey work with TypeScript and Python, and di ability to write tests for dis languages essential. Plus, di platform get interactive charts and dashboards, wey make am critical say di automation tool support rich, dynamic UIs well.

Di two contenders for dis task na Playwright and Selenium, each get im strengths and trade-offs. We need to evaluate dis frameworks based on di features and requirements wey dem outline below.

2. Considered Options

  • Playwright (by Microsoft)
  • Selenium (by the Selenium Project)

3. Decision Drivers

Di factors wey dey influence our decision na dis ones:

  1. Agile Development: Di tool wey we choose must enable fast, flexible development cycles.
  2. Language Support: Our team require support for both TypeScript and Python.
  3. Interactive UI Testing: Di ability to test interactive charts, dashboards, and dynamic elements reliably essential.
  4. Runtime Speed: Even though e no be primary concern, performance for CI/CD pipelines na consideration.
  5. Scalability: We no dey plan for massive scaling for di immediate future, but we want make sure say di solution fit handle future growth.
  6. Backwards Compatibility: Legacy systems and compatibility with older browsers no critical for our project at dis time.
  7. Mobile Testing: Even though e no be immediate focus, di framework suppose fit test mobile-responsive features or e suppose extensible for such use cases.
  8. Multi-monitor Testing: Support for multi-monitor configurations na secondary requirement, especially if we ever scale to testing for more complex user workflows.
  9. File Upload Testing: Di framework must handle file uploads efficiently, na core requirement of our testing needs.

4. Evaluation Criteria

  • Ease of Use: E easy to write and maintain tests?
  • Language Support: Di framework support TypeScript and Python, di two languages wey our team dey use most frequently?
  • Interactive UI Testing: How well di framework handle complex, interactive user interfaces like charts, file uploads, and dynamic data?
  • CI/CD Integration: How well di framework integrate into common CI/CD tools and services?
  • Cross-browser Support: Which browsers dem support and how well dem perform?
  • Performance and Speed: How quick tests dey run, especially for CI/CD pipeline?
  • Scalability: How well di framework fit scale if dem add more tests or more complex scenarios?
  • Community and Ecosystem: How active di framework community be? Plenty integrations and extensions dey available?

5. Considerations

5.1 Playwright

Pros:
  1. Smarter API for Local File Uploads: Playwright API to interact with local files and to perform file uploads simpler and more intuitive. Dis one go make file upload testing easier to implement and maintain.
  2. Syntax and Code Generation: Playwright get shorter, more concise syntax. Dis one result for less boilerplate code, wey improve maintainability and developer efficiency. Plus, dis shorter syntax improve OpenAI code generation quality, wey make am easier to automatically generate test scripts.
  3. Interactive UI Testing: Playwright excel for testing dynamic, interactive web applications, like those wey get rich charts, complex user interactions, and real-time updates. E handle WebSockets, WebRTC, shadow DOMs, and other modern web technologies very effectively.
  4. Cross-browser Support: Playwright support Chromium, WebKit, and Firefox. E get consistent performance across dis browsers, wey suppose cover most of our testing needs.
  5. CI/CD Integration: Playwright integrate seamlessly with modern CI/CD platforms (GitHub Actions, Jenkins, etc.). E fit run tests for parallel across different browsers, wey optimize test run times and make am suitable for rapid development.
  6. Fast and Reliable: Playwright faster than Selenium in general, especially for headless mode, and e more resilient wen e dey deal with asynchronous web elements.
Cons:
  1. Limited Mobile Testing: Even though Playwright support mobile emulation for browsers, e lack native mobile testing capabilities like Selenium integration with Appium for true mobile testing.
  2. Smaller Ecosystem: Playwright still newer and less established than Selenium. Even though e get rapidly growing community and good documentation, e fit never get di vast ecosystem of plugins and integrations wey Selenium offer.
  3. Limited Browser Support: Even though Playwright cover di major modern browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox), im support for legacy browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer) no robust as Selenium own.

5.2 Selenium

Pros:
  1. Longer History and Maturity: Selenium don dey around for long time and e get proven track record. Plenty teams and industries dey use am widely, wey lead to vast ecosystem of plugins, integrations, and resources.
  2. Cross-browser and Cross-platform Support: Selenium support wide variety of browsers and versions, including Internet Explorer, and dem fit also integrate am with various tools like Docker, Selenium Grid, and cloud services for distributed testing.
  3. Mobile Testing: Selenium, through im integration with Appium, much more robust for mobile testing, including both Android and iOS applications. Dis one make am di better choice for projects wey get mobile-first or mobile-heavy focus.
  4. Multi-monitor Testing: Selenium provide better support for scenarios wey involve multiple monitors or complex multi-window interactions.
Cons:
  1. Complexity: Selenium API more verbose and explicit. Even though dis one fit be advantage for some cases, e mean more code to write and maintain, wey fit reduce developer agility—especially important for startup environment.
  2. Performance: Selenium generally dey run slower than Playwright, especially for headless mode. Dis one fit impact CI/CD pipelines, particularly as di number of tests dey grow.
  3. Interactive UI Testing: Selenium no smooth as Playwright wen e come to test modern, interactive web UIs, particularly with charts and real-time data updates. E require more setup and handling to reliably interact with dynamic content.

6. Comparison Summary

Feature Playwright Selenium
Ease of Use Shorter syntax, more intuitive for modern UIs More explicit, require more boilerplate
Language Support TypeScript, Python, JavaScript TypeScript, Python, Java, Ruby, C#
Interactive UI Testing Excellent for dynamic, real-time UIs E handle basic UIs, but more verbose and complex for rich interactions
File Upload Testing Smarter API for file uploads More verbose, less intuitive API
CI/CD Integration Easy integration with GitHub Actions, Jenkins Strong integration with many CI tools
Mobile Testing Limited, only emulation Full support through Appium
Cross-browser Support Chromium, WebKit, Firefox Full support across major and legacy browsers
Performance Fast, optimized for headless testing Slower, especially for headless mode
Multi-monitor Testing Limited Good support for multi-monitor setups
Community and Ecosystem Growing, good documentation Large, mature, extensive ecosystem

7. Decision

After we consider di requirements and trade-offs, Playwright na di better choice for our current needs. Im smarter API for local file upload testing, concise syntax, and strong support for interactive UI testing make am ideal fit for our agile development cycle. Di fact say e support both TypeScript and Python critical for our team, and di framework modern approach to testing go allow us write clean, maintainable code.

Even though Selenium still be great tool, particularly for mobile testing, legacy browser support, and multi-monitor setups, e less suited to our current needs. Im verbosity, slower performance, and more complex handling of dynamic UIs like charts make am less optimal for our use case.

8. Consequences

  • Immediate Action: We go adopt Playwright for our E2E testing, we go focus on testing user flows wey involve sign-up, sign-in, file uploads, dashboards, and report downloads.
  • Long-Term Considerations: We go keep eye on di evolving Playwright ecosystem. If our needs change, particularly around mobile testing or support for legacy browsers, we fit revisit Selenium.
  • Training and Documentation: Development teams go need to become familiar with Playwright API, particularly to handle dynamic UIs and file uploads.
  • Migration: Dem go gradually migrate existing Selenium tests (if any) go Playwright.

9. Future Considerations