WebDriver options allow you to customize the behavior of your browser instance, enabling you to optimize performance, handle specific scenarios, and mitigate common testing challenges. By strategically applying these options, you can create more robust, stable, and efficient automated tests.
1. Headless Mode with GPU Disabled: Speed and Stability Combined
Running tests in headless mode-without a visible browser window-is a game-changer for speed and resource efficiency. However, GPU-related issues can sometimes lead to crashes. The solution? Disable the GPU while running headless.
--headless=new: Activates the newer, more efficient headless mode.
--disable-gpu: Prevents GPU-related crashes, ensuring test stability.
This combination provides a significant performance boost and enhances the reliability of your tests, especially in CI/CD environments.
2. Evading Detection: Disabling DevTools and Automation Flags
Websites are increasingly sophisticated in detecting automated browsers. To minimize the risk of your tests being flagged, disable DevTools and automation-related flags.
--disable-blink-features=AutomationControlled: Prevents the navigator.webdriver property from being set to true.
excludeSwitches, enable-automation: Removes the "Chrome is being controlled by automated test software" infobar.
useAutomationExtension, False: Disables the automation extension.
Important Note: While these options can help evade detection, they are not foolproof. Websites may employ more advanced techniques. Use these options responsibly and ethically.
When testing HTTPS websites with self-signed or invalid certificates, certificate errors can disrupt your tests. The --ignore-certificate-errors option allows you to bypass these errors.
This option is invaluable for testing development or staging environments where certificate issues are common. However, remember to avoid using this in production tests, as it can mask real security vulnerabilities.
4. Disabling Extensions and Popup Blocking: Minimizing Interference
Browser extensions and pop-up blockers can interfere with your tests, leading to unpredictable behavior. Disabling them ensures a clean and consistent testing environment.
This fixture sets up a Chrome browser with your desired options and makes it available to your test functions.
Conclusion
Mastering WebDriver options is essential for SQA engineers seeking to optimize their Pytest automation workflows. By leveraging these options, you can create faster, more stable, and reliable tests, ultimately improving the overall quality and efficiency of your testing efforts. Experiment with these options and discover how they can enhance your testing practices.
As Software Quality Assurance (SQA) professionals, we know that crafting effective test cases is both an art and a science. In his seminal 2003 paper, What Is a Good Test Case?, Cem Kaner, a thought leader in software testing, explores the complexity of designing test cases that deliver meaningful insights. Drawing from Kaner's work, here are four practical tips to elevate your manual test case writing, ensuring they are purposeful, actionable, and impactful.
1. Align Test Cases with Clear Information Objectives
A good test case starts with a purpose. Kaner emphasizes that test cases are questions posed to the software, designed to reveal specific information-whether it's finding defects, assessing conformance to specifications, or evaluating quality. Before writing a test case, ask: What am I trying to learn or achieve? For manual testing, this clarity is critical since testers rely on human observation and judgment.
Tip in Action: Define the objective upfront. For example, if your goal is to "find defects" in a login feature, craft a test case like: "Enter a username with special characters (e.g., @#$%) and a valid password, then verify the system rejects the input with an appropriate error message." This targets a specific defect class (input validation) and provides actionable insight into the system's behavior.
2. Make Test Cases Easy to Evaluate
Kaner highlights "ease of evaluation" as a key quality of a good test case. In manual testing, where testers manually execute and interpret results, ambiguity can lead to missed failures or false positives. A test case should clearly state the inputs, execution steps, and expected outcomes so the tester can quickly determine pass or fail without excessive effort.
Tip in Action: Write concise, unambiguous steps. Instead of "Check if the form works," specify: "Enter 'JohnDoe' in the username field, leave the password blank, click 'Login,' and verify an error message appears: 'Password is required.'" This reduces guesswork, ensuring consistency and reliability in execution.
3. Design for Credibility and Relevance
A test case's value hinges on its credibility-whether stakeholders (developers, managers, or clients) see it as realistic and worth addressing. Kaner notes that tests dismissed as "corner cases" (e.g., "No one would do that") lose impact. For manual testing, focus on scenarios that reflect real-world usage or critical risks, balancing edge cases with typical user behavior.
Tip in Action: Ground your test cases in user context. For a shopping cart feature, write: "Add 10 items to the cart, remove 2, and verify the total updates correctly." This mirrors common user actions, making the test credible and motivating for developers to fix any uncovered issues. Pair it with a risk-based test like "Add 1,000 items and verify system performance" if scalability is a concern, justifying its relevance with data or requirements.
4. Balance Power and Simplicity Based on Product Stability
Kaner defines a test's "power" as its likelihood of exposing a bug if one exists, often achieved through boundary values or complex scenarios. However, he cautions that complexity can overwhelm early testing phases when the software is unstable, leading to "blocking bugs" that halt progress. For manual testing, tailor the test's complexity to the product's maturity.
Tip in Action: Early in development, keep it simple: "Enter the maximum allowed value (e.g., 999) in a numeric field and verify acceptance." As stability improves, increase power with combinations: "Enter 999 in Field A, leave Field B blank, and submit; verify an error flags the missing input." This progression maximizes defect detection without overwhelming the tester or the process.
Final Thoughts
Kaner's work reminds us there's no one-size-fits-all formula for a "good" test case-context is everything. For SQA professionals engaged in manual testing, the key is to design test cases that are purposeful, executable, believable, and appropriately scoped. By aligning with objectives, ensuring clarity, prioritizing relevance, and adapting to the software's lifecycle, you'll create test cases that not only find bugs but also drive meaningful improvements. As Kaner puts it, "Good tests provide information directly relevant to [your] objective"-so define your goal, and let it guide your craft.
Every year, the April Blogging from A to Z Challenge attracts a diverse group of bloggers eager to take on the exciting task of writing posts corresponding to each letter of the alphabet. While I've considered joining in the past and even felt a surge of excitement about the idea, I've ultimately decided not to participate this year.
The challenge, as enticing as it may seem, requires a significant investment of time and creative energy. Coming up with topics that fit the alphabetical constraint while also being engaging and valuable to readers is no small feat. I've found that the effort required to adhere to this structure often detracts from the organic flow of ideas and the natural rhythm of blogging.
Moreover, my experience has shown that readers are more drawn to the content itself rather than the format in which it's presented. They seek out blogs for the quality of the writing, the depth of the insights, and the relevance of the topics. The challenge, while fun and stimulating in its own right, can sometimes feel like an artificial constraint that doesn't necessarily enhance the blogging experience for either the writer or the reader.
That being said, I'm not abandoning blogging in April by any means. Instead, I'll continue to share my thoughts and insights on a variety of subjects that I believe will resonate with my audience. I'll stick to my usual approach of letting the ideas that naturally come to mind guide my posts. This way, I can maintain the authenticity and spontaneity that I feel are essential to creating meaningful connections with my readers.
So, while I won't be joining the April Blogging from A to Z Challenge, I'll still be here, writing and sharing. I encourage you to explore the challenge if it interests you, but also to remember that there's no one-size-fits-all approach to blogging. Whether you choose to participate in the challenge or not, the most important thing is to keep writing and sharing your unique voice with the world.
If you?ve ever needed a quick, reliable way to generate random data, look no further than RandomGenerator.pro. This sleek, user-friendly website is a treasure trove for anyone seeking randomness in a variety of forms, whether for creative projects, testing, or just pure curiosity.
At its core, RandomGenerator.pro offers a range of tools to generate random numbers, letters, colors, and more. The interface is clean and intuitive, making it accessible to users of all levels. Need a random number for a raffle or a unique string for a coding project? The site delivers with just a few clicks. One standout feature is its ability to customize parameters, allowing you to set ranges or specific criteria for your random outputs, which adds a layer of flexibility that?s hard to beat.
What sets RandomGenerator.pro apart is its simplicity paired with utility. There?s no unnecessary clutter?just straightforward tools that work efficiently. It?s perfect for developers, educators, or anyone who needs a dash of randomness in their work or play. Plus, it?s free to use, which is always a bonus.
Whether you?re brainstorming, prototyping, or simply exploring, RandomGenerator.pro is a handy resource worth bookmarking. Give it a spin next time you need a random spark?it?s a small but mighty tool that delivers every time!
Website Description
Find the ultimate set of free random generators intended to inspire, teach, and entertain. Our inclusive platform has more than 30 distinct generators across various categories, ranging from animals and entertainment to food and nature. Whether you are a creative professional needing inspiration, an educator in need of teaching materials, a student completing projects, or merely someone new to discovering interesting things, our random generators offer unlimited means of exploration and creativity.
Random Generator Pro is the web's most extensive and accessible collection of random generators. Every generator has been hand-developed to present precise, high-quality information in each generation. Our website fuses high-performance random generation engines with huge databases to yield first-rate, targeted results for all categories. Ideal for art, education, choices, amusement, and many other applications - absolutely free and fully accessible without joining.
When working with audio in Audacity, achieving consistent loudness is crucial. You'll often encounter two powerful tools: Normalize and Loudness Normalization. While both aim to adjust audio levels, they operate on fundamentally different principles. Understanding their distinctions is key to making the right choice for your audio projects.
Normalize: Peak-Based Adjustment
Normalize works by finding the highest peak (the loudest point) in your selected audio and adjusting the entire waveform proportionally. You specify a target peak level (usually in dBFS - decibels relative to full scale), and Audacity scales the audio so that the highest peak reaches that target.
Peak-Based: Focuses solely on the loudest point.
Simple and Fast: Relatively quick processing.
Ignores Perceived Loudness: Doesn't consider how loud the audio sounds to human ears.
Can Create Inconsistent Perceived Loudness: Peaks may be normalized, but overall loudness may still be inconsistent.
Useful for aligning peak levels of similar audio files or preparing audio for further processing.
Loudness Normalization considers the perceived loudness of the audio, aligning it with how humans hear. It uses algorithms that analyze the audio?s overall loudness over time, rather than just the peaks. It targets a specific Integrated Loudness value, typically measured in LUFS (Loudness Units relative to Full Scale).
Perceived Loudness-Based: Considers the average loudness over time.
More Complex Processing: Takes longer than Normalize.
Creates Consistent Perceived Loudness: Results in a more uniform and balanced listening experience.
Uses LUFS and True Peak values.
Better for broadcast, streaming, and podcasting where consistent loudness is essential.
Follows industry standards like ITU-R BS.1770.
Which One is "Better" for Making Audio Louder?
The answer depends on your goal:
For simply raising the peak level without considering perceived loudness, use Normalize.
For achieving a consistent and balanced listening experience, use Loudness Normalization.
Why Loudness Normalization is Often Preferred:
Human hearing doesn?t perceive loudness linearly. A short, very loud peak might not sound as loud as a sustained, moderately loud sound. Loudness Normalization accounts for this by analyzing the audio?s overall energy over time. This results in audio that sounds more consistent and comfortable to listen to.
Practical Example:
Imagine you have a podcast recording with a few loud coughs and otherwise quiet speech.
Normalize: If you normalize to -1 dBFS, the coughs will reach -1 dBFS, but the speech might still be very quiet. This would result in an inconsistent listening experience.
Loudness Normalization: If you loudness normalize to -16 LUFS, the overall perceived loudness of the podcast will be consistent. The coughs will be brought down, and the speech will be raised to a more balanced level.
While Normalize has its uses, Loudness Normalization is generally the superior choice for achieving consistent and professional-sounding audio. By understanding the differences between these two tools, you can make informed decisions and elevate the quality of your audio projects. Choose Loudness Normalization when you want to create a listening experience that is both loud and consistent.
Pytest has solidified its position as a go-to testing framework for Python developers due to its simplicity, extensibility, and powerful features. In this blog post, we'll dive deep into using Pytest, specifically focusing on its integration with Playwright for browser automation, and explore how to capture screenshots during fixture teardown for enhanced debugging and result analysis.
Capturing Screenshots in Fixture Teardown
To capture a screenshot before the browser closes, we can modify the page fixture to include a teardown phase. This will help make debugging a bit easier and a chance to look at automation to see if there's any weirdness.
Any code in the Fixture that appears after "yield page" will run at the conclusion of the test.
After running the tests, you'll find screenshots in the screenshots directory. These screenshots will help you understand the state of the browser at the end of each test, especially during failures.
Benefits of Screenshot Capture
Debugging: Quickly identify issues by visually inspecting the browser state. Reporting: Include screenshots in test reports for better documentation. Visual Validation: Verify UI elements and layout.
As QA teams grow and evolve, they often find themselves at a crossroads: Are they focusing on rigid, dogmatic practices, or are they embracing a more fluid, karmic approach that adapts to the moment? Let's dive into this philosophical tug-of-war and explore what it means for your QA team - and your software.
Dogma: The Comfort of the Rulebook
Dogma in QA is the strict adherence to predefined processes, checklists, and methodologies, no matter the context. It's the "we've always done it this way" mindset. Think of the team that insists on running a full regression test suite for every minor bug fix, even when a targeted test would suffice. Or the insistence on manual testing for every feature because automation "can't be trusted."
There's a certain comfort in dogma. It provides structure, predictability, and a clear path forward. For new QA engineers, a dogmatic framework can be a lifeline - a set of rules to follow when the chaos of software development feels overwhelming. And in highly regulated industries like healthcare or finance, dogmatic adherence to standards can be a legal necessity.
But here's the catch: Dogma can calcify into inefficiency. When a team clings to outdated practices - like refusing to adopt modern tools because "the old way works" - they risk missing out on innovation. Worse, they might alienate developers and stakeholders who see the process as a bottleneck rather than a value-add. Dogma, unchecked, turns QA into a gatekeeper rather than a collaborator.
Karma: The Flow of Cause and Effect
On the flip side, a karmic approach to QA is all about adaptability and consequences. It's the belief that good testing practices today lead to better outcomes tomorrow - less technical debt, happier users, and a smoother development cycle. A karmic QA team doesn't blindly follow a script; they assess the situation, weigh the risks, and adjust their strategy accordingly.
Imagine a team facing a tight deadline. Instead of dogmatically running every test in the book, they prioritize high-risk areas based on code changes and user impact. Or consider a team that invests in automation not because it's trendy, but because they've seen how manual repetition burns out testers and delays releases. This is karma in action: thoughtful decisions that ripple outward in positive ways.
The beauty of a karmic approach is its flexibility. It embraces new tools, techniques, and feedback loops. It's less about "the process" and more about the result - delivering quality software that meets real-world needs. But there's a downside: Without some structure, karma can devolve into chaos. Teams might skip critical steps in the name of agility, only to face a flood of bugs post-release. Karma requires discipline and judgment, not just good intentions.
Striking the Balance
So, is your QA team following dogma or karma? The truth is, neither is inherently "right" or "wrong" - it's about finding the sweet spot between the two.
Audit Your Dogma: Take a hard look at your current processes. Are there sacred cows that no one's questioned in years? Maybe that 50-page test plan made sense for a legacy system but not for your new microservices architecture. Challenge the status quo and ditch what doesn't serve the goal of quality.
Embrace Karmic Wisdom: Encourage your team to think critically about cause and effect. If a process feels like busywork, ask: What's the payoff? If a new tool could save hours, why not try it? Build a culture where decisions are tied to outcomes, not just tradition.
Blend the Best of Both: Use dogma as a foundation - standardized bug reporting, compliance checks, or a core set of tests that never get skipped. Then layer on karmic flexibility - tailoring efforts to the project's unique risks and timelines.
A Real-World Example
I heard of a QA team that swore by their exhaustive manual test suite. Every release, they'd spend two weeks clicking through the UI, even for tiny updates. Dogma ruled. Then a new lead joined, pushing for automation in high-traffic areas. The team resisted - until they saw the karma: faster releases, fewer late-night bug hunts, less late night testing, and happier devs. They didn't abandon manual testing entirely; they just redirected it where human intuition mattered most. The result? A hybrid approach that delivered quality without the grind.
The QA Crossroads
Your QA team's philosophy shapes more than just your testing - it influences your entire product lifecycle. Dogma offers stability but can stifle progress. Karma promises agility but demands discernment. The best teams don't pick a side; they dance between the two, guided by one question: Does this help us build better software? So, take a moment to reflect. Is your QA team stuck in the past, or are they sowing seeds for a better future? The answer might just determine whether your next release is a triumph - or a lesson in what could've been.
Welcome to cryan.com's main blog page! Here you'll find a diverse collection of informative posts covering topics ranging from technology and lifestyle to career advice. There's something here for everyone.
We are committed to delivering the highest quality content, ensuring you have access to the most current and reliable information.
