Testing your web extension with integration tests

Testing your web extension with integration tests

<strong>It is often described how to do unit tests for web extensions but hardly said how to do integration tests. Here, I am presenting the method to embed a Jasmine HTML page inside a page of your web extension.</strong>

It is often described how to do unit tests for web extensions but hardly said how to do integration tests. Here, I am presenting the method to embed a Jasmine HTML page inside a page of your web extension.

The need of testing

Testing is a core strategy in software development. It helps the developer to keep knowledge about the app and guarantee the code and the features keep their engagement.

When I started the extension Sync Tab Groups, I first tested it manually. While it was working for the first weeks, I quickly felt I was losing time and getting less confident about each release. The day I released a critical bug was the signal.

Although pretty easy for testing React or Node, the web extension ecosystem is younger and less rich. The best approach, I found so far, is to mock the tests with sinon and run them in a DOM emulation (Jest for example).

I decline this solution for 2 reasons:

1. The library is not complete for Chrome and definitely lacks some Firefox specific features

2. Mocked tests are useful and fast but not as safe as the integration tests

Finally, by looking at the Jasmine library, I discovered I could embed my tests in an HTML page.

How to embed tests in a web extension page

In a web extension, the extension API is available on different parts

1. In your background task

2. On your extension pages

I started my small test library in the background task. I stopped immediately. Not only coding a library is tough but lacking a nice interface made it hard to iterate.

I quickly switched to the extension pages with the support of the Jasmine library. I downloaded all the HTML, JS and CSS files and added all my tests in “describe” and “it” blocks in the imported JS files.

In a later version, I will use Webpack to create the test page. On one side, I will build a single JavaScript file with all the tests inside. And on the other side, I will fetch the Jasmine assets directly from the “node_modules/” folder. I am going to write another article on how to build a web extension with Webpack soon.


How to design your tests

While the concept is simple, I iterated regularly in order to improve the testing experience.

Bind the web page to the background script

By default, the web extension doesn’t access the full web extension API. A solution is to require the background window where the core of the extension is running.

Be careful, the function is asynchronous, thus, you should wait before executing any tests. When I added the Chrome support on Sync Tab Groups, at first I forgot to wait. As a consequence, the tests were randomly failing.

const waitInit = async() => {
  const Background = await browser.runtime.getBackgroundPage();
  // Available everywhere
  window.Background = Background
}()

// Store the original start function from Jasmine
const currentWindowOnload = window.onload;

// Overload the event to first get the background
window.onload = async function() {
await waitInit;

if (currentWindowOnload) {
currentWindowOnload();
}
};

Note: all the code available in the article is coming from the Sync Tab Groups repository.

Mock the timers

The window functions (“setTimeout”…) in the page are not the same than the ones in your background script. If you want to mock the time, you should modify the ones in the background object with the Jasmine mocked functions.

const TIME_OBJECTS = [
"setTimeout",
"setInterval",
"clearTimeout",
"clearInterval",
"Date",
]

const savedTime = {};
function installFakeTime() {
if (!Object.keys(savedTime).length) {
// Call Jasmine to mock the timer functions in the current window object
jasmine.clock().install();
jasmine.clock().mockDate();
savedTime = {};
// Replace the background objects with the mocked versions
TIME_OBJECTS.forEach((time)=>{
savedTime[time] = window.Background[time];
window.Background[time] = window[time];
});
}
}

function uninstallFakeTime() {
if (Object.keys(savedTime).length) {
jasmine.clock().uninstall();
Object.assign(window.Background, savedTime);
savedTime = {};
}
}

Improve the test experience

One of the first pain I got was caused by the tests starting automatically each time the page was loaded. A solution is to overwrite the filter with a string that won’t match any test title. The filter is overwritten dynamically in order to not have strange URLs.

My second pain was to list all the tests. By using the previous solution that stops the test execution, you set the enable parameter to false. If you set to empty the URL spec parameter, then all the tests are listed in light gray. If the spec parameter is not empty, the page will only list the test titles that matched it.

const queryString = new jasmine.QueryString({
getWindowLocation: function() {
return window.location;
},
});

const specFilter = new jasmine.HtmlSpecFilter({
filterString: function() {
if (getUrlParameterValueByName("enable") !== 'true') {
// A fake string that matches no test
return "@@@@@@@";
} else {
// Normal behavior: "spec" value is a regex to filter the test names
return queryString.getParam("spec")
}
},
});

const env = jasmine.getEnv();
env.specFilter = function(spec) {
return specFilter.matches(spec.getFullName());
};

This small interface on top of the Jasmine page helps to control the tests. By clicking on the “Enable” button the tests are executed on the next page refresh. Whereas “See all tests” button disables the test execution (the enable parameter to false) and resets the filter (the spec parameter to the empty value).

// Enable button: execute or not the tests on page load
// If not, ALL the tests are displayed in light gray
// Use a trick that jasmine won't execute nothing if the URL spec parameter is empty
const enableButton = document.createElement("button");
enableButton.innerText = Utils.getParameterByName("enable") === 'true'
? "Disable"
: "Enable";
enableButton.addEventListener("click", () => {
if (Utils.getParameterByName("enable") === 'true') {
// Set (add) a parameter "key" in the URL with the value
// @example ("k", "val") => http://www.site.fr/?k=val
// @source https://stackoverflow.com/a/487049/7186064
insertParam("enable", "false");
} else {
insertParam("enable", "true");
}
})

// Add the buttons when the page is loaded
document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", () => {
// I added this code in the body tag of the HTML page
// <h3>Test page</h3>
// <button><a href="?spec=">See all tests</a></button>
document.body.insertBefore(enableButton, document.querySelector("button"));
const div = document.createElement('div');
div.innerText = Filter: "${Utils.getParameterByName("spec")}";
document.body.insertBefore(div, enableButton);
});

Automatically open the page

Extension pages have often strange and unpredictable URLs. On top of that, they close each time you reload your extension. A nice solution is to add a system to automatically open pages when the extension starts (in the development mode of course). The web extension API provides a function to open a page from a local path without knowing the extension id.

const DEV_TABS = [
// tests pages
"/tests/test-page/unit.html",
"/tests/test-page/integration.html",
// options
"/options/option-page.html#settings",
// test page with a specific test targeted in spec
"/tests/test-page/integration.html?spec=Selector%20-%20",
]

// To execute when the extension is detected to be in developement mode
function onDevelopmentInstall() {
// Open the tabs
DEV_TABS.forEach((url)=>{
browser.tabs.create({
active: false,
url: browser.extension.getURL(url),
});
});

// Add extra code you want to be done in Development
}

It is easy to detect when the extension is under development thanks to the “temporary” property in Firefox. For Chrome, an alternative method based on the values of some fields is necessary as the “temporary” field is missing. Although it works, it shows a reality, Firefox works harder to make the extension developer life easier than with Chrome.

browser.runtime.onInstalled.addListener((details) => {
if (details.reason === "install") {
// Extension has been installed (first time only)
} else if (
(Utils.isFirefox() && details.temporary)
|| (Utils.isChrome() && details.reason === "update"
&& (browser.runtime.getManifest()).version === details.previousVersion
)
) {
// Extension has been reloaded in development
} else if (details.reason === "update"
&& (browser.runtime.getManifest()).version !== details.previousVersion) {
// Extension has been updated to a new version
}
});

Use mocked tabs

When I first did my tests, I was using a random pool of real URLs for the tabs in my groups. When the number of the tests increased significantly, the test suite was taking longer and my computer was over computing.

Actually, loading a tab in your browser is an expensive task because of the graphical resources and the scripts (tracking, page interactions…). On top of that, if they open by ten without letting time for your computer to finish, the navigation is getting horrible.

A new solution using a custom (empty) web extension page solves the issue. It has 2 advantages:

  1. The tab is lighter to load (no images, no JavaScript)
  2. It is local to the extension, thus there is no network time

For some tests you want to differentiate the pages to know if a specific page does something. As the extension can’t change the HTML content at opening, you could use an URL parameter set with a random number. Be careful, it might have number collision leading to random failing tests. A better solution would be to store the number to avoid using a number more than one.

Since the mock tabs don’t use the network, it allows to develop the extension without an internet connection. A great improvement to code even on the train!

/**

  • Return an url to a web extension page with a minimal body
  • The URL is personalized with a number set to the parameter test
    **/
    function getFakeUrl(random=String(getRandom(0,999999999))) {
    return browser.extension.getURL("/tests/test-page/template/template.html")
    + "?test=" + random;
    }

/**

  • Return a light local tab in the web extension
  • with a personalized URL to recognize them
    **/
    function getFakeTab() {
    const random = String(getRandom(0,999999999));
    // Return a minimalist tab
    return createTab({
    url: getFakeUrl(random),
    title: random,
    favIconUrl: "",
    })
    }

Create your toolbox to control the browser

As the tests are running inside the UI browser, it might get difficult to follow the current test execution for debugging. For example, you might wish to look at the test states to know if some tests have already failed or how close the tests are from the end.

Another problem exists if you test features that use more than one browser window. You want to visualize the test running in all the browser windows to check everything is going well while you are writing it.

It is easy to use some web extension functions to resize the browser windows to fit better in the screen. You could change manually the setting to fit a single or double screen configuration.

async function splitOnHalfScreen(windowId) {
try {
return browser.windows.update(windowId, {
left: TestUtils.DOUBLE_MONITORS?window.screen.width:0,
top: 3,
width: Math.round(window.screen.width/2),
height: window.screen.height,
state: "normal",
});
} catch (e) {
window.Background.LogManager.error(e, {args: arguments}, {logs: null});
}
}

And some insoluble problems…

Whereas it is easy now to test a web extension with integration tests, some behaviors are still problematic

  • Some tests are failing in the Mac full screen mode (no idea why)
  • While the tests are running, you might not be able to use your computer as changing the focus could make the tests failing

Improvement ideas

I just want to share with you some improvements I never tried because I run out of time.

Headless Browser

A pain that still remain is that during the tests my computer is unavailable. I read some things about seleniumpuppeter and Firefox Headless mode. However, I never tried! Also, the Firefox “web-ext” tool could even be a solution to do continuous integration.

Remote testing

I studied another solution I was never able to implement. Mocha is a server for sharing your tests in the browser.

It works by opening a local server that gets connected by the browser in a tab. By continuously exchanging, the Mocha server is sending the tests are waiting for the responses.

The reason I gave up this solution, was due to the tab page was targeting the localhost and thus wasn’t an extension page. This involves you got access only to a limited part of the API (not to the background script).

Conclusion

By embedding the Jasmine test page into your web extension, you could use the agility of a test framework with the full power of the web extension API.

In my project Sync Tab Groups, I was able to ensure all my features were truly working on the new releases. Independently of knowing if the web extension in the browser was changing. I used to release many times a week when I was only working on this project without regression.

By the way, I am still looking for contributors to help me developing Sync Tab Groups. :)

Originally published by Eric Masseran at https://medium.com/@Morikko/testing-your-web-extension-with-integration-tests-f875f1f52ff9

Follow great articles on Twitter

Learn More

☞ The Web Developer Bootcamp

☞ Angular 7 (formerly Angular 2) - The Complete Guide

☞ Learn and Understand AngularJS

☞ The Complete JavaScript Course: Build a Real-World Project

☞ Become a JavaScript developer - Learn (React, Node,Angular)

☞ Build Responsive Real World Websites with HTML5 and CSS3

☞ Web Design for Beginners: Real World Coding in HTML & CSS

☞ React 16 - The Complete Guide (incl. React Router 4 & Redux)

☞ The Complete Node.js Developer Course (2nd Edition)

☞ MERN Stack Front To Back: Full Stack React, Redux & Node.js

Mobile App Development Company India | Ecommerce Web Development Company India

Mobile App Development Company India | Ecommerce Web Development Company India

Best Mobile App Development Company India, WebClues Global is one of the leading web and mobile app development company. Our team offers complete IT solutions including Cross-Platform App Development, CMS & E-Commerce, and UI/UX Design.

We are custom eCommerce Development Company working with all types of industry verticals and providing them end-to-end solutions for their eCommerce store development.

Know more about Top E-Commerce Web Development Company

JavaScript developers should you be using Web Workers?

JavaScript developers should you be using Web Workers?

Do you think JavaScript developers should be making more use of Web Workers to shift execution off of the main thread?

Originally published by David Gilbertson at https://medium.com

So, Web Workers. Those wonderful little critters that allow us to execute JavaScript off the main thread.

Also known as “no, you’re thinking of Service Workers”.

Photo by Caleb Jones on Unsplash

Before I get into the meat of the article, please sit for a lesson in how computers work:

Understood? Good.

For the red/green colourblind, let me explain. While a CPU is doing one thing, it can’t be doing another thing, which means you can’t sort a big array while a user scrolls the screen.

This is bad, if you have a big array and users with fingers.

Enter, Web Workers. These split open the atomic concept of a ‘CPU’ and allow us to think in terms of threads. We can use one thread to handle user-facing work like touch events and rendering the UI, and different threads to carry out all other work.

Check that out, the main thread is green the whole way through, ready to receive and respond to the gentle caress of a user.

You’re excited (I can tell), if we only have UI code on the main thread and all other code can go in a worker, things are going to be amazing (said the way Oprah would say it).

But cool your jets for just a moment, because websites are mostly about the UI — it’s why we have screens. And a lot of a user’s interactions with your site will be tapping on the screen, waiting for a response, reading, tapping, looking, reading, and so on.

So we can’t just say “here’s some JS that takes 20ms to run, chuck it on a thread”, we must think about where that execution time exists in the user’s world of tap, read, look, read, tap…

I like to boil this down to one specific question:

Is the user waiting anyway?

Imagine we have created some sort of git-repository-hosting website that shows all sorts of things about a repository. We have a cool feature called ‘issues’. A user can even click an ‘issues’ tab in our website to see a list of all issues relating to the repository. Groundbreaking!

When our users click this issues tab, the site is going to fetch the issue data, process it in some way — perhaps sort, or format dates, or work out which icon to show — then render the UI.

Inside the user’s computer, that’ll look exactly like this.

Look at that processing stage, locking up the main thread even though it has nothing to do with the UI! That’s terrible, in theory.

But think about what the human is actually doing at this point. They’re waiting for the common trio of network/process/render; just sittin’ around with less to do than the Bolivian Navy.

Because we care about our users, we show a loading indicator to let them know we’ve received their request and are working on it — putting the human in a ‘waiting’ state. Let’s add that to the diagram.

Now that we have a human in the picture, we can mix in a Web Worker and think about the impact it will have on their life:

Hmmm.

First thing to note is that we’re not doing anything in parallel. We need the data from the network before we process it, and we need to process the data before we can render the UI. The elapsed time doesn’t change.

(BTW, the time involved in moving data to a Web Worker and back is negligible: 1ms per 100 KB is a decent rule of thumb.)

So we can move work off the main thread and have a page that is responsive during that time, but to what end? If our user is sitting there looking at a spinner for 600ms, have we enriched their experience by having a responsive screen for the middle third?

No.

I’ve fudged these diagrams a little bit to make them the gorgeous specimens of graphic design that they are, but they’re not really to scale.

When responding to a user request, you’ll find that the network and DOM-manipulating part of any given task take much, much longer than the pure-JS data processing part.

I saw an article recently making the case that updating a Redux store was a good candidate for Web Workers because it’s not UI work (and non-UI work doesn’t belong on the main thread).

Chucking the data processing over to a worker thread sounds sensible, but the idea struck me as a little, umm, academic.

First, let’s split instances of ‘updating a store’ into two categories:

  1. Updating a store in response to a user interaction, then updating the UI in response to the data change
  2. Not that first one

If the first scenario, a user taps a button on the screen — perhaps to change the sort order of a list. The store updates, and this results in a re-rendering of the DOM (since that’s the point of a store).

Let me just delete one thing from the previous diagram:

In my experience, it is rare that the store-updating step goes beyond a few dozen milliseconds, and is generally followed by ten times that in DOM updating, layout, and paint. If I’ve got a site that’s taking longer than this, I’d be asking questions about why I have so much data in the browser and so much DOM, rather than on which thread I should do my processing.

So the question we’re faced with is the same one from above: the user tapped something on the screen, we’re going to work on that request for hopefully less than a second, why would we want to make the screen responsive during that time?

OK what about the second scenario, where a store update isn’t in response to a user interaction? Performing an auto-save, for example — there’s nothing more annoying than an app becoming unresponsive doing something you didn’t ask it to do.

Actually there’s heaps of things more annoying than that. Teens, for example.

Anyhoo, if you’re doing an auto-save and taking 100ms to process data client-side before sending it off to a server, then you should absolutely use a Web Worker.

In fact, any ‘background’ task that the user hasn’t asked for, or isn’t waiting for, is a good candidate for moving to a Web Worker.

The matter of value

Complexity is expensive, and implementing Web Workers ain’t cheap.

If you’re using a bundler — and you are — you’ll have a lot of reading to do, and probably npm packages to install. If you’ve got a create-react-app app, prepare to eject (and put aside two days twice a year to update 30 different packages when the next version of Babel/Redux/React/ESLint comes out).

Also, if you want to share anything fancier than plain data between a worker and the main thread you’ve got some more reading to do (comlink is your friend).

What I’m getting at is this: if the benefit is real, but minimal, then you’ve gotta ask if there’s something else you could spend a day or two on with a greater benefit to your users.

This thinking is true of everything, of course, but I’ve found that Web Workers have a particularly poor benefit-to-effort ratio.

Hey David, why you hate Web Workers so bad?

Good question.

This is a doweling jig:

I own a doweling jig. I love my doweling jig. If I need to drill a hole into the end of a piece of wood and ensure that it’s perfectly perpendicular to the surface, I use my doweling jig.

But I don’t use it to eat breakfast. For that I use a spoon.

Four years ago I was working on some fancy animations. They looked slick on a fast device, but janky on a slow one. So I wrote fireball-js, which executes a rudimentary performance benchmark on the user’s device and returns a score, allowing me to run my animations only on devices that would render them smoothly.

Where’s the best spot to run some CPU intensive code that the user didn’t request? On a different thread, of course. A Web Worker was the correct tool for the job.

Fast forward to 2019 and you’ll find me writing a routing algorithm for a mapping application. This requires parsing a big fat GeoJSON map into a collection of nodes and edges, to be used when a user asks for directions. The processing isn’t in response to a user request and the user isn’t waiting on it. And so, a Web Worker is the correct tool for the job.

It was only when doing this that it dawned on me: in the intervening quartet of years, I have seen exactly zero other instances where Web Workers would have improved the user experience.

Contrast this with a recent resurgence in Web Worker wonderment, and combine that contrast with the fact that I couldn’t think of anything else to write about, then concatenate that combined contrast with my contrarian character and you’ve got yourself a blog post telling you that maybe Web Workers are a teeny-tiny bit overhyped.

Thanks for reading

If you liked this post, share it with all of your programming buddies!

Follow us on Facebook | Twitter

Further reading

An Introduction to Web Workers

JavaScript Web Workers: A Beginner’s Guide

Using Web Workers to Real-time Processing

How to use Web Workers in Angular app

Using Web Workers with Angular CLI