Most developers don’t like writing integration tests. But what’s not to like?
Integration tests ensure that a newly added feature provides the correct interaction—as it was defined in the first place—and confirm that the same feature doesn’t break any existing functionality. However, the nightmare quickly begins: maintaining integration tests. The addition of even a small item to a navigation bar may result in 40% of the tests suddenly failing.
This article considers the traditional approach vs. the page objects technique. The page objects technique raises the level of abstraction of your integration tests so that minimal or no changes are required for test maintenance.
Let’s consider a simple webpage that consists of a filters list on the left side and a main block on the right, as presented in the image below. The main block is displaying data based on the active filter.
One of the classic implementations of the list is using the ul li tags. The obvious way to test this list is to rely on the ul li structure to find filters in the DOM. For instance, with jQuery, the code could be:
$(‘ul > li > a.filter’)
But what happens if you change the implementation of the list to divs? Typically, many tests will fail. Why will they fail? Because their implementation is strongly tied to the structure of the page.
By introducing the page object, you raise the level of abstraction over the page so that the test uses the page object. The page objects will then be aware of the page structure.
A Page Object is a conceptual model of a certain part of the UI with its own properties and methods. Its purpose is to provide an abstraction layer that will describe the users’ interactions with the page, decoupled from its actual implementation.
The page diagram shown above can be deconstructed into Main, Filters, and Item objects, as shown here:
Page objects are aware of the entire page implementation, encapsulating the DOM selectors, click handlers, and other implementation details of the page.
Scenarios describe how a user will interact with the application—for example, filling out a form, deleting an item, filtering, navigating, etc.
You might find it useful to define scenarios in a table:
Scenarios only implement assertions on the page objects without diving into page internals. For example:
In this way, any change to the underlying page structure affects only the page object, requiring minimal changes to your tests, which is exactly what we wanted to achieve.
The page objects technique allows you to decouple your business interactions from the page implementation. If any changes are made to the page object, all the scenarios still work. It also allows you to perform regression tests. If you include a new feature, you just need to add/change the page object and write the corresponding scenario. By setting a higher level of abstraction to your tests, you benefit from testing your code as it grows, without having to invest too many resources in maintaining the tests you’ve written.
This post was written by Sergey Bolshchikov