Correcting Wrong ‘Playwright’s Advantage over Selenium” Part 11: Wrap-Up

Avoid being fooled.

A repost of my past article on Medium

This is the final part of correcting wrong (ALL WRONG) claims in “Playwright vs Selenium: What Advantages Make Playwright the Winner in Automation Testing Battle 🏆” video.

• 🎖 “Playwright is Modern and Faster than Selenium” 😒

• “Playwright has Parallel Execution Support” 👎🏽

• “Playwright has Native Auto-Waiting Mechanism” 👎🏽

• “Playwright has a native test runner” 👎🏽

• “Playwright has native HTML Reporters” 👎🏽

• “Playwright Features Can be Configured in one Configuration” 👎🏽

• “Playwright supports a range of Testing Types, e.g. API Testing, Component Testing, …” 👎🏽

• “Playwright UI Mode, CodeGen, Debugging support.” 👎🏽

• “Playwright ARIA locator support” 👎🏽

• “Playwright has frequent releases” 👎🏽

• Wrap-Up

In Part 1 (a Medium-boosted article), published on 2024–01–25, I provided an example of how China International Capital Corporation (CICC), the so-called leading financial firm in China, completely missed the mark with all its 10 predictions or judgments, 100% wrong!

In July 2024, Sad news emerged from CICC: one of its employees tragically committed suicide, quickly becoming a widely discussed topic across China.

https://www.ctol.digital/news/tragic-cicc-employee-suicide-salary-cuts-real-estate-crash/

It turned out that one reason was this exceptionally accomplished young lady — who had an impressive resume, from graduating from a prestigious university to earning numerous awards — had purchased an expensive apartment at the market’s peak last year and invested in stocks, trusting her company’s ten financial predictions, all of which later proved to be wrong. Then came the more bad news: a significant salary cut and the potential for a layoff, which ultimately overwhelmed this fine young woman. This is a classic example of paying a hefty price for trusting the wrong ‘expert’.

Back to end-to-end test automation, the field I worked for nearly two decades. I have an observation:

When fake Test Automation Engineers talk, almost every statement they say about E2E test automation is wrong.

A Story of Fake Test Automation Engineer Whose Every Statement on E2E Test Automation Was Wrong.

Let me share a story. A few years ago, a small company’s testing manager reached out to me to work as a test automation consultant for one full week and then one day a week (due to my availability). I trained two manual testers there on Day 1, with good feedback.

Then, the company hired one ‘experienced’ automated tester, X. I emailed the test manager to let him attend my training. Somehow, the message did not reach him. Anyway, on meeting him, I told him “You’d better attend a training, maybe a short one”. X, unwillingly, accepted.