Correcting Wrong ‘Playwright’s Advantage over Selenium” Part 6: “Features Can Be Configured in One Configuration File”

Convention over Configuration makes even more sense in E2E Test Automation.

Continue to correct the Sixth wrong claim in this YouTube video, “Playwright vs Selenium: What Advantages Make Playwright the Winner in Automation Testing Battle 🏆”.

This article series:

• “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

Claim 6: “Playwright Mammoth Features Can be Configured From One Single Place in Playwright Configurations”

Configuration Files is mainly a Coding Concept

My E2E Test Automation Journey started in 2005, briefly with jWebUnit and then Watir. At that time, the Spring framework was about to take over the infamous EJB. A typical J2EE application has many EJBs, and each EJB has one configuration file, e.g., ejb-jar.xml. The Spring Framework has a more centralized configuration, i.e., fewer configuration files (but a very long one).