Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Playwright for .NET is now stable

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: Playwright for .NET is now stable

#51

Post by ithrow »

GordonS wrote: post #44
dustinmoris wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why? Why shoehorn everything into a single technology? Is it so that certain people never have to learn anything else in their entire life anymore?

Well, a pretty good reason is that C# is statically typed, which a lot of developers prefer. It's arguably a much more powerful language than JavaScript too. Personally, I work with both C# and JavaScript, and I'd happily use the C# version of Playwright to write and run UI tests.

Well, a pretty good reason is that C# is statically typed, which a lot of developers prefer.

Don't know, everyday I see more and more C# devs preferring Typescript for new projects.

Re: Playwright for .NET is now stable

#52

Post by lucasmullens »

polskibus wrote: post #49
pjerem wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using Playwright right now, migrating horrendous Selenium tests at work and it's a real breeze of fresh air. It just works, it comes battery included with superb debugging tools (step by step execution directly in the browser, trace dumping for further analysis, reliable interactions recorder with pretty decent code generation ...). It's an amazing piece of software for a domain that was kept on the side of the r…

Is it less flaky than Cypress? We're constantly running into Cypress bugs, when we find a workaround for one, two more show up.

In my experience yes. We ran into a Cypress bug that was bad enough that we just switched to Playwright and it works great.

Re: Playwright for .NET is now stable

#53

Post by addicted »

verisimilidude wrote: post #47
dustinmoris wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why? Why shoehorn everything into a single technology? Is it so that certain people never have to learn anything else in their entire life anymore?

Because the “Enterprise Architect” who hasn’t done any actual coding in 15 years, and still preaches 15-year-old FUD about open source, will be openly hostile to anything that isn’t superficially related to his anointed tech stack. Which will most likely be either .NET or Java.

.Net is now almost fully open sourced, especially the parts that MS recommends starting new projects in.

And Java has always been open source.

Re: Playwright for .NET is now stable

#54

Post by losvedir »

dustinmoris wrote: post #36
Scarbutt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still requires nodejs though, it is more a wrapper than a port.

So what's the point of it then? Why add more layers of unnecessary abstraction? Why don't just use the node.js library then?

Might be easier to set up the backend before testing the front end. You could use your existing models and code to create data in the DB for instance, and then use the web browser to test that things are working.

What's the alternative? Prepare the backend via exclusive frontend operations? That has its own issues like possibly being impossible (e.g. maybe making an admin isn't exposed to the webapp) or being slow, or not being able to create data in a "legacy" state that the current frontend can't do.

Or maybe use C# to create and teardown the data, but then call out to a nodejs process in the middle of the test?

I am legitimately curious how you would test a C# app exclusively from nodejs.

Re: Playwright for .NET is now stable

#57

Post by AlfeG »

dustinmoris wrote: post #41
AlfeG wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because for some teams it's easier to write tests in plain C# with NUnit/xUnit libs.

But why? Why shoehorn everything into a single technology? Is it so that certain people never have to learn anything else in their entire life anymore?

Why not?

Why do You think that this will somehow limit people ability to learn or even make them worse version of them?

Most of the dev's I know, want to do coding for life: - not learning tools from scratch every few weeks, because of the abandoned library - not fight with npm audit every week - not waiting for 5 minutes for webpack to download internet and build project in CI, while .Net builds are already completed, unit tested and waiting for smoke run.

Re: Playwright for .NET is now stable

#58

Post by AlfeG »

ithrow wrote: post #51
GordonS wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, a pretty good reason is that C# is statically typed, which a lot of developers prefer. It's arguably a much more powerful language than JavaScript too. Personally, I work with both C# and JavaScript, and I'd happily use the C# version of Playwright to write and run UI tests.

Well, a pretty good reason is that C# is statically typed, which a lot of developers prefer. Don't know, everyday I see more and more C# devs preferring Typescript for new projects.

So there is some people that move backend apps from C# to Typescript? really?

Re: Playwright for .NET is now stable

#60

Post by JamesBarney »

dustinmoris wrote: post #41
AlfeG wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because for some teams it's easier to write tests in plain C# with NUnit/xUnit libs.

But why? Why shoehorn everything into a single technology? Is it so that certain people never have to learn anything else in their entire life anymore?

This doesn't apply to javascript as much, but might again one day.

But yes, spending my weekends learning a new language and library is not a feature.

I'd much prefer to spend my off time learning more about my target users, how to better manage a team, or the legal regulations surrounding the domain I'm writing code in, or just hitting the gym...

Not to mention as soon as I add a new language to our project stack that means every current dev has to learn a new technology, our build pipeline becomes more complex, we need a second set of coding guidelines, and finding new devs becomes more difficult because they'll need to know 2 languages instead of one or we have to increase the onboarding time for every future dev who roles onto the project.

I think it's uncommon that it's worthwhile to invest in a second language/tech stack on a real project.

Post reply on HN