End-to-end Tests that Don’t Suck with Puppeteer

How we are using headless Chrome to write end-to-end tests that don’t drive you crazy

What are end-to-end tests?

Tests written to check software functionality can be grouped into a few categories. Some of the most popular categories include:

  • unit tests check input => output of self-contained functions.
  • integration tests check that individual pieces of your app play nicely together.
  • end-to-end tests check that entire features work from the user’s perspective.

This last group of tests is what we are talking about in this post. They are sometimes known as acceptance tests or functional tests. I’ll be referring to them as e2e tests.

Why write e2e tests?

The most important thing for any app is that it works for your users. Good e2e tests let you know when at least one piece of a feature (database, API, UI) isn’t working as expected. This can be extremely valuable. It removes the need to manually check existing features in a browser whenever you make changes.

But e2e tests are horrible, disgusting, dreadful pieces of garbage

e2e tests have historically been awful. They tend to be sluggish and brittle. They tend to break easily and eat away at valuable developer time. Most teams either don’t write them or write them with distaste, like forcefully taking a pill you think will be good for you. But there is a better way! <cue infomercial music>.

Using Puppeteer instead of Selenium

One of the most popular tools for e2e testing is Selenium, which is a tool for automating web browsers. Selenium sounds cool in theory: write one set of tests that run on all browsers and devices, woohoo! Jk. In practice, Selenium tests are slow, brittle, and costly. So, on Ropig we are using Puppeteer – the official headless Chrome library. A “headless” browser is just a browser that doesn’t have a graphical user interface.

A Puppeteer test looks like this

In this case, we tap a drop-down menu, wait for it to open, tap a logout link, and wait for the login form to show. If any of these steps don’t work, the test will fail.

A few more real examples pulled from the Ropig test suite

We are using Jest as our test runner, but you can use any testing tools you want with Puppeteer.

Headless mode

Here are what these tests look like when you run them in headless mode:

A screenshot of running end-to-end tests in headless mode

Running end-to-end tests in headless mode

Debug mode

Here is a video of what these tests look like when you run them in debug mode. Debug mode opens a real browser and slows down each step so you can see what is happening:


Some of the things I really like about Puppeteer

  • It’s official from the Chrome team. This means it has a solid future. This also means it supports all modern JavaScript syntax available in Chrome (like async/await).
  • Puppeteer is headless so it can run without a visual browser; this makes running tests faster. Additionally, tests can run in Continuous Integration without extra setup or costs.
  • It has a simple API to do common things like typing in inputs, clicking etc.
  • Puppeteer can be used for any browser automation, not just testing.
  • It doesn’t need to know anything about your stack. We are using Elixir and React, but we could just as well be using any other tools.

Note that Puppeteer only runs tests in Chrome. For many apps like Ropig, this is enough because we only support modern browsers which have minimal inconsistencies. If your app has a lot of device or browser specific code, you may still want Selenium. For everyone else, Puppeteer makes a lot of sense. 🙂

Tips for writing e2e tests

Tip 1: Test features, not implementation

The purpose of e2e tests is to fail when you break some expected user-facing functionality. When you have a failing test it means you either broke something that should be fixed, or the feature has changed (so the test needs to be updated). If you find yourself dealing with failing tests outside these two situations it means you have brittle tests. Brittle tests check the implementation of a feature, which ties you to the implementation. Instead, I highly recommend only testing the end result of the feature (what the user expects – the behavior).

A bad example

This is a brittle test because it relies on implementation details (arbitrary nested elements and wait times).

A good example

This test is less brittle because it uses test IDs and waits for events before proceeding.

Test IDs

We use test IDs like this to provide interaction as a user would with key elements. We use these as a contract between implementation and user interaction. The benefit of test IDs is that we could change the underlying implementation without breaking the test. For example, we could move the logoutLink test ID to a <button> tag instead of an <a> tag. Or we could switch our view rendering from Angular to React. The test would still pass because the log out feature still works.

Tip 2: Stick to the happy path features

Even with Puppeteer, e2e tests are still slower and more brittle than unit tests. We try to use unit tests where we can, especially edge cases. Then we add e2e tests only for the “happy path” of a user. This lets us know when something breaks for the majority use case.

Tip 3: Use async/await for asynchronous things

Using async/await is a great way to deal with chains of async events, which is most of what e2e testing is. async/await is cleaner than callback chains. And please, whatever you do, DON’T use arbitrary wait times. These tests will fail from race conditions with different network and computer speeds.

Tip 4: Use a fake data generator like faker

Using a fake data generator like faker ensures that your app is flexible. It guarantees your app has the same output each time it is run with the same input. This is in contrast to using a single test account for each test run that has a bunch of state sitting around, making your tests inconsistent. For example, in Ropig we use faker like this to create a random user for each test run:


e2e testing has traditionally been difficult. Using headless Chrome has made e2e testing more reliable and simple here on the Ropig team. I recommend you try it out on your projects!

Trevor Miller
Trevor Miller
I'm a Software Engineer on the Ropig team. I love learning and solving problems. Being a programmer isn't just a job for me, it's a hobby too. I especially enjoy working in the terminal and contributing to open source. I strive to learn new things every day and share what I learn.


  1. Wout Mertens says:

    So do you ship your app in prod with all those test ids attached? Seems a bit wasteful, but only a little. Or do you have some setup that only adds them when `NODE_ENV=test`?

  2. Vytautas Butkus says:

    Hey Trever, nice article! Did you had a chance to compare it’s speed with currently hyping cypress e2e framework? What about nightmare.js which also runs headlessly?

    • Hi @vytautasbutkus:disqus, thank you for your comment and checking out the post. I haven’t tested our test suite with other headless options, but I have seen some benchmarks and most headless options are pretty comparable speed-wise. Some of the headless tools are actually switching to use Puppeteer under the hood (like Chromeless), so they should it theory be the same speed. I like using Puppeteer directly since it is officially supported by the Chrome team, but there are a lot of other great options like Cypress, Nightmare, Webdriver.io, Chromeless etc. as you mentioned which all have different trade-offs. I think most of the benefits mentioned in this apply to any headless option so I say use whatever you prefer!

  3. miron says:

    Great article, thanks Trevor. I love the idea about test ids!

  4. Rahul Yadav says:

    Nice article Trevor. I haven’t checked out Puppeteer but will do it soon. I have one question though- is it possible to have something on the lines of Page Object Model with Puppeteer too? If yes, can you add a working example in your blog. That’d be pretty handy.

  5. zeev rosental says:

    Hi Trevor,

    Great article!

    Can you please elaborate about
    the test-ids you generate?

    I’m in a react project, and we
    wanted an efficient way to generate ids (that will generate the same
    ids each run and that will give some context of the components that the ids
    belong to). Do you have any good input?

    Thank you!

  6. Cédric Brancourt says:

    Hi, nice summary.
    This is how addressing the front end part of the end 2 end tests.
    Also, e2e testing involves sometimes some side effects testing. Let say your app has to send SMS on some event. This should be part of the end 2 end testing. But this is not part of the frontend.
    This subject seems always forgotten when I read articles about e2e testing.

    Kind Regards

  7. Joe says:

    Can this be used as an alternative to RSpec/Capybara on a Rails application?

  8. […] do you test your applications? A lot of other folks are doing E2E testing with Puppeteer. And […]

  9. Mike says:

    this is very helpful, great write-up thank you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Send this to a friend