Allow running individual test files in parallel via test workers

[david-martin]

Added a new top level config to nightwatch.json,

defaults to being disabled, i.e. behaves as nightwatch currently does:

  "testWorkers": {}

If testWorkers are enabled, a second option can be specified, with a default value of "auto":

  "testWorkers": {
    "enabled": true,
    "workers": "auto"
  }

This workers option configures how many nightwatch workers can run concurrently.

• "auto" - determined by number of CPUs e.g. 4 CPUs means 4 workers
• - specifies an exact number of workers

If workers are enabled, the nightwatch cli process that is invoked initially does not run any tests.
Instead, it runs nightwatch sub-processes, reporting back on results as tests finish.

Test concurrency is done at the file level. Each test file will fill a test worker slot. Individual tests/steps in a test file will not run concurrently.

[knownasilya]

👍 would love to see this merged.

[tildedave]

Fwiw also waiting on this - I've had more luck with process based parellization than selenium's own parallel support

[baconz]

+1 This would be great.

[jimmyeisenhauer]

+1

[richard-flosi]

Does this start multiple instances of selenium? How does that work? Does it use different ports?
I looked at the code, but not sure how this will work. Does it require using Selenium Grid? Would it work with Selenium Grid?

[david-martin]

@richard-flosi A single running selenium server is all thats needed (nightwatch can even start/stop this for you)
This works by starting multiple nightwatch test runners, and each runner starts a browser session connected back to the one selenium server.

It should work with selenium grid.
The Travis CI job connects to SauceLabs https://saucelabs.com/selenium which is akin to selenium grid

[richard-flosi]

This sounds great and we plan on using it. When can we expect this feature to be added?

[beatfactor]

The plan is to include it in v0.7. It needs a bit more work on polishing
and refactoring the code to avoid duplication and making it more readable.

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Richard Flosi [email protected]
wrote:

This sounds great and we plan on using it. When can we expect this feature
to be added?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/beatfactor/nightwatch/pull/317#issuecomment-103127918
.

[david-martin]

@beatfactor any pointers you have for polishing, refactoring and making it more readable would be greatly appreciated

[beatfactor]

Sure, I'll add some comments on the diff.

[beatfactor]

would it be possible to avoid using async and making use promises instead?

[beatfactor]

Thanks for your contribution and sorry for not accepting this. However this feature is implemented in 0.7 based on your concept.