Java – When to use explicit wait vs implicit wait in Selenium Webdriver

javaseleniumselenium-webdriver

I am using:

driver.manage().timeouts().implicitlyWait(180, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

But it still fails continuously for the below element

    driver.findElement(By.id("name")).clear();
    driver.findElement(By.id("name")).sendKeys("Create_title_01");

I have added wait code:

for (int second = 0;; second++) {
        if (second >= 120) fail("timeout");
        try { if (isElementPresent(By.id("name"))) break; } catch (Exception e) {}
        Thread.sleep(1000);
    }

Shouldn't implicit wait take care of waiting till an element is found?
Also would it be better if I use Explicit wait instead of the code I have added that has Thread.sleep()?

Best Answer

TL;DR: Always use explicit wait. Forget that implicit wait exists.

Here is a quick rundown on the differences between explicit and implicit wait:

Explicit wait:

documented and defined behaviour.
runs in the local part of selenium (in the language of your code).
works on any condition you can think of.
returns either success or timeout error.
can define absence of element as success condition.
can customize delay between retries and exceptions to ignore.

Implicit wait:

undocumented and practically undefined behaviour.
runs in the remote part of selenium (the part controlling the browser).
only works on find element(s) methods.
returns either element found or (after timeout) not found.
if checking for absence of element must always wait until timeout.
cannot be customized other than global timeout.

Code examples with explanation. First implicit wait:

WebDriver driver = new FirefoxDriver();
driver.manage().timeouts().implicitlyWait(10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
driver.get("http://somedomain/url_that_delays_loading");
WebElement myDynamicElement = driver.findElement(By.id("myDynamicElement"));

Now explicit wait:

WebDriver driver = new FirefoxDriver();
driver.get("http://somedomain/url_that_delays_loading");
WebDriverWait wait = new WebDriverWait(driver, 10);
WebElement myDynamicElement = wait.until(
  ExpectedConditions.presenceOfElementLocated(By.id("myDynamicElement")));

Both code examples do the same thing. Find a certain element and give up if not found after 10 seconds. The implicit wait can do only this. It can only try to find an element with a timeout. The strength of explicit wait is that it can wait for all kinds of conditions. Also customize timeout and ignore certain exceptions.

Example of possible conditions: elementToBeClickable, numberOfElementsToBeMoreThan or invisibilityOf. Here is a list of the built in expected conditions: https://seleniumhq.github.io/selenium/docs/api/java/org/openqa/selenium/support/ui/ExpectedConditions.html

More explanations:

The implicit wait timeout has effect only on findElement* methods. If set then all findElement* will "wait" for the set time before declaring that the element cannot be found.

How a findElement* will wait is not defined. It depends on browser or operating system or version of selenium. Possible implementations are:

repeatedly try to find element until timeout. return as soon as element is found.
try to find element. wait until timeout. try again.
wait until timeout. try to find element.

This list is gathered from observations and reading bug reports and cursory reading of selenium source code.

My conclusion: Implicit wait is bad. The capabilities are limited. The behaviour is undocumented and implementation dependent.

Explicit wait can do everything implicit wait can and more. The only disadvantage of explicit wait is a bit more verbose code. But that verbosity makes the code explicit. And explicit is better that implicit. Right?

Related Solutions

Java – When to use LinkedList over ArrayList in Java

Summary ArrayList with ArrayDeque are preferable in many more use-cases than LinkedList. If you're not sure — just start with ArrayList.

TLDR, in ArrayList accessing an element takes constant time [O(1)] and adding an element takes O(n) time [worst case]. In LinkedList adding an element takes O(n) time and accessing also takes O(n) time but LinkedList uses more memory than ArrayList.

LinkedList and ArrayList are two different implementations of the List interface. LinkedList implements it with a doubly-linked list. ArrayList implements it with a dynamically re-sizing array.

As with standard linked list and array operations, the various methods will have different algorithmic runtimes.

For LinkedList<E>

get(int index) is O(n) (with n/4 steps on average), but O(1) when index = 0 or index = list.size() - 1 (in this case, you can also use getFirst() and getLast()). One of the main benefits of LinkedList<E>
add(int index, E element) is O(n) (with n/4 steps on average), but O(1) when index = 0 or index = list.size() - 1 (in this case, you can also use addFirst() and addLast()/add()). One of the main benefits of LinkedList<E>
remove(int index) is O(n) (with n/4 steps on average), but O(1) when index = 0 or index = list.size() - 1 (in this case, you can also use removeFirst() and removeLast()). One of the main benefits of LinkedList<E>
Iterator.remove() is O(1). One of the main benefits of LinkedList<E>
ListIterator.add(E element) is O(1). One of the main benefits of LinkedList<E>

^{Note: Many of the operations need n/4 steps on average, constant number of steps in the best case (e.g. index = 0), and n/2 steps in worst case (middle of list)}

For ArrayList<E>

get(int index) is O(1). Main benefit of ArrayList<E>
add(E element) is O(1) amortized, but O(n) worst-case since the array must be resized and copied
add(int index, E element) is O(n) (with n/2 steps on average)
remove(int index) is O(n) (with n/2 steps on average)
Iterator.remove() is O(n) (with n/2 steps on average)
ListIterator.add(E element) is O(n) (with n/2 steps on average)

^{Note: Many of the operations need n/2 steps on average, constant number of steps in the best case (end of list), n steps in the worst case (start of list)}

LinkedList<E> allows for constant-time insertions or removals using iterators, but only sequential access of elements. In other words, you can walk the list forwards or backwards, but finding a position in the list takes time proportional to the size of the list. Javadoc says "operations that index into the list will traverse the list from the beginning or the end, whichever is closer", so those methods are O(n) (n/4 steps) on average, though O(1) for index = 0.

ArrayList<E>, on the other hand, allow fast random read access, so you can grab any element in constant time. But adding or removing from anywhere but the end requires shifting all the latter elements over, either to make an opening or fill the gap. Also, if you add more elements than the capacity of the underlying array, a new array (1.5 times the size) is allocated, and the old array is copied to the new one, so adding to an ArrayList is O(n) in the worst case but constant on average.

So depending on the operations you intend to do, you should choose the implementations accordingly. Iterating over either kind of List is practically equally cheap. (Iterating over an ArrayList is technically faster, but unless you're doing something really performance-sensitive, you shouldn't worry about this -- they're both constants.)

The main benefits of using a LinkedList arise when you re-use existing iterators to insert and remove elements. These operations can then be done in O(1) by changing the list locally only. In an array list, the remainder of the array needs to be moved (i.e. copied). On the other side, seeking in a LinkedList means following the links in O(n) (n/2 steps) for worst case, whereas in an ArrayList the desired position can be computed mathematically and accessed in O(1).

Another benefit of using a LinkedList arises when you add or remove from the head of the list, since those operations are O(1), while they are O(n) for ArrayList. Note that ArrayDeque may be a good alternative to LinkedList for adding and removing from the head, but it is not a List.

Also, if you have large lists, keep in mind that memory usage is also different. Each element of a LinkedList has more overhead since pointers to the next and previous elements are also stored. ArrayLists don't have this overhead. However, ArrayLists take up as much memory as is allocated for the capacity, regardless of whether elements have actually been added.

The default initial capacity of an ArrayList is pretty small (10 from Java 1.4 - 1.8). But since the underlying implementation is an array, the array must be resized if you add a lot of elements. To avoid the high cost of resizing when you know you're going to add a lot of elements, construct the ArrayList with a higher initial capacity.

If the data structures perspective is used to understand the two structures, a LinkedList is basically a sequential data structure which contains a head Node. The Node is a wrapper for two components : a value of type T [accepted through generics] and another reference to the Node linked to it. So, we can assert it is a recursive data structure (a Node contains another Node which has another Node and so on...). Addition of elements takes linear time in LinkedList as stated above.

An ArrayList, is a growable array. It is just like a regular array. Under the hood, when an element is added at index i, it creates another array with a size which is 1 greater than previous size (So in general, when n elements are to be added to an ArrayList, a new array of size previous size plus n is created). The elements are then copied from previous array to new one and the elements that are to be added are also placed at the specified indices.

Java – When to use static methods

One rule-of-thumb: ask yourself "Does it make sense to call this method, even if no object has been constructed yet?" If so, it should definitely be static.

So in a class Car you might have a method:

double convertMpgToKpl(double mpg)

...which would be static, because one might want to know what 35mpg converts to, even if nobody has ever built a Car. But this method (which sets the efficiency of one particular Car):

void setMileage(double mpg)

...can't be static since it's inconceivable to call the method before any Car has been constructed.

(By the way, the converse isn't always true: you might sometimes have a method which involves two Car objects, and still want it to be static. E.g.:

Car theMoreEfficientOf(Car c1, Car c2)

Although this could be converted to a non-static version, some would argue that since there isn't a "privileged" choice of which Car is more important, you shouldn't force a caller to choose one Car as the object you'll invoke the method on. This situation accounts for a fairly small fraction of all static methods, though.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Java – When to use LinkedList over ArrayList in Java

Java – When to use static methods

Related Topic