The Artima Developer Community
Sponsored Link

Weblogs Forum
Testing Web Applications with Python and Twill

2 replies on 1 page. Most recent reply: Mar 10, 2009 3:38 PM by Raoul Duke

Welcome Guest
  Sign In

Go back to the topic listing  Back to Topic List Click to reply to this topic  Reply to this Topic Click to search messages in this forum  Search Forum Click for a threaded view of the topic  Threaded View   
Previous Topic   Next Topic
Flat View: This topic has 2 replies on 1 page
Michele Simionato

Posts: 222
Nickname: micheles
Registered: Jun, 2008

Testing Web Applications with Python and Twill (View in Weblogs)
Posted: Feb 23, 2009 11:48 PM
Reply to this message Reply
I am republishing an old article I wrote in 2005 for O' Reilly (see The article is slightly outdated, but not much, and I am republishing it since nowadays to criticize excessive unit testing has become fashionable.


You have just finished your beautiful Web application, with lots of pages, links, forms and buttons; you have spent weeks making sure that everything works fine, that the special cases are handled correctly, that the user cannot crash your system whatever she does.

Now you are happy and you are ready to ship. But at the last minute the customer ask for a change: you have the time to apply the change, but not the time - nor the will - to pass trough another testing ordalia. So you ship anyway, hoping that your last little fix did not break some other part of the application. The result is that the hidden bug shows up at the first day of usage.

If you recognized yourself in this situation then this paper is for you, keep reading. If not, well, keep reading anyway, I am sure you will find something interesting, among the following topics:

  • how to separate unit tests from functional tests;
  • how to test web applications (written in any language) using standard Python libraries;
  • how to use twill, a nice and easy to learn web testing tool.

To test or not to test, that is the question

Let me begin with a brief personal recollection of how I became interested in testing methodologies, and of what I have learned in the last couple of years.

I have been aware of the importance of testing from the beginning, and I have heard about automatic testing for years. However, having heard about automatic testing is not the same as doing automatic testing, and not the same as doing automatic testing well. It takes some time and experience to get into the testing mood, as well as the ability to challenge some widespread misconceptions.

For instance, when I began studying test driven methodologies, I had gathered two wrong ideas:

  • that testing was all about unit testing;
  • that the more you test, the better.

After some experience I quickly realized myself that unit tests were not the only tool, nor the best tool to effectively test my application [1]. But to overcome the second misconception, I needed some help.

The help come from an XP seminar I attended last year, were I actually asked the question "how do I test the user interface of a Web application, i.e. that when the user click on a given page she gets the expected result?".

The answer was: "You don't. Why do you want to test that your browser is working?"

The case for not testing everything

The answer made me rethink many things. Obviously I was well aware from the beginning that full test coverage is a myth, still I thought one programmer should try to test as much as he can.

But this is not the right approach. Instead, it is important to discriminate about the infinite amount of things that could be tested, and focus on the things that are of your responsability.

If your customer wants functionality X, you must be sure functionality X is there. But if in order to get functionality X you need to rely on functionalities X1, X2 ,... XN, you don't need to test for all of them. You test only the functionality you are payed to implement. You don't test that the browser is working, it is not your job.

For instance, in the case of a Web application, you can interact with it indirectly, via the HTTP protocol, or directly, via the internal API. If you check that when the user clicks on button B method M is called and the result R is displayed, you are testing both your application and the correctness of the HTTP protocol implementation both in the browser and in the server. This is way too much. You may rely on the HTTP protocol and just test the API, i.e just test that if method M is called the right result R is returned.

Of course, a similar viewpoint is applicable to GUIs. In the same vein, you must test that the interface to the DB you wrote is working, but you don't need to test that the database itself is working, this is not your responsability.

The basic point is to separate the indirect testing of the user interface - via the HTTP protocol - from the testing of the inner API. To this aim, it is important to write your application in such a way that you can test the logic independently from the user interface. Working in this way you also have the additional bonus that you can change the user interface later, without having to change a single tests for the logic part.

The problem is that typically the customer will give his specifications in terms of the user interface. He will tell you "There must be a page where the user will enter her order, then she will enter her credit card number, then the system must send a confirmation email, ..."

This kind of specification is a kind of very high level test - a functional test - which has to be converted into a low-level test: for instance you may have unit testing telling you that the ordered item has been registered in the database, that the send_confirmation_email method has been called etc.

The conversion requires some thinking and practice and it an art more than a science. Actually I think that the art of testing is not in how to test, but in what to test. The best advice and best answer to somebody asking about "how do I test a Web application?" is probably "make a priority lists of the things you would like to test and test as little as possible".

For instance, one should never tests the details of the implementation. If you make this mistake (as I did at the beginning) your tests will get in your way at refactoring time, i.e. they will have exactly the opposite of the intended effect. Generally speaking, good advices are: don't spend time testing third party software, don't waste time testing code which API is likely to change, split the UI testing from the application logic testing.

Ideally you should be able to determine what is the minimal set of tests needed to make your customer happy, and restrict yourself to those tests.

The case for testing everything

The previous advice is nice and reasonable, especially in an ideal world where third party software is bug free and everything is configured correctly. Unfortunately, the real world is a bit different.

For instance you must be aware that your application does not work on some buggy browser, or that it cannot work in specific circumstances with some database. Also, you may have a nice and comprehensive test suite which runs flawlessly on your development machine, but still that the application may not work correctly when installed on a different machine, because the database could be installed improperly, or the mail server settings could be incorrect, or the Internet connection could be down, etc. In the same vein, if you want to really be sure that if the user - using a specifing browser in a specific environment - clicks on that button she gets that result, you have to emulate exactly that situation.

It looks like we are back to square one, i.e. the need of testing everything. But we have learned something in the process: whereas in principle you would like to test everything, in practice you can effectively prioritize your tests, focusing on some more than on others,and splitting them in separate categories to be run separately at different times.

You definitely need to test that the application is working as intended when deployed on a different machine: and from the failures to these installation tests you may also infer what is wrong and correct the problem. These installation tests - tests of the environment where your software is running - must be kept decoupled from the unit tests checking the application logic. If you are sure that the logic is right, then you are sure also sure that the problems are in the environment, and you can focus your debugging skills in the right direction.

In any case, you need to have both high level (functional, integration, installation) tests and low level tests (unit tests, doctests). High level tests include tests of the user interface. In particular, you need a test to make sure that if an user click X he gets Y, so you are sure that the Internet connection, the web server, the database, the mail server, your application, the browser, all work nicely together. But you should not focus on these global kind of tests. You don't need to write a thousands of these high level tests, if you already have many specific low-level tests checking that the logic and the various components of your application are working.

How to test the user interface

Having structured your application properly, you will need a smaller number of user interface tests, but still you will need at least a few. How do you write these tests then?

There are two possibilities: the hard way and the easy way.

The hard way is just doing everything by hand, by using your favorite programming language Web libraries to perform GET and POST requests and to verify the results. The easy way is to leverage on tools built by others. Of course,internally these tools work just by calling the low level libraries, so it is convenient to say a couple of words on the hard way, just to understand what is going on, in case the high level tool give you some problem. Moreover, there is always the possibility than you need something more customized, and knowledge of the low level libraries can be precious.

The interaction between the user and a Web application passes through the HTTP protocol, so it is perfectly possible to simulate the action of an user clicking on a browser just by sending to the server an equivalent HTTP request (let me ignore the existence of Javascript for the moment).

Any modern programming language has libraries to interact with the HTTP protocol, but here I will give my examples in Python, since Python is both a common language for Web programming and a readable one. In Python the interaction with the Web is managed via the urllib libraries [2]. You have two of them: urllib, which can be used in absence of authentication, and urllib2 which can also manage cookie-based authentication. A complete discussion of these two libraries would take a long time, but explaining the basics is pretty simple. I will just give a couple of recipes based on urllib2, the newest and most powerful library.

I will notice here that the support for cookies in Python 2.4 has improved (essentially by including the third party ClientCookie library) so you may not be aware of the trick I am going to explain, even if have used the urllib libraries in the past. So, don't skip the next two sections ;)

Recipe 1: how to send GET and POST requests

Suppose you want to access a site which does not require authentication. Then making a GET request is pretty easy, just type at the intepreter prompt

>>> from urllib2 import urlopen
>>> page = urlopen("")

Now you have a file like-object which contains the HTML code of the page

>>> for line in page: print line,
  <TITLE>Example Web Page</TITLE>
<p>You have reached this web page by typing "",
  or "" into your web browser.</p>
<p>These domain names are reserved for use in documentation and are not available
  for registration. See <a href="">RFC
  2606</a>, Section 3.</p>

If you try to access a non-existent page, or if your Internet connection is down, you will get an urllib2.URLError instead. Incidentally, this is why the urllib2.urlopen function is better than the older urllib.urlopen, which would just silently retrieve a page containing the error message.

You can easily imagine how to use urlopen to check your Web application: for instance, you could retrieve a page, extract all the links and check that they refer to existing pages; or you can verify that the retrieved page contains the right information, for instance by matching it with a regular expression. In practice, urlopen (possibly coupled with a third party HTML parsing tool, such as BeautifulSoup [3]) gives you all the fine granted control you may wish for.

Moreover, urlopen gives you the possibility to make a POST: just pass the query string as second argument to urlopen. As an example, I will make a POST to, which is a page containing the example form coming with Quixote, a nice small Pythonic Web Framework [4].

>>> page = urlopen("",
...        "name=MICHELE&password=SECRET&time=1118766328.56")
>>> print
<head><title>Quixote Widget Demo</title></head>
<h2>You entered the following values:</h2>
  <tr><th align="left">name</th><td>MICHELE</td></tr>
  <tr><th align="left">password</th><td>SECRET</td></tr>
  <tr><th align="left">confirmation</th><td>False</td></tr>
  <tr><th align="left">eye colour</th><td><i>nothing</i></td></tr>
  <tr><th align="left">pizza size</th><td><i>nothing</i></td></tr>
  <tr><th align="left">pizza toppings</th><td><i>nothing</i></td></tr>
<p>It took you 163.0 sec to fill out and submit the form</p>

Now page will contain the result of your POST. Notice that I had to pass explicitly a value for time, which is an hidden widget in the form.

That was easy, isn't it?

If the site requires authentication, things are slightly more complicated, but not much, at least if you have Python 2.4 installed.

Recipe 2: managing authentication

In order to manage cookie-based authentication procedures, you need to import a few utilities from urllib2:

>>> from urllib2 import build_opener, HTTPCookieProcessor, Request

Notice that HTTPCookieProcessor is new in Python 2.4: if you have an older version of Python you need third party libraries such as ClientCookie [5].

build_opener and HTTPCookieProcessor are used to create an opener object that can manage the cookies sent by the Web server:

>>> opener = build_opener(HTTPCookieProcessor)

The opener object has an open method that can be used to retrieve the Web page corresponding to a given request. The request itself is encapsulated in a Request object, which is built from the URL address, the query string, and some HTTP headers information. In order togenerate the query string, it is pretty convenient to use the urlencode function defined in urllib (not in urllib2):

>>> from urllib import urlencode

urlencode generates the query string from a dictionary or a list of pairs, taking care of the quoting and escaping rules required by the HTTP protocol. For instance

>>> urlencode(dict(user="MICHELE", password="SECRET"))

Notice that the order is not preserved when you use a dictionary (quite obviously), but this is usually not an issue. Now, let me define a helper function:

>>> def urlopen2(url, data=None, user_agent='urlopen2'):
...     """Can be used to retrieve cookie-enabled Web pages (when 'data' is
...     None) and to post Web forms (when 'data' is a list, tuple or dictionary
...     containing the parameters of the form).
...     """
...     if hasattr(data, "__iter__"):
...         data = urllib.urlencode(data)
...     headers = {'User-Agent' : user_agent}
...     return, data, headers))

With urlopen2, you can POST your form in just one line. On the other hand, if the page you are posting to does not contain a form, you will get an HTTPError:

>>> urlopen2("", dict(user="MICHELE", password="SECRET"))
Traceback (most recent call last):
HTTPError: HTTP Error 405: Method Not Allowed

If you just need to perform a GET, simply forget about the second argument to urlopen2, or use an empty dictionary or tuple. You can even fake a browser by passing a convenient user agent string, such as "Mozilla", "Internet Explorer", etc. This is pretty useful if you want to make sure that your application works with different browsers.

Using these two recipes it is not that difficilt to write your own web testing framework. But you may be better off by leveraging the work of somebody else

Testing web applications the easy way: twill

I am a big fan of mini languages, i.e. small languages written to perform a specific task (see for instance my O'Reilly article on the graph-generation language "dot" [6]). I was very happy when I discovered that there a nice little language expressely designed to test Web applications. Actually there are two implementations of it: Titus Brown's twill [7] and Cory Dodt's Python Browser Poseur, PBP [8].

PBP came first, but twill seems to be developing faster. At the time of this writing, twill is still pretty young (I am using version 0.7.1), but it already works pretty well in most situations. Both PBP and twill are based on tools by John J. Lee, i.e. mechanize (inspired by Perl), ClientForm and ClientCookie, that you may find at twill also use Paul McGuire's PyParsing [9]. However, you don't need to install these libraries: twill includes them as zipped libraries (leveraging on the new Python 2.3 zipimport module). As a consequence twill installation is absolutely obvious and painless (nothing more than the usual python install).

The simplest way to use twill is interactively from the command line. Let me show a simple session example:

$ twill-sh
 -= Welcome to twill! =-

current page:  *empty page*

>> go
==> at

>> show
  <TITLE>Example Web Page</TITLE>
<p>You have reached this web page by typing "",
  or "" into your web browser.</p>
<p>These domain names are reserved for use in documentation and are not available
  for registration. See <a href="">RFC
  2606</a>, Section 3.</p>

twill recognizes a few intuitive commands, such as

go, show, find, notfind, echo, code, back, reload, agent, follow

and few others. The example shows how you can access a particular HTML page and display its content.

The find command matches the page against a regular expression: thus

>> find("Example Web Page")

is a test asserting that the current page contains what we expect. Similarly, the notfind command asserts that the current page does not match the given regular expression.

The other twill commands are pretty obvious: echo <message> prints a message on standard output, code <http_error_code> checks that you are getting the right HTTP error code (200 if everything is alright), back allows you to go back to the previously visited page, reload reloads the current page, agent <user-agent> allows you to change the current user agent, thus faking different browsers, follow <regex> finds the first matching link on the page and visit it.

The full lists of the commands can be obtained by giving help at the prompt; EOF of CTRL-D allows you to exit.

Once you have tested your application interactively, it is pretty easy to cut & paste your twill session and convert it in a twill script. Then, you can run your twill script in a batch process:

$ twill-sh mytests.twill

As you may imagine, you can put more than one script in the command line and test many of them at the same time. Since twill is written in Python, you can control it from Python entirely, and you can even extends its command set just by adding new commands in the module.

At the moment, twill is pretty young and it does not have the capability to convert scripts in unit tests automatically, so that you can easily run entire suites of regression tests. However, it is not that difficult to implement that capability yourself, and it is not unlikely that twill will gain good integration with unittest and doctest in the future.

Retrieving and submitting web forms

twill is especially good at retrieving and submitting web forms. The form-related functionality is implemented with the following commands:

  • showforms
  • formvalue <form_id> <name> <value>
  • submit <button_id>
  • formclear <form_id>

Explaining the commands is pretty straightforward.

showforms shows the forms contained in a web page. For instance, try the following:

>> go
>> showforms
Form #1
## __Name______ __Type___ __ID________ __Value__________________
   name         text      (None)
   password     password  (None)
   confirm      checkbox  (None)       [] of ['yes']
   colour       radio     (None)       [] of ['green', 'blue', 'brown', 'ot ...
   size         select    (None)       ['Medium (10")'] of ['Tiny (4")', 'S ...
   toppings     select    (None)       ['cheese'] of ['cheese', 'pepperoni' ...
   time         hidden    (None)       1118768019.17
1               submit    (None)       Submit
current page:

Notice that twill makes a good job at emulating a browser, so it fills the hidden time widget automatically, whereas we had to fill it explicitely with urlopen.

Unnamed forms get an ordinal number to be used as form id in the formvalue command, which fill a field of the specified form with a given value. You can give many formvalue commands in succession; if you are a lazy typist you can also use fv as an alias for formvalue:

>> fv 1 name MICHELES
current page:
>> fv 1 password SECRET
current page:

formclear reset all the fields in a form and submit allows you to press a submit botton, thus submitting the form:

>> submit 1
current page:

A simple show will convince you that the forms has been submitted. The best way to understand how does it work is just experimenting on your own. The base distribution contains a few examples you may play with.

Enlarging the horizon

In this article I have shown two easy ways to test your web application: by hand, using urllib, or with a simple tool such as twill. There is more under the sun. Much more. There are many sophisticated Web testing frameworks out there, including enterprise-oriented ones, with lots of functionalities and a steep learning curve. Here, on purpose, I have decided to start from the small, and to discuss the topic from a do-it-yourself attitude, since sometimes the simplest things works best: or because you don't need the sophistication, or because your preferred testing framework lacks the functionality you wish for, or because it is just buggy. If you need something more sophisticated, a great source for everything testing-related is Grig Gheorghiu's blog:

A new framework which is especially interesting is Selenium, which is also used to test Plone applications. Selenium is really spectacular, since it is Javascript based and it really tests your browser, clicking on links, submitting forms, opening popup windows, all in real time. It completely emulates the user experience, at highest possible level. It also gives you all kind of bells and whistles, eye candies and colored HTML output (which you may like or not, but that surely will impress your customer if you are going to demonstrate him that the application is conform to the specifications). I cannot render justice to Selenium in a few lines and maybe I should write a whole new paper on it, when I find the time. For the moment, however I make no promises and I refer you to the available documentation [10].

Juan Uys

Posts: 1
Nickname: 65170
Registered: Feb, 2009

Re: Testing Web Applications with Python and Twill Posted: Feb 26, 2009 8:33 AM
Reply to this message Reply
I don't want to bog down my QA team with Python and command-line tools because of this simple reason: they are not programmers.
Which is why we use Selenium and similar.

We had a QA who produced a whole bunch of Ruby scripts for WATIR, but he quickly got absorbed into the dev team because we needed his ability there.

Raoul Duke

Posts: 127
Nickname: raoulduke
Registered: Apr, 2006

Re: Testing Web Applications with Python and Twill Posted: Mar 10, 2009 3:38 PM
Reply to this message Reply
> We had a QA who produced a whole bunch of Ruby scripts for
> WATIR, but he quickly got absorbed into the dev team
> because we needed his ability there.

if the person had not been poached to Dev, would the WATIR approach have been good for the overall QA concept?

Flat View: This topic has 2 replies on 1 page
Topic: The Adventures of a Pythonista in Schemeland: Table of Contents Previous Topic   Next Topic Topic: A Response to Bruce Eckel

Sponsored Links


Copyright © 1996-2014 Artima, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Advertise with Us