Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Delete all your E2E tests, seriously Okay, not the coverage, the code I’ve written Playwright tests, they’re great Maintaining hundreds of browser scripts while the UI keeps changing is not so much Honestly, AI feels more naturally suited to this than half the coding use cases we keep forcing...

90,472 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

23 Comments

Éverton Toffanetto's profile picture
Éverton Toffanetto3 months ago

Tests are written as scripts because they need to be deterministic. Using AI introduces a variable you don’t fully control. I see them as complementary approaches, not as one replacing the other.

Daniel Glejzner's profile picture
Daniel Glejzner3 months ago

The control part is the part that you need to weight, since full control comes with a cost as well. If you don't want to pay by hour for developers to maintain tests but want to have a regression testing path. It's an easy way to get it done without even thinking much about it :)

Kevin Möchel's profile picture
Kevin Möchel3 months ago

Have the AI write playwright tests Run them on a schedule If failed, have an agent fix them Run tests for free instead of a paid sub

Daniel Glejzner's profile picture
Daniel Glejzner3 months ago

You could do that but it's still not free, takes your time, validation and you have to physically be responsible for them It's a decision between your own time or just having it handled by a third party where all you maintain are written user stories

AI Apps API's profile picture
AI Apps API3 months ago

The maintenance cost is real and it comes from the same place every time, selectors encode layout instead of intent. A test that says click the button labeled Save survives a redesign, one pinned to a generated class name does not. Agents help most when the step is described that way, and the flaky part left over is usually waiting, asserting on state that has actually settled rather than a fixed timeout.

Paweł Kubiak 🅰️'s profile picture
Paweł Kubiak 🅰️3 months ago

Ok, but what about costs? I assume that TesterArmy agent can interact with website by sending screenshot/html/a11y tree to LLM to identify crucial elements to interact with. If so, then it is expensive in terms of costs. In that case I would keep e2e tests.

Daniel Glejzner's profile picture
Daniel Glejzner3 months ago

From what I understand from docs it's mostly based on visuals and it charges you per run with a monthly subscription With regular E2E it all depends how much maintenance you have around them. If you have an app that doesn't change that much, you don't feel the pain. In fast paced env tools like TesterArmy remove the burden of updating tests and adding new is super simple Gonna dig around how actual internals work other than screenshots :)

Daniel Glejzner's profile picture
Daniel Glejzner3 months ago

I actually found out they’re not relying on vision by default. They use accessibility APIs first (DOM on the web, native APIs on mobile), and only fall back to vision when needed since it’s much slower and more expensive However you are paying per run so they need to care about the tokens not you :)

AI Alpha By Mario's profile picture
AI Alpha By Mario3 months ago

The maintenance burden is the real killer — AI handling intent while the UI changes underneath feels like the right split

Daniel Glejzner's profile picture
Daniel Glejzner3 months ago

So far I had a really good and consistent results :)

AI Mastery Guide's profile picture
AI Mastery Guide3 months ago

Plain English tests instead of babysitting selectors sounds so much easier.

Daniel Glejzner's profile picture
Daniel Glejzner3 months ago

Indeed! it's much more convenient not to think about all the selectors and code around them when you don't have to :)

AI Mastery Guide's profile picture
AI Mastery Guide3 months ago

Less brittle scripts, more time actually shipping features.

Pavan K Jadda's profile picture
Pavan K Jadda3 months ago

Looks interesting

Daniel Glejzner's profile picture
Daniel Glejzner3 months ago

Give it a try :)

Shahar Nechmad's profile picture
Shahar Nechmad3 months ago

Agree. Maintaining selectors is probably one of the worst parts of E2E tests. These days, agents are smart enough, and computer use has become so much better. Check out also what Cloudflare is doing. They released a lot of infra in the past two weeks, to build this at scale.

incpo's profile picture
incpo3 months ago

at leats playwright is free

Daniel Glejzner's profile picture
Daniel Glejzner3 months ago

yes it is, but your time is not :) Gotta decide what is worth more

Vivek Nayyar's profile picture
Vivek Nayyar3 months ago

The issue is the latency and cost plus unpredictability. Will the model always find the right button to click and test 😅

Daniel Glejzner's profile picture
Daniel Glejzner3 months ago

Give it a try :) it comes with a free trial, cost is per run - pretty convenient as well. In my experience it does a pretty damn good job at clicking the right things. Not sure about the latency? What's the issue there?

Vivek Nayyar's profile picture
Vivek Nayyar3 months ago

Take screenshot, call llm to find the right element and then simulate click - this would have higher latency than a data test id click

fudes's profile picture
fudes3 months ago

Quoting a VC as an authority on building is like quoting a food critic as an authority on cooking.

Mitchell Agoma's profile picture
Mitchell Agoma3 months ago

Deleting brittle scripts while preserving meaningful coverage is the right distinction. AI can reduce maintenance, but teams still need deterministic checks and ownership of release risk. Related QA view:

Related Videos

everyone in iOS development should watch this. seriously, it might change the whole industry. i pointed claude code at a live ios device running on revyl, typed "test everything," and walked away. here's what's actually happening: ① you don't write the tests. no scripts, no selectors, no test plan. i never told it which screens to open or what to check. it read the app, decided what mattered, and tested it. the entire instruction was "test everything." ② it built its own test team. it looked at the app, clocked that it's basically four mini apps (rides, delivery, services, account), and split itself into 4 agents, one per surface. scoping coverage like that is usually a person's whole afternoon. it did it in seconds, unprompted. ③ all four ran at the same time, each on its own live device. this is where revyl comes in. every agent gets its own live ios session in the cloud, so four running apps get tested in parallel instead of taking turns on one simulator. serial testing turns coverage into a time tax. running all of it at once removes the tax. ④ it tests like a person, not like a script. each agent drives the app the way a user would, taps through the flows, and visually checks each screen against what it expected to see. nothing is pinned to a brittle element id, so renaming a button doesn't take down half your suite. that one detail is the most annoying thing about how we test today, and it just quietly goes away. ⑤ no xcuitest, no sims melting your laptop. i didn't write a single xcuitest script, and there were no simulators booting on my machine. the agents run on cloud devices, so coverage stops being capped by what your laptop can handle. the part that got me isn't that an agent tested an app. it's that i never told it how. i handed it a device and an intent, and it figured out the scoping, the parallelizing, and the driving on its own. if you still write and maintain mobile ui tests by hand, i'm not sure that lasts the year.

Landseer Enga

23,963 views • 5 months ago

Bash is all you need! Which is why I'm introducing my holiday project: just-bash just-bash is a pretty complete implementation of bash in TypeScript designed to be used as a bash tool by AI agents. Because it turns out agents love exploring data via shell scripts, even beyond coding. It comes with grep, sed, awk and the 99th percentile features that an agent like Claude Code or Cursor would use. In fact, Claude Code can use it for secure bash execution. In the package - A bash-tool for AI SDK - A binary for use by yourself or your coding agents - An overlay filesystem to feed files to your agent securely - A Vercel Sandbox compatible API, so you can quickly upgrade to a real VM if you need to run binaries - An example AI agent that explores the just-bash code base using just-bash - I imported the Oils shell bash compatibility suite and just-bash passes a very good chunk What is interesting about this codebase: It was essentially entirely written by Opus 4.5. Coding agents love bash and they are good at reproducing it. They are also great at text-book recursive descent parsers and AST tweet-walk interpreters. That said, it is, like, a lot of code and I didn't read it all 😅. This is very much a hack, but it also seems to be _really_ useful. I haven't really found anything agents want to use that it doesn't support and it's fast and secure (caveats apply). It doesn't have write access to your computer and the filesystem is given a root that the agent cannot escape from. Find it at Related: Our recent blog post how we migrated our data analysis agent to bash tools and achieved incredible quality improvements The video shows the example agent investigating the just-bash code base

Malte Ubl

125,326 views • 10 months ago