Tag Archives for " functional testing "

How Nexmo Integrated testRTC into their Test Automation for the Nexmo Voice API

Nexmo found in testRTC a solution to solve its end-to-end media testing challenges for their Nexmo Voice API product, connecting PSTN to WebRTC and vice versa.

Nexmo is one of the top CPaaS vendors out there providing cloud communication APIs to developers, enabling enterprises to add communication capabilities into their products and applications.

One of Nexmo’s capabilities involves connecting voice calls between regular phone numbers (PSTN) to browsers (using WebRTC) and vice versa. This capability is part of the Nexmo Voice API.

Testing @ Nexmo

Catering to so many customers with ongoing deployments to production means that Nexmo needs to take testing seriously. One of the things Nexmo did early on was introduce automated testing, using the pytest framework. Part of this automated testing includes a set of regression tests –  a huge amount of tests that provide very high test coverage. Regression tests get executed whenever the Nexmo team has a new version to release, but these tests can also be launched “on demand” by any engineer, they can also be triggered by the Jenkins CI pipeline upon a merge to a particular branch.

At Nexmo, development teams are in charge of the quality of their code, so there is no separate QA team.

In many cases, launching these regression tests first creates a new environment, where the Nexmo infrastructure is launched dynamically on cloud servers. This enables developers to run multiple test sessions in parallel, each in front of their own sandboxed environment, running a different version of the service.

When WebRTC was added to Nexmo Voice API, there was a need to extend the testing environment to include support for browsers and for WebRTC technology.

On Selecting testRTC

“When it comes to debugging, when something has gone wrong, testRTC is the first place we’d go look. There’s a lot of information there”

Jamie Chapman, Voice API Engineer at Nexmo

Nexmo needed WebRTC end-to-end tests as part of their regression test suite for the Nexmo Voice API platform. These end-to-end tests were around two main scenarios:

  1. Dialing a call from PSTN and answering it inside a browser using WebRTC
  2. Calling a PSTN number directly from a browser using WebRTC

In both cases, their client side SDKs get loaded by a web page and tested as part of the scenario.

Nexmo ended up using testRTC as their tool of choice because it got the job done and it was possible to integrate it into their existing testing framework:

  • The python script used to define and execute a test scenario used testRTC’s API to dynamically create a test and run it on the testRTC platform
  • Environment variables specific to the dynamically created test environment got injected into the test
  • testRTC’s test result was then returned back to the python script to be recorded as part of the test execution result

This approach allowed Nexmo to integrate testRTC right into their current testing environment and test scripts.

Catering for Teams

The Voice API engineering team is a large oneAll these users have access to testRTC and they are able to launch regression tests that end up running testRTC scripts as well as using the testRTC dashboard to debug issues that are found.

The ability to have multiple users, each with their own credentials, running tests on demand when needed enabled increased productivity without dealing with coordination issues across the team members. The test results themselves get hosted on a single repository, accessible to the whole team, so all developers  can easily share faulty test results with the team .

Debugging WebRTC Issues

Nexmo has got regression testing for WebRTC off the ground by using testRTC. It does so by integrating with the testRTC APIs, scheduling and launching tests on demand from Nexmo’s own test environment. The tests today are geared towards providing end-to-end validation of media and connectivity between the PSTN network and WebRTC. Validation that testRTC takes care of by default.

When things break, developers check the results collected by testRTC. As Jamie Chapman, Voice API engineer at Nexmo said: “When it comes to debugging, when something has gone wrong, testRTC is the first place we’d go look. There’s a lot of information there”.

testRTC takes screenshots during the test run, as well as upon failure. It collects browser logs and webrtc-internals dump files, visualizing it all and making it available for debugging purposes. This makes testRTC a valuable tool in the development process at Nexmo.

On the Horizon

Nexmo is currently making use of the basic scripting capabilities of testRTC. It has invested in the API integration, but there is more that can be done.

Nexmo are planning to increase their use of testRTC in several ways in the near future:

Using testRTC for WebRTC-PSTN testing and monitoring

When we started a couple of years ago, we started receiving requests from contact center vendors to support scenarios that involve both WebRTC and PSTN.

Most of these were customers calling from a regular phone to an agent sitting in front of his browser and accepting the call using WebRTC. Or the opposite – contact center agents dialing out from their browser towards a regular phone.

That being the case, we thought it was high time we took care of that and give a better, more thorough explanation on how to get that done. So we partnered with Twilio on this one, took their reference application of a contact center from github, and wrote the test scripts in testRTC to automate it.

Along the way, we’ve made use of Twilio to accept calls and dial out calls; dabbled with AWS Lambda; etc.

It was a fun project, and Twilio were kind enough to share our story on their own blog.

If you are trying to test or monitor your contact center, and you need to handle scenarios that require PSTN automation mangled with WebRTC, then this is mandatory reading for you:

Automate Your Twilio Contact Center Testing with testRTC

And if you need help in getting that done, just ping us.

Advanced Testing: Manipulating getUserMedia and Available Devices

Philipp Hancke is not new here on our blog. He has assisted us when we wrote the series on webrtc-internals. He is also not squeamish about writing his own testing environment and sharing the love. This time, he wanted to share a piece of code that takes device availability test automation in WebRTC to a new level.

Obviously… we said yes.

We don’t have that implemented in testRTC yet, but if you are interested – just give us a shout out and we’ll prioritize it.

Both Chrome and Firefox have quite powerful mechanisms for automating getUserMedia with fake devices and skipping the permission prompt.

In Chrome this is controlled by the use-fake-device-for-media-stream and use-fake-ui-for-media-stream command line flags while Firefox offers a preferences media.navigator.streams.fake. See the webdriver.js helper in this repository for the gory details of how to use this with selenium.

However there are some scenarios which are not testable by this:

  • getUserMedia returning an error
  • restricting the list of available devices

While most of these are typically handled by unit tests sometimes it is nice to test the complete user experience for a couple of use-cases

  • test the behaviour of a client with only a microphone
  • test the behaviour of a client with only a camera
  • test the behaviour of a client with neither camera or microphone
  • combine those tests with screen sharing which in some cases replaces the video track on appear.in
  • test audio-only clients interoperating with audio-video ones. The test matrix becomes pretty big at some point.

Those tests are particularly important because as developers we tend to do some manual testing on our own machines which tend to be equipped with both devices. Automated tests running on a continuous integration server help a lot to prevent regressions.

Manipulating APIs with an extension

In order to manipulate both APIs I wrote a chrome extension (which magically works in Firefox and Edge because both support webextensions) that makes them controllable.

An extension can inject javascript into the page on page load as a content script. This has been used in the webrtc-externals extension described on webrtchacks to wrap the whole RTCPeerConnection API.

In our case, the content script replaces the getUserMedia and enumerateDevices functions with wrappers that can be modified at runtime. For example, the enumerateDevices wrapper calls the original function and then uses Javascript to modify the result before returning it to the caller:

The full extension can be found on github. The behaviour is dynamic and can be controlled via sessionStorage flags. With Selenium, one would typically navigate to a page in the same domain, execute a small script to set the session storage flags as desired and then navigate to the page that is to be tested.

We will walk through two examples now:

Use-case: Have getUserMedia return an error and change it at runtime

Let’s say we want to test the case that a user has denied permission. For appear.in this leads to a dialog that attempts to help them with the browser UX to change that.

The full test can be found here. As most selenium tests, it consists of a series of simple and straightforward steps:

  • build a selenium webdriver instance that allows permissions and loads the extension
  • go to the appear.in homepage
  • set the  List of fake devices in Chrome WebRTC testing  flag to cause a NotAllowedError (i.e. the user has denied permission) as well as an appear.in specific localStorage property that says the visitor is returning — this ensures we go into the flow we want to test and not into the “getUserMedia primer” that is shown to first-time users.
  • join an appear.in room by loading the URL directly.
  • the next step would typically be asserting the presence of certain DOM elements guiding the user to change the denied permission. This is omitted here as those elements change rather frequently and replaced with a three second sleep which allows for a visual inspection. It should look like this:
  • the  List of fake devices in Chrome WebRTC testing  flag is deleted
  • this eventually leads to the user entering the room and video showing up. We do some magic here in order to avoid having to ask the user to refresh the page.

Watch a video of this test running below:

 

Incidentally, that dialog had a “enter anyway” button which, due to the lack of testing, was not visible for quite some time without anyone noticing because the visual regression tests could not access this stage. Now that is possible.

Restricting the list of available devices

The fake devices in both Chrome and Firefox return a stream with exactly those properties that you ask for and they always succeed (in Chrome there is a way to make them always fail too). In the real world you need to deal with users who don’t have a microphone or a camera attached to their machine. A call to getUserMedia would fail with a NotFoundError (note the recent change in Chrome 64 or simply use adapter.js and write spec-compliant code today).

The common way to avoid this is to enumerate the list of devices to figure out what is available using enumerateDevices by pasting this into the javascript console:

 

When you run this together with the fake device flag you’ll notice that it provides two fake microphones and one fake camera device:

When the extension is loaded (which for manual testing can be done on chrome://extensions; see above for the selenium ways to do it) one can manipulate that list:

Paste the enumerateDevices into the console again and the audio devices no longer show up:

At appear.in we used this to replace a couple of audio-only and video-only tests that used feature flags in the application code with more realistic behaviour. The extension allows a much cleaner separation between the frontend logic and the test logic.

Summary

Using a tiny web extension we could easily extend the already powerful WebRTC testing capabilities of the browsers and cover more advanced test scenarios. Using this approach it would even be possible to simulate events like the user unplugging the microphone during the call.

Automated WebRTC Testing using testRTC

Yesterday, we hosted a webinar on testRTC. This time, we were really focused on showing some live demos of our service.

I wanted this one to be useful, so I sat down earlier this week, working on a general story outline with the idea of showing live how you can write a test script from scratch, building more and more capabilities and functionality into it as I went along.

It was real fun.

If you missed it, I’d like to invite you to watch the replay:

watch @ crowdcast

For the purpose of this webinar, I took Jitsi Meet (https://meet.jit.si/) and created the following scripts for it:

  1. Simple one-on-one test
    • Then I cleaned it up a bit from nagging warnings
    • And added a few basic expectations
  2. 4-way video test
    • For this one I’ve added some synchronization across the probes, and made sure Jitsi is the one generating the random rooms
    • I changed the script to be aware of sessions (parallel meeting rooms in the same test)
    • Then I played with the test reconfiguring it to run 40 probes, 8 in each meeting room
  3. One-on-one test with network limits
    • Switched back to a 1:1 session, this time with the flexibility we achieved in (2)
    • Increased the test length to 3 minutes
    • Injected 5% packet loss to the test in the second minute of the test

I also went over some of the results from the Kurento post we’ve published yesterday and went through the screen sharing script we’ve written recently about that uses appear.in as an example

One of the things I was asked is to share the scripts used throughout the session.

So I cleaned up the scripts a bit and placed them on our Google Drive. I am sharing them here in two forms:

  1. The GDoc file of the script – open it to read, copy+paste it to wherever
  2. The JSON file of the script – you can import this one directly into your testRTC account (you’ll need to reconfigure the probe profiles before you run it):

Here they are:

  1. Simple one-on-one test: GDocJSON
  2. 4-way video test: GDocJSON
  3. One-on-one test with network limits: GDocJSON

We’re here for any questions you may have.

Check out the enhancements we’ve made to testRTC

It has been a while since we released a version, so it is with great pleasure that I am writing this announcement.

Yes. Our latest release is now out in the wild. We’ve upgraded our service on Sunday, so it is about time we take you for a quick roundup of the changes we’ve made.

#1 – Support for projects and users

This one is long overdue. Up until today, if you signed up for testRTC, you had to share your credentials with whoever was on your team to work with him on the tests. This was impossible to work with, assuming you wanted QA, R&D and DevOps to share the account and work cooperatively with the tests and monitors that got logged inside testRTC.

So we did what we should have – we now support two modes of operation:

  1. A user can be linked to multiple projects
    • So if your company is running multiple projects, you can now run them separately, having people focused on their own environment and tests
    • This is great for those who run segregated services for their own customers
    • It also means that now, a user can switch between projects with a single set of credentials in the system
  2. A project can belong to multiple users
    • Need someone to work on writing the scripts and executing them? You got it
    • Have a developer working on a bug that got reported with a link to testRTC? Sure thing
    • The IT guy who just received a downtime alarm from the WebRTC monitor we run? That’s another user
    • Each user has his own place in the project, and each is distinguished by his own credentials

testRTC project selection

If you require multiple projects, or want to add more users to your account just contact our support.

#2 – Longer, bigger tests

While theoretically, testRTC can run any test at any length and size, things aren’t always that easy.

There are usually two limitations to these requirements:

  1. The time they take to prepare, execute, run and collect results
  2. The time it takes to analyze the results

We worked hard in this release on both elements and got to a point where we’re quite happy with the results.

If you need long tests, we can handle those. One of the main concerns with long tests is what to do if you made a mistake while configuring them? Now you can cancel such tests in the middle if necessary.

Canceling a test run

If you need to scale tests to a large number of browsers – we can do that too.

We are making sure we bubble up the essentials from the browsers, so you don’t have to work hard and rummage through hundreds of browser logs to find out what went wrong. To that end, the tables that show browser results have been reworked and are now sorted in a way that will show failures first.

#3 – Advanced WebRTC analysis

We’ve noticed in the past few months that some of our customers are rather hard core. They are technology savvy and know their way in WebRTC. For them, the graphs we offer of bitrates, latencies, packet losses, … – are just not enough.

Chrome’s webrtc-internals and getstats() offer a wealth of additional information that we offered up until now only in a JSON file download. Well… now we also visualize it upon request right from the report itself:

Advanced WebRTC graphs

These graphs are reachable by clicking the webrtc_internals_dump.txt link under the Logs tab of a test result. Or by clicking the Advanced WebRTC Analytics button located just below the channels list:

Access advanced WebRTC graphs

I’d like to thank Fippo for the work he did (webrtc-dump-importer) – we adopted it for this feature.

#4 – Simulation of call drops and dynamic network changes

This is something we’ve been asked more than once. We have the capability of modeling the network of our probes, so that the browser runs with a specific configuration of a firewall or via a specific type of simulated network. We’re modifying and tweaking the profiles we have for these from time to time, but now we’ve added a script command so that you can change this configuring in runtime.

What can you do with it? Run two minutes of a test with 2 Mbps, then close virtually everything for 20-30 seconds, then open up  the network again – and see what happens. It is a way to test WebRTC in your application in dynamic network conditions – ones that may require ICE restarts.

Dynamically changing network profile in testRTC

In the test above, we dynamically changed the network profile in mid-call to starve WebRTC and see how it affects the test.

How do you use this new capability? Use our new command rtcSetNetworkProfile(). Read all about it in our knowledge base: rtcSetNetworkProfile()

#5 – Additional test expectations

We had the basics covered when it came to expectations. You could check the number and types of channels, validate that there’s some bits going on in there, validate packet loss. And that’s about it.

To this list of capabilities that existed in rtcSetTestExpectations() we’ve now added the ability to add expectations related to jitter, video resolutions, frame rate, and call setup time. We’ve also taken the time to handle expectations on empty channels a lot better.

There’s really nothing new here, besides an enhancement of what rtcSetTestExpectations() can do.

#6 – Additional information in Webhook responses

testRTC can notify your backend whenever a test or a monitor run ends on the status of that run – success or failure. This is done by configuring a webhook that is called at the end of the test run. We’ve had customers use it to collect the results to their own internal monitoring systems such as Splunk and Elastic Search.

What we had on offer in the actual payload that was passed with the webhook was rather thin, and while we’re still trying to keep it simple, we did add the leading error in that response in cases of failure:

testRTC webhook test failure response

#7 – API enabled to all customers

Yes. We had APIs in the past, but somehow, there was friction involved, with customers needing to ask for their API key in order to use the API for their continuous integration plans. It worked well, but the number of customers asking for API keys – both customers and prospects under evaluation – has risen to a point where it was ridiculous to continue doing this manually. Especially when our intent is for customers to use our APIs.

So we took this one step forward. From now on, every account has an API key by default. That API key is accessible from the account’s dashboard when you login, so there’s no need to ask for it any longer.

testRTC API key

For those of you who have been using it – note that we’ve also reset your key to a new value.

Your turn

This has been quite a big release for us, and I am sure to miss an enhancement or two (or more).

Now back to you. How would you want to test WebRTC in your product?