11 Apr 2025
Developer Tools

Self healing for selenium tests. A proxy runs between browser and ...

...selenium. It detects if a locator is not recognized in which case it basically uses ai llm and a database of successful locator checks to identify the change in the element. It then resends the command witht the fixed element. It also compiles a list of elements it had to heal so that the user can update the element locators in the tests.

Confidence
Engagement
Net use signal
Net buy signal

Idea type: Freemium

People love using similar products but resist paying. You’ll need to either find who will pay or create additional value that’s worth paying for.

Should You Build It?

Build but think about differentiation and monetization.


Your are here

Your idea for self-healing Selenium tests puts you in the 'Freemium' category. This means people are generally interested in the problem you're solving, which is making automated testing less brittle and easier to maintain. With four similar products already out there, you're entering a somewhat competitive space, but there's clearly a need. The high engagement (average of 18 comments on similar product launches) shows that people are actively discussing and seeking solutions in this area. Competitors received criticism around privacy, maintenance costs, hallucinating details and lack of advanced logic were noted. This reinforces the need to differentiate and really nail the core problem: reducing test maintenance overhead. The fact that it's a freemium category means people will likely resist paying you. Therefore, you need to add unique value beyond the immediate fix.

Recommendations

  1. Given that you are entering a competitive space (n_matches=4), focus on a very specific niche within Selenium testing. For example, you could specialize in handling dynamic web applications or specific UI frameworks (React, Angular, Vue). This helps to target your AI model training and improve accuracy.
  2. Since users often resist paying for these types of tools, identify what use cases provide the most value from the free version. Perhaps it's a limited number of self-healing tests per month or support for a single browser. Use this information to fine-tune your monetization strategy.
  3. Create premium features that address major pain points beyond basic self-healing. Consider advanced reporting, integration with CI/CD pipelines, or the ability to handle complex test scenarios. Premium features should justify the cost for larger teams or organizations.
  4. Explore offering team-based pricing rather than individual licenses. Testing is often a collaborative effort, and teams are more likely to see the value in a paid solution that streamlines their workflow. Focus your marketing on this team collaboration.
  5. Consider offering personalized support or consulting services as a premium add-on. This can be particularly appealing to companies that lack in-house expertise in automated testing or AI. You can charge for onboarding, training, or custom integrations.
  6. Based on criticism of Autotab, prioritize privacy and security. Clearly communicate how you handle user data, especially sensitive information within tests. Consider offering on-premise deployment options for companies with strict security requirements. This might be a great premium feature.
  7. Since users mentioned the AI's tendency to hallucinate details, invest heavily in improving the accuracy and reliability of your AI model. Implement robust validation mechanisms to prevent false positives and ensure that the suggested locators are correct. Implement extensive logging to monitor and train the model.
  8. Address the criticism that similar tools lack a distinct advantage. Focus on features that differentiate your product from existing solutions. Perhaps it's superior AI accuracy, better integration with specific testing frameworks, or a more user-friendly interface. Do thorough competitive research, and find out what are other solutions are missing.
  9. Carefully test different pricing approaches with small groups of users before launching a full-scale paid version. Gather feedback on pricing tiers, feature sets, and overall value proposition. A/B test different pricing models.

Questions

  1. Given that similar products received criticism about privacy and data handling, how will you ensure the security and confidentiality of the data used in the self-healing process, especially when dealing with sensitive information within tests?
  2. Since users often resist paying for testing tools, what specific ROI metrics will you track and communicate to demonstrate the value of your premium features and justify the cost of a paid subscription? Are there calculations or features that can help them calculate and visualize ROI?
  3. Considering that similar tools have been criticized for lacking distinct advantages, what is your unique selling proposition, and how will you effectively communicate it to stand out from the competition in the crowded automated testing market? What is a killer-feature other solutions don't have?

Your are here

Your idea for self-healing Selenium tests puts you in the 'Freemium' category. This means people are generally interested in the problem you're solving, which is making automated testing less brittle and easier to maintain. With four similar products already out there, you're entering a somewhat competitive space, but there's clearly a need. The high engagement (average of 18 comments on similar product launches) shows that people are actively discussing and seeking solutions in this area. Competitors received criticism around privacy, maintenance costs, hallucinating details and lack of advanced logic were noted. This reinforces the need to differentiate and really nail the core problem: reducing test maintenance overhead. The fact that it's a freemium category means people will likely resist paying you. Therefore, you need to add unique value beyond the immediate fix.

Recommendations

  1. Given that you are entering a competitive space (n_matches=4), focus on a very specific niche within Selenium testing. For example, you could specialize in handling dynamic web applications or specific UI frameworks (React, Angular, Vue). This helps to target your AI model training and improve accuracy.
  2. Since users often resist paying for these types of tools, identify what use cases provide the most value from the free version. Perhaps it's a limited number of self-healing tests per month or support for a single browser. Use this information to fine-tune your monetization strategy.
  3. Create premium features that address major pain points beyond basic self-healing. Consider advanced reporting, integration with CI/CD pipelines, or the ability to handle complex test scenarios. Premium features should justify the cost for larger teams or organizations.
  4. Explore offering team-based pricing rather than individual licenses. Testing is often a collaborative effort, and teams are more likely to see the value in a paid solution that streamlines their workflow. Focus your marketing on this team collaboration.
  5. Consider offering personalized support or consulting services as a premium add-on. This can be particularly appealing to companies that lack in-house expertise in automated testing or AI. You can charge for onboarding, training, or custom integrations.
  6. Based on criticism of Autotab, prioritize privacy and security. Clearly communicate how you handle user data, especially sensitive information within tests. Consider offering on-premise deployment options for companies with strict security requirements. This might be a great premium feature.
  7. Since users mentioned the AI's tendency to hallucinate details, invest heavily in improving the accuracy and reliability of your AI model. Implement robust validation mechanisms to prevent false positives and ensure that the suggested locators are correct. Implement extensive logging to monitor and train the model.
  8. Address the criticism that similar tools lack a distinct advantage. Focus on features that differentiate your product from existing solutions. Perhaps it's superior AI accuracy, better integration with specific testing frameworks, or a more user-friendly interface. Do thorough competitive research, and find out what are other solutions are missing.
  9. Carefully test different pricing approaches with small groups of users before launching a full-scale paid version. Gather feedback on pricing tiers, feature sets, and overall value proposition. A/B test different pricing models.

Questions

  1. Given that similar products received criticism about privacy and data handling, how will you ensure the security and confidentiality of the data used in the self-healing process, especially when dealing with sensitive information within tests?
  2. Since users often resist paying for testing tools, what specific ROI metrics will you track and communicate to demonstrate the value of your premium features and justify the cost of a paid subscription? Are there calculations or features that can help them calculate and visualize ROI?
  3. Considering that similar tools have been criticized for lacking distinct advantages, what is your unique selling proposition, and how will you effectively communicate it to stand out from the competition in the crowded automated testing market? What is a killer-feature other solutions don't have?

  • Confidence: Medium
    • Number of similar products: 4
  • Engagement: High
    • Average number of comments: 18
  • Net use signal: 4.8%
    • Positive use signal: 9.3%
    • Negative use signal: 4.5%
  • Net buy signal: -0.6%
    • Positive buy signal: 0.0%
    • Negative buy signal: 0.6%

This chart summarizes all the similar products we found for your idea in a single plot.

The x-axis represents the overall feedback each product received. This is calculated from the net use and buy signals that were expressed in the comments. The maximum is +1, which means all comments (across all similar products) were positive, expressed a willingness to use & buy said product. The minimum is -1 and it means the exact opposite.

The y-axis captures the strength of the signal, i.e. how many people commented and how does this rank against other products in this category. The maximum is +1, which means these products were the most liked, upvoted and talked about launches recently. The minimum is 0, meaning zero engagement or feedback was received.

The sizes of the product dots are determined by the relevance to your idea, where 10 is the maximum.

Your idea is the big blueish dot, which should lie somewhere in the polygon defined by these products. It can be off-center because we use custom weighting to summarize these metrics.

Similar products

Relevance

Reflect – create end-to-end tests using AI prompts

Hi HN,Three years ago we launched Reflect (https://reflect.run), our no-code end-to-end testing platform, on HN. We're back to show you some new AI-powered features that we believe are a big step forward in the evolution in automated end-to-end testing. Specifically, these features raise the level of abstraction for test creation and maintenance.One of our new AI-powered features is something we call Prompt Steps. Normally in Reflect you create a test by recording your actions as you use your application, but with Prompt steps you define what you want tested by describing it in plain text, and Reflect executes those actions on your behalf. The other feature we're launching is a fallback to using AI to find an element when the selectors we generated are no longer valid. We're making both of these features publicly available so that you can sign up for a free account and try it for yourself. Here's a link to our docs which contains a video demonstrating this feature:https://reflect.run/docs/recording-tests/testing-with-ai/Our goal with Reflect is to make end-to-end tests fast to create and easy to maintain. A lot of teams face issues with end-to-end tests being flaky and just generally not providing a lot of value. We faced that ourselves at our last startup, and it was the impetus for us to create this product. Since our launch, we've improved the product by making tests execute much faster, reducing VM startup times, adding support for API testing, cross-browser testing etc, and doing a lot of things to reduce flakiness, including some novel stuff like automatically detecting and waiting on asynchronous actions like XHRs and fetches.Although Reflect is used by developers, our primary user is non-technical - someone like a manual tester, or a business analyst at a large company. This means it's important for us to provide ways for these users to express what they want tested without requiring them to write code. We think LLMs can be used to solve some foundational problems these users experience when trying to do automated testing. By letting users express what they want tested in plain English, and having the automation automatically perform those actions, we can provide non-technical users with something very close to the expressivity of code in a workflow that feels very familiar to them.In the testing world there's something called BDD, which stands for Behavior-Driven Development. It's an existing way to express automated tests in plain English. With BDD, a tester or business analyst typically defines how the system should function using an English-language DSL called "Gherkin", and then that specification is turned into an automated test later using a framework called Cucumber. There are two main issues that we've heard a lot when talking to users practicing BDD:1. They find the Gherkin syntax to be overly restrictive.2. Because you have to write a whole bunch of code in the DSL translation layer to get the automation to work, non-technical users who are writing the specs have to rely heavily on the developers writing the DSL translation layer.We think our approach solves for these two main issues. Reflect's prompt steps have no predefined DSL. You can write whatever you want, including something that could result in multiple actions (e.g. "Fill out all the form fields with realistic values"). Reflect takes this prompt, analyzes the current state of the DOM, and queries OpenAI to determine what action or set of actions to take to fulfill that instruction. This means that non-technical users who practice BDD can create automated tests without developers having to build any sort of framework under the covers.It's still early days for this technology, but we think our coverage of use cases is wide enough that this is now ready for real-world use. We're excited to launch this publicly, and would love to hear any feedback. Thanks for reading!


Avatar
5
5
Relevance

Reflect – Create end-to-end tests using AI prompts

Hi HN,Three years ago we launched Reflect on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23897626). We're back to show you some new AI-powered features that we believe are a big step forward in the evolution in automated end-to-end testing. Specifically, these features raise the level of abstraction for test creation and maintenance.One of our new AI-powered features is something we call Prompt Steps. Normally in Reflect you create a test by recording your actions as you use your application, but with Prompt steps you define what you want tested by describing it in plain text, and Reflect executes those actions on your behalf. We're making this feature publicly available so that you can sign up for a free account and try it for yourself.Our goal with Reflect is to make end-to-end tests fast to create and easy to maintain. A lot of teams face issues with end-to-end tests being flaky and just generally not providing a lot of value. We faced that ourselves at our last startup, and it was the impetus for us to create this product. Since our launch, we've improved the product by making tests execute much faster, reducing VM startup times, adding support for API testing, cross-browser testing etc, and doing a lot of things to reduce flakiness, including some novel stuff like automatically detecting and waiting on asynchronous actions like XHRs and fetches.Although Reflect is used by developers, our primary user is non-technical - someone like a manual tester, or a business analyst at a large company. This means it's important for us to provide ways for these users to express what they want tested without requiring them to write code. We think LLMs can be used to solve some foundational problems these users experience when trying to do automated testing. By letting users express what they want tested in plain English, and having the automation automatically perform those actions, we can provide non-technical users with something very close to the expressivity of code in a workflow that feels very familiar to them.In the testing world there's something called BDD, which stands for Behavior-Driven Development. It's an existing way to express automated tests in plain English. With BDD, a tester or business analyst typically defines how the system should function using an English-language DSL called "Gherkin", and then that specification is turned into an automated test later using a framework called Cucumber. There are two main issues that we've heard a lot when talking to users practicing BDD:1. They find the Gherkin syntax to be overly restrictive. 2. Because you have to write a whole bunch of code in the DSL translation layer to get the automation to work, non-technical users who are writing the specs have to rely heavily on the developers writing the DSL translation layer. In addition, the developers working on the DSL layer would rather just write Selenium or Playwright code directly versus having to use English language as a go-between.We think our approach solves for these two main issues. Reflect's prompt steps have no predefined DSL. You can write whatever you want, including something that could result in multiple actions (e.g. "Fill out all the form fields with realistic values"). Reflect takes this prompt, analyzes the current state of the DOM, and queries OpenAI to determine what action or set of actions to take to fulfill that instruction. This means that non-technical users who practice BDD can create automated tests without developers having to build any sort of framework under the covers.Our other AI feature is something we call the 'AI Assistant'. This is meant to address shortcomings with the Selectors (also called Locators) that we generate automatically when you're using the record-and-playback features in Reflect. Selectors use the page structure and styling of the page to target an element, and we generate multiple selectors for each action you take in Reflect. This approach works most of the time, but sometimes there's just not enough information on the page to generate good selectors, or the underlying web application has changed significantly at the DOM-layer while being semantically equivalent to the user. Our "AI Assistant" feature works by falling back to querying the AI to determine what action to take when all the selectors on hand are no longer valid.This uses the same approach as prompt steps, except that the "prompt" in this case is an auto-generated description of the action that we recorded (e.g. something like "Click on Login button", or "Input x into username field"). We're usually able to generate a good English-language description based on the data in the DOM, like the text associated with the element, but on the occasions that we can't, we'll also query OpenAI to have it generate a test step description for us. This means that Selectors effectively become a sort of caching layer for retrieving what element to operate on in for a given test step. They'll work most of the time, and element retrieval is fast. We believe that this approach will be resilient to even large changes to the page structure and styling, such as a major redesign of an application.It's still early days for this technology. Right now our AI works by analyzing the state of the DOM, but we eventually want to move to a multi-modal approach so that we can capture visual signals that are not present in the DOM. It also has some limitations - for example right now it doesn't see inside iframes or Shadow DOM. We're working on addressing these limitations, but we think our coverage of use cases is wide enough that this is now ready for real-world use.We're excited to launch this publicly, and would love to hear any feedback. Thanks for reading!

Introducing new AI-powered features for Reflect's automated testing.

Gherkin syntax is overly restrictive.


Avatar
2
1
100.0%
1
2
100.0%
Relevance

Autospec – open-source agent that generates E2E tests for your web app

Hi HN,I'm excited to share some early tinkering on a project, autospec, an open-source QA agent for web applications.Right now it's not fully packaged for use, but I wanted to get the idea out early and am looking for design feedback, suggestions, and open source collaborators to join in. I wrote it over memorial weekend :)autospec uses vision and text language models to explore and generate commonsense e2e tests for web applications.The goal is human-like evaluation: assessing the entire UI as a user would, making decisions based on the actual state of the application at each step, with zero initial configuration, and the ability to immediately adapt to new features.Why I Built It:I've experienced the difficulty in building the right amount of automated tests and at the right layer of abstraction to both provide good coverage, avoid flakiness, and avoid constant rewrites when implementation changes.This is the first AI-driven application I've built. I was inspired by a couple of things:* SWE-agent's [1] focus on agentic performance* backend-GPT's README rant [2]: "The proper format for business logic is human intelligence."* zerostep [3], autogpt [4], and other browser-controlled AI projectsPotential Next Steps:* Save passing specs as playwright code and only fallback on spec failure to the AI agent, to see if the test can be self-healed according to the original spec.* Create a curated benchmark of both common open source web apps that should pass, and versions with introduced bugs* NPM package to run like `npx autospec --url https://example.com`* Github action and Vercel checks API integration to run on preview deployments* Handling app auth securely+easily* Continue exploring the balance between vision UI interpretation and DOM analysis[1]: https://github.com/princeton-nlp/SWE-agent[2]: https://github.com/RootbeerComputer/backend-GPT[3]: https://github.com/zerostep-ai/zerostep[4]: https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPTThanks!Zach


Avatar
8
8
Relevance

Autotab – An AI-powered Chrome extension to create Selenium scripts

Autotab is a Chrome extension that writes Selenium code to mirror your actions as you navigate the browser. See it in action: https://youtu.be/UypAcozIaooAutotab lets you create browser automations that actually work. We designed it around two principles: 1. Show, don’t tell: In a domain like web automation, it's often easier to *show* the model what you want rather than to explain it in sentences. 2. Code is the best output: Code is easy to inspect and enables manual tweaking of the model’s suggested actions. On top of that, code output avoids lock in and is straightforward to extend and integrate with larger projects. Autotab runs as a Chrome extension. As you navigate in the browser, autotab generates the Selenium code to reproduce your actions. You can copy that code into your own project or use our starter GitHub repo to get your automation up and running in <5 minutes: https://github.com/Planetary-Computers/autotab-starter.We'd love to hear what you think!

Users are generally excited about the AI-augmented browser automation tool, with specific praise for its UI, ease of use, and potential to save time. Concerns include the need for coding knowledge for debugging, errors like autotab record issues, and questions about privacy and handling sensitive information. There's interest in additional browser support and features like self-healing automations and 2FA. Comparisons with existing tools like Selenium, Playwright, and GPT-4 are common, with some users expressing a preference for Playwright's features. Suggestions include creating a community Discord and focusing on common SSOs. There's also curiosity about the product's relation to YC and monetization strategies.

Users criticized the product for lacking browser support beyond Google, requiring Google login, and having no clear monetization strategy. Concerns about privacy, maintenance costs, and the use of outdated technologies like Selenium were frequent. The AI's inability to avoid hallucinating details and lack of advanced logic were noted. The interface, particularly the animated background, was found annoying, and the product was seen as similar to existing tools with no distinct advantages. Setup issues, unclear instructions, and potential risks with sensitive data were also mentioned.


Avatar
376
93
6.5%
-1.1%
93
376
14.0%
Top