Skip to content

Add support for Selenium 2.53.1 and Firefox 47.0.1 #251

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

davehunt
Copy link
Contributor

This adds support for Selenium 2.53.1 and Firefox 47.0.1 in addition to making them the default versions, however I have also introduced an environment variable for each to allow users to opt for previous versions. This will allow us to introduce beta versions that will not be the defaults, and will also offer the ability to workaround compatibility issues between the various dependencies.

This essentially makes #226 and #250 obsolete (except for the ChromeDriver update, but that was also taken care of in #234).

@davehunt
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kayabendroth would you mind taking a look at this? I'd like to follow it up with introduction of Selenium 3.0b with GeckoDriver and Marionette support for Firefox 48. I could merge myself, but I'm unfamiliar with the release process.

@davehunt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Perhaps @RubyTester could help review/merge/release?

@@ -27,7 +27,9 @@ RUN apt-get update -qqy \
# Selenium
#==========
RUN mkdir -p /opt/selenium \
&& wget --no-verbose https://selenium-release.storage.googleapis.com/2.53/selenium-server-standalone-2.53.0.jar -O /opt/selenium/selenium-server-standalone.jar
&& wget --no-verbose https://selenium-release.storage.googleapis.com/2.53/selenium-server-standalone-2.53.0.jar -O /opt/selenium/selenium-server-standalone-2.53.0.jar \
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This line has to go away. You download two versions of Selenium.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is intentional - to allow the user to control which version is used. We wouldn't want to download many versions, but it would allow us for example to include beta versions.

@kayabendroth kayabendroth self-assigned this Aug 1, 2016
@davehunt
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kayabendroth would you mind taking another look - I've switch to a for-loop when downloading the Firefox versions now.

if [ ! -z "$FIREFOX_VERSION" ]; then
sudo ln -fs /opt/firefox/${FIREFOX_VERSION}/firefox /usr/bin/firefox
fi

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

so no matter what time of node you are using, firefox will be in /usr/bin/firefox? say i'm using NodeChrome, /usr/bin/firefox will exist?

Copy link
Member

@ddavison ddavison Sep 9, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i'm aware that it's a no-op if you, of course, do not specify FIREFOX_VERSION, but still interested to hear your reasoning :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Like you point out it will only be created if FIREFOX_VERSION is specified. I'm happy to take another approach if you have an idea?

Copy link
Member

@ddavison ddavison Sep 9, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

would it make more sense to just put this piece in NodeFirefox and NodeFirefoxDebug, StandaloneFirefox and StandaloneFirefoxDebug?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This entry point isn't overridden in some of those, so I think I'd rather keep this here than complicate this further. I'll be opening a new pull request after rebasing from the recent changes shortly.

@davehunt
Copy link
Contributor Author

This has been superseded by #271

@davehunt davehunt closed this Sep 12, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants