Google Analytics


To search for specific articles you can use advanced Google features. Go to and enter "" before your search terms, e.g. CSS selectors

will search for "CSS selectors" but only on my site.

Monday, September 5, 2011

maintenance versus performance

I was recently sent an example xpath for Selenium automation. The xpath, for a DIV, was:

"//*[@class="val1 val2 val3 val4"

My experience has been, especially with Internet Explorer, that xpath is very slow compared to say CSS. However, I find xpath easier to read (thus easier to maintain, especially in a team enviroinment) and certain things are just not possible in CSS.

So there is always a balance of maintenance versus performance. The golden rule for optimization is to never optimize right away. Right the code for maintainability and if you need to improve performance, then and only then optimize it.

The first thing I notice about the xpath above is the = operator. If the developer adds another value to the class attribute or the order of the values change, this will cause the automation to require maintenance. My experience has been that the values of multiple value attributes do change over time. So from a maintenance perspective I would write this as:

"//*[contains(@class,'val1') and contains(@class,'val2') and contains(@class,'val3') and contains(@class,'val4')]"

This way, if the order of the attributes change or the developer adds another value the xpath will still find the element.

The other things I'd change about the xpath is the use of //*. This will search every element for a match. Rather inefficient. It does have the nice feature that if a developer changes the element from a DIV to something else, the xpath will require no maintenance. However, and this is just from years of experience, I find it rare that a developer changes a DIV to something else. If they do, there is a huge amount of refactoring and using //* will not save you from any maintenance.

Since the likelihood of maintenance is low but it is such an obvious performance hit, I would actually use //div for the xpath.

1 comment:

tarun k said...

I have seen readability comments about css in past. But is it really an issue?

If you don't like -


then do -


though I had to resort to xpath when it comes to text match as contains() is no supported in css 3.