Playwright vs RestAssured: Should API Testing Be Combined?

Pros of Using Playwright for API Testing:

Playwright's framework provides several advantages for API testing, especially when it's used for UI testing. It can enhance testing processes, minimize maintenance efforts, and foster a more unified testing environment. By implementing a unified framework, we can establish a standardized testing approach, simplify the testing system, and enhance maintenance procedures. Playwright's assertions for both UI and API tests can reduce redundant test code, contributing to more efficient and cohesive testing. Leveraging Playwright for API testing can optimize the current testing infrastructure, and its capability to run tests in parallel can significantly expedite test execution. Playwright's built-in debugging tools can prove invaluable for resolving API issues within end-to-end tests, and the reuse of setup and teardown code for both UI and API tests brings distinct benefits. Additionally, Playwright's official support for GitHub Actions makes setting up and maintaining CI/CD pipelines more manageable.

Cons of Using Playwright for API Testing:

In specific scenarios, RestAssured, a tool designed for API testing, can offer greater efficiency than Playwright. The Playwright can track test duration but may lack detailed metrics for individual API requests. With the growing popularity of Playwright, its community has expanded rapidly, providing valuable insights and solutions for end-to-end testing. On the other hand, RestAssured's community focuses specifically on API testing and offers a wealth of resources and expertise tailored to this domain. RestAssured may have an advantage regarding CI/CD performance for API-only testing due to its lightweight nature. Playwright, with its browser-based approach, might have more overhead. It's worth noting that Playwright might have limitations when testing APIs that utilize protocols beyond HTTP/HTTPS.