Add support for Selenium Grid

[rzo1]

Mainly creating this issue as a possible future request for anyone, who has some time to contribute.

Selenium nowadays supports Selenium Grid . Selenium Grid runs in parallel on multiple machines (called Nodes) coordinated by a Hub instance.

Details can be found here: https://www.selenium.dev/documentation/grid/components/

Our current Selenium Protocol impl cannot deal with the Hub setting as we are using a LinkedBlockingQueue to handle multiple Selenium drivers (instances).

We should perhaps add an additional SeleniumGridProtocol, which can make use of Selenium Grid so we can fully leverage the grids distributed capabilities (instead using only one session of a given Selenium Grid)

[msghasan]

That's very much needed shall I try it on my weekend and try to give a upgrade

[rzo1]

That's very much needed shall I try it on my weekend and try to give a upgrade

Sure. If you have some spare resources / time to work on it, feel free. A PR would be very much appreciated.

The grid deals with the queue / sessions ids, so we would need to build some logic to handle that on our side. I wouldn't change the current Selenium impl, though to avoid breaking users (not every body uses a Selenium grid).

[dhaneshsabane]

Referencing the detailed discussion we've had on #1092, a separate implementation for Selenium Grid makes sense.

@rzo1 , @jnioche - Shall I pick this up and raise a PR?

[jnioche]

@rzo1 , @jnioche - Shall I pick this up and raise a PR?

This would be great, thanks

[dhaneshsabane]

@jnioche - Feel free to assign this issue to me.

[msghasan]

I have the solution but being very busy nowadays, I thought of pushing it long back and forgot to do it...

[msghasan]

I have pushed the solution to my fork. @jnioche @rzo1 Take a look if you feel the implementation is good to have let me know I will raise the PR. If not @dhaneshsabane can take some inspiration and ideas to further enhance from this. I am extremely sorry to delay this so much.

msghasan@4bfdba7

[msghasan]

The changes produced in my previous message was tested in production environment and was getting used for our purpose.

[dhaneshsabane]

@msghasan - Thank you so much for sharing the implementation. I managed to deploy your changes to my server and get the setup working. However, I did have to make a couple of changes, primarily around how capabilities were set.

Do you want to raise this as a pull request @msghasan?

[rzo1]

So perhaps open a PR and collaborate in getting the required changes into that PR? ;-) Afterwards, we can do a review, etc.

[msghasan]

@msghasan - Thank you so much for sharing the implementation. I managed to deploy your changes to my server and get the setup working. However, I did have to make a couple of changes, primarily around how capabilities were set.

Do you want to raise this as a pull request @msghasan?

ok let me provide the PR this weekend or I will take out some time after work to do it

[msghasan]

@rzo1 @jnioche Please review the below PR and let me know your thoughts on this

#1123

[msghasan]

# PR Explanation

[rzo1]

From my POV (and as original opener of this issue), we now have playwright available, which scales easily. So I am going to close this.