Talk:Headless browser

"Running automated tests for JavaScript libraries"

I think this should be something more like "Running automated tests on a website that depends on JavaScript".
Because you don't need a browser to test a javascript *library*, unit tests should suffice for that. It's testing the integration with a DOM that's more difficult.
Also there's no reference for this point.

"Scraping web sites for data." should be in malicious

Agree or disagree? Plimitarmed (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapers are not necessarily malicious. A few days ago at work a colleague was using a scraper on a (locally running) old version of one of our own sites to create a static HTML archive of it for future reference, as an extra backup just in case CMS migration missed anything and we need to look back. (This has the benefit of being searchable. The old site's CMS had used a Google search subscription, and private archival dynamic copies of the old site can't query Google's index for a version of the site that's no longer on the web.) —Undomelin (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the use case. I revised the structure so that web scraping falls into the uncommon use cases, along with the existing suggestions debunked by the 2018 study. Avindratalk 02:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lynx considered a headless browser?

Is Lynx considered a headless browser? It doesn't have a GUI. Nurg (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be considered a headless browser. Lynx users are still using a GUI, it just happens to be text-based. The class of headless browsers are generally used as background processes, without any interaction from the user. Avindratalk 21:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]