For the complete documentation index, see llms.txt. This page is also available as Markdown.

Browser-Grid Migration Checklist

Compare required and observed browser execution, concurrency, network access, artifacts, ownership, overlap, and rollback before changing a browser grid.

Quick answer

Do not migrate from a browser grid by counting browser names. Inventory the exact operating-system, browser, version, viewport, device, network, concurrency, artifact, and retention requirements behind today’s release decisions. Run representative ContextQA plans, record what was directly observed, and classify every requirement as native, externally connected, retained elsewhere, missing, or unknown. Keep an overlap period and a tested rollback path until critical coverage and evidence gates pass.

What this guide does—and does not claim

This checklist helps a team evaluate whether ContextQA can replace part of a browser-grid workflow, coexist with it, or leave it unchanged.

ContextQA documentation describes:

  • saved test-plan machines for browser or device execution;

  • Chrome, Firefox, and Safari choices in the current cross-browser workflow;

  • parallel execution subject to workspace capacity;

  • execution evidence such as results, screenshots, video, and logs; and

  • organization-level remote-browser profiles using an approved WebSocket endpoint.

It does not follow that every third-party grid feature, browser version, device, regional route, tunnel, or retention policy is automatically equivalent. A saved remote-browser profile is evidence that a connection can be configured; it is not proof that the full grid requirement is satisfied.

Choose the migration pattern

Use one of three explicit patterns:

Pattern
When it fits
Main risk

Replace

ContextQA has directly demonstrated all critical requirements

Hidden edge coverage is discovered after shutdown

Hybrid

ContextQA covers primary flows; another grid owns special versions, devices, regions, or diagnostics

Duplicate runs and unclear failure ownership

Retain

Critical requirements are unavailable, unknown, or uneconomical to migrate

Evaluation effort without operational change

“Hybrid” is a real architecture, not a failed replacement. It can be the best outcome when specialized coverage has a clear owner.

Step 1: Reconstruct the real requirement

Start from release policy, defect history, contracts, and actual usage—not from the grid vendor’s entire catalog.

Browser and device inventory

Requirement ID
User or contract source
OS/device
Browser and version
Viewport
Priority
Current owner

Critical / Required / Optional

Include:

  • current stable versions and any pinned older versions;

  • desktop and mobile viewport behavior;

  • real-device requirements versus browser emulation;

  • locale, timezone, geolocation, and accessibility settings;

  • downloads, uploads, camera, microphone, or other hardware-dependent flows; and

  • extension, certificate, or enterprise-policy dependencies.

Execution and network inventory

Requirement
Current behavior
Required threshold
Why it matters

Concurrency

Pull-request latency or nightly window

Queue time

Developer feedback time

Private-network access

Test environment reachability

Approved egress region

Data or security policy

Proxy/tunnel ownership

Incident response

Session isolation

Data contamination risk

Retry behavior

Flake versus defect interpretation

Maximum execution time

Pipeline timeout budget

Evidence and retention inventory

Artifact
Required on pass?
Required on failure?
Retention
Access roles
Export need

Step result

Screenshot

Session video

Console log

Network log

Execution trace

CI summary

An artifact that exists but cannot be retained, exported, or opened by the reviewer may not meet the requirement.

Step 2: Build the required-versus-observed matrix

Run a representative cross-browser test plan and record observation, not expectation.

Use these dispositions:

  • Native: demonstrated through the saved ContextQA workflow.

  • External connection: demonstrated through an approved remote-browser profile; name the external owner.

  • Retained elsewhere: intentionally remains in the current grid or another control.

  • Missing: tested and unavailable for the evaluated configuration.

  • Unknown: not yet tested or evidence was insufficient.

Requirement ID
Required
Observed configuration
Disposition
Run/evidence reference
Owner
Decision

Do not use a documentation page as the only evidence for a critical row. Link the actual test plan, run, artifact, or connection-test record.

Step 3: Exercise network and remote-browser boundaries

If the application requires private access, first decide whether the route belongs at the application network, a proxy, or a remote browser endpoint.

For a ContextQA organization profile:

  1. Create the narrowest approved proxy or remote-browser profile.

  2. Use a dedicated credential with the minimum required access.

  3. Run Test Connection for a remote-browser profile.

  4. Assign the profile to one disposable test case or plan.

  5. Run a non-destructive smoke test.

  6. Verify DNS, TLS, authentication, application reachability, and artifact availability.

  7. Rotate or remove the pilot credential after testing when policy requires it.

Record which party owns:

  • endpoint availability;

  • browser images and versions;

  • concurrency limits;

  • network allowlists;

  • credential rotation;

  • session artifacts; and

  • support escalation.

Step 4: Measure concurrency without hiding queue time

Total feedback time has at least three parts:

Run the same representative plan at normal and busy periods. Capture:

Run
Requested concurrency
Started concurrency
Queue time
Execution time
Incomplete runs
Notes

Do not extrapolate from a single quiet run. If the workspace limit or external grid controls concurrency, name that boundary.

Step 5: Compare diagnostic usefulness

Seed controlled failures in a disposable fixture:

  1. Browser-specific layout or interaction failure.

  2. JavaScript console error.

  3. Failed or delayed network request.

  4. Authentication or certificate failure in a test environment.

  5. Intentional timeout.

For each failure, ask a reviewer who did not create the seed to diagnose it from the available artifacts.

Seed
Expected signal
ContextQA evidence
Current-grid evidence
Reviewer diagnosis
Triage minutes
Gap

The winner is not necessarily the system with more artifacts. It is the system that preserves the identity and evidence needed for the team to make the next decision.

Step 6: Design the overlap period

Use a fixed cohort and duration. A reasonable overlap definition includes:

During overlap, record divergences rather than choosing the preferred result:

Build
Scenario
Current grid
ContextQA
Expected
Classification
Owner

Pass / Fail / Incomplete

Pass / Fail / Incomplete

Product / Test / Environment / Coverage / Unknown

Review false passes before false failures: a noisy gate is painful, but an undetected critical defect defeats the release control.

Step 7: Prepare rollback before cutover

The rollback plan should work without recreating deleted configuration.

Rollback item
Required state before cutover

Current-grid workflow

Preserved and runnable

Secrets and service accounts

Valid through the rollback window

Test repository and config

Versioned at a known commit

CI required-check change

Reversible by an authorized owner

Artifact access

Retained for comparison

Escalation contact

Named for both execution paths

Rollback drill

Completed on a disposable branch or environment

Trigger rollback when a critical requirement becomes missing, an unexplained false pass occurs, evidence is inaccessible during a release, or queue/execution behavior exceeds the accepted threshold repeatedly.

Acceptance checklist

Decision record

Common questions

Does a successful remote-browser connection prove grid compatibility?

No. It proves that the tested endpoint and credentials connected at that moment. Run the required browser, network, concurrency, and artifact scenarios before making a migration claim.

Should we retire the current grid after the first passing ContextQA plan?

No. Complete the required-versus-observed matrix, seeded-failure review, overlap cohort, and rollback drill first.

What if only specialist coverage stays on the old grid?

Document a hybrid architecture with explicit triggers and owners. Also review whether duplicated test data, secrets, and evidence retention create more operational cost than the split saves.

Planning a browser-grid migration or consolidation? Book an architecture review → — Bring your required matrix and one diagnostic-heavy failure; we will map the observable migration boundary with you.

Last updated

Was this helpful?