How to structure your playwright project for Scale, Sanity, and Speed

TL;DR – Project Structure Matters

Your Playwright test suite will either scale beautifully or become a debugging nightmare — and it all starts with how you organize it.

• Split by interface (UI, API)
• Group by type (functional, visual, E2E)
• Add structure early: helpers/, fixtures/, configs/

Benefits: Clarity, scalability, cleaner reports, easier onboarding
Challenges: More setup, learning curve, consistency required

→ If you're tired of guessing where tests go or why your reports look like a mess, it's time to structure with intention.

Hey fellow testers and automation enthusiasts!

Whether you're starting your first Playwright test suite or trying to untangle a spaghetti folder of flaky specs — this one's for you.

After years of building automation frameworks from scratch, I've learned a crucial truth:

Your test project structure is either your best friend or your silent chaos engine.

I owe this mindset to frontend architecture — where Victor Jeman (a solution architect) once showed me how he structures code for clarity and scale.

Let me walk you through how I structure Playwright projects that:

• ✅ Scale with growing test coverage
• ✅ Make debugging and onboarding easier
• ✅ Run fast and stay reliable

1. 'The ideal' folder structure

Here's a minimal and battle-tested layout I recommend:

tests/
├── ui/
│   ├── login/
│   │   └── fixtures/
│   │   └── test-data/
│   │   └── snapshots-baseline/     # for visual regression tests
│   │   └── login.functional.spec.ts
│   │   └── login.visual.spec.ts
│   │   └── login.e2e.spec.ts
│   ├── dashboard/
│   │   └── fixtures/
│   │   └── test-data/
│   │   └── snapshots-baseline/
│   │   └── specs/
│   │   │   └── dashboard.visual.spec.ts
│   │   │   └── dashboard.functional.spec.ts
│   │   │   └── dashboard.accessibility.spec.ts
│   │   │   └── ...
│   ├── ...
├── api/
│   ├── auth/
│   │   └── fixtures/
│   │   └── test-data/
│   │   └── api-helpers.ts           # functions for requests
│   │   └── api-fixtures.ts
│   │   └── specs/
│   │   │   └── auth.functional.spec.ts
│   │   │   └── auth.e2e.spec.ts
│   │   │   ├── ...
│   ├── user/
│   │   └── ...
│   ├── gateway/
│   │   └── ...
│   ├── ...
helpers/                             # generic helpers
├── db-helpers.ts
├── testdata-helpers.ts
└── visual-helpers.ts

Tip: Split your tests by interface (UI, API) and by test type (functional, visual, e2e, etc.) — not just by component name.

2. Why this structure works

When your test suite grows, the structure you started with can either help you scale or make your days, at least, challenging.

Here's why I split my test project by interface (UI, API, etc.) and then by type (functional, visual, E2E):

Clear separation of concerns

UI and API tests often have different tooling, runtimes, and debugging needs. Keeping them isolated avoids messy overlaps and makes maintenance easier.

Instant clarity on test purpose

When you split by type (e.g., functional, visual, e2e), it's easy to see what your suite covers and what's missing — no more guessing if a test is flaky because it's E2E or just slow UI logic.

Better Scalability

As your team grows or your product expands into multiple domains (admin panel, user portal, mobile web, etc.), this modular structure lets you isolate tests per feature — reducing the risk of conflicts and improving test ownership.

Better Developer Flow & Context Switching

Even though Playwright supports running tests by tag or filename, having a clear structure makes daily work faster and smoother:

• You don't waste time searching for tests or wondering where to put new ones.
• The team can quickly navigate to functional vs. visual tests by convention.
• Makes it easier to enforce patterns like @tag usage or folder-level fixtures.

Tags are great for execution, but structure is what people read. Organizing tests to mirror the product sitemap turns the repo into a map everyone can follow—especially new joiners.

Cleaner Reporting

Grouping tests in this way allows test reports (e.g. Allure, HTML, Playwright Trace Viewer) to reflect structure — which is a win for debugging, trend analysis, and onboarding.

3. The Struggles (yes, there are some)

Overhead for Small Projects

If you're working on a tiny test suite or MVP, this structure might feel:

• Overkill
• Verbose
• Slower to get started

"Why do I need a helpers/, fixtures/, and other folders for just 5 tests?"
~ Reality: it pays off when the project grows — but it might feel heavy at the start.

Higher Learning Curve for Newcomers

For someone new to Playwright or automation:

• Understanding where to put each file
• Learning the purpose of fixtures, *.config.ts, test-helper.ts
• Dealing with config composition

…can be intimidating.
~ You'll need a good README and onboarding process for new contributors.

More files, more maintenance

As the project scales, so do:

• Folders
• Test files
• Fixtures
• Helpers

If not documented or enforced properly, it may:

• Get messy (defeating the purpose)
• Lead to duplication (e.g. similar helpers in different areas)

~ Code reviews and consistent naming conventions become essential.

Requires consistency across team

Everyone needs to follow the structure, otherwise:

• You'll get hybrid patterns (flat + structured)
• Test reviews will be slower
• Visual reports will look chaotic

~ Requires discipline or pre-commit hooks to enforce patterns.

Final Assertion

A good folder structure saves your sanity. Organize by interface + test type, use helpers/fixtures early, and enforce consistency. Worth it.

What's Next?

Maybe I'll share the core rules I follow to write clean, stable, and meaningful tests.

👉 Interested? Let me know in the comments — I'll write that next!