We are creating Nunit tests which have corresponding Jira stories. We have been putting the ticket reference in the test name, but is there a convention or Nunit attribute that we should consider using instead which would be a useful or organised place for putting this reference instead?
Many folks use the [Description] attribute for this purpose.
Another option is to use [TestOf]. While it's aimed at specifying the class or method that you are testing, you can use it for any other string description if you don't make use of it for that purpose.
Finally, you can trivially create your own property attribute. For example:
c#
public class JiraTicketAttribute : PropertyAttribute
{
public JiraTicketAttribute(string ticket) : base(ticket) { }
}
The test on which it is used will end up with a property named "JiraTicket" with the value you specify as an argument.
Related
I use Enterprise Architect for code generation and I would like to automatically retrieve all tags (in my case Java annotations) of the interfaces that a class realizes. Consider the following example:
From this model, I want to generate a class that looks like this:
#AnnotationOfMyInterface
public class MyClass {
...
}
So I want to add annotations as tags to MyInterface that should be applied to MyClass during code generation. In the UI, tags of implemented interfaces are shown so I was hoping there is a way to get these tags during code generation.
I tried to edit the code generation templates and found macros to get
All interfaces that a class implements: %list="ClassInterface" #separator=", "%
All tags with a given name (of the class that code is being generated for): %classTag:"annotations"%
But unfortunately, I cannot combine these macros, i.e., I cannot pass one interface to the classTag macro so that I can retrieve the tags of that particular interface (and not the one I'm generating code for). Is there a way to get classTags of a specific class / interface?
I also tried to create a separate code generation template and "call" it from the main class code generation template. But inside my template, the classTag macro still only gets the tags of the class.
Thanks to the comments above and especially because of an answer to my question in EA's forum, I was able to setup a little proof of concept achieving what I wanted. I'm answering my question to document my solution in case someone has a similar problem in the future.
After Eve's hint in EA's forum I looked into creating an AddIn for Enterprise Architect to use this AddIn from a code generation template. I started by writing a basic AddIn as explained by #Geert Bellekens in this tutorial. Afterwards I changed the AddIn to fit my needs. This is how I finally got the tagged values (annotations) of the interfaces a class realizes:
First step:
Inside a code generation template, I get all the interfaces a class realizes and pass them to my AddIn:
$interfaces=%list="ClassInterface" #separator=", "%
%EXEC_ADD_IN("MyAddin","getInterfaceTags", $interfaces)%
Second step:
As documented here the repository objects gets passed along with the EXEC_ADD_IN call. I use the repository object and query for all interfaces using the names contained in $interfaces. I can then get the tagged values of each interface element. Simple prototype that achieves this for a single interface:
public Object getInterfaceTags(EA.Repository repo, Object args)
{
String[] interfaceNames = args as String[];
String firstInterfaceName = interfaceNames[0];
EA.Element interfaceElement = repo.GetElementsByQuery("Simple", firstInterfaceName).GetAt(0);
String tag = interfaceElement.TaggedValues.GetAt(0);
return interfaceElement.Name + " has tag value" + tag.Value;
}
I know, there are a couple of shortcomings but this is just a simple proof of concept for an idea that will most likely never be production code.
Basically I'm writing an API using Web API 2 and Entity Framework on the backend.
The thing I'm unsure about is what to do in regards to foreign keys on my models.
Say I got a person property with a foreign key to an order property.
Sometimes the client needs the person property, sometimes it does not. How should I go about this?
Should I create 2 methods:
/api/person/1 <-- returns person without order
/api/personwithorder/1 <-- returns person with order
Seems like an awful lot of methods in my opinion.
I know the queryable attribute exists as well which provides support for the client to use the $extend argument to include properties at will - however I would rather not use the queryable attribute if I can avoid it.
What are your suggestions?
Off the top of my head, here are some options.
Option 1
Multiple methods in API
public Person GetPerson() { ... }
public Person GetPersonWithOrders() { ... }
Option 2
Pass a flag to the method:
public Person GetPerson(bool getOrders) { ... }
Option 3
You could use OData to allow the caller to query the data.
To expand on DavidG's option 3 of using OData, here is how you'd do it:
Install-package Microsoft.AspNet.WebApi.OData
Create a PeopleController inheriting from ODataController
Configure the Web API OData model like so:
modelBuilder.EntitySet<Person>("People");
Define your Get method as returning an IQueryable<Person>
In your calling code, add the expand clause to the URL to specify the child object you would like to expose, like this: /api/People(1)?$expand=Orders
There's a little bit more to it around registering the OData route, but this is all standard configuration that you can find in any sample project.
OData is really very flexible and takes care of tonnes of issues about how you should build your URLs.
I'm sure there's something I'm missing here, but a lot of Googling hasn't uncovered it for me. The situation is like this:
We created a custom workflow designer that allows end users to build workflow definitions from various custom activities we define (Review, Submit, Notify, etc). These definitions (Xaml) get saved off to a Db and used to create workflow instances for long running processes in our system. The users can set properties on each of them (e.g. Review has a property argument: AllowedRoles). The problem is, I'm not able to pass those properties on to nested activities.
For example:
Review has an internal activity 'WriteStatus' that needs access to the 'AllowedRoles' property on Review. If 'AllowedRoles' is defined as a Property, WriteStatus can't "see" it to assign it's value. I can change it from a Property to an InArgument, but then I'm not able to map values to and from the property in the designer (these properties should be part of the definition, and not associated with any specific context).
Has anyone faced this issue or have advice on how I could approach the problem differently?
Thanks in advance!
Royce
I was able to get around the property vs InOurArgument problem by converting the XAML activities to code. This allowed me to set the properties on activities in code, and then pass them to inner activities inline. There may be a better way, but it's working out well so far.
public sealed class Test : Activity
{
public string Stuff { get; set; } // CLR Property
public Test()
{
Implementation = () => new WriteLine {Text = Stuff};
}
}
OK so I understand that ion VB6, encapsulated properties in a class can belong to one of three categories:
Public Property
Friend
Public Variable
What is the difference between these and how do these compare to public and private properties in a more modern language like C#?
The scope qualifiers Public and Friend determine whether clients in different projects can see the item.
Public items will be accessible to client code in other projects1 and code in the same project.
Friend items are accessible only to code in the same project, not to code in other projects.
Private items are accessible only to code in the same class.
Properties are different from public variables, because with properties you can execute your own code when the client gets or sets the value2. EDIT following Deanna's comment: Also note that variables can be passed ByRef to a function and changes will work as expected. This is NOT the case for properties.
NB C# may be more modern, but IMHO the VB6 treatment of properties and public variables is significantly better than the .Net treatment.
In VB6 you can change a public variable into a property without breaking the clients. You don't even have to recompile them. Not true in .Net.
In VB6 public variables can be used with data binding. Not true in .Net.
In VB6 public variables could be used with interfaces. Not true in .Net.
IMHO Microsoft made a real design mistake in creating these differences between properties and public fields in .Net. Not convinced? After the first releases of .Net, the C# and VB compilers were modified to support automatically implemented properties. These allow you to create properties in just one line of code, so that it's later possible to add logic on get/set without causing problems. IMHO this proves that public variables should have been made indistinguishable from properties.
1 Assuming your project type actually allows your classes to be used by other projects (i.e. ActiveX DLL, OCX, or ActiveX exe).
2 In the Property Get, Property Let and Property Set procedures.
Public means that it is accessible by any other classes that
references your project/dll.
Friend means that it is accessible by
any other classes within your assembly (so only the exe you made the
class in)
variable and property are almost the same. Property is preferred since you can set if other classes can set or get the variable (Property encapsulates the variable)
In C# it is the same, only you use Internal instead of Friend
private property are those property that are used by ourselves and other family member. But, public property are those property which are used by all the people of our community, society or the country.
Is there some global state somewhere that I can access the currently-running test name?
I have tests which output files into a directory and read them back in. I'd like each test to create a directory to play in and then clean up after itself, and I don't want to push that name in (I'd have to make it unique, and then make sure each test keeps it unique; ew). I could use a GUID, but I'd like helper methods to be able to assume "this is the place where test files should be stored" without having to push that GUID around to them. Again, this augers for a global state somewhere.
Basically, I want a call like TestRunner.Current.CurrentTest.Name. Does such a thing exist?
(Assuming c#)
NUnit.Framework.TestContext.CurrentContext.Test.Name
or
NUnit.Framework.TestContext.CurrentContext.Test.FullName
or if you are really lazy and aren't driving your tests with TestCaseSource (thanks #aolszowka):
this.GetType().ToString()
I haven't upgraded to 2.5.7 yet myself, but it includes a TestContext class that seems to provide just what you're looking for: http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=releaseNotes&r=2.5.7
Assuming one method per Test, in your NUnit code, you can use reflection to get the method name from the stacktrace.
If you write a helper method in your NUnit code called by other methods to do this file logging, you can use this syntax to check for the previous method:
string MethodName = new StackFrame(1).GetMethod().Name;
See the answers to question 44153, "Can you use reflection to find the name of the currently executing method?" for more details.
If we are using TestCaseSource tag then above solutions might not give correct answer
Try using TestContext.CurrentContext.Test.MethodName
Follow the below example
namespace NunitTests
{
public class Class1
{
static List<TestData> Data = new List<TestData>()
{
new TestData()
{
...
}
};
[Test]
[TestCaseSource(nameof(TenMBInstance))]
public void TestCase(TestData value)
{
TestContext.CurrentContext.Test.Name; //TestCase(NunitTests..TestData)
TestContext.CurrentContext.Test.MethodName; //TestCase
}
}
}