In JBehave, BeforeStory or AfterStory annotation can be added in Step level. So if there are multiple Steps classes with BeforeStory annotation, all those BeforeStory annotated methods will be executed before the each and every story start (which is not needed).
In JUnit we can add or leave BeforeClass or Before as needed in test classes separately. So what I need is a way to add BeforeStory or AfterStory in a story level just like JUnit test class.
Is there a way to add BeforeStory as a lifecycle in a story file ? or any alternative solution ?
Following example shows only adding Before in the lifecycle.
http://jbehave.org/reference/stable/story-syntax.html
Lifecycle:
Before:
Given a step that is executed before each scenario
After:
Outcome: ANY
Given a step that is executed after each scenario regardless of outcome
Outcome: SUCCESS
Given a step that is executed after each successful scenario
Outcome: FAILURE
Given a step that is executed after each failed scenario
Thanks.
In my opinion jbehave does not have such a facility as of now. But try the following - in the class file execute a Given to initialize users and in the end of the story scenarios define another Given to release resources. I know this approach breaks the BDD paradigm of whole and business defined scenarios, but atleast is a work around.
To ensure it executes first and last you could use (priority=1) for initUsers() and (priority=n) for cleanup().
As you have quoted from the documentation, Before and After steps are executed after each scenario and not step as was stated. There is no facility to have a 'before story' step defined in a story file.
An alternative to define something in a story file is to annotate method with #BeforeStory as described in: http://jbehave.org/reference/stable/annotations.html
Related
Let's consider a scenario, we have to run the performance test for "create an account api" which takes input as header/path param "Auth token" and input data like user account name . So for above scenario we have 2 feature file as,
to run performance test for POST http://baseUrl/auth_param/create/input_data
1. One feature(e.g: generateAuth.feature) file which will have the auth
token
2. Second feature(createAccount.feature) file which take parameter as a
auth token, input data.
Here is my simulation class,
class <MyClass> extends Simulation {
before {
println("Simulation is about to start!")
}
val generateAuthTest = scenario("generateAuth").exec(karateFeature("classpath:path/generateAuth.feature"))
val createAccountTest = scenario("test").exec(karateFeature("classpath:path/createAccount.feature"))
setUp(
createAccountTest.inject(rampUsers(1) over (10 seconds))).maxDuration(1 minutes)
after {
println("Simulation is finished!")
}
}
Here, can i read auth from generateAuth.feature file which is input for createAccount.feature file, so that i can pass as a parameter?
Please suggest me how to pass parameters to createAccount.feature while calling in karateFeature method.
Let me put a requirement here,
let's say we have some feature files for CRUD operations on a particular data. Here how i go to write functional scenario,
I will create new feature file to write a scenario
just use CRUD files to test a SINGLE flow.
Now if i go for Performance test cases on individual operation, i feel there are 2 ways,
Create new 4 performance test feature files (one for each CRUD
method) and call these CRUD feature files in the respective test
feature file. Finally we just call test feature files in the
respective gatling simulation class.
**(In this case, I will end up with creating more test feature files as well simulation classes for
performance, which I want to avoid) **
Just call CRUD files in the respective gatling simulation class and
pass the required parameters to them.(In this case , we just need to create only 4 simulation
classes and run them on the basic of operation like create,read,delete and so on)
Here just wanted to know 2nd way of performance test, is it achievable or not in karate and if yes please let me know how?
Summary- I think its achievable using 3rd feature file (extra) for
individual use case but I do not want to make an extra feature file
for each case so that I can avoid maintenance work and can take
advantage of re-usability of existing feature file from functional
test to performance test.
Just use the normal Karate concepts such as karate-config.js
You can easily switch environments by setting the karate.env system property.
For example:
mvn test -DargLine="-Dkarate.env=e2e"
EDIT: after you edited your question, it is clear you have a SINGLE flow you want to test. please use a SINGLE feature. I suggest you move the generateAuth into the Background of the feature. Also refer to the docs on callSingle() for advanced options.
If you are expecting 2 feature files to magically share data that is not possible and not needed if you structure your tests correctly.
If you really really need this, please create a Java singleton and access it from each feature. Totally don't recommend this though.
EDIT: In Karate 0.9.0 onwards, you can call a single scenario within a feature if it has a tag:
classpath:animals/cats/create.feature#sometagname
While creating new scenarios I only want to test the scenario I am currently working with. For this purpose I want to use the Meta: #skip tag before my scenarios. As I found out I have to use the embedder to configure the used meta tags, so I tried:
configuredEmbedder().useMetaFilters(Arrays.asList("-skip"));
but actually this still has no effect on my test scenarios
But now I get the message [pool-1-thread-1] INFO net.serenitybdd.core.Serenity - TEST IGNORED but the scenario is still executed. Only in the result page I get the info that this scenario is ignored (but still executed). Is there a way to SKIP the scenario so it won't run?
Here is my scenario description Meta: #skip Given something When something Then something
Try with the latest version of serenity-bdd since there is an implementation which is related to your query. refer this.
I am in a process of implementing Page object Model, I have one query regarding it, please see below:
I have created page files which is having locators and methods for the page, I have spec file in which I am doing the assertions by calling these methods. My question is that for one page I have over 100 test cases, now should I create single assertion file for single tests or should I create 100 assertion file for 100 test.
Please let me know what is the best way to manage it.
Regards,
Manan
I think it makes the most sense to group tests into files by functionality. It's hard to run only some tests from a file, so split out any groups of tests you think you might want to run independently. Are some of them suitable for a quick smoke test suite? Maybe those should be in a separate file.
You shouldn't need to create a new file for neither every assertion nor test case. I am confused by your question because in my understanding, the assertion is part of the test case, and test+assertion are part of the same function (assertion being the end goal of the test).
Regarding the Page Object Model: The important part of the pattern is ensuring the separation of page/DOM detail from test flow (i.e. tests should possess no knowledge of the DOM, but instead rely on page objects to act on actual pages).
I have a list of several thousand NUnit tests that I want to run (generated automatically by another tool). (This is a subset of all of the tests, and changes frequently)
I'd like to be able to run these via NUnit-Console.exe. Unfortunately the /run option only takes a direct list of files which in my case would not fit on a single command line. I'd like it to pickup the list from a filename.
I appreciate that I could use categories, but the list I want to run changes frequently and so I'd prefer not to have to start changing source code.
Does anyone know if there is a clean way to get NUnit to run my specified tests?
(I could break it down into a series of smaller calls to NUnit-console with a full command line, but that's not very elegant)
(If it's not possible, maybe I should add it as an NUnit feature request.)
Had a reply from Charlie Poole (from NUnit development team), that this is not currently possible but has been added as a feature request for NUnit 2.6
I see what you're saying, but like you say you can run a single fixture from the command line.
nunit-console /fixture:namespace.fixture tests.dll
How about generating all the tests in the same fixture? Or place them all in the same assembly?
nunit-console tests.dll
As mentioned in the nunitLink, we need to mention the scenario/test case name. It simple but it has bit of a trick in it. Directly mentioning the test case name will not serve the purpose and you will end up with the 0 testcases executed. We need to write the exact path for the same.
I don't know how it works for other languages but using c# I have found a solution. Whenever we create a feature file corresponding feature.cs file get's created in Visual Studio. Click on the featureFileName.feature.cs and look for namespace and keep it aside(Part 1)
namespace MMBank.Test.Features
Scroll a bit down you will get the class name. Note that as well and keep it aside(Part 2)
public partial class HistoricalTransactionFeature
Keep scrolling down, you will see the code which nunit understands for execution basically.
[NUnit.Framework.TestAttribute()]
[NUnit.Framework.DescriptionAttribute("TC_1_A B C D")]
[NUnit.Framework.CategoryAttribute("MM_Bank")]
Below the code you can see the function/method name which will most likely be TC_1_ABCD(certain parameters)
public virtual void TC_1_ABCD(string username, string password, string visit)
You will be having multiple such methods based on no. of scenarios you have in your feature file. Note the method(test case) which you want to execute and keep it aside(Part 3)
Now collate all the parts with dots. Finally you will land up with something like this,
MMBank.Test.Features.HistoricalTransactionFeature.TC_1_ABCD
This is it. Similarly you can create the test case names from multiple feature files and stack them up in text file. Every test case name should be in different line. For command you can browse through above nunit link for execution using command prompt.
I am trying to use Windows Workflow and have a model that looks similar to the image in the link below:
After each of the Send Activities (GetSomthing, GetSomthingElse, GetSomeMoreStuff) the same custom activity is being called (LogSomthingBadHappened).
While it might not look so bad in this picture in my real model the custom activity is a SequenceActivty, has quite a few nodes, and when its repeated 3 times starts to make the workflow look very ugly.
I would like to do something like this:
Can the IfElse branches be merged like this?
Should I be using a State Machine work flow instead (haven't figured these out yet)?
Use a FaultHandler on the workflow and throw a specific exception type that the handler will catch. Not the most graceful, but I think it should work.
In sequential workflows all steps must appear in a specific order, and the execution path is regulated exclusively by control structures (IF, WHILE).Altering the execution path in the way you describe would be like using a GOTO statement in imperative code, which we know leads to unnecessary complexity.
If the activities contained in the SequenceActivity that you need to execute at different stages of your workflow are exacty the same, you could embed them in a custom activity. This way it is easier to manage them since they are contained in a single logical unit.In imperative code, this would be like refactoring out a portion of duplicated code into a method, which is then invoked multiple places.
Another alternative that might work is to put your LogSomthingBadHappened activity into a custom workflow and include that several time. Several things to watch out for: Subworkflow are executed asynchronously, if the LogSomthingBadHappened activity needs state information from the main workflow, copying it to the sub workflow might be hard.
I have not tried this, so it might not even work.
I think the answer by gbanfill points to the right direction.
To generalize, I define the problem as:
Is there a way to define a group of activities that will be executed in several places of a workflow?
Further requirements are:
The group of activities should be defined in XAML only ie no code.
Type of input to this group will, of course, be fixed but actual values should depend on call (like calling a function).
Maybe the way to do it is define sub-workflows and build a custom activity that would instantiate the sub-workflow and wait for it to complete before continuing.
This custom activity should have at least two parameters: the sub-workflow id and input parameters.