I have a test case which is repeated with 100 different values. It is hard to write 100 test cases, so how can I write a test case for all values?
I am using Selenium IDE in Firefox to write a test-suite for a website.
What types of values are they? Are they similar other than say an increment (say. A1, A2, A3), or just 100 random values? Is the expected outcome the same for each value? More information on your scenario is needed to assist.
I've used the SelBlocks plugin for doing while loops.
put the 100 values into a array: like values=[1,2,3,4,5,6......]; then
it('test case name', function() {
for (i = 0; i <= 100; i++) {
console.log(values[i]);
}
});
write your test case in for loop
Related
I'm currently trying to write a scenario in Gatling where I would like an action to be repeated between 1 and 8 times. The randomness should be on a per user basis, so for example one user may get 3 repeats and another gets 7.
I'm wanting the scenario to work like this to simulate the fact that I don't know for certain how many times a user will repeat an action.
I tried the following:
class MySimulation extends Simulation {
private val myScenario = scenario("Scenario")
.repeat(Random.nextInt(8) + 1) {
// some stuff
}
setUp(myScenario.inject(rampUsers(100) during (60 seconds)))
}
However what this ends up doing is compiling to one random number, and then using that for every single user. So if the random number generation gets 5, each user will end up repeating 5 times, which is not what I want.
Is there a way in Gatling so that each user gets a different random number for the repeat function? Or will it only work with constant numbers?
The way you attempted didn't work as your scenario as defined is a builder that is executed once at startup - so Random.nextInt is only called once.
But there are a few ways you could achieve what you want.
The easiest (since you just want a random number) would be to use the gatling EL to randomly take an element of a sequence.
firstly, define a scala val with the range of numbers you want
private val times = 1 to 8
then put your range into the session and use the EL to get a random value from the collection
.exec(_.set("times", times))
.repeat("${times.random()}" ) {
// some stuff
}
Alternatively, you could define a custom feeder - this approach lets you do things like random strings
private val times = Iterator.continually( Map( "times" -> Random.nextInt(8) + 1))
Then just feed and use the "times" value
.feed(times)
.repeat("${times}") {
// some stuff
}
I am trying to solve a beginner problem with lists but can't find an example to help me get it work. I am given a list of positive and negative integers (AccountHistory) and I need to check if the negative integers in this list have ever exceeded -1000. I expected my code to work with a freshly introduced helper function like this:
def checkAccount(account: AccountHistory): Boolean = {
def helper(i: AccountHistory): Int = {
var total = 0
i.collect{case x if x < 0 => Math.abs(x) + total}
return total
}
if (helper(account) >1000) true else false
}
But it doesn't work. Please help me find my mistake or problem in wrong approach.
Edit: The pre-given tests include
assert(checkAccount(List(10,-5,20)))
assert(!checkAccount(List(-1000,-1)))
So if assert expects true then my approach is wrong to solve it like this.
By 'exceeded' I mean <-1000, for any or all elements in a list (like exceeding a credit amount in given period).
i.collect{case x if x < 0 => Math.abs(x) + total}
In the above code snippet, not assign back to total, maybe you need:
val total = i.filter(_ < 0).map(Math.abs).sum
I think this is what you're supposed to do:
def checkAccount(account: AccountHistory): Boolean =
account.forall(_ > -1000)
New to Scala. I'm iterating a for loop 100 times. 10 times I want condition 'a' to be met and 90 times condition 'b'. However I want the 10 a's to occur at random.
The best way I can think is to create a val of 10 random integers, then loop through 1 to 100 ints.
For example:
val z = List.fill(10)(100).map(scala.util.Random.nextInt)
z: List[Int] = List(71, 5, 2, 9, 26, 96, 69, 26, 92, 4)
Then something like:
for (i <- 1 to 100) {
whenever i == to a number in z: 'Condition a met: do something'
else {
'condition b met: do something else'
}
}
I tried using contains and == and =! but nothing seemed to work. How else can I do this?
Your generation of random numbers could yield duplicates... is that OK? Here's how you can easily generate 10 unique numbers 1-100 (by generating a randomly shuffled sequence of 1-100 and taking first ten):
val r = scala.util.Random.shuffle(1 to 100).toList.take(10)
Now you can simply partition a range 1-100 into those who are contained in your randomly generated list and those who are not:
val (listOfA, listOfB) = (1 to 100).partition(r.contains(_))
Now do whatever you want with those two lists, e.g.:
println(listOfA.mkString(","))
println(listOfB.mkString(","))
Of course, you can always simply go through the list one by one:
(1 to 100).map {
case i if (r.contains(i)) => println("yes: " + i) // or whatever
case i => println("no: " + i)
}
What you consider to be a simple for-loop actually isn't one. It's a for-comprehension and it's a syntax sugar that de-sugares into chained calls of maps, flatMaps and filters. Yes, it can be used in the same way as you would use the classical for-loop, but this is only because List is in fact a monad. Without going into too much details, if you want to do things the idiomatic Scala way (the "functional" way), you should avoid trying to write classical iterative for loops and prefer getting a collection of your data and then mapping over its elements to perform whatever it is that you need. Note that collections have a really rich library behind them which allows you to invoke cool methods such as partition.
EDIT (for completeness):
Also, you should avoid side-effects, or at least push them as far down the road as possible. I'm talking about the second example from my answer. Let's say you really need to log that stuff (you would be using a logger, but println is good enough for this example). Doing it like this is bad. Btw note that you could use foreach instead of map in that case, because you're not collecting results, just performing the side effects.
Good way would be to compute the needed stuff by modifying each element into an appropriate string. So, calculate the needed strings and accumulate them into results:
val results = (1 to 100).map {
case i if (r.contains(i)) => ("yes: " + i) // or whatever
case i => ("no: " + i)
}
// do whatever with results, e.g. print them
Now results contains a list of a hundred "yes x" and "no x" strings, but you didn't do the ugly thing and perform logging as a side effect in the mapping process. Instead, you mapped each element of the collection into a corresponding string (note that original collection remains intact, so if (1 to 100) was stored in some value, it's still there; mapping creates a new collection) and now you can do whatever you want with it, e.g. pass it on to the logger. Yes, at some point you need to do "the ugly side effect thing" and log the stuff, but at least you will have a special part of code for doing that and you will not be mixing it into your mapping logic which checks if number is contained in the random sequence.
(1 to 100).foreach { x =>
if(z.contains(x)) {
// do something
} else {
// do something else
}
}
or you can use a partial function, like so:
(1 to 100).foreach {
case x if(z.contains(x)) => // do something
case _ => // do something else
}
This sort of thing:
Dim MatchingValues() As Integer = {5, 6, 7}
Return From e in context.entity
Where MatchingValues.Contains(e.Id)
...works great. However, in my case, the values in MatchingValues are provided by the user. If none are provided, all rows ought to be returned. It would be wonderful if I could do this:
Return From e in context.entity
Where (MatchingValues.Length = 0) OrElse (MatchingValues.Contains(e.Id))
Alas, the array length test cannot be converted to SQL. I could, of course, code this:
If MatchingValues.Length = 0 Then
Return From e in context.entity
Else
Return From e in context.entity
Where MatchingValues.Contains(e.Id)
End If
This solution doesn't scale well. My application needs to work with 5 such lists, which means I'd need to code 32 queries, one for every situation.
I could also fill MatchingValues with every existing value when the user doesn't want to use the filter. However, there could be thousands of values in each of the five lists. Again, that's not optimal.
There must be a better way. Ideas?
Give this a try: (Sorry for the C# code, but you get the idea)
IQueryable<T> query = context.Entity;
if (matchingValues.Length < 0) {
query = query.Where(e => matchingValues.Contains(e.Id));
}
You could do this with the other lists aswell.
If this is not a real question then feel free to close ;)
Not only the compiler can reorder execution (mostly for optimization), most modern processors do so, too. Read more about execution reordering and memory barriers.
The compiler can change the execution order of statements when it sees fit for optimization purposes, and when such changes wouldn't alter the observable behavior of the code.
A very simple example -
int func (int value)
{
int result = value*2;
if (value > 10)
{
return result;
}
else
{
return 0;
}
}
A naive compiler can generate code for this in exactly the sequence shown. First calculate "result" and return it only if the original value is larger than 10 (if it isn't, "result" would be ignored - calculated needlessly).
A sane compiler, though, would see that the calculation of "result" is only needed when "value" is larger than 10, so may easily move the calculation "value*2" inside the first braces and only do it if "value" is actually larger than 10 (needless to mention, the compiler doesn't really look at the C code when optimizing - it works in lower levels).
This is only a simple example. Much more complicated examples can be created. It is very possible that a C function would end up looking almost nothing like its C representation in compiled form, with aggressive enough optimizations.
Many compilers use something called "common subexpression elimination". For example, if you had the following code:
for(int i=0; i<100; i++) {
x += y * i * 15;
}
the compiler would notice that y * 15 is invariant (its value doesn't change). So it would compute y * 15, stick the result in a register and change the loop statement to "x += r0 * i". This is kind of a contrived example, but you often see expressions like this when working with array indexes or any other base + offset type of situation.