I have a number of tests across classes. Each class is defined as #Test and group name added to it same as class name[they are u1,u2,u3,u4,u5].
In u1, I have a test method for prerequisites called prereqSetup(). This is added to the group "prereq".
Now, all the methods in u1 are marked with dependsOnMethods="prereqSetup".
Rest all classes are marked as dependsOnGroups="prereq".
My prerequisites method has passed. Couple of methods in u1 and u3 are run and show failed.
But rest all methods are skipped. There is no other dependency apart from what i have mentined above. Providing the annotations for reference:
#Test(groups="u1")
public class U1 {
//All methods are marked with #Test(dependsOnMethods="prereqSetup")
}
#Test(groups="u2",dependsOnGroups="prereq")
public class U2{
//All methods are marked with #Test
}
This is done for all classes through u2-u5.
I am a bit unclear on the question but it doesn't look like you have a group called "prereq"
Related
Im having 4 test classes inside one project (Lets call them Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D)
Each of these 3 classes have two [TestFixture("string")], which makes it to 8 tests in total.
All classes are having the [Parallelizable] parameter.
When i start the test all at once by clicking inside the Test Explorer on the name of the project and "Run", then it will start all 8 tests at the same time.
The problem here is, that it consumes a lot RAM and the tests fail because it takes too long to load and i get a timeout error (Im doing automation tests with selenium in chrome)
Now i want to define a order.
For example:
Class A and Class B should start parallel
Class C and Class D should start parallel when Class A and Class B is done
Is it possible?
I tried the parameter [Order(1)] for Class A and Class B and Order(2)] for Class C and Class D
But when i run the tests, all 8 tests start to load.
Example from my code:
[TestFixture("normalUser")]
[TestFixture("adminUser")]
[Parallelizable]
public class ImportTest
{
private IWebDriver webDriver;
private const int waitTimer = 60;
public WebDriverWait w;
public string userRole;
// Constructor
public ImportTest(string userRole)
{
this.userRole = userRole;
Console.WriteLine(userRole);
}
////-----------------------------
[SetUp]
{
}
//-------------------------------
[Test]
public void Test1()
{
Do Test
}
[Test]
public void Test2()
{
Do Test
}
//--------------------------
[TearDown]
public void CloseBrowser()
{
webDriver.Quit();
}
}
First, I'll describe what's happening...
The OrderAttribute was created in NUnit V2, before parallel tests existed. It defines the order in which tests are started. Since there was no parallelism at the time, one test had to finish before the next one started.
When parallel execution was introduced in NUnit 3, Order was not exactly broken, because it continued to start tests in the specified order. But many users perceptions were "broken", because they thought that one test would not start until the prior one finished.
Order could, of course, be changed to work like that. However, at this point, that would be a breaking change for some people, so you most likely won't see it happen until there's an NUnit 4.
So... what can you do as a workaround? I can see three options...
The simplest approach would be to make each fixture [NonParallelizable]. Then they would all run separately. You should try that first and see if the performance is acceptable to you. If you want the tests within each fixture to run in parallel, you could use [Parallelizable(ParallelScope.Children)] instead but that might break things if the tests change the state of the fixture or of any common references found in the fixture.
Alternatively, you could pick only some fixtures to mark as [NonParallelizable]. In that case, I'd do it for the ones that consume a lot of memory.
For the most effort required, you could implement ordering yourself for these classes. I'd do that by creating some sort of shared token... e.g. a lock... which each class had to acquire on startup. I'd grab the lock in the OneTimeSetUp for a fixture and release it in the onetime teardown. The locking code should be before any setup code, which acquires resources and should be released after your teardown releases those resources.
I made option 3 rather sketchy because (a) I don't know precisely how your application works and (b) I presume that you won't do it unless it's absolutely necessary.
Final advice: don't make any assumptions about the performance impact of any of these options, even the first. Measure first!
In my existing [OneTimeSetup] method, I want to check some preconditions before running any test. But I can't do so as the object which I'll be needing to check preconditions is initialized in Base class [Setup] method. I can't initialize this earlier due to some project limitations.
So, Is there any way where I can execute some code after Base [Setup] method (to check some preconditions) and before any suite execution? I want to execute this once per suite.
[SetUpFixture]
Class GlobalSetup
{
[OneTimeSetUp]
public void OneTimeSetUp(){
setup();
CheckIfDataIsPresent(); // I can't do this here as this code needs Obj O to be initialized. which will be initialized in Base class's [Setup] methed
}
}
Public class Base
{
[Setup]
public void setUp()
{
//some code where we initialize obj O;
}
}
[TestFixture]
public class Test : Base
{
// tests to be executed
}
You already did a nice job of explaining why what you want to do won't work, so I don't have to. :-)
The problem is that each your tests needs a fresh instance of that object, so you properly create it in a [SetUp] method. You would like to ensure that it's possible to create such an object once before you run any tests.
I can only give you a non-specific answer, since you haven't given a lot of info in your example code. If you update your question, I may be able to update my answer. Here goes...
Both your tests and the check you want to perform require an instance of object o. So one approach would be to initialize o one more time in the OneTimeSetup, perform the check and then throw it away. Since you are initializing o in every test, I assume it's not expensive to do so. Say you have 100 tests. You are setting up o 100 times. So make it 101 and be done!
Alternatively, determine what is required for o to be initialized successfully and check that. For example, if it needs a file to be present, check that the file is present. If the file has to have 100 records in some format, check that it's so. Perhaps you might give us more detail about what those prerequisites are.
Finally, you might reconsider whether you really need a new instance per test. Since you suggest you would be willing to make a check once per fixture (I assume that's what you mean by suite) then perhaps you really only need one instance per fixture rather than a new one for each test.
Can anyone explain bit in detail about this rule. Rule:AccessorMethodGeneration Priority:3 Avoid autogenerated methods to access private fields and methods of inner / outer classes with concrete examples for both fields and methods?
The PMD documentation provides a summary of the AccessorMethodGeneration rule, with my emphasis added:
When accessing a private field / method from another class, the Java
compiler will generate a accessor methods with package-private
visibility. This adds overhead, and to the dex method count on
Android. This situation can be avoided by changing the visibility of
the field / method from private to package-private.
So PMD is advising you that if you make such members and methods package-private instead of private you will avoid the overhead of having to access them through compiler generated accessor methods. (I'm not an Android developer so I can't comment on the "dex method count" issue.)
This is the code example PMD provides with respect to private members:
public class OuterClass {
private int counter;
/* package */ int id;
public class InnerClass {
InnerClass() {
OuterClass.this.counter++; // wrong accessor method will be generated
}
public int getOuterClassId() {
return OuterClass.this.id; // id is package-private, no accessor method needed
}
}
}
And here is an SO example where the compiler will auto-generate code to access private methods. Note the poster's comment (with my emphasis added):
The compiler takes the inner classes and turns them into top-level
classes. Since private methods are only available to the inner class
the compiler has to add new "synthetic" methods that have package
level access so that the top-level classes have access to it.
In summary, PMD is flagging code where you can make performance improvements (which I would think would usually be very minor) in some scenarios by modifying the access on private members and private methods.
One other point worth noting is that there are some PMD bug reports on AccessorMethodGeneration not working properly (e.g. https://github.com/pmd/pmd/issues/274 and https://github.com/pmd/pmd/issues/342). So if you can't understand why PMD is flagging your code with a AccessorMethodGeneration warning, check the bug reports.
Another question appeared during my migration from an E3 application to a pure E4.
I got a Structure using inheritance as in the following pic.
There I have an invocation sequence going from the AbstractRootEditor to the FormRootEditor to the SashCompositeSubView to the TableSubView.
There I want to use my EMenuService, but it is null due to it can´t be injected.
The AbstractRootEditor is the only class connected to the Application Model (as a MPart created out of an MPartDescriptor).
I´d like to inject the EMenuService anyway in the AbstractSubView, otherwise I would´ve the need to carry the Service through all of my classes. But I don´t have an IEclipseContext there, due to my AbstractSubView is not connected with Application Model (Do I ?).
I there any chance to get the service injected in the AvstractSubView?
EDIT:
I noticed that injecting this in my AbstractSubView isn´t possible (?), so I´m trying to get it into my TableSubView.
After gregs comment i want to show some code:
in the AbstractRootEditor:
#PostConstruct
public final void createPartControl(Composite parent, #Active MPart mPart) {
...
ContextInjectionFactory.make(TableSubView.class, mPart.getContext());
First I got an Exception, saying that my TableSubView.class got an invalid constructor, so now the Constructor there is:
public TableSubView() {
this.tableInputController=null;
}
as well as my Field-Injection:
#Inject EMenuService eMenuService
This is kind of not working, eMenuService is still null
If you create your objects using ContextInjectionFactory they will be injected. Use:
MyClass myClass = ContextInjectionFactory.make(MyClass.class, context);
where context is an IEclipseContext (so you have to do this for every class starting from one that is injected by Eclipse).
There is also a seconds version of ContextInjectionFactory.make which lets you provide two contexts the second one being a temporary context which can contain additional values.
I've got an odd question for which Google has proven barren:
I've got a project in .net with ~20 classes that all have tests in them. One of the classes has common test setup code, although a few of the classes have their own TestFixtureSetup that looks exactly like the common class (not my architecture choice - this predates my employment). I have my own test class for which I have some different code that runs prior to running a few particular tests within the class.
Some more info that's relevant: The custom setup code that I have enables data to be available for a few combinatorial tests I have in my own test class. As the value source for the combinatorial params, the List that is returned first initializes some data.
Alright, here's the question: When I try to run a test in ANOTHER test class, it's "building" the tests from every other class. In my case, it's building the combinatorial test that I have - and thus, triggering the custom setup method that I have.
How do I prevent NUnit from building tests in other classes? As in, I run a test in one class, all I'd like NUnit to do is build tests from that class ONLY.
I tried to remove any NDA-no-no language, but here's the combinatorial I have:
[Test, Combinatorial, Category("Regressive")]
public void Test05_CombiTestExample(
[ValueSource("ListA")] User user,
[ValueSource("ListB")] KeyValuePair<string, string> searchKvp,
[ValueSource("ListC")] string scope)
{
And here's one of the lists that is being reference:
public IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, string>> ListB
{
get
{
InitCustomData();
if ([Redacted] != null)
{
return new Dictionary<string, string>()
{
[Redacted]
};
}
return null;
}
}
The line in question is "InitCustomData();" which, because my combinatorial is being built prior to running any setup or anything, is being executed anyway. I want this to stay here - I just don't want NUnit to start building test cases from any other class besides the one it's currently running a test in.