I read in the documentation that we can run multiple feature files by adding newer lines for different classpaths in the simulation class. Is there a way wherein we can run multiple feature files belonging to the same package just like we run in FeatureRunner files?
No, I personally think that will introduce maintainability issues. We will consider PR-s though if anyone wants to contribute this.
If you really want this behavior, you should be able to write a small bit of Java code that scans a folder, loops over them and builds the Gatling "scenarios".
Related
I have few feature files in specific subfolders, And I want to execute those feature files according to my defined order.
So how can we run the feature files in a specific order?
Thank you in Advance!
You can create one feature and then make calls to the other features. But this means you will lose the biggest benefit of Karate which is that you can run tests in parallel.
Any needs beyond this, please assume are not supported (or will never be supported) by Karate. Also read this: https://stackoverflow.com/a/46080568/143475
Was wondering if I could get setup cucumber-reporting for specific folders?
For example in the https://github.com/intuit/karate#naming-conventions, in CatsRunner.java i set up the third party cucumber reporting? without parallel execution. please advise or direct me on how to set it up.
Rationale. its easier to read and helps me in debugging
You are always recommended to use the 3rd party Cucumber Reporting when you want HTML reports. And you can create as many Java classes similar to the DemoTestParallel in different packages. The first argument to CucumberRunner.parallel() needs to be a Java class - and by default, the same package and sub-folders will be scanned for *.feature files.
BUT I think your question is simply how to easily debug a single feature in dev-mode. Easy, just use the #RunWith(Karate.class) JUnit runner: video | documentation
I'm trying to improve build times using CruiseControl.NET and MSBUILD, and one of the commandline switches, maxcpucount can be used to allow the build occur in parallel. Our solution has 60+ projects so any improvement would be helpful. However, whenever I up the maxcpucount above one, we have frequent build failures due to:
"The process cannot access the file xxxx because it is being used by
another process. msbuild"
It appears that the additional parallel build threads/processes are locking each other.
I think I found a solution. It appears that if I add the /nodeReuse:false switch I don't get the file locks. It seems like the nodeReuse functionality is keeping msbuild processes around and those are hanging on to file locks for subsequent builds.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms164311.aspx
Are you building from a solution file? If so, make sure that you are using direct project-to-project references and not using the Solution's project-dependency feature. If you happen to be using a bit of both, there can be issues. See this article.
Better yet, if at all possible, ditch the solution file and create your own MSBuild file to drive your build.
Your assembly is probably being used by another assembly thats being built. Make sure each assembly gets built before it's needed by other assemblies
I have developed a large MSBuild project to build a portion of our solution. There's a lot of things going on-- XML parsing/replacing, Windows services, remote copy, etc. As a result, the file has grown really difficult to manage, despite my best efforts to add decorations in comments.
As a goof, I broke out the main chunks of functionality out into separate files, like "XML.targets", "Services.targets", etc and imported them into the main "Build.proj." The build still worked and I immediately found it to be much more manageable.
However, all the info I have read on the Import feature of MSBuild is that it should be used to import reusable targets, ie those than can be consumed by -any- MSBuild project without any modifications. The separate projects I'm creating here are the opposite-- specific to one project and will break by default if use with anything else unless modified.
So I guess what I'm asking is, even though I can... should I? Is there an inherent danger in using Import strictly for the purpose of organizing a large project? Is there a better way to do this?
Thanks
No, there is no inherent danger. I think it's a good decision to split large project into several .targets files specific to certain operation since it reduces overall complexity. The idea of creating reusable targets means that they should have as little dependencies on the other parts as possible. By analogy you can think of separate .targets files as classes. The less coupled they are - the better. Because modification in one targets file will less likely break the whole process. You can take a peace of paper, draw your targets files as points with your main project in the center and draw all the connections between them. Say if one targets file overrides target from another or expects some properties from it or somehow else depends on it then there is a connection. In the perfect scenario you'll get something like a star.
In short: you should if it reduces complexity.
I've been trying to figure out if there is already an accepted method for testing file io operations in Haskell, but I have yet to find any information that is useful for what I am trying to do.
I'm writing a small library that performs various file system operations (recursively traverse a directory and return a list of all files; sync multiple directories so that each directory contains the same files using inodes as the equality test and hardlinks...) and I want to make sure that they actually work, but the only way I can think of to test them is to create a temporary directory with a known structure and compare the results from the functions executed on this temporary directory with the known results. The thing is, I would like to get as much test coverage as possible while still being mainly automated: I don't want to have create the directory structure by hand.
I have searched google and hackage, but the packages that I have seen on hackage do not use any testing -- maybe I just picked the wrong ones -- and anything I find on google does not deal with IO testing.
Any help would be appreciated
Thanks, James
Maybe you can find a way to make this work for you.
EDIT:
the packages that I have seen on hackage do not use any testing
I have found an unit testing framework for Haskell on Hackage. Including this framework, maybe you could use assertions to verify that the files you require are present in the directories that you want them to be and they correspond to their intended purpose.
HUnit is the usual library for IO-based tests. I don't know of a set of properties/combinators for file actions -- that would be useful.
There is no reason why your test code cannot create a temporary directory, and check its contents after running your impure code.
If you want mainly automated testing of monadic code, you might want to look into Monadic QuickCheck. You can write down properties that you think should be true, such as
If you create a file with read permission, it will be possible to open the file for reading.
If you remove a file, it won't open.
Whatever else you think of...
QuickCheck will then generate random tests.