I want to mark scenario as skipped in case of any fail in Background. I have the following structure in feature file:
Background:
* call read('classpath:path/to/reusable.feature#ParticularScenario')
...
Scenario: That one I want to skip if background call statement fails
Given ...
When ...
Then ...
I tried to use * if () karate.abort() expression in background after call statement but it does nothing.
I don't recommend this and strongly urge you to re-structure your tests.
But here is a possible solution. I say again, I don't like this at all.
Background:
* def error = false
* eval
"""
try {
var result = karate.call('reusable.feature');
karate.set(result);
} catch (e) {
karate.log('background failed:', e);
karate.set('error', true);
}
"""
Scenario:
* if (error) karate.abort()
But otherwise, Karate is not designed for this, sorry.
Related
I want the test to report all assertions and verifications. So both the mockk verification AND the the assertion library (in this case, KotlinTest) assertions should run and not shortcircuit.
In other words I don't want the test to stop ...
verify(exactly = 1) { mock.methodcall(any()) } // ... here
success shouldBe true // how can I check this line too
nor ...
success shouldBe true // ... here
verify(exactly = 1) { mock.methodcall(any()) } // how can I check this line too
How to do this? I am open to use just one tool if I can do both with it.
As per your comment, you said you are using KotlinTest.
In KotlinTest, I believe you can use assertSoftly for the behavior you want:
Normally, assertions like shouldBe throw an exception when they fail. But sometimes you want to perform multiple assertions in a test, and would like to see all of the assertions that failed. KotlinTest provides the assertSoftly function for this purpose.
assertSoftly {
foo shouldBe bar
foo should contain(baz)
}
If any assertions inside the block failed, the test will continue to run. All failures will be reported in a single exception at the end of the block.
And then, we can convert your test to use assertSoftly:
assertSoftly {
success shouldBe true
shouldNotThrowAny {
verify(exactly = 1) { mock.methodcall(any()) }
}
}
It's necessary to wrap verify in shouldNotThrowAny to make assertSoftly aware of it when it throws an exception
how would it be possible to bypass functions that are not existing in DM
such that the main code would still run? Try/catch does not seem to work, e..g
image doSomething(number a,number b)
{
try
{
whateverfunction(a,b)
}
catch
{
continue
}
}
number a,b
doSomething(a,b)
Also conditioning wont work, e.g..
image doSomething(number a,number b)
{
if(doesfunctionexist("whateverfunction"))
{
whateverfunction(a,b)
}
}
number a,b
doSomething(a,b)
thanks in advance!
As "unknown" commands are caught by the script-interpreter, there is no easy way to do this. However, you can construct a workaround by using ExecuteScriptCommand().
There is an example tutorial to be found in this e-book, but in short, you want to do something like the following:
String scriptCallStr = "beep();\n"
scriptCallStr = "MyUnsaveFunctionCall();\n"
number exitVal
Try { exitVal = ExecuteScriptString(scriptCallStr ); }
Catch { exitVal = -1; break; }
if ( -1 == exitVal )
{
OKDialog("Sorry, couldn't do:\n" + scriptCallStr )
}
else
{
OKDialog( "All worked. Exit value: " + exitVal )
}
This works nicely and easy for simple commands and if your task is only to "verify" that a script could run.
It becomes clumsy, when you need to pass around parameters. But even then there are ways to do so. (The 'outer' script could create an object and pass the object-ID per string. Similarly, the 'inner' script can do the same and return the script-object ID as exit-value.)
Note: You can of course also put doesfunctionexist inside the test-script, if you do only want to have a "safe test", but don't actually want to execute the command.
Depending on what you need there might also be another workaround solution: Wrapper-functions in a library. This can be useful if you want to run the same script on different PCs with some of which having the functionality - most likely some microscope - while others don't.
You can make your main-script use wrapper methods and then you install different versions of the wrapper method script scripts as libraries.
void My_SpecialFunction( )
{
SpecialFunction() // use this line on PCs which have the SpecialFunction()
DoNothing() // use alternative line on PCs which don't have the SpecialFunction()
}
My_SpecialFunction( )
I have used this in the past where the same functionality (-stage movement-) required different commands on different machines.
I see the following code in Perl 6:
await do for #files -> $file {
start {
#do something ... }
}
which runs in async mode.
Why does the above code need do? What is the purpose of do in Perl 6? Could someone please explain the above code in detail?
Also is there are an option to write something like this:
for #files -> $file {
start {
#do something ... }
}
and await after the code for the promises to be fulfilled?
The purpose of do
The for keyword can be used in two different ways:
1) As a stand-alone block statement:
for 1..5 { say $_ }
2) As a statement modifier appended to the end of a statement:
say $_ for 1..5;
When the bare for keyword is encountered in the middle of a larger statement, it is interpreted as that second form.
If you want to use the block form inside a larger statement (e.g. as the argument to the await function), you have to prefix it with do to tell the parser that you're starting a block statement here, and want its return value.
More generally, do makes sure that what follows it is parsed using the same rules it would be parsed as if it were its own statement, and causes it to provide a return value. It thus allows us to use any statement as an expression inside a larger statement. do if, do while, etc. all work the same way.
Explanation of your code
The code you showed...
await do for #files -> $file {
start {
#do somthing ... }
}
...does the following:
It loops of over the array #files.
For each iteration, it uses the start keyword to schedule an asynchronous task, which presumably does something with the current element $file. (The $*SCHEDULER variable decides how the task is actually started; by default it uses a simple thread pool scheduler.)
Each invocation of start immediately returns a Promise that will be updated when the asynchronous task has completed.
The do for collects a sequence of all the return values of the loop body (i.e. the promises).
The await function accepts this sequence as its argument, and waits until all the promises have completed.
How to "await after the code"
Not entirely sure what you mean here.
If you want to remember the promises but not await them just jet, simply store them in an array:
my #promises = do for #files -> $file {
start {
#do something ... }
}
#other code ...
await #promises;
There is no convenience functionality for awaiting all scheduled/running tasks. You always have to keep track of the promises.
i am processing a ragged semicolon delimited file using script component as transformation.
The component is able to process the data and load to oledb destination. But when error is found it should stop processing further. As i am using try catch block the component doesn't fail and continue to process till the end.
Is there any way i could stop the processing further without failing the component/package?
Let me know if any other information/details required?
sample code:
str.split(";");
if(column[0] == "H")
{
col1=Column[3];
}
if(column[0] != "T")
{
try
{
Row.col1=Column[0];
Row.col2=Column[1];
.....
}
catch
{
update the variable to check if we have error in file.
}
}
Thank you for your time.
The general idea will be that you want to use try/catch blocks to ensure the data processing itself doesn't abort. Once you know your script isn't reporting a failure back to the engine, it's a simple process to not call the AddRow()
Pseudocode
foreach(line in fileReader)
{
try
{
// perform dangerous operations here
// Only add row if you have been able to parse current line
Output0Buffer.AddRow();
Output0Buffer.Col1 = parsedContent;
}
catch
{
// Signal that we should break out of the loop
// do not propagate the error
// You might want to do something though so you know you
// have an incomplete load
break;
}
}
If you are looking to just skip the current bad line, you can substitute continue for the break above.
C# loop - break vs. continue
I didn't get any help from anywhere, But as a work around i have placed a return statement in the code. It checks the error variable if it's true then i will return without processing further. But the thing still is it processes the whole file :(. But it works!!!
I'm currently doing a web project on liftweb. And I would like to write a test case for a snippet which is having a S.redirectTo clause.
This redirection creates an error on my test case. is there any way of testing a method with S.redirectTo?
S.redirectTo throws a ResponseShortcutException in order to redirect the flow of control.
In your test case, put a try/catch around the call to your snippet to explicitly handle this exception, something like:
try {
...
mySnippet(...)
...
} catch {
case ex: ResponseShortcutException => // Assert if this is what you expect
}