I have ordered the automated test in a particular sequence by using the priority=xxx in #Test annotation.
For the last class to be tested, the priority values started with 10201 and above. However, this particular class was tested right after the 1st class with priorities from 1-10.
Does any one have any idea? I looked at the TestNG documentaion - but the values are not discussed.
I looked into TestNG source code and looks like priority is an int, so the max value will be 2147483647.
In fact, you can test it easily by running following tests:
import org.testng.annotations.Test;
public class Testing {
#Test(priority = 2147483647)
public void testOne() {
System.out.println("Test One");
}
#Test(priority = 1)
public void testTwo() {
System.out.println("Test Two");
}
}
Related
Is there a way to set priorities among classes execution in TestNG?
Is there some annotation or xml settings?
Thanks.
It can be achieved in testng.xml file. Order of classes is important in the file, and just run directly this file.
#Test(priority = 1)
public void testMethodA() {
System.out.println("Executing - testMethodA");
}
#Test
public void testMethodB() {
System.out.println("Executing - testMethodB");
}
#Test(priority = 2)
public void testMethodC() {
System.out.println("Executing - testMethodC");
}
Output
Executing - testMethodB
Executing - testMethodA
Executing-testMethodC
testMethodB got executed first as it had a default priority of 0
I am using JUnit 5 to test my RESTful application. I have a test class in which test methods are annotated with #Order(#). Any idea what happen when the same order number is used to some test methods? Would they be run in parallel?
They won't be executed in parallel. The ordering ensures to sort the test execution order adjacent to each other depending on their value.
#TestMethodOrder(MethodOrderer.OrderAnnotation.class)
public class OrderingTest {
#Test
void test0() {
assertEquals(2, 1 + 1);
System.out.println("Test0");
}
#Test
#Order(1)
void test1() {
assertEquals(2, 1 + 1);
System.out.println("Test1");
}
#Test
#Order(1)
void test2() {
assertEquals(2, 1 + 1);
System.out.println("Test2");
}
}
In this example, test1 and test2 have the same order number and the test execution will be: test1 -> test2 -> test0.
Internally JUnit 5 does the following for ordering:
#Override
public void orderMethods(MethodOrdererContext context) {
context.getMethodDescriptors().sort(comparingInt(OrderAnnotation::getOrder));
}
while .sort() is from java.util.List.
If you want parallel test execution, you can configure this with JUnit 5 in a different way.
We have several cucumber step definitions that are modifying the database which would mess up the test afterwards if it doesn't get cleaned up after the test runs. We do this by having a function with the #After annotation that will clean things up.
The problem is that if there's a failure in one of the tests, the function with #After doesn't run, which leaves the database in a bad state.
So the question is, how can I make sure the function with #After always runs, regardless if a test failed or not?
I saw this question, but it's not exactly what I'm trying to do, and the answers don't help.
If it helps, here is part of one of the tests. It's been greatly stripped down, but it has what I think are the important parts.
import static org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat;
import cucumber.api.java.After;
public class RunMacroGMUStepDefinition
{
#Autowired
protected ClientSOAPRecordkeeperInterface keeper;
#Given( "^the following Macro exists:$" )
#Transactional
public void establishDefaultPatron( final DataTable dataTable )
{
for ( final DataTableRow dataTableRow : dataTable.getGherkinRows() )
{
// Stuff happens here
keeper.insert( macroScriptRecord );
}
}
#After( value = "#RunMacroGMU" )
#Transactional
public void teardown()
{
for ( int i = 0; i < macroScripts.size(); i++ )
{
keeper.delete( macroScripts.get( i ) );
}
}
// Part of #Then
private void compareRecords( final String has, // Other stuff )
{
// Stuff happens here
if ( has.equals( "include" ) )
{
assertThat( "No matching data found", foundMatch, equalTo( true ) );
}
else
{
assertThat( "Found matching data", foundMatch, equalTo( false ) );
}
}
}
I personally use Behat (The PHP dist of Cucumber), and we use something like this to take screenshots after a failed test. Did a bit of searching, and found this snippet in Java, that may help with this situation.
#After
public void tearDown(Scenario scenario) {
if (scenario.isFailed()) {
(INSERT FUNCTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO RUN AFTER A FAILING TEST HERE)
}
driver.close();
}
I hope this helps.
I try to write a test for a given interface like that with JUnit and have no idea how to do that:
public interface ShortMessageService {
/**
* Creates a message. A message is related to a topic
* Creates a date for the message
* #throws IllegalArgumentException, if the message is longer then 255 characters.
* #throws IllegalArgumentException, if the message ist shorter then 10 characters.
* #throws IllegalArgumentException, if the user doesn't exist
* #throws IllegalArgumentException, if the topic doesn't exist
* #throws NullPointerException, if one argument is null.
* #param userName
* #param message
* #return ID of the new created message
*/
Long createMessage(String userName, String message, String topic);
[...]
}
I tried to mock the interface after I realized that it doesn't make sense at all so I am a bit lost. Maybe someone can give me a good approach I can work with. I also heard about junit parameterized tests but I am not sure if that is what I am looking for.
Many thanks!
I use the following pattern to write abstract tests against my interface APIs without having any implementations available. You can write whatever tests you require in AbstractShortMessageServiceTest without having to implement them at that point in time.
public abstract class AbstractShortMessageServiceTest
{
/**
* #return A new empty instance of an implementation of FooManager.
*/
protected abstract ShortMessageService getNewShortMessageService();
private ShortMessageService testService;
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception
{
testService = getNewShortMessageService();
}
#Test
public void testFooBar() throws Exception
{
assertEquals("question", testService.createMessage(
"DeepThought", "42", "everything"));
}
}
When you have an implementation, you can use the test simply by defining a new test class that overrides AbstractShortMessageServiceTest and implements the getNewShortMessageService method.
public class MyShortMessageServiceTest extends AbstractShortMessageServiceTest
{
protected ShortMessageService getNewShortMessageService()
{
return new MyShortMessageService();
}
}
In addition, if you need the test to be parameterized, you can do that in AbstractShortMessageServiceTest without doing it in each of the concrete tests.
Usually test is prepared for class that implements the interface and mocks are used for cooperating classes but you can test your test by mock if the class is not ready yet. It is unusual and you should use thenAnsfer with implemented logic of possible cases:
Better way is simply prepare tests for the implementation class and start to improve it till all test passes:
Implementing class can be in field and initialized before tests
private ShortMessageService testedClasOrMock;
//version with implementing class
#Before
public void setUp(){
testedClasOrMock = new ShortMessageServiceImpl0();
}
#Before
public void setUp(){
testedClasOrMock = mock(ShortMessageService.class);
when(testedClasOrMock).thenAnswer(new Answer<Long>(){
#Override
public Long answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
String message =(String) invocation.getArguments()[1];
if (message.length() > 256){
throw new IllegalArgumentException("msg is too long");
}
//other exception throwing cases
…...
return new Long(44);
}});
}
so you will have several test with expected exceptions like
#Test (expected= IllegalArgumentException.class)
public void testTooLongMsg(){
testedClasOrMock.createMessage(USER, TOO_LONG_MSG, TOPIC);
}
and one that simply should not throw exception and for instance check that msg ids are different
#Test
public void testTooLongMsg(){
long id0 = testedClasOrMock.createMessage(USER, TOO_LONG_MSG, TOPIC);
long id1 = testedClasOrMock.createMessage(USER, TOO_LONG_MSG, TOPIC);
assertTrue(id0 != id1);
}
If you insist on testing your test by mock let me know and I will add example for one test case.
We have a set of integration test which depend upon same set of static data. Since the amount of data is huge we dont want to set it up per test level. Is it possible to setup data at the start, run group of test and rollback the data at the end of test.
What we effectively want is the rollback at test suite level rather than test case level. We are using grails 1.3.1, any pointers would be highly helpful for us to proceed. Thanks in advance.
-Prakash
for one test case you could use:
#BeforeClass
public static void setUpBeforeClass() throws Exception {
}
#AfterClass
public static void tearDownAfterClass() throws Exception {
}
haven't tried a suite of test cases (yet).
i did have some trouble using findByName in the static methods and had to resort to saving an id and using get.
i did try rolling up a suite, but no joy, getting a: no runnable methods.
You can take control of the transaction/rollback behaviour by marking your test case as non-transactional and managing data, transactions and rollbacks yourself. Example:
class SomeTests extends GrailsUnitTestCase {
static transactional = false
static boolean testDataGenerated = false
protected void setUp() {
if (!testDataGenerated) {
generateTestData()
testDataGenerated = true
}
}
void testSomething() {
...test...
}
void testSomethingTransactionally() {
DomainObject.withTransaction {
...test...
}
}
void testSomethingTransactionallyWithRollback() {
DomainObject.withTransaction { status ->
...test...
status.setRollbackOnly()
}
}
}