Currently, I'm (attempting to) migrate existing Junit4 Project to Junit5.
I'm stuck in a place where I have to use both #RepeatedTest and #ParameterizedTest.
Attempting this throws the default exception - No Runnable Methods found
As an alternative, I should be able to pass Parameters to each of my test from two different sources - which ends up in Null values for the second source.
No, it is not possible to use #RepeatedTest and #ParameterizedTest on the same method since both are implementations of a #TestTemplate, and a method can have only one test template. See JUnit 5 issue #1224 for details.
Note, however, that JUnit Jupiter will eventually support container templates. See JUnit 5 issue #871 for details.
Related
I'm making automated tests cases with mix of selenium and builtin keywords in Robot Framework.
I have made the:
Register Keyword To Run On Failure Screenshot On Failure
which overwrites the default behavior to create selenium-screenshot-index.png (I needed other names). Everything works fine if the keyword failing is part of the selenium library. If not (let's say custom or builtin one) the screenshot is not taken.
Is there a way, to register the keyword to run on any failure in any keyword?
Well, depending on your actual goal solution could be quite simple or require a little bit of python programming.
Simple solution. I would say that taking one screenshot in test teardown if test case failed is enough in most of the cases.
Writing custom listener interface that would grab instance of library (Selenium, OS) and depending on keyword status would take action.
I am searching for an advanced console based test runner for xUnit.net. The requirements are:
It should be able list all executed tests
It should be able to list all tests within an assembly
You should be able to filter the tests by namespace, class name and method name
It should work with mono
automatic reexecution of the tests after compilation would be nice
Do you know any?
The new AssemblyRunner should be able to do some of the things on your requirements list now such as listing tests
For an example of it's use see the sample on github.
https://github.com/xunit/samples.xunit/blob/master/TestRunner/Program.cs
the existing xunit.runner.console can filter tests using traits also
I am trying to build a report for some tests made with TestNG framework. Is there any way to get all asserts used within a test method?
AFAIK, nope. What you can do is to have your defined assertions, which you can use in your tests and which, when executed would increment some counter or get added to some collection which you can reference in your report listeners.
The latest version of TestNG allows you to create your own assertions, details here.
We use TestNG and Selenium WebDriver to test our web application.
Now our problem is that we often have several tests that need to run in a certain order, e.g.:
login to application
enter some data
edit the data
check that it's displayed correctly
Now obviously these tests need to run in that precise order.
At the same time, we have many other tests which are totally independent from the list of tests above.
So we'd like to be able to somehow put tests into "groups" (not necessarily groups in the TestNG sense), and then run them such that:
tests inside one "group" always run together and in the same order
but different test "groups" as a whole can run in any order
The second point is important, because we want to avoid dependencies between tests in different groups (so different test "groups" can be used and developed independently).
Is there a way to achieve this using TestNG?
Solutions we tried
At first we just put tests that belong together into one class, and used dependsOnMethods to make them run in the right order. This used to work in TestNG V5, but in V6 TestNG will sometimes interleave tests from different classes (while respecting the ordering imposed by dependsOnMethods). There does not seem to be a way to tell TestNG "Always run tests from one class together".
We considered writing a method interceptor. However, this has the disadvantage that running tests from inside an IDE becomes more difficult (because directly invoking a test on a class would not use the interceptor). Also, tests using dependsOnMethods cannot be ordered by the interceptor, so we'd have to stop using that. We'd probably have to create our own annotation to specify ordering, and we'd like to use standard TestNG features as far as possible.
The TestNG docs propose using preserve-order to order tests. That looks promising, but only works if you list every test method separately, which seems redundant and hard to maintain.
Is there a better way to achieve this?
I am also open for any other suggestions on how to handle tests that build on each other, without having to impose a total order on all tests.
PS
alanning's answer points out that we could simply keep all tests independent by doing the necessary setup inside each test. That is in principle a good idea (and some tests do this), however sometimes we need to test a complete workflow, with each step depending on all previous steps (as in my example). To do that with "independent" tests would mean running the same multi-step setup over and over, and that would make our already slow tests even slower. Instead of three tests doing:
Test 1: login to application
Test 2: enter some data
Test 3: edit the data
we would get
Test 1: login to application
Test 2: login to application, enter some data
Test 3: login to application, enter some data, edit the data
etc.
In addition to needlessly increasing testing time, this also feels unnatural - it should be possible to model a workflow as a series of tests.
If there's no other way, this is probably how we'll do it, but we are looking for a better solution, without repeating the same setup calls.
You are mixing "functionality" and "test". Separating them will solve your problem.
For example, create a helper class/method that executes the steps to log in, then call that class/method in your Login test and all other tests that require the user to be logged in.
Your other tests do not actually need to rely on your Login "Test", just the login class/method.
If later back-end modifications introduce a bug in the login process, all of the tests which rely on the Login helper class/method will still fail as expected.
Update:
Turns out this already has a name, the Page Object pattern. Here is a page with Java examples of using this pattern:
http://code.google.com/p/selenium/wiki/PageObjects
Try with depends on group along with depends on method. Add all methods in same class in one group.
For example
#Test(groups={"cls1","other"})
public void cls1test1(){
}
#Test(groups={"cls1","other"}, dependsOnMethods="cls1test1", alwaysrun=true)
public void cls1test2(){
}
In class 2
#Test(groups={"cls2","other"}, dependsOnGroups="cls1", alwaysrun=true)
public void cls2test1(){
}
#Test(groups={"cls2","other"}, dependsOnMethods="cls2test1", dependsOnGroups="cls1", alwaysrun=true)
public void cls2test2(){
}
There is an easy (whilst hacky) workaround for this if you are comfortable with your first approach:
At first we just put tests that belong together into one class, and used dependsOnMethods to make them run in the right order. This used to work in TestNG V5, but in V6 TestNG will sometimes interleave tests from different classes (while respecting the ordering imposed by dependsOnMethods). There does not seem to be a way to tell TestNG "Always run tests from one class together".
We had a similar problem: we need our tests to be run class-wise because we couldn't guarantee the test classes not interfering with each other.
This is what we did:
Put a
#Test( dependsOnGroups= { "dummyGroupToMakeTestNGTreatThisAsDependentClass" } )
Annotation on an Abstract Test Class or Interface that all your Tests inherit from.
This will put all your methods in the "first group" (group as described in this paragraph, not TestNG-groups). Inside the groups the ordering is class-wise.
Thanks to Cedric Beust, he provided a very quick answer for this.
Edit:
The group dummyGroupToMakeTestNGTreatThisAsDependentClass actually has to exist, but you can just add a dummy test case for that purpose..
I have a project that builds with maven2 and runs a series of JUnit test cases against the code. This has worked fine up until this point, where I now have 2 tests that must run in a certain sequence for things to work correctly, let's say TestA and Test (A then B). Unfortunately, maven2 doesn't understand this, so I'm looking for a way of convincing it that it needs to run the tests in this order.
The problem is that I'm setting some final static fields in TestB, but I'm doing this from TestA, which itself uses those fields, and successful execution of the test depends on those fields being set to their new values (there is absolutely no way around this, otherwise I would have taken that road long before now). So, it is imperative that TestA loads first, and it will of course cause TestB to be loaded when tries to access it. However, maven2 has decided that it will run TestB then TestA, which means those final fields are already set and cannot be changed.
So what I'm looking for is either a way to specify the order in which the tests are executed (A then B, every time), or a way to easily cause TestB to be reloaded by whichever classloader that JUnit uses.
EDIT - one other option might be some option like the old JUnit GUI tool has, that causes all classes to be reloaded for each test. I have looked and looked and not found such a flag in the maven junit plugin, if such a thing exists, then that would also work.
Fork mode can force each test to run in its own JVM so every class is re-loaded for each test.
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
<configuration>
<forkMode>pertest</forkMode>
</configuration>
</plugin>
The test order in JUnit is intentionally undefined, this is not a Maven issue and it's probably just luck that your tests were running OK up until now.
Sal's answer addresses your question directly, however forking the JVM on each test for large test counts can hugely increase your build time.
An alternative approach would be to use a testing library such as PowerMock (it currently works with EasyMock and Mockito) to clear the static fields in TestB's initialisation, this avoids the need for any JVM forking, and ensures your tests are portable.
From the PowerMock website:
PowerMock is a framework that extend other mock libraries such as EasyMock with more powerful capabilities. PowerMock uses a custom classloader and bytecode manipulation to enable mocking of static methods, constructors, final classes and methods, private methods, removal of static initializers and more. By using a custom classloader no changes need to be done to the IDE or continuous integration servers which simplifies adoption. Developers familiar with EasyMock will find PowerMock easy to use, since the entire expectation API is the same, both for static methods and constructors. PowerMock extends the EasyMock API with a small number of methods and annotations to enable the extra features. From version 1.1 PowerMock also has basic support for Mockito.