I have some test cases, and also have a test where i want to test that CB get triggered. But every time i run the tests, sometimes it fails, some times it passed. I understand that i need to reset hystrix, but how can i do that? Thanx
I've had some issues with this myself.
Using Hystrix.reset() by itself didn't work when resetting Circuit Breakers.
The following method is working for me.
private void resetCircuitBreakers() {
Hystrix.reset();
HealthCountsStream.reset();
}
Related
I am testing a large project with long scenarios (some with more than 100 interactions with webpage). I would like to break them down into shorter steps that run in sequence (like in Mocha) but I don't know how to do that.
Example: In a single test, I would like to run
fixture('test1')
test('test1', async (t) => {
...login
...createSubAccount
...modifySubAccount
...activateSubAccount
})
where each of the steps would show in console and in report. Right now, the only thing I know how to do is to put each step into its own test() context, but that means that if e.g. createSubAccount fails, modifySubAccount and activateSubAccount will still run (even though the workflow already failed). Also, there is the unhappy part that each test() clears the browser (but I can deal with that).
In short: How can I split the tests in a way that if a single substep of fixture fails, the whole fixture fails immediately? Or similar thing, but for test()?
Also, I don't want the whole pipeline to end on the first test failure, as would happen with --stopOnFirstFail flag - I want to run all the tests, to find which are failing.
test() is the smallest unit. The idea is it's an independent piece of testing code, e.i. a bunch of test steps. This doesn't change no matter what tool you use (TestCafe, Playwright, Puppeteer, Cypress, mocha, Jest, ...).
And so:
Right now, the only thing I know how to do is to put each step into its own test() context, but that means that if e.g. createSubAccount fails, modifySubAccount and activateSubAccount will still run (even though the workflow already failed).
seems like breaking one of the main principles of tests, that is they are independent. Don't split test steps that belong together between different tests.
If the only drawback now is the length of your test, why don't you do it like you hinted at in the example:
test('test1', async (t) => {
login();
createSubAccount();
modifySubAccount();
activateSubAccount();
});
you can create functions for login, createAccount etc. and then use only such function in your tests, which would make them as short as shown here. You can also easily create various scenarious:
test('activate account without modification', async (t) => {
login();
createSubAccount();
activateSubAccount();
});
test('create account', async (t) => {
login();
createSubAccount();
});
test('create account without login', async (t) => {
createSubAccount();
});
// and so on
It doesn't even look that long.
TestCafe does not support the functionality you require at the moment. The only solution I could think of is, as you proposed, to implement your test as a fixture with steps as tests, use disablePageReloads feature (NOTE: it is experimental), track the number of passed tests manually, and check it at the beginning of each test. It is a bit tedious, but it should work as you need.
Another solution that has not been implemented yet and the easiest way to split the long test into steps is to simply divide it into functions. The only issue that may arise is related to reporting. Even if you implement a custom reporter, there is no possibility to pass information about the steps into it (you can vote for the corresponding feature request).
Also, I would like to draw your attention to Page Model pattern. This can shrink your tests and make them more readable.
Please open a new feature request with a comprehensive description if you have a better idea of how this should be done.
I'm having a hard time testing async functionality in component integration tests. Input kicks off an async call to an endpoint, and when it returns, I send an action. I'm trying to test that the action sends the correct data.
I've tried putting my assertion in the wait() helper, but the assertion gets hit before the (dependent upon async) action is called.
Here's a twiddle showing that problem: https://ember-twiddle.com/79f9a80c639b642e538803ac64a1cf9d?openFiles=tests.integration.components.test-comp-test.js%2Ctemplates.components.test-comp.hbs
How can I correctly code my async component integration tests?
There are two things that fails your test:
Firstly, never make use of setTimeout (window.setTimeout) to schedule some future work with Ember. Make use the Ember way of doing it; I mean Ember.run.later. For the same thing that happened to me with acceptance tests; please see the following question and look through comments on the answer. The reason is that; Ember's test helpers really cannot handle setTimeout as we expect it.
You have a problem within the test itself; in the action handler you have written in test you need to change the name attribute instead of returning a promise.
Anyway please see the following twiddle I have updated. Testing in general with Ember is kind of a pain; since I believe there is not a proper comprehensive documentation. Good luck!
I've just started exploring automated testing, specifically Codeception, as part of my QA work at a web design studio. The biggest issue I'm experiencing is having Codeception fail a test as soon as an assert fails, no matter where it's placed in the code. If my internet connection hiccups or is too slow, things can become difficult. I was wondering if there were methods to provide more control over when Codeception will fail and terminate a test session, or even better, a way to retry or execute a different block or loop of commands when an assert does fail. For example, I would like to do something similar to the following:
if ( $I->see('Foo') )
{
echo 'Pass';
}
else
{
echo 'Fail';
}
Does anyone have any suggestions that could help accomplish this?
You can use a conditional assertion:
$I->canSeeInCurrentUrl('/user/miles');
$I->canSeeCheckboxIsChecked('#agree');
$I->cantSeeInField('user[name]', 'Miles');
The codeception documentation says:
Sometimes you don't want the test to be stopped when an assertion fails. Maybe you have a long-running test and you want it to run to the end. In this case you can use conditional assertions. Each see method has a corresponding canSee method, and dontSee has a cantSee method.
I'm not sure, if I understand it correctly, but I think, you should try to use Cest.
$ php codecept.phar generate:cest suitename CestName
So you could write one test in one test function. If a test fails, it will abort. You can also configure codeception, that it will not abort and show only the one test which fails in a summary at the end of all tests.
See here in the documentation: https://github.com/Codeception/Codeception/blob/2.0/docs/07-AdvancedUsage.md
Maybe it's better to use:
$I::dontSee('Foo');
Regards
I've previously written some selenium tests using ruby/rspec, and found it quite powerful. Now, I'm using Selenium with PHPUnit, and there are a couple of things I'm missing, it might just be because of inexperience. In Ruby/RSpec, I'm used to being able to define a "global" setup, for each test case, where I, among other things, open up the browser window and log into my site.
I feel that PHPUnit is a bit lacking here, in that 1) you only have setUp() and tearDown(), which are run before and after each individual test, and that 2) it seems that the actual browser session is set up between setUp() and the test, and closed before tearDown().
This makes for a bit more clutter in the tests themselves, because you explicitly have to open the page at the beginning, and perform cleanups at the end. In every single test. It also seems like unnecessary overhead to close and reopen the browser for every single test, in stead of just going back to the landing page.
Are there any alternative ways of achieving what I'm looking for?
What I have done in the past is to make a protected method that returns an object for the session like so:
protected function initBrowserSession() {
if (!$this->browserSession) {
$this->setBrowser('*firefox');
$this->setBrowserUrl('http://www.example.com/');
//Initialize Session
$this->open('http://www.example.com/login.php');
// Do whatever other setup you need here
}
$this->browserSession = true;
}
public function testSomePage() {
$this->initBrowserSession();
//Perform your test here
}
You can't really use the setupBefore/AfterClass functions since they are static (and as such you won't have access to the instance).
Now, with that said, I would question your motivation for doing so. By having a test that re-uses a session between tests you're introducing the possibility of having side-effects between the tests. By re-opening a new session for each test you're isolating the effects down to just that of the test. Who cares about the performance (to a reasonable extent at least) of re-opening the browser? Doing so actually increases the validity of the test since it's isolated. Then again, there could be something to be said for testing a prolonged session. But if that was the case, I would make that a separate test case/class to the individual functionality test...
Although I agree with #ircmaxell that it might be best to reset the session between tests, I can see the case where tests would go from taking minutes to taking hours just to restart the browser.
Therefore, I did some digging, and found out that you can override the start() method in a base class. In my setup, I have the following:
<?php
require_once 'PHPUnit/Extensions/SeleniumTestCase.php';
class SeleniumTestCase extends PHPUnit_Extensions_SeleniumTestCase
{
public function setUp() {
parent::setUp();
// Set browser, URL, etc.
$this->setBrowser('firefox');
$this->setBrowserUrl('http://www.example.com');
}
public function start() {
parent::start();
// Perform any setup steps that depend on
// the browser session being started, like logging in/out
}
}
This will automatically affect any classes that extend SeleniumTestCase, so you don't have to worry about setting up the environment in every single test.
I haven't tested, but it seems likely that there is a stop() method called before tearDown() as well.
Hope this helps.
I would like my node.js tests to ensure that, once the test is over and test.finish() or similar is called, that there is no more code waiting to be run. No more I/O waiting to finish, no more timers waiting to fire, etc. etc.
Is this possible in node.js?
When using nodeunit each test function keeps running until test.done() has been called. Every test function needs to call this. This way you can make sure your callbacks have been executed. I also like to use async module to clean up my code(callbacks) a bit.
Are you using test.expect() at the beginning of each test and test.done() at the end of each one? Think of them like begin and end braces.
I wrote my own, which essentially spins up a node instance for each test. If your test leaves a callback dangling, node just won't exit, and the whole test suite hangs instead of exiting early with success (which would be bad!)