What is the correct (Most effective) Cucumber Project Layout when Considerring Page Object Modelling?
After allot of research I have come up with the following design:
Maven Project
NEW PROJECT SETUP:
I agree with the main idea you present, however the page object model also refers to the utilites. One of the desired goals of the page object model is to keep the selenium code out of the test itself, so most of those references will go to the pages, then its locators and actions would access the driver class, preferably through the utilities. That does not mean that the test program cannot make direct references to the utilities, but it should do so for non-selenium reasons only. There are exceptions, of course. In the case of Cucumber or any other BDD-based framework, you would only refer to what you are now calling "main" as "steps" and each test would have its own story file, accessing the one, or more, steps files. The rest remains the same. The idea behind that is it allows you to create and maintain a library of related steps that existing and future story files can refer to.
Hope this has helped you and/or others to better understand the flow. Also, disclaimer - most of this is my opinion - there are likely many ways to diagram the relationships, but what I described is what I use.
Upon further examination, I see that I missed the lower half (I am visually impaired). The testrunner is typically at the very top of the chain in this environment. It runs as a single JUnit or TestNG test to run ALL your stories.
And now my browser is messed-up and I cannot re-scroll back up to confirm that diagram again to comment more.
I've drawn a crude layout of what I was trying to describe. I hope it explains my answer to your question more clearly.
Here's the basic project tree:
Here's src/test/java expanded:
And finally, src/test/resources expanded
The only thing in \src\main\resources is some extra stuff that JBehave uses to allow some customization of their reports, called FTL.
Related
I am new to writing intellij plugins, so I apologize in advance if my question might be a bit unclear.
I know that (live) code inspections are achieved via Annotators or LocalInspectionTools. I also know there is an API to write a custom Annotator or Inspection tool and I have seen several examples.
What I do not know (my question): is there a manager/helper/"global inspector" that can provide me with the results of an existing code annotator/inspection process (done by the IDE's plugins or by some 3rd party plugin)?
For instance: I do not want to write a custom Lint annotator/inspection plugin for WebStorm. One can configure JSLint/JSHint inside WebStorm settings. The results of the live inspection can be seen over the current file/current open editor.
I would like to get the results of this live inspection, that occurs in the current open editor (inside my own custom code). For this I am interested in the API to get this annotator/inspector and/or the results it provides.
(I apologize for maybe using annotator and inspection terms in a confusing manner)
If there is another question (which I could not find) that duplicates what I have asked above, please re-direct me.
Thank you in advance!
Andrei.
Unfortunately regular annotating process for the linters is asynchronous so you cannot get the annotation results directly (by calling 'Manager' method).
You can create instances of JSLintInspection, JSHintInspection, etc. and call #createVisitor().visit(File) method but the operation is very slow and you must call it outside of AWT thread.
Also you can try to run the method com.intellij.codeInsight.daemon.impl.DaemonCodeAnalyzerEx#processHighlights but as I mentioned above the annotation results for linters can be not available (or outdated)
I want to evaluate my content blocks before running my test suite but the closures' property names is in bytecode already. I'm ooking for the cleanest solution (compared with parsing source manually).
Already tried solution outlined in this post (and I'd still wind up doing some RegEx/parsing) but could only get it to work via script execution engine. It failed in IDE and GroovyConsole. Rather than embedding a Groovy script in project's code, I thought I'd try using Geb's native classes.
Is building on the suggestion about extending Geb Navigators here viable for Geb's PageContentSupport class whose contentTemplates contain a LinkedHashMap of exactly what I need? If yes, would someone provide guidance? If no, any suggestions?
It is currently not possible to get hold of all content elements for a given page/module. Feel free to create an issue for this in Geb's bug tracker, but remember that all that Geb can provide is either a list of content element names or a map from these names to closures that create these elements.
Having that information isn't a generic solution to your problem because it's possible for content elements to take parameters and there are situations where your content elements will be available on the page only after some other actions are performed (for example you have to click on button to reveal a section of a page that uses ajax to retrieve it's content). So I'm afraid that simply going over all elements and checking if they don't throw any errors will not cut it.
I'm still struggling to see what would "evaluating" all content elements prior to running the suite buy you. Are you after verifying that your content elements still work to get a faster feedback than running the whole suite? I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to fully automate detection of content definitions that don't work anymore. In my view it will be more effort than it's worth.
I'm starting with Selenium and FitNesse. My goal is to create an acceptance tests suite which can be run easily in different browsers.
At first I wrote a very short wrapper around Seleniums WebDriver. The wrapper functions are used in Scenario Tables, Script Tables and Query Tables. So far, everything is fine.
My idea was to create a wiki page hierarchy called ParameterizedSuites, which has sub-suites and tests in any possible depth. Now I wanted to create one suite called FirefoxSuite defining an variable ${BROWSER} with value "firefox" and include the ParameterizedSuites only. In ParameterizedSuites.SuiteSetUp a WebDriver instance will be instantiated using ${BROWSER}.
But my idea does not work. It seems that I must include every SetUp, TearDown, Suite and Test page seperately? Is my idea completely wrong or am I missing something?
Does anybody something similar?
Hope my description is clear enough to understand the scenario.
Kind regards,
Andi
I think what you want is SymbolicLinks. You can use Symbolic Links to include a subtree of the wiki into a different place in the wiki.
For more information on SymbolicLinks, check your local users guide or the copy online: http://www.fitnesse.org/FitNesse.UserGuide.FitNesseWiki.SymbolicLinks
A common way to do this is to actually create your ParameterizedSuite and then symbolically link it into the Pages that define the configuration and supply specialized SetUp and TearDown pages. This is sort of the oposite of what you are describing, but I think what you are doing could work as well, provided you use SymbolicLinks to make the pages part of the wiki structure of your parameterized tests.
FrontPage
SuiteOne
TestOne
ConfigurationOne
SetUp
TearDown
SuiteOneSymolicLink
ConfigurationTwo
SetUp
TearDown
SuiteOneSymolicLink
In the structure above, SuiteOne can be run via the symbolic link in ConfigurationOne or ConfigurationTwo. Variables defined in the ConfigurationOne or ConfigurationTwo pages will inherit to SuiteOne when is is run via the SuiteOneSymbolicLink in each configuration hierarchy. Additionally, the SetUp and TearDown from the Confiugration Pages will be inherited as well.
Can any one please tell me is there any kind of tools or eclipse base plugins available for generate relevant test cases for SalesForce platform related Apex classes. It seems with code coverage they are not expecting out come like we expect with JUnit, they want to cover whether, test cases are going through the flows of the source classes (like code go through).
Please don't get this post in wrong, I don't want anyone is going to write test cases for my codes :). I have post this question due to nature of SalesForce expecting that code coverage should be. Thanks.
Although Salesforce requires a certain percentage of code coverage for your test cases, you really need to be writing cases that check the results to ensure that the code behaves as designed.
So, even if there was a tool that could generate code to get 100% coverage of your test class, it wouldn't be able to test the results of those method calls, leaving you with a false sense of having "tested code".
I've found that breaking up long methods into separate, sometimes static, methods makes it easier to do unit testing. You can test each individual method, and not worry so much about tweaking parameters to a single method so that it covers all execution paths.
it's now possible to generate test classes automatically for your class/trigger/batch. You can install "Test Class Generator" app from AppExchange and see it working.
This would really help you generating test class and saves lot of your development time.
For our webapp testing environment we're currently using watin with a bunch of unit tests, and we're looking to move to selenium and use more frameworks.
We're currently looking at Selenium2 + Gallio + Xunit.net,
However one of the things we're really looking to get around is compiled testcases. Ideally we want testcases that can be edited in VS with intellisense, but don't require re-compilling the assembly every single time we make a small change,
Are there any frameworks likely to help with this issue?
Are there any nice UI tools to help manage massive ammount of testcases?
Ideally we want the testcase writing process to be simple so that more testers can aid in writing them.
cheers
You can write them in a language like ruby (e.g., IronRuby) or python which doesnt have an explicit compile step of such a manner.
If you're using a compiled a compiled language, it needs to be compiled. Make the assemblies a reasonable size and a quick Shift F6 (I rewire it to shift Ins) will compile your current project. (Shift Ctrl-B will typically do lots of redundant stuff). Then get NUnit to auto-re-run the tests when it detects the assembly change (or go vote on http://xunit.codeplex.com/workitem/8832 and get it into the xunit GUI runner).
You may also find that CR, R# and/or TD.NET have stuff to offer you in speeding up your flow. e.g., I believe CR detects which tests have changed and does stuff around that (at the moment it doesnt support the more advanced xunit.net testing styles so I dont use it day to day)
You wont get around compiling test frameworks if you add new tests..
However there are a few possibilities.
First:
You could develop a native language like i did in xml or similar format. It would look something like this:
[code]
action name="OpenProfile"
parameter name="Username" value="TestUser"
[/code]
After you have this your could simply take an interpreter and serialize this xml into an object. Then with reflection you could call the appropriate function in the corresponding class. After you have a lot of actions implemented of course perfectly moduled and carefully designed structure ( like every page has its own object and a base object that every page inherits from ), you will be able to add xml based tests on your own without the need of rebuilding the framework it self.
You see you have actions like, login, go to profile, go to edit profile, change password, save, check email etcetc. Then you could have tests like: login change password, login edit profile username... and so on and so fort. And you only would be creating new xmls.
You could look for frameworks supporting similar behavior and there are a few out there. The best of them are cucumber and fitnesse. These all support high level test case writing and low level functionality building.
So basically once you have your framework ready all your have to do is writing tests.
Hope that helped.
Gergely.