In default I run tests with goutte. How can I set different driver for one step? For example to take screenshot after failed step I need selenium driver. And I don't know which step will fail.
Have a look at the Mink docs, specifically the managing sessions chapter to learn how to change the default driver. If you're not familiar with Behat hooks it's also good to catch up with Hooking into the Test Process docs.
Here's an example of how you could access mink and change the default session. Once this method is executed, all the following operations on the session object will be perform through the selected driver.
use Behat\Behat\Hook\Scope\BeforeStepScope;
use Behat\Behat\Hook\Scope\AfterStepScope;
class MyContext extends RawMinkContext
{
/**
* #BeforeStep
*/
public function before(BeforeStepScope $scope)
{
// note that this will be called before EVERY step
// add logic here if you want to perform it before SOME steps
// You can't really know if your step will fail though ;)
$mink = $this->getMink();
$mink->setDefaultSessionName('selenium');
}
public function after(AfterStepScope $scope)
{
// here you can inspect $scope to see if your step failed
}
}
This is not a complete solution, but should point you into the right direction if you really want to pursue it.
However, I strongly discourage you from doing so.
If your step failed it was already executed. To make a screenshot you would need to execute the step again with a different driver. The state of the app would be most likely different at this point. You'd also need to fight with differences between the drivers, try to share the cookie etc. It's just not worth the effort.
Instead, simply dump an html. You can always display it in a browser.
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 maintain a complex Angular (1.5.x) application that is being E2E tested using Protractor (2.5.x). I am experiencing a problem with this approach, which presents primarily in the way the tests seem flaky. Tests that worked perfectly well in one pull request fail in another. This concerns simple locators, such as by.linkTest(...). I debugged the failing tests and the app is on the correct page, the links are present and accessible.
Has anyone else experienced these consistency problems? Knows of a cause or workaround?
Just Say No to More End-to-End Tests!
That said, here are the few things you can do to tackle our mutual merciless "flakiness" enemy:
update to the latest Protractor (currently 4.0.0) which also brings latest selenium and chromedriver with it
turn off Angular animations
use dragons browser.wait() with a set of built-in or custom Expected Conditions. This is probably by far the most reliable way to approach the problem. Unfortunately, this is use-case and problem specific, you would need to modify your actual tests in the problematic places. For example, if you need to click an element, wait for it to be clickable:
var EC = protractor.ExpectedConditions;
var elm = $("#myid");
browser.wait(EC.elementToBeClickable(elm), 5000);
elm.click();
maximize the browser window (to avoid random element not visible or not clickable errors). Put this to onPrepare():
browser.driver.manage().window().maximize();
increase the Protractor and Jasmine timeouts
slow Protractor down by tweaking the Control Flow (not sure if it works for 4.0.0, please test)
manually call browser.waitForAngular(); in problematic places. I am not sure why this helps but I've seen reports where it definitely helped to fix a flaky test.
use the jasmine done() callback in your specs. This may help to, for example, not to start the it() block until done is called in beforeEach()
return a promise from the onPrepare() function. This usually helps to make sure things are prepared for the test run
use protractor-flake package that would automatically re-run failed tests. More like a quick workaround to the problem
There are also other problem-specific "tricks" like slow typing into the text box, clicking via JavaScript etc.
Yes, I think all of us experienced such flakiness issue.
Actually, the flakiness is quite common issue with any browser automation tool. However, this is supposed to be less in case of Protractor as Protractor has built-in wait consideration which performs actions only after loading the dom properly. But, in few cases you might have to use some explicit waits if you see intermittent failures.
I prefer to use few intelligent wait methods like:
function waitForElementToClickable(locator) {
var domElement = element(by.css(locator)),
isClickable = protractor.ExpectedConditions.elementToBeClickable(domElement);
return browser.wait(isClickable, 2000)
.then(function () {
return domElement;
});
}
Where 2000 ms is used as timeout, you can make it configurable using a variable.Sometimes I also go with browser.sleep() when none of my intelligent wait works.
It's been my experience that some methods (eg. sendKeys()) do not always fire at the expected time, within the controlFlow() queue, and will cause tests to be flakey. I work around this by specifically adding them to the controlFlow(). Eg:
this.enterText = function(input, text) {
return browser.controlFlow().execute(function() {
input.sendKeys(text);
});
};
A workaround that my team has been using is to re-run only failed tests using the plugin protractor-errors. Using this tool, we can identify real failures versus flakey tests within 2-3 runs. To add the plugin, just add a require statement to the bottom of the Protractor config's onPrepare function:
exports.config = {
...
onPrepare: function() {
require('protractor-errors');
}
}
You will need to pass these additional parameters when to run your tests with the plugin:
protractor config.js --params.errorsPath 'jasmineReports' --params.currentTime (timestamp) --params.errorRun (true or false)
There is also a cli tool that will handle generating the currentTime if you don't have an easy way to pass in a timestamp.
With Selenium IDE I generate a sample script for test the log to a website and a value in the website after logging. So my script is (Java) :
#test
public void mytest() throws Exception{
// Load the home page
...
// complete the log form
...
// check if the log work
...
// Logged : click on some element in the page
...
// Logged ; check the information X (if one HTML element contains child or not
...
}
I use JUnit for run the test class from a main class. My question is : What is the best way for re-factoring my code ? I would like create one class by "step", is it possible ? by example :
Class for load page and check there isn't error 404
Class for complete the log form, submit and check if the user is logged
Class for navigate in the website and get the information I want
Is it the best way? There isn't a real goal. Just, I want know how organize the code for a maximum of reuse (sorry for my bad English x) )
There are couple of reasons why you do not want to use Selenium IDE, do the recording for the test cases and refactor the code afterwards. Most of the time selenium IDE will provide you the selectors that are not stable enough. For rerunning the tests you want to make sure the selectors are stable enough and will not possibly depend on html structure. Second, as the test suite getting larger you want to reduce the code duplication as much as possible. Using Selenium IDE there is no way to understand which code blocks can be reused.
So, bottom line is for a good test suite start building a framework from scratch instead of using Selenium IDE. There are a lot of example out there how to start. I have one with TestNG here if that helps.
I'm a QA who decided to use SpecFlow for my test automation after some consideration. I think it's brilliant, but missing one feature which I did use often with other test runners such as NUnit - something similar to the TestCaseSource property from NUnit to specify a potentially dynamic set of data for tests to be ran against at run time.
I would often have different data in each environment the test should run in, so cannot specify hardcoded values for test parameters. A trivial example is for checking that each type of user account is able to login, the user account credentials can be retrieved using a DB query to populate each test case dynamically in NUnit:
public List<User> GetTestData()
{
List<User> testData = new List<User>();
testData = MyDatabase.GetAllUsersInfo().ToList();
return testData;
}
[Test, TestCaseSource("GetTestData")]
public void CallLoginService(User user)
{
var response = LoginController.TryLogin(User.UserName, User.Password);
if (response.Error != null)
{
Assert.Fail("Failed to Login: {0}", response.Error);
}
Assert.AreEqual("Logged in ok", response.Message, "Login message not as expected");
}
Obviously this is a simple example of that feature, but I think it describes it well enough. I know we have the ability in SpecFlow to use a Scenario Outline and table of test run input data, but that is still static, so doesn't fit the bill.
I've been looking for a while and have not found anything in SpecFlow like this yet, does anybody know of anything similar to the above which can be used (or planned if anyone who works on the project reads this)?
Thanks :)
I have no idea if anything like this is planned but for now the problem is that there is a background code generation step when you edit your feature file via Visual Studio.
When it is saved in Visual Studio it is parsed and converted into the feature.cs file and that is the one that is compiled and used for testing.
So your process would become
edit your data source
export to feature file
get specflow's VS plugin to convert to feature.cs
run msbuild
run tests via Nunit or similar
I wouldn't do this. Instead I'd focus on getting my tests to be better examples. It sounds like you are to trying to exhaustively cover every possibility. Don't come up with examples to cover every possible case, but instead cover as much logic as possible with fewer tests.
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.