I am running tests with IBM RFT, when a test fails, the browser does not close. On a Windows machine this is a huge problem because I then have several instances of the browser still running in the background.
You can create a super helper class in which you override the onTerminate-method. This method is always called after the termination of the testMain-method. To ensure that there are no browser instances running, I personally like to kill the respecting processes altogether. Maybe there are more subtile ways... Example of a super helper class killing IE on termination (Java):
public abstract class SuperScript extends RationalTestScript
{
#Override
public void onTerminate()
{
try
{
Process p = Runtime.getRuntime().exec("taskkill /IM iexplore.exe /F");
if (p != null)
{
p.waitFor();
}
}
catch (Exception e)
{
}
super.onTerminate();
}
}
Related
I'm using this library:
"io.github.microutils:kotlin-logging:2.0.4"
with this logging implementation:
"ch.qos.logback:logback-classic:1.2.3"
In my code I call:
private val logger = KotlinLogging.logger{}
and then use this logger as follows:
logger.debug("message")
this runs fine until I try to debug my code at which point the following to two NoSuchMethodErrors pop up in the library:
private static IMarkerFactory bwCompatibleGetMarkerFactoryFromBinder() throws
NoClassDefFoundError {
try {
return StaticMarkerBinder.getSingleton().getMarkerFactory();
} catch (NoSuchMethodError var1) {
return StaticMarkerBinder.SINGLETON.getMarkerFactory();
}
}
And:
private static MDCAdapter bwCompatibleGetMDCAdapterFromBinder() throws
NoClassDefFoundError {
try {
return StaticMDCBinder.getSingleton().getMDCA();
} catch (NoSuchMethodError var1) {
return StaticMDCBinder.SINGLETON.getMDCA();
}
}
(the first time I try to log something)
Others on my team do not experience this issue. they are on macs, in case that matters.
If, I just continue running the code everything is fine as the exception is caught, but I don't want to hit continue twice anytime I want to debug. I'm willing to ignore exceptions if that is possible, or better yet, fix the underlying issue.
Is there a way to inject a variable into a running process without a process listening for RPC requests?
For example if a process was running and using an environment variable, could I change that environment variable at runtime and make the process use the new value?
Are there alternative solutions for dynamically changing variables in a running process? Assume that this process is like a PHP process or a Javascript (node.js) process so I can change the source code... etc.
I think this is similar to passing state or communicating to another process, but I need a really lightweight way of doing so, without going over the network or using libraries or preferably not setting up an RPC server.
Solution does not have to be cross-platform. Prefer Linux.
You can do it it java. Imagine this is your thread class:
public void ThreadClass extends Thread {
Boolean state;
ThreadClass(Boolean b) {
state = b;
}
public void StopThread() {
state = false;
}
public void run() {
while(state) { //Do whatever you want here}
}
}
Now all you have to do is start this thread from your main class:
ThreadClass thread = new ThreadClass(true);
thread.start();
And if you want to change the value of state, call the StopThread method in the thread like so:
try {
thread.StopThread();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(NewClass.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
This will change the state of the Boolean while the thread is running.
It appears that local IPC implementations like shared memory is the way to go: Fastest technique to pass messages between processes on Linux?
I'm using usbmanager class to manage USB host on my android 4.1.1 machine.
all seems to work quite well for a few hundreds of transactions until (after ~ 900 transactions) opening the device fails, returning null without exception.
Using a profiler it doesn't seem to be a matter of memory leakage.
this is how I initialize the communication from my main activity (doing this once):
public class MainTestActivity extends Activity {
private BroadcastReceiver m_UsbReceiver = null;
private PendingIntent mPermissionIntent = null;
UsbManager m_manager=null;
DeviceFactory m_factory = null;
#Override
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
setContentView(R.layout.main);
mPermissionIntent = PendingIntent.getBroadcast(this, 0, new Intent(ACTION_USB_PERMISSION), 0);
IntentFilter filter = new IntentFilter(ACTION_USB_PERMISSION);
filter.addAction(UsbManager.ACTION_USB_DEVICE_DETACHED);
m_UsbReceiver = new BroadcastReceiver() {
public void onReceive(Context context, Intent intent) {
String action = intent.getAction();
if (UsbManager.ACTION_USB_DEVICE_DETACHED.equals(action)) {
UsbDevice device = (UsbDevice)intent.getParcelableExtra(UsbManager.EXTRA_DEVICE);
if (device != null) {
// call your method that cleans up and closes communication with the device
Log.v("BroadcastReceiver", "Device Detached");
}
}
}
};
registerReceiver(m_UsbReceiver, filter);
m_manager = (UsbManager) getSystemService(Context.USB_SERVICE);
m_factory = new DeviceFactory(this,mPermissionIntent);
}
and this is the code of my test:
ArrayList<DeviceInterface> devList = m_factory.getDevicesList();
if ( devList.size() > 0){
DeviceInterface devIf = devList.get(0);
UsbDeviceConnection connection;
try
{
connection = m_manager.openDevice(m_device);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
return null;
}
The test will work OK for 900 to 1000 calls and after this the following call will return null (without exception):
UsbDeviceConnection connection;
try
{
connection = m_manager.openDevice(m_device);
}
You might just run out of file handles, a typical limit would be 1024 open files per process.
Try calling close() on the UsbDeviceConnection, see doc.
The UsbDeviceConnection object has allocated system ressources - e.g. a file descriptor - which will be released only on garbage collection in your code. But in this case you run out of ressources before you run out of memory - which means the garbage collector is not invoked yet.
I had opendevice fail on repeated runs on android 4.0 even though I open only once in my code. I had some exit paths that did not close the resources and I had assumed the OS would free it on process termination.
However there seems to be some issue with release of resources on process termination -I used to have issues even when I terminated and launched a fresh process.
I finally ensured release of resources on exit and made the problem go away.
I would like to catch any throwable during a Selenium test e.g. in order to make a screenshot. The only solution I could come up with for now is to separately surround the test steps with a try and catch block in every test method as following:
#Test
public void testYouTubeVideo() throws Throwable {
try {
// My test steps go here
} catch (Throwable t) {
captureScreenshots();
throw t;
}
}
I'm sure there is a better solution for this. I would like a higher, more centralized location for this try-catch-makeScreenshot routine, so that my test would be able to include just the test steps again. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
You need to declare a TestRule, probably a TestWatcher or if you want to define the rules more explicitly, ExternalResource. This would look something like:
public class WatchmanTest {
#Rule
public TestRule watchman= new TestWatcher() {
#Override
protected void failed(Description d) {
// take screenshot here
}
};
#Test
public void fails() {
fail();
}
#Test
public void succeeds() {
}
}
The TestWatcher anonymous class can of course be factored out, and just referenced from the test classes.
I solved a similar problem using Spring's AOP. In summary:
Declare the selenium object as a bean
Add an aspect using
#AfterThrowing
The aspect can take the screenshot and save it to a
file with a semirandom generated name.
The aspect also rethrows the exception, with the exception message including the filename so you can look at it afterwards.
I found it more helpful to save the HTML of the page due to flakiness of grabbing screenshots.
I'm currently using WCF in monotouch to call an existing service and a custom UIAlertView.
The problem is that if I create an UIAlertView as class instance and the I do the following:
public override void ViewDidAppear()
{
_alertView.Message = "Loading...";
_alertView.Show();
_client.GetDataAsync("test");
_client.GetDataCompleted += GetDataCompletedDelegate;
base.ViewDidAppear();
}
void GetDataCompletedDelegate(object sender, GetDataEventArgs)
{
// do someting with data
_alertView.Hide();
}
it works but this advice is written in console : UIAlertView: wait_fences: failed to receive reply: 10004003
else, if I try to run this code:
public override void ViewDidAppear()
{
using(CustomAV _alertView = new CustomAV())
{
_alertView.Message = "Loading...";
_alertView.Show();
_client.GetDataAsync("test");
_client.GetDataCompleted += delegate{
InvokeOnMainThread(delegate{
// do someting with data
_alertView.Hide();
});
};
}
base.ViewDidAppear();
}
the first time the code run, but now alert is shown. The second time the simulator can't startup. Couldn't register "com.yourcompany.wcftest" with the bootstrap server. Error: unknown error code. This generally means that another instance of this process was already running or is hung in the debugger.StackTrace. In this case I have to reboot the machine.
Thank you in advance.
EDIT:
Thank you Geoff, I've checked my code and into GetDataCompletedDelegate I've inserted a function that runs inside the UI Thread.
InvokeOnMainThread(delegate{
doSomething();
});
private void doSomething()
{
// do stuff here
_alertView.Hide();
}
The fency error continues to appear. If I use your solution inside doSomething() method, it works
_alertView.InvokeOnMainThread(delegate{
_alertView.Hide();
});
Why? Maybe I didn't understand, but in the first snippet of code do something() works in the UI thread!! Isn't true?
You have 2 seperate problems here.
1: _alertView.Hide () is not running on the UI thread (this is what causes the fences error)
2: In your second example you're disposing the UIAlertVeiw immediately after creating it, but you have a instance delegate dangled off it. This crashes the runtime in a hard way, and then when you run it again since the old crashed process is still running the simulator wont let you start a second instance.
Use case #1 but do _alterView.InvokeOnMainThread (delegate { _alertView.Hide (); });