I have been using fabric and recently got told about invoke, so I took a look at it's documentation:
Like Ruby’s Rake tool and Invoke’s own predecessor Fabric 1.x, it
provides a clean, high level API for running shell commands and
defining/organizing task functions from a tasks.py file.
Unless I am missing something and noob at invoke, but I find fabric is way more powerful than invoke, which makes me think invoke isn't a replacement for fabric. I am a bit confused.
I did a google search 'fabric vs invoke' and got nothing, so asking here instead.
Notice that both projects are maintained and managed by the same person. Bitprophet is working on a Fabric 2.x line that will utilize Invoke to clear out a lot of the cruft around running shell commands that exists right now in Fabric 1.x. So it's not really meant to replace fabric, but to be something from which later versions will build off.
Some helpful details are here: http://www.fabfile.org/roadmap.html#invoke-fabric-2-x-and-patchwork
As Fabric 2 is developed, Invoke will approach a 1.0 release, and
will continue to grow & change to suit Fabric’s needs while remaining
a high quality standalone task runner.
I have used fabric3 for a long while as it was the same as fabric1. I think the time has come to use invoke, I tried a few years ago and it wasn't yet ready.
Related
We are three testers and going to prepare automation project with selenium and java code so what are the steps for environment setup , scripts integration and running the testcases and getting the results for the whole project suits
So there are a few things we have to use in order to allow multiple engineers to work on the same framework.
Step 1) Creating the framework, assuming you know how to do this already, you have working tests you can skip this stage, however if not please follow the tutorial i link below.
http://toolsqa.com/selenium-webdriver/
Step 2) Creating a REPO, my preference is GitHub, you can use any git repo however i will post the guide to set one up with GitHub, its a similar process for all. This will allow you to merge code properly without causing conflicts.
https://help.github.com/articles/create-a-repo/
Step 3) Source Control program - to push, pull and fetch from your GitHub Repo, you can do this from Command Prompt however i find cloning the repo into a program like 'SourceTree' is really easy, so i've posted that below.
https://confluence.atlassian.com/get-started-with-sourcetree
If you follow these 3 guides, you will be able to have your automation test scripts on GitHub by the end of the day.
If you have any more questions please do not hesitate to ask.
All the best, Jack
The easiest and most logical way to do this would be to create one branch in your CVS (git or SVN, etc) and have each person setup the dev environment in the same way. Work exactly like developers and pull code before you check-in/commit (this will ensure that one small error does not break your framework) and swear to resolve conflicts during merge (to ensure you don't step on each others' toes).
Also, before you kick off, agree on a standard of coding (including package naming, design pattern usage, filename and methodname usage) and if this is in sync with the dev coding standards in your company, even better.
There will be a few hiccups along the way, but experience is the best way to create a process for your development and check-in practices.
Good luck with your new project and happy coding!
You have asked two questions, in my opinion the answer of your questions is.
how multiple automation testers work in same selenium project - You can use any version control system, Git Hub is the best option which gives you a lot of facilities. You all three can work on same project at same time or you can go for any centralized version control system like tortoise svn which is not much likely used now a days. I will suggest Git Hub for that.
what are the steps for environment setup , scripts integration and running the test cases and getting the results for the whole project suits - It depends on various factors like application and the kind of framework you want to use, there are many frameworks which are widely used for automation testing like Modular Framework, Data Driven, Keyword Driven, BDD, Cucumber, TestNg etc or if you have bandwidth and time you can design your custom framework as per the needs.
I hope I put some glimpse on your queries.
Thanks
So, as a developer, you probably write a small amount of code, and then test it to see if it works before you move onto something else. This is because you don't want to write thousands of lines of code and find that doesn't work. Stating the obvious here. So myself and a few others(soon) are working on a php application where I want to implement some form of version control, most likely subversion since we all know how to use it, somewhat. My question is how do I implement this writing process stated above with writing, and then testing.
My idea was to set each developer up with their own workstation including a web server, and php/mysql etc.. so they can checkout the repo and then test on their own computer as they are writing. I'm really looking for some direction here with that. Currently we aren't using version control as there are only two developers and we simply use a shared directory thats located on the web server. When we make changes, we can view them immediately on the web server. Any input on this? Whats the best way to handle multiple developers when in the development process of an application?
There are a number of different ways to approach this:
1) Each developer has a whole web server stack on their machine, deploys to it, and tests there, then checks in working code.
2) There's a separate test/integration machine. Developers take turns deploying to that machine, do their testing, then check in working code.
3) You use branches in Subversion. Development happens on a branch, and it's OK to check in broken code on a branch. There may be a branch for each developer, or a branch for each feature, or whatever. The developer checks in code onto the branch, checks it out on the separate test machine, tests, fixes, then checks the working code onto the trunk.
Which one is right depends on how big your team is and how complex your server setup is. Choose one that makes sense for your team.
You'd need to start thinking about a build server, using a piece of software like cruisecontrol which monitors for source code changes and is then able to build, run tests and deploy you're code (ed: in a manner as close to live like as possible!).
I'd highly recommend integrating a build server as soon as possible, otherwise you'll find out down the line that automating something that somebody has been doing manually for the last 5 years is somewhat difficult :)
You might also find that each dev ends up with their own methods of deployment and custom environment, it'd be far better to centralise this in one place and then have other devs use the scripts and from that deployment if they want to run the same process locally.
Configuration management is something you want to get right to begin with!
One important thing with CI: You only want to push working code to the central repository. This requires a private repository for each developer, but has the advantage that you never break trunk.
Git and Mercurial are the most obvious tools, and can work with svn as a central repository.
To prevent merge conflicts, there's one trick to prevent pushing broken code to central: always pull/merge from central first, and frequently, prior to pushing:
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FeatureBranch.html
And have a look at our sponsor: http://hginit.com for examples of workflows with multiple developers.
Where can I find the code for creating an online rebol console like the one here ?
http://tryrebol.esperconsultancy.nl/
Update: for the sandbox system on the server, can't Rebol manage it itself with some security wrapper and its security options ?
As for console itself, I don't know Ruby so I don't want to use TryRuby and why would I need it ? Can't I mimic Rebol console itself by "remoting" it somehow ? Why RT or Esper Consultancy can't make an opensource version ? There's no value in keeping it closed source. Rebol needs to prove it's more open than in the past.
In my opinion, you should aim higher with something like the already open-sourced Try Ruby. You'd type in expressions and it would guide you. Their showcase site is at tryruby.org and is fairly slick.
I modified TryRuby to work with Rebol and it wound up looking like this:
But I'm not going to run it on my server because I didn't want to belabor the necessary sandboxing/etc. or protections against someone running an infinite loop. I can give you what I've got so far if you want it.
I started a tutorial script here that no one seemed interested in helping me with, so I wandered off to other tasks:
http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Interactive_tutorial_script
I'm not sure what exactly you want. You mention you want a remote REBOL shell instead of a tutoring setup, but that's what the Try REBOL site is. There are several reasons it's not open source:
It's in heavy development. I'm currently changing the code regularly.
So it's not in a release state. Preparing it for release, documenting and publishing it would take a lot of extra work, as with most projects.
It's written in my CMS that's also in heavy development. Even if the Try REBOL site were open source, it wouldn't run. The CMS is not planned to be open sourced soon.
It's not meant as a generic REBOL remoting tool, but as a one-off demo site. If that site is running, what's the use of more of them?
As others have answered, there are many generic solutions for remoting that you could use. Also, most parts of the Try REBOL site are readily available as open source:
Syllable Server, produced and published by us.
The Cheyenne web server.
The HTML source of the web client can be viewed, including my simple JavaScript command service bus.
Syllable Server is an essential part of the site, as the sandboxing is not done with REBOL facilities (except some extra limits in the R3 backend), but with standard Linux facilities.
A truly air tight (do I mean silica tight?) sandbox is close to impossible with R2.
R3 (still in alpha) is looking a lot more promising. The deep technical discussions in flight right now (see Cure code and AltME/REBOL3 Proposals regarding unwinds and protect and even occasionally mentioning sandboxes should lead to an excellent sandbox capability.
Right now, the big advance R3 has that makes Kaj's tryREBOL possible is R3's secure policy settings which make it possible (with some careful wrapper code) to construct an alpha/demo sandbox.
To answer your precise question("where can I find code...", you could try asking Kaj for his :)
I'm new to StackOverflow. I'm not sure if this is going to end up as a reply to your comment, or as a new answer.
The somewhat common idea that any project can be open sourced and contributed to by others is a naive view. In the case of my Try REBOL site, it makes no sense. It's not just in heavy development; it's written in a CMS that's also in heavy development. Basically noone could contribute to it at this point, because I'm the only one who knows my CMS. Or in any case its newest features, which I develop by developing Try REBOL, and other example sites. So developing Try REBOL means developing the CMS at the same time, and by definition, I'm the only one who can do that.
More generally, my projects are bleeding edge, innovative technology with a strong vision. The vision is mine, and to teach it to others, I have to build it to show how I intended it to work. So there's a catch 22: to enable others to contribute, I have to finish my projects first, because people typically don't understand them until I show them how they work.
There certainly are other projects where mass contribution makes more sense. Still, only the top projects get the contributors. We found that out the hard way. We created Syllable Desktop and Syllable Server with surrounding infrastructure for contributions. These are fairly classic, well understood operating systems that many people could work on in parallel. However, despite years of begging, we get very few contributions.
So, if you feel a burning need to contribute to our projects, please pick one of the many tasks in Syllable to execute. :-)
I need to build a fairly simple app but it needs to work on both PC and Mac.
It also needs to be redistributable on a disc or usb drive as a standalone desktop app.
Initially I thought AIR would be perfect for this (it ticks all the API requirements), but the difficulty is making it distributable, as the app would require the AIR runtime to be installed to run.
I came across Shu Player as an option as it seems to be able to package the AIR runtime with the app and do a (silent?) install.
However this seems to break the T&C from Adobe (as outlined here) so I'm not sure about the legality.
Another option could be Zinc but I haven't tested it so I'm not sure how well it'll fit the bill.
What would you recommend or suggest I check out?
Any suggestion much appreciated
EDIT:
There's a few more discussions on mono usage (though no real conclusion):
Here and Here
EDIT2:
Titanium could also fit the bill maybe, will check it out.
Any more comments from anyone?
EDIT3 (one year on): It's actually been almost a year since I posted that question but it seems some people still come across it every now and then, and even contribute an answer, even a year later.
Thought I'd update the question a bit. I did not get around to try the tcl/tk option at the end, time constraint and the uncertainty of the compatibility to different os versions led me to discard that as an option.
I did try Titanium for a bit but though the first impressions were ok, they really are pushing the mobile platform more than anything, and imho, the desktop implementation suffers a bit from that lack of attention. There are also some report of problems with some visual studio runtime on some OSs (can't remember the details now though).. So discarded that too.
I ended up going with XULRunner. The two major appeals were:
Firefox seems to work out of the box on most OS version, so I took it as good faith that a XULRunner app would likely be compatible with most system. Saved me a lot of testing and it turned out that it did run really well on all platforms, there hasn't been a single report of not being able to start the app
It's Javascript baby! Language learning curve was minimal. The main thing to work out is what the additional xpcom interfaces are and how to query them.
On the down side:
I thought troubleshooting errors was a sometimes difficult task, the venkman debugger is kinda clunky, ended up using the console more than anything.
The sqlite interface is a great asset for a desktop app but I often struggled to find relevant error infos when something didn't work - maybe i was doing it wrong.
It took a little while to work out how to package the app as a standalone app for both PC and Mac. The final approach was to have a "shell" mac app and a shell pc app and a couple of "compile" script that would copy the shells and add the custom source code onto it in the correct location.
One last potential issue for some, due to the nature of xulrunner apps, your source code will be deployed with the app, you can use obfuscation if you want but that's something to keep in mind if you want to protect your intellectual property
All in all, great platform for a cross-platform app. I'd highly recommend it.
Tcl/Tk has one of the best packaging solutions out there. You can easily wrap a cross-platform application (implemented in a fully working virtual filesystem) with a platform-specific binary to get a single file executable for just about any modern desktop system. Search google for the terms starkit, starpack and tclkit. Such wrapped binaries are tiny in comparison to many executables these days.
Many deride Tk as being "old" or "immature" but it's one of the oldest, most stable toolkits out there. It uses native widgets when such widgets exist.
One significant drawback of Tcl/Tk, however, is that it lacks any sort of printing support. If your application needs to print you'll have to be a bit creative. There are platform-specific solutions, and the ability to generate postscript documents, and libraries to create pdfs, but it takes a little extra effort.
Java is probably your best bet, although not all Windows PCs will necessarily have Java (most should). JavaFX is new enough you can't count on it - you'll probably find a lot of machines running Java 1.5 or (shudder) 1.4. I believe recent Mac OS still ships with 1.5 (latest version may have changed to 1.6).
Consider JavaFX
It would run everywhere with a modern JRE ..!
AIR could be an option, but only if you don't mind distributing two different files (the offline runtime installer and your app), and expecting the user to run one and then the other. You do have to submit an online form at Adobe's site saying you agree to distribute the offline installer as-is, rather than digging out individual DLLs or whatever, before they give you the installer.
Unfortunately there's currently no way to get both an AIR app and the runtime to install from one file though. I'm not sure what the deal with Shu is, or whether it's doing anything that isn't kosher.
i would recommended zink. it has all the functionalities you require for desktop. however, the las time i used it it was a bit glitchy.
i was hung up by trying to write a 6M file to the disk. thought it trough and changed the code to write 512K chunks at a time (3min work, fast).
probably it still has some little annoying glitches like making you think on root lvl but the ease of use and the features are just way too sweet to ignore.
I use Intellij Idea 7 for Java dev. My dev is 'limited' to all J2SE features plus light JSP, Servlets, and super light usage of JPA. No J2EE, no massive use of random frameworks, etc.
Is it worth upgrading to ver 8? "Worth it" to me means better "core functionality" in terms of speed (ESPECIALLY startup speed), memory utilization (seems like it starts having serious problems with four or more projects open), and auto bug-finding.
More frameworks supported and more languages supported (other than perhaps Haskell and C++), and more refactorings don't interest me at this time.
A while back, I installed a preview version of 8 and it seemed -exactly- the same as 7, as far as my needs were concerned.
Anyone loving the upgrade to 8, and if so, why?
Thanks
It also seems to be easier to configure a new project over top of a complex collection of existing code.
For example, something that you would naturally configure into 5 or more modules.
There is a really beautiful go to/create test wizard that is bound to ctrl-shift-T. Worth the upgrade by itself
The best way to tell is to check out the list of new features and decide for yourself. I haven't discovered any single feature so far that by itself is worth upgrading - the simplified UML view is quite nice, as is the improved Maven integration. The UI feels a bit more streamlined and faster. It seems like most of the attention has gone into non-Java features like better Flex support (which I am really thankful for as I don't like FlexBuilder but I haven't had a chance to use yet).
IntelliJ 8 has a configure plugins feature that allows you to disable plugins with dependencies. Nothing trial and error couldn't replicate, but it is nice.
Startup is only marginally slower. But indexing once opened is a lot faster than before, even unnoticeable for most projects, except after a commit to Subversion. It seems a commit to subversion triggers the indexing twice.
I am working on the Diana-EAP build - but 8 has git integration built in. The EAP has better git integration than the 8.0.1 release - it looks like that is something they are really focusing on.
Definitely not! Seems that the variables defined in our custom taglibs are no longer able to be used in the jsp (worked in 7.0.4). All red. No auto complete.
Oh, and the new settings menu is horrendous!
Some benefits of IntelliJ IDEA 8:
IDEA 8 supports Subversion 1.5 new functionality - e.g. merge tracking, which may be useful especially if your team (like ours) uses a lot of development branches and thus merging is frequent.
One detail I appreciated about IDEA 8: As you probably know, IDEA has had changelists for pretty long now, built on top of any underlying version control system - this is a really useful feature. So, now that Subversion itself supports changeslists, IDEA's changelist implementation has been changed so that it is perfectly compatible with Subversion's native changeslists. (For example, you'll be able to work with any changelists created in IDEA also when using svn command line tools directly.)
Edit: in your case, perhaps it is not worthwhile to upgrade. For me, at least, startup and file indexing seems to be somewhat slower in 8 than 7. [But for me personally the upgrade was definitely worth it, because it solved a long-standing VCS problem with IDEA 7 - it could hang "waiting for VCS sync to finish" for an hour or whatever after hitting Ctrl-K.]