I have implemented several packages for a web API, each with their own test cases. When each package is tested using go test ./api/pkgname the tests pass. If I want to run all tests at once with go test ./api/... test cases always fail.
In each test case, I recreate the entire schema using DROP SCHEMA public CASCADE followed by CREATE SCHEMA public and apply all migrations. The test suite reports errors back at random, saying a relation/table does not exist, so I guess each test suite (per package) is run in parallel somehow, thus messing up the DB state.
I tried to pass along some test flags like go test -cpu 1 -parallel 0 ./src/api/... with no success.
Could the problem here be tests running in parallel, and if yes, how can I force serial execution?
Update:
Currently I use this workaround to run the tests, but I still wonder if there's a better solution
find <dir> -type d -exec go test {} \;
As others have pointed out, -parallel doesn't do the job (it only works within packages). However, you can use the flag -p=1 to run through the package tests in series. This is documented here:
http://golang.org/src/cmd/go/testflag.go
but (afaict) not on the command line, go help, etc. I'm not sure it is meant to stick around (although I'd argue that if it is removed, -parallel should be fixed.)
The go tool is provided to make running unit tests easier using the convention that *_test.go files contain unittests in them. Because it assumes they are unittests it also assumes they are hermetic. It sounds like your tests either aren't unittests or they are but violate the assumptions that a unittest should fulfill.
In the case that you mean for these tests to be unittests then you probably need a mock database for your unittests. A mock, preferrably in memory, of your database will ensure that the unittest is hermetic and can't be interfered with by other unittests.
In the case that you mean for these tests to be integration tests you are probably better off not using the go tool for these tests. What you probably want is to create a seperate test binary whose running you can control and write you integration test scripts in there.
The good news is that creating a mock in Go is insanely easy. Change your code to take an interface with the methods you care about for the databases and then write an in memory implementation of that interface for testing purposes and pass it into your application code that you want to test.
Just to clarify, #Jeremy's answer is still the accepted one:
Since my integration tests were only run on one package (api), I removed the separate test binary in the end and created a pattern to separate test types by:
Unit tests use the normal TestX name
Integration tests use Test_X
I created shell scripts (utest.sh/itest.sh) to run either of those.
For unit tests go test -run="^(Test|Benchmark)[^_](.*)"
For integration tests go test -run"^(Test|Benchmark)_(.*)"
Run both using the normal go test
Related
Because of the resource exhaustion there is a need to run test cases serially, without threads (integration tests for CUDA code). Went through source code (e.g. tweaking GetThreadCount()) and trying to find other ways how to influence gmock/gtest framework to run tests serially but found no way out.
Apparently at first did not find any command line arguments that could influence it. Feel like the only way out is to create many binaries or create a script that utilizes --gtest-filter. I would not like to mess with secret synchronization primitives between test cases.
In Rust, is there any way to execute a teardown function after all tests have been run (i.e. at the end of cargo test) using the standard testing library?
I'm not looking to run a teardown function after each test, as they've been discussed in these related posts:
How to run setup code before any tests run in Rust?
How to initialize the logger for integration tests?
These discuss ideas to run:
setup before each test
teardown before each test (using std::panic::catch_unwind)
setup before all tests (using std::sync::Once)
One workaround is a shell script that wraps around the cargo test call, but I'm still curious if the above is possible.
I'm not sure there's a way to have a global ("session") teardown with Rust's built-in testing features, previous inquiries seem to have yielded little, aside from "maybe a build script". Third-party testing systems (e.g. shiny or stainless) might have that option though, might be worth looking into their exact capabilities
Alternatively, if nightly is suitable there's a custom test frameworks feature being implemented, which you might be able to use for that purpose.
That aside, you may want to look at macro_rules! to cleanup some boilerplate, that's what folks like burntsushi do e.g. in the regex package.
We are switching from a classic 'Waterfall' model into more Agile-orient philosophy. We decided to give BDD a try (Cucumber), but we have some issues with migrating some of our 'old' methodologies. The biggest question mark is how manual tests integrates into the cycle.
Let's say the Project Manager defined the Feature and some basic Scenario Outlines. With the test team, we defined around 40 Scenarios for this feature. Some are not possible to automatically test, which means they will have to be tested manually. Execute manual testing when all you have is the feature file, feels wrong. We want to be able to see past failure rate of tests for example. Most of the Test-Cases managers support such features, but they can't work with Feature files. Maintaining the Manual Testcases in external Test-Case manager, will cause never-ending updating issues between the Feature file and the Test-Case manager.
I'm interested to hear if anyone is able to cover this 'mid-ground' and how.
This is not a very unusual case. Even in Agile it may not be possible to automate every scenario. The scrum teams I am working with usually tag them as #manual scenario in the feature file. We have configured our automation suite (Cucumber - Ruby) to ignore these tags while running nightly jobs. One problem with this is, as you have mentioned, we won't know what was the outcome of manual tests as the testers document the results locally.
My suggestion for this was to document the results of each iteration in a YML or any other file format that suits the purpose. This file should be part of the automation suite and should be checked in the repository. So to start with you have results documented along with the automation suite. Later when you have the resource and time, you can add a functionality to your automation suite to read this file and generate a report either with other automation results or separately. Until then your version control should help you to track all previous results.
Hope this helps.
To add to #Eswar's answer, if you're using Cucumber (or one of it's siblings), one option would be to execute the test runner manually and include prompts for the tester to check certain aspects. They then pass/fail the test according to their judgement.
This is often useful for aesthetic aspects e.g. cross-browser rendering, element alignment, correct images used, etc.
As #Eswar mentioned, you can exclude these tests from your automated runs by tagging them.
See this article for an example.
Test cases that cannot be automated are a poor fit for a cucumber test. We have a bunch of these edge cases. It is nigh impossible to get Selenium to verify PDF documents well. Same thing for CSV downloads (not impossible, but not worth the effort). Look and feel tests simply require human eyes at this point. Accessibility testing with screen readers is best done manually as well.
For that, be sure to record the acceptance criteria in the user story in whichever tool you use to track work items. Write a manual test case. The likes of Azure DevOps, Jira, IBM Rational Team Concert and their ilk have ways to record manual test plans, link them to stories, and record the results of executing a manual test.
I would remove the manual test cases from the cucumber tests, and rely on the acceptance criteria for the story, and link the story to some sort of manual test case, be it in a tool or a spreadsheet.
Sometimes you just need to compromise.
We use Azure DevOps with Test Plans + some custom code to synchronize cucumber tests to ADO. I can describe how we’ve realized it in our projects:
We start with the cucumber file first. Each User Story has its own Feature file. The scenarios in the Feature are the acceptance criteria for the story. We end up with lots of Feature files, so we use naming conventions and folders to organize them.
We annotate the top of the Feature file with a tag to the User Story, eg #Story-1234
We‘ve written a command line utility that reads the cucumber files with these tags. It then fetches all the Test Suites in the Test Plan that are linked to Stories. In ADO, a story can only be linked to a single test suite. If a Test Suite doesn’t exist for that Story, our tool creates one.
For each Scenario, the tool creates a an ADO Test Case and then annotates the Scenario with the Test Case ID. This creates amazing traceability for each User Story as the related Test Cases are automatically linked to the Story in the Azure DevOps UI
Although we don’t do this, we could populate the TestCase with the step definitions from our cucumber Scenario. It’s a basic XML structure that describes the steps to take. This would be useful if we wanted to manually execute the test case using the Azure DevOps Test Case UI. Since we focus primarily on automation, we rely on the steps in our Feature files and our ADO Test Cases end up being symbolic links back to cucumber Scenarios.
Because our cucumber tests are written in C# (SpecFlow), we can get the full class name and method for the cucumber test code. Our tool is able to update the Azure DevOps Test Case with the automation details.
Any test case that isn’t ready for automation or must be done manually, we annotate the Scenario with a #ignore or #manual tag.
Using Azure DevOps Pipelines, we use the Visual Studio Test task to run our tests. The important point here is we execute the Test Plan option. This option fetches the Test Cases in the Test Plan that have automation and then executes the specific cucumber tests. The out-of-the-box functionally updates the Test Case statuses with the test results.
After running through automation, we use the Test Plan Report in Azure DevOps which shows the Test Case execution status over time and can distinguish between test automated and manual test cases.
We execute any remaining manual test cases to complete the Test Plan
For us, we often found that the manual cases that cannot be automated are exception cases, or cases that depend on external environment (for example malformed data, network connection not available, maintenance, first time guide...). These cases require special setup to simulate the environment when they happen.
Ideally, I believe it is possible to cover everything, given that you are prepared to go as far as you can to make it happen. But in reality, it is most often too much an effort needed that we prefer the hybrid approach of mixed manual-automatic test cases. We do, however, try to convert those exception cases over the time to automatic ones, by setting up separate environment to simulate exception cases and write automation tests against them.
Nevertheless, even with that effort, there would be cases when it's impossible to simulate, and I believe they should be covered by technical tests from engineers.
You could use an approach similar to the following example:
http://concordion.org/Example.html
When you use a build or continuous integration system to track your test runs, you could add simple specifications / tests for your manual cases that contain a text comparison (e.g. "pass" or "fail"). Then you would need to update the spec after each manual test run, check it in, and start the tests in your build / continuous Integration system. Then the manual results would be recorded together with the results of the automated test execution.
If you would use a tool like Concordion+ (https://code.google.com/p/concordion-plus/) you could even write a summary specification, which could contain scenarios for each of your manual tests. Each one would be reported as individual test result in your test execution environment.
Cheers
taking screen shots seems to be a good idea, you can still automate the verification but will need to go an extra mile. for instance when using Selenium you can add Sikuli(NB: u can't run headless test) to compare results (images) or take a screenshot with Robot (java.awt) use OCR to read text and assert or verify(TestNG)
Currently, I define the following function in the REPL at the start of a coding session:
(defn rt []
(let [tns 'my.namespace-test]
(use tns :reload-all)
(cojure.test/test-ns tns)))
And everytime I make a change I rerun the tests:
user=>(rt)
That been working moderately well for me. When I remove a test, I have to restart the REPL and redefine the method which is a little annoying. Also I've heard bad rumblings about using the use function like this. So my questions are:
Is using use this way going to cause me a problem down the line?
Is there a more idiomatic workflow than what I'm currently doing?
most people run
lein test
form a different terminal. Which guarantees that what is in the files is what is tested not what is in your memory. Using reload-all can lead to false passes if you have changed a function name and are still calling the old name somewhere.
calling use like that is not a problem in it's self, it just constrains you to not have any name conflicts if you use more namespaces in your tests. So long as you have one, it's ok.
using lein lets you specify unit and integration tests and easily run them in groups using the test-selectors feature.
I also run tests in my REPL. I like doing this because I have more control over the tests and it's faster due to the JVM already running. However, like you said, it's easy to get in trouble. In order to clean things up, I suggest taking a look at tools.namespace.
In particular, you can use clojure.tools.namespace.repl/refresh to reload files that have changed in your live REPL. There's alsorefresh-all to reload all the files on the classpath.
I add tools.namespace to my :dev profile in my ~/.lein/profiles.clj so that I have it there for every project. Then when you run lein repl, it will be included on the classpath, but it wont leak into your project's proper dependencies.
Another thing I'll do when I'm working on a test is to require it into my REPL and run it manually. A test is just a no-argument function, so you can invoke them as such.
I am so far impressed with lein-midje
$ lein midje :autotest
Starts a clojure process watching src and test files, reloads the associated namespaces and runs the tests relevant to the changed file (tracking dependencies). I use it with VimShell to open a split buffer in vim and have both the source and the test file open as well. I write a change to either one and the (relevant) tests are executed in the split pane.
I am facing some difficulties in understanding test harness and related common terms like test case, test scripts in automation testing.
So this is what I got so far:
Automation testing is the use of a special software (other than the software being tested) to control the execution of tests and compare the actual results with the expected results. It also involves the setting up of test pre-conditions. This kind of testing is most suitable for tests that are frequently carried out.
Now, I am having some problems with test harness. I read that it consists of a test suite of test cases, input files, output files, and test scripts.
Now my question is what is the difference between test case and test script?
How do you use the software to test the different functions of the Acceptance Unit Testing (AUT)? I also came across some terms like suite master and case agents.
Several broad questions there, will try to answer based on my experience.
Think of a Test Harness as an 'enabler' that actually does all the work of (1)executing tests using a (2)test library and (3)generating reports. It would require that your test scripts are designed to handle different (4)test data and (5)test scenarios. Essentially, when the test harness is in place and prerequisite data is prepared (aka data prep) someone should be able to click a button or run one command to execute all your tests and generate reports.
A test harness is most likely a collection of different things that make all of the above happen. If you wrote unit tests while developing your application, that would be part of a test harness. You would also have other tests for the functionality of your app, like: user logs in to site, sees favourites pane, recent messages and notifications. Then you add in a 'runner' of sorts that goes through all of your "test scripts" and runs them (instead of you having to execute tests one at a time). If it feels like a test harness is more of a conceptual collection rather than a single piece of software, then you're understanding this correctly :-)
Now my question is what is the difference between test case and test script?
Simple but not entirely correct answer: A Test Case defines test objectives, description, pre-conditions, steps (descriptive or specific), expected results. A Test Script would then be the actual automated script that you execute to do that test. That's in an Automation context. And it changes. A lot.
What certifications like ISTQB define as test scenarios is usually referred to as test cases in some companies and countries. In others, test cases are flipped with test scripts when referring to manual testing (when the steps are given in detail but not part of an automation harness). Others say that test scripts exclusively mean automated tests. On the other hand, one can also argue that several test cases can be combined in a test script and vice-versa. So that begs the question, how does a test procedure fit in?
A test development stage can have: "Test procedures, test scenarios, test cases, test datasets, test scripts to use in testing software."
If you assume a > (is larger than/collection of) relation, how would you relate those? Rhetorical question - that differs based on where you work, who your client is, etc. Best thing is to define it with your colleagues/clients and agree on the understanding of the terms rather than the definition. I currently go with test script = automated script, based on a pre-existing manual test case or a test scenario.
Also, how do you use the software to test the different functions of the AUT?
You write different tests to test different things. Each test does certain actions and checks if the AUT's output matches what you expected - If displayed_value == expected_value. An input file could be used to provide data for the test- list of test usernames and passwords, for instance. Or run the same test with different data - login as a different user with different messages, etc.
Take a look at RobotFramework and the Selenium. A robot framework test (written in text or html files) combined with the Selenium library would allow you to write an automated test which tests something specific...like a home page validation. You would write a separate test to ensure that a user can see all his/her messages. Another to test clearing notifications. And so on.
test harness: A test environment comprised of stubs and drivers needed to execute a test.
Test harnesses and stubs will be used to replicate the missing items (components not yet included in the tests or external systems).
Often, when small-scale Integration Testing of several modules or components is performed, it is necessary to devise or improvise methods and tools to get the test data to the components under test. This is often called a test harness. Because of the need to understand the technicalities required to build a test harness this testing is almost always done by the development team.
A test harness may facilitate the testing of components or part of a system by simulating the environment in which that test object will run. This may be done either because other components of that environment are not yet available and are replaced by stubs and/or drivers, or simply to provide a predictable and controllable environment in which any faults can be localized to the object under test. These are usually bespoke programs generated by developers to help in the testing process. If they are used in a mature organisation it is quite possible that these harnesses will be considered as ‘Test Assets’ and subject to Version Control & Configuration Management.
Test harnesses contains all the information required to compile and run a test. This includes, test cases, source files under test, stubs, and Target Deployment Port (TDP) configuration settings.
A Test Harness is the collection of all the items needed to test software at the unit, module, application or system level and provides the mechanism to execute the test. Every item such as input data, test parameters, test case, test script, expected output data, test tool, and test result report is part of the test harness.