Can someone explain what the difference between assert and verify is please.
I know that verify means it checks if it is there, if it isn't the test fails and stops there (correct?).
So does assert carry on even if it does fail?
I've read the documentation and still can't get my head round it.
Nope, you've got it backwards. In Selenium IDE, both verifyWhatever and assertWhatever commands determine if the specified condition is true, and then different things happen. The assertWhatever command fails the test immediately if the condition is false. The verifywhatever command allows the test to continue, but will cause it to fail when it ends. Thus, if your test requires you to check for the presence of several items, none of which are present, assertElementPresent will fail on the first, while verifyElementPresent will fail reporting that all are missing.
The down side to verifyWhatever is that you really can't trust the behavior of any test after one of its verifications fails. Since the application isn't responding correctly, you have no way of knowing whether subsequent assertion or verification failures are valid or are the result of the earlier failures. Thus some of us think verifyWhatever commands are Evil.
Related
I am dealing with a coverage test of an command-line interface application developed in Elixir. The application is a client for tldr-pages and its functioning consists in a script built with escript. To perform the actions I use a case structure over an HTTPoison.get/1 function, in which I introduce the formatted url. In this case I compare the response to different kind of values, such as if the page exists, it shows the information; if the not, it report it to the user and then continue in another case to evaluate to others possibilities. At the end, the first case finish with two pattern to match errors, one for the lack of internet connection and another one for unexpected errors. The described structure is the next one:
case HTTPoison.get(process_url(os, term)) do
{:ok, %HTTPoison.Response{status_code: 200, body: body}} ->
IO.puts(body)
{:ok, %HTTPoison.Response{status_code: 404}} ->
IO.puts(
"Term \"#{term}\" not found on \"#{os}\" pages\nExTldr is looking on \"common\" pages."
)
case HTTPoison.get(process_url("common", term)) do
{:ok, %HTTPoison.Response{status_code: 200, body: body}} ->
IO.puts(body)
{:ok, %HTTPoison.Response{status_code: 404}} ->
IO.puts("Term not found on \"common\" pages.")
end
{:error, %HTTPoison.Error{reason: reason}} when reason == :nxdomain ->
raise NoInternetConnectionError
{:error, %HTTPoison.Error{reason: reason}} when reason != :nxdomain ->
raise UnexpectedError, reason
end
NoInternetConnectionError and UnexpectedError are exceptions defined in another file. Both patterns at the end works apparently nice, at least the first one:
{:error, %HTTPoison.Error{reason: reason}} when reason == :nxdomain ->
raise NoInternetConnectionError
However, as I said at the beginning of the question, I am dealing with a coverage test performed automatically with GitHub Actions and Coveralls with ExCoveralls in the dependencies. In this test I am receiving a warning for both raise/1 statements. Although I could be wrong understanding what means that, I understand this "missed lines" or uncovered lines are reported by Coveralls because I am not performing a test to cover this case. Thus I started to research how I could write a test to cover both conditions.
The most important issue is how to simulate the lack of internet connection in a test to cover this. I though about to develop a mock, but I do not find something useful for this case in some of the mocking packages for Elixir, like Mox. Then I found bypass, a very interesting package that I think it might be useful because it has down/1 and up/1 to close and start a TCP socket, so it makes possible to test what happens when HTTP server is down. But with this I have two issues:
A server down is not the same that the lack of internet connection by the user part.
I tried to applied this "down and up" mechanism and I did not accomplish it. I am not going to share it because I think it would not be the final solution by the first issue described.
I am not pretending an answer with the code that solves this problem, I am just trying to understand how this test should work and the logic I should follow to develop it. I am even researching Erlang documentation, because it is possible Erlang provides native functions to address it (for example, I am now reading the Erlang's Common Test Reference Manual, because may be there is something useful there).
Edit. What I commented I tried with bypass was to install the dependency, write a setup with bypass.open/0 and then write a test like the next one, in which I try to assert the capture output with capture_io/1:
test "lack of internet connection", %{bypass: bypass} do
Bypass.down(bypass)
execute_main = fn ->
ExTldr.main([])
end
assert capture_io(execute_main) =~ "There is not internet connection"
end
However, as I thought, it does not cover the possible situation of lack of internet, just the possibility to check when a server goes down.
Sidenote: I personally was always against being a slave of tools that are supposed to help the development. Coverage is a somewhat good metric, but the recommendations should not be treated as a must. Anyway.
I am not sure why you ruled Mox out. The rule of thumb would be: tests should not involve cross-boundary calls unless absolutely unavoidable. The tests going over the internet are nevertheless flaky: coverage would not tell you that, I would. What if the testing environment has no permanent internet access at all? Temporary connection issues? The remote is down?
So that is exactly why Mox was born. And, luckily enough, HTTPoison is perfectly ready to use Mox as a mocking library because it declares a behaviour for the main operation module, HTTPoison.Base.
All you need would be to make your actual HTTP client an injected dependency. Somewhat along these lines:
#http_client Application.get_env(:my_app, :http_client, HTTPoison)
...
case #http_client.get(process_url(os, term)) do
...
end
In config/test.exs you specify your own :http_client, and voilà—the nifty mocked testing environment is all yours.
Or, you might declare the mock straight ahead:
Mox.defmock(MyApp.HC, for: HTTPoison.Base)
I am also adept of boundaries on the application level calling 3rd-parties. That said, you might define your own behaviour for external HTTP calls you need and your own wrapper implementing this behaviour. That way mocking would be even easier, and you’ll get a benefit of easy changing the real client. HTTPoison is far from being the best client nowadays (it barely supports HTTP2 etc,) and tomorrow you might decide to switch to, say, Mint. It would be drastically easier to accomplish if all the code would be located in the wrapper.
I have a series of tests that are dependent on a step in the middle (such as creating an account). The API that I'm using for this is a kind of brittle (which is a separate problem), and sometimes fails. I'd like to be able to just quit the tests in the middle there when that fails, instead of wait for TestCafe to fail the initial assertions for the next few tests that follow. Is there a way to get the test controller to stop, or signify to the fixture that the tests should stop? I immediately thought of Spock's #Stepwise annotation, but I can't find anything like that in the TestCafe docs.
The Stop on First Fail option stops the entire run once a failed test occurred. If I understand your scenario correctly, you could add an assertion for a successful account creation and if it fails, exit the entire run with this option.
CLI Documentation
API Documentation (under Parameters)
I wanted to send emails a day(fewdays) before a particular due date.
I went on to try with automation actions and was confused with on how it would work
and also the server action for that respective automated action
I would like to know whether "based on timed condition" works or does not work, as far as I have tried and researched, this seems to be a bug or which does not work.
Automated Actions do work, and are quite useful.
One catch with timed conditions is that they are triggered once and only once for each document/record, when the time condition is reached for the first time.
If you are playing around with timed conditions and use the same document/record for your tests, it will seem that later tries don't work, since triggered once it won't be triggered again.
In this scenario, you need to test changes to the Automated Action using a different test record.
Other things that might be wrong:
Your outgoing email might not be working properly.
The filter in your Automated Action might not be correct. Make sure you test it on a list view, and that the "User" field is blank.
I've just started exploring automated testing, specifically Codeception, as part of my QA work at a web design studio. The biggest issue I'm experiencing is having Codeception fail a test as soon as an assert fails, no matter where it's placed in the code. If my internet connection hiccups or is too slow, things can become difficult. I was wondering if there were methods to provide more control over when Codeception will fail and terminate a test session, or even better, a way to retry or execute a different block or loop of commands when an assert does fail. For example, I would like to do something similar to the following:
if ( $I->see('Foo') )
{
echo 'Pass';
}
else
{
echo 'Fail';
}
Does anyone have any suggestions that could help accomplish this?
You can use a conditional assertion:
$I->canSeeInCurrentUrl('/user/miles');
$I->canSeeCheckboxIsChecked('#agree');
$I->cantSeeInField('user[name]', 'Miles');
The codeception documentation says:
Sometimes you don't want the test to be stopped when an assertion fails. Maybe you have a long-running test and you want it to run to the end. In this case you can use conditional assertions. Each see method has a corresponding canSee method, and dontSee has a cantSee method.
I'm not sure, if I understand it correctly, but I think, you should try to use Cest.
$ php codecept.phar generate:cest suitename CestName
So you could write one test in one test function. If a test fails, it will abort. You can also configure codeception, that it will not abort and show only the one test which fails in a summary at the end of all tests.
See here in the documentation: https://github.com/Codeception/Codeception/blob/2.0/docs/07-AdvancedUsage.md
Maybe it's better to use:
$I::dontSee('Foo');
Regards
I am using SoapUI with Groovy script and running into an issue when calling multiple APIs. In the system I am testing one WSDL/API handles the account registration, and returns an authenticator. I then use that returned authenticator to call a different WSDL/API and verify some information. I am able to call each of these WSDLs/APIs separate but when I put them together in a Groovy Script it doesn't work.
testRunner.runTestStepByName("RegisterUser");
testRunner.runTestStepByName("Property Transfer");
if(props.getPropertyValue("userCreated") == "success"){
testRunner.runTestStepByName("AuthenticateStoreUser");
To explain the first line will run the TestStep "RegisterUser". I then do a "Property Transfer" step which takes a few response values from "RegisterUser" - the first is "Status" to see if it succeeded or failed, second is the "Authenticator". I then do an if statement to check if "RegisterUser" succeeded then attempt to call "AuthenticateStoreUser". At this point everything looks fine. Though when it calls "AuthenticateStoreUser" it shows the thinking bar then fails like a timeout, and if I check the "raw" tab for the request it says
<missing xml data>.
Note, that if I try the "AuthenticateStoreUser" by itself the call works fine. It is only after calling "RegisterUser" in the Groovy Script that it behaves strange. I have tried this with a few different calls and believe it is an issue calling two different APIs.
Has anyone dealt with this scenario, or can provide further direction to what may be happening?
(I would have preferred to simply comment on the question, but I don't have enough rep yet)
Have you checked the Error log tab at the bottom when this occurs? If so, what does it say and is there a stacktrace you could share?