what are difference between a bug and script issue?
and when ever a testcase is failed, how to solve that testcase, i mean what are basic
points to check how the testcase is failed.
The term "test case" is to generic - what do you mean by it in your context?
However generally in the test case you should identify the condition(s) that will make this test "passed". So if condition(s) is not satisfied the test is failed.
Generally the issue is some problem with something (for example, problem with the script). It may be the system configuration issue that prevents the script from successful execution or it may be an error in the script code, and this will be a bug in the script.
Related
I'm using robotframework and Selenium via Selenium2Library
I would like to test if value extracted from DOM element changed and is different than one checked in previous test run.
I'm thinking about using Robotframework-MongoDB-Library or other database. Next step would be adding custom mini-library for saving and retrieving extracted value for test cases.
In first test run all this kind of test will be marked as failed but next runs theoretically should work correctly.
I'm not experienced in testing field, is this right approach? If not then how can I execute this kind of tests?
This is a bad practice, as on the 2nd run (which will pass) you don't really know if that DOM is actually correct as it might be a persistent issue.
The idea is that tests are reproducible, so when something fails, you can reproduce the reason why they failed.
Also, this approach might cause an interesting behaviour change in your team: When the tests fail, re-run them until they pass, and don't bother looking at why they failed (I would bet good money on this :)).
Something you might want to do is to refine your test, so you only check the bits that are important, rather than the whole DOM (or a big chunk of it)
I am struggling a bit with the way how to write tests that reproduce an issue that has not been yet fixed.
Should one write the test and use wrong expectations and once the bug is fixed the developer will see the failure and adjust the expectations or should one just write the test with correct expectations and disable it. Once it is fixed you have to enable it again.
I would prefer the way to define wrong expectations and add the correct ones in comments and once I fix an issue I will immediately get a notification that it fails. If I disable it I won't see it failing and it will probably stay disabled until one will discover this test.
Are there any other ways doing this?
Thanks for your comments.
Martin
Ideally you would write a test that reproduces the bug and then fix said bug.
If for whatever reason that is not currently an option I would say that your approach of having the wrong expectations would be better than having an ignored test. Assuming that you use some clear variable name/ method name / comments that the test is more a placeholder and not the desired outcome.
One thing that I've done is write a test that is a "time bomb" reminder. I pick a date that is a few weeks/months out from now that I expect to be able to get back to it or have it fixed by. If I end up having to push the date out 2 or 3 times I end up deleting the test because it must not be that important.
as #Jarred said, best way is to write a test that express the correct expectations, check if it fails, then fix production code and see the test passes.
if it's not an option then remember that tests are not only to test but also to document. so write a test that document how your program does actually work. if necessary add a comment to the test. and don't write tests that are ignored - it's pointless. in future you can refactor your code many times, you could accidentally fix this test or introduce even more error in this area. writing tests that are intended to be long term ignored is just a waste of time.
don't be afraid that you will forget about that particular bug/test, just create a ticket in your issue tracking system - that's what it's made for.
if you use a testing framework that supports groups, you can add all those tests to be able to instantly exclude those test if needed.
also i really don't like the concept of 'time bomb tests'. your build MUST be reproducible - that's the fundamental assumption of release management, continuous integration, ability to pass your code to another team etc. tests are not meant to track and remind about the issues, it's the job of the issue tracking system. seriously, don't do it
Actually I thought about this again. We are using JUnit and it supports defining expectations on exceptions via #Test(expected=Exception.class).
So what one can do is write the test with the desired expectations and define the test with #Test(expected=AssertionError.class). Once the test will be fixed the test starts failing and the developer has to remove the expectation.
When using Common Test with Erlang on Windows, I run into a lot of bugs with Common Test and Erlang. For one, if there are any spaces in the project's path, Common Test often fails outright. To workaround this, I moved the project to a path with no spaces (but I really wish the devs would fix the libraries so they work better on Windows). Now, I got Common Test to mostly run, except it won't print out the HTML report at the end. This is the error I get after the tests run:
Testing myapp.ebin: EXIT, reason {
{badmatch,{error,enoent}},
[{test_server_ctrl,start_minor_log_file1,4,
[{file,"test_server_ctrl.erl"},{line,1959}]},
{test_server_ctrl,run_test_case1,11,
[{file,"test_server_ctrl.erl"},{line,3761}]},
{test_server_ctrl,run_test_cases_loop,5,
[{file,"test_server_ctrl.erl"},{line,3032}]},
{test_server_ctrl,run_test_cases,3,
[{file,"test_server_ctrl.erl"},{line,2294}]},
{test_server_ctrl,ts_tc,3,
[{file,"test_server_ctrl.erl"},{line,1434}]},
{test_server_ctrl,init_tester,9,
[{file,"test_server_ctrl.erl"},
{line,1401}]}]}
This happened in sometimes in Erlang R15 and older if the test function names were either too long or had too many underscores in the name (which I suspect is also a bug) or when too many tests failed (which means Common Test is useless to me for TDD). But now it happens on every ct:run from Common Test in R15B01. Does anyone know how I can workaround this? Has anyone had any success with TDD and Common Test on Windows?
Given the last comment you might want to disable the buildin_hooks. You can do this by passing the following to ct:run/1 or ct_run
{enable_builtin_hooks,false}
That should disable the cth_log_redirect hook and maybe solve your problem during overload.
We are writing integration tests for our Grails 2.0.0 application with the help of the Fixtures and Buid-Test-Data plugins.
During testing, it was discovered that the integration test fail at certain times, and pass at other times. Running 'test-app' sometimes results in all tests passing, and sometimes results in some of our tests failing.
When the tests fail, they are caused by a unique constraint being violated during the insert of an instance of a domain class. This would indicate that there are still records in the test DB. I am running the H2 db, and have definitely got 'dbCreate = "create-drop"' in my DataSource.groovy.
Grails 2.0 integration test pollution? seems to indicate there is a significant test-pollution problem in Grails. Are there any solutions to this? Have I hit Grails-8530?
[Edit] the test-pollution seems to be caused by the unit tests. We have sort-of proved this by deleting the unit tests and successfully running 'test-app' repeatedly.
When I run into errors like this I like to try and find the unit test(s) that is causing the problem. This might be kinda tricky since yours seem to only be failing on occasion.
1) I'd look at unit tests that were recently added. If this problem just started happening then that's a good place to look.
2) Metaclassing seems to be good at causing these type of errors so I'd look for metaclassing that isn't setup/torn down properly. Not as much of an issue with 2.0 as with <= 1.3.7 but could be the problem.
3) I wrote a plugin that executes your tests in a random order. Which might not help you solve your current problem. But what might help you is it prints out all of your tests so you can take what it gives you and run grails test-app <pasted list of unit tests> IntegrationTestThatIsFailing then start removing unit tests to find the culprit(s). ( http://grails.org/plugin/random-test-order). I found a bug in this with 2.0 that I haven't had time to fix yet (integration tests fail when asserting on rendered view name) but it should still print out your test names for you (which is better than doing it yourself :)
The fact integration tests fail with a constraint violation due to existing records reminds me of a situation I once encountered with functional tests (selenium) executing in unpredictable order, some of them not cleaning up the database properly. Sure, the situation with functional tests is different, since it is more difficult to restore the database state (The testcase cannot rollback a transaction in another jvm).
Although integration tests usually roll back transactions, it is still possible to break this behavior if your code controls transactions (commits) explicitly.
First, I would try forcing execution order as mentioned by Jarred in 3). Assuming you can then reproduce the behavior, I would then check transactional behaviour next. Setting the logging level of org.hibernate.transaction to debug should show you where transaction boundaries are.
Sorry, don't yet have a good explanation why wiping out the unit tests helps getting rid of the symptoms besides a general "possibly metaclassing issues". :)
We currently have a situation where several tests are failing. Someone is working on this, but it is not me. I have been tasked with other work. So I plan on running the tests in NUnit before I begin my work so I have a base line of failing tests and what the failure message is. I would like to use this result to verify that those tests fail with the exact same failure result while testing my own code. are there any resources that would allow me to do this?
update
I'm aware of the ExpectedException attribute. However that will not work for the tests that are failing the test condition. Also there are thousands of tests of which only about 100 tests are failing. I was hoping for something that would compare the two test runs and show me the differences.
I'd throw an
[Ignore("SomeCustomStringICanFindLater")]
attribute on the failing tests until they are fixed.
See IgnoreAttribute.
And try to convince your manager that a broken build should be everyone's top priority.
After doing some research while waiting on an answer. I found that the console runner produces xml output. I can use a diff tool to compare the two test runs and see which tests failed differently than the baseline test run.