Using OCUnit & Xcode, is there a way of running just one test?
Ideally, I'd be able to run just one test method, but if there's a way to just run a single test case, that would be OK too.
What I'm currently doing is running the 'Test' task which runs all of my tests, but this takes up a lot of time, which ideally could be spent doing other things.
See this post from an Xcode engineer:
http://chanson.livejournal.com/119578.html
The last paragraph explains how to specify a single test case class.
For more info see Chris' entire series on unit testing:
http://chanson.livejournal.com/tag/unit%20testing
Related
I am writing new tests in Nunit. I would like the tests to get their TestCaseSource values from an excel sheet (Data-driven tests).
However, I noticed that the [SetUp] method is actually accessed AFTER the [Test] method is entered, therefore I cannot initialize the data I read from my excel sheet in the TestCaseSource.
How do I init my TestCaseSource from an excel file BEFORE each test is running?
Thanks
I have tried using a separate class like MyFactoryClass and then used
[Test, TestCaseSource(typeof(MyFactoryClass), "TestCases")]
However, this is reached Before the [Setup] method and does not recognize the name of the excel file that is named after each tests' name.
It's important, when using NUnit, to understand the stages that a test goes through as it is loaded and then run. Because I don't know what you are doing at each stage, I'll start by outlining those stages. I'll add to this answer after you post some code that shows what your factory class, your [SetUp] method and your actual tests are doing.
In brief, NUnit loads tests before it runs them. It may actually run tests multiple tiems for each load - this depends on the type of runner being used. Examples:
NUnit-console loads tests once and runs them once, then exits.
TestCentric GUI loads tests once and then runs them each time you select tests and click run. It can reload them using a menu option as well.
TestExplorer, using the NUnit 3 Test Adapter, loads tests and then runs them each time you click run.
Ideally, you should write your tests so that they will work under any runner. To do that, you should assume that they will be run multiple times for each load. Don't write code at load time, which you want to see repeated for each run. If you follow this rule, you'll have more robust tests.
So... what does NUnit do at each stage? Here it is...
Loading...
All the code in your [TestCaseSource] executes.
Running...
For each TestFixture (I'll ignore SetUpFixtures for simplicity)
Run any [OneTimeSetUp] method
For each Test or TestCase
Run any [SetUp] method
Run the test itself
Run any [TearDown] method
Run any [OneTimeTearDown] method
As you noticed, the code you write for any step can only depend on steps that have already executed. In particular, the action taken when loading the test can't depend on actions that are part of running it. This makes sense if you consider that "loading" really means creating the test that will be run.
In your [TestCaseSource] you should only call a factory that creates objects if you know in advance what objects to create. Usually, the best approach is to initialize those parameters that will be used to create objects. Those are then used to actually create the objects in the [OneTimeSetUp] or [SetUp] depending on the object lifetime you are aiming for.
That's enough (maybe too much) generalization! If you post some code, I'll add more specific suggestions to this answer.
In my Mac Cocoa unit tests, I would like to output some files as part of the testing process, and delete them when the test is done, but only when there are no failures. How can this be done (and/or what's the cleanest way to do so)?
Your question made me curious so I looked into it!
I guess I would override the failWithException: method in the class SenTestCase (the class your tests run in inherits from this), and set a "keep output files" flag or something before calling the super's method.
Here's what SenTestCase.h says about that method:
/*"Failing a test, used by all macros"*/
- (void) failWithException:(NSException *) anException;
So, provided you only use the SenTest macros to test and/or fail (and chances are this is true in your case), that should cover any test failure.
I've never dug into the scripts for this, but it seems like you could customize how you call the script that actually runs your tests to do this. In Xcode 4, look at the last step in the Build Phases tab of your test target. Mine contains this:
# Run the unit tests in this test bundle.
"${SYSTEM_DEVELOPER_DIR}/Tools/RunUnitTests"
I haven't pored through the contents of this script or the many subscripts it pulls in on my machine, but presumably they call otest or some other test rig executable and the test results would be returned to that script. After a little time familiarizing yourself with those scripts you would likely be able to find a straightforward way to conditionally remove the output files based on the test results.
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.
We use TestNG and Selenium WebDriver to test our web application.
Now our problem is that we often have several tests that need to run in a certain order, e.g.:
login to application
enter some data
edit the data
check that it's displayed correctly
Now obviously these tests need to run in that precise order.
At the same time, we have many other tests which are totally independent from the list of tests above.
So we'd like to be able to somehow put tests into "groups" (not necessarily groups in the TestNG sense), and then run them such that:
tests inside one "group" always run together and in the same order
but different test "groups" as a whole can run in any order
The second point is important, because we want to avoid dependencies between tests in different groups (so different test "groups" can be used and developed independently).
Is there a way to achieve this using TestNG?
Solutions we tried
At first we just put tests that belong together into one class, and used dependsOnMethods to make them run in the right order. This used to work in TestNG V5, but in V6 TestNG will sometimes interleave tests from different classes (while respecting the ordering imposed by dependsOnMethods). There does not seem to be a way to tell TestNG "Always run tests from one class together".
We considered writing a method interceptor. However, this has the disadvantage that running tests from inside an IDE becomes more difficult (because directly invoking a test on a class would not use the interceptor). Also, tests using dependsOnMethods cannot be ordered by the interceptor, so we'd have to stop using that. We'd probably have to create our own annotation to specify ordering, and we'd like to use standard TestNG features as far as possible.
The TestNG docs propose using preserve-order to order tests. That looks promising, but only works if you list every test method separately, which seems redundant and hard to maintain.
Is there a better way to achieve this?
I am also open for any other suggestions on how to handle tests that build on each other, without having to impose a total order on all tests.
PS
alanning's answer points out that we could simply keep all tests independent by doing the necessary setup inside each test. That is in principle a good idea (and some tests do this), however sometimes we need to test a complete workflow, with each step depending on all previous steps (as in my example). To do that with "independent" tests would mean running the same multi-step setup over and over, and that would make our already slow tests even slower. Instead of three tests doing:
Test 1: login to application
Test 2: enter some data
Test 3: edit the data
we would get
Test 1: login to application
Test 2: login to application, enter some data
Test 3: login to application, enter some data, edit the data
etc.
In addition to needlessly increasing testing time, this also feels unnatural - it should be possible to model a workflow as a series of tests.
If there's no other way, this is probably how we'll do it, but we are looking for a better solution, without repeating the same setup calls.
You are mixing "functionality" and "test". Separating them will solve your problem.
For example, create a helper class/method that executes the steps to log in, then call that class/method in your Login test and all other tests that require the user to be logged in.
Your other tests do not actually need to rely on your Login "Test", just the login class/method.
If later back-end modifications introduce a bug in the login process, all of the tests which rely on the Login helper class/method will still fail as expected.
Update:
Turns out this already has a name, the Page Object pattern. Here is a page with Java examples of using this pattern:
http://code.google.com/p/selenium/wiki/PageObjects
Try with depends on group along with depends on method. Add all methods in same class in one group.
For example
#Test(groups={"cls1","other"})
public void cls1test1(){
}
#Test(groups={"cls1","other"}, dependsOnMethods="cls1test1", alwaysrun=true)
public void cls1test2(){
}
In class 2
#Test(groups={"cls2","other"}, dependsOnGroups="cls1", alwaysrun=true)
public void cls2test1(){
}
#Test(groups={"cls2","other"}, dependsOnMethods="cls2test1", dependsOnGroups="cls1", alwaysrun=true)
public void cls2test2(){
}
There is an easy (whilst hacky) workaround for this if you are comfortable with your first approach:
At first we just put tests that belong together into one class, and used dependsOnMethods to make them run in the right order. This used to work in TestNG V5, but in V6 TestNG will sometimes interleave tests from different classes (while respecting the ordering imposed by dependsOnMethods). There does not seem to be a way to tell TestNG "Always run tests from one class together".
We had a similar problem: we need our tests to be run class-wise because we couldn't guarantee the test classes not interfering with each other.
This is what we did:
Put a
#Test( dependsOnGroups= { "dummyGroupToMakeTestNGTreatThisAsDependentClass" } )
Annotation on an Abstract Test Class or Interface that all your Tests inherit from.
This will put all your methods in the "first group" (group as described in this paragraph, not TestNG-groups). Inside the groups the ordering is class-wise.
Thanks to Cedric Beust, he provided a very quick answer for this.
Edit:
The group dummyGroupToMakeTestNGTreatThisAsDependentClass actually has to exist, but you can just add a dummy test case for that purpose..
I just started working on an existing grails project where there is a lot of code written and not much is covered by tests. The project is using Hudson with the Cobertura plugin which is nice. As I'm going through things, I'm noticing that even though there are not specific test classes written for code, it is being covered. Is there any easy way to see what tests are covering the code? It would save me a bit of time if I was able to know that information.
Thanks
What you want to do is collect test coverage data per test. Then when some block of code isn't exercised by a test, you can trace it back to the test.
You need a test coverage tool which will do that; AFAIK, this is straightforward to organize. Just run one test and collect test coverage data.
However, most folks also want to know, what is the coverage of the application given all the tests? You could run the tests twice, once to get what-does-this-test-cover information, and then the whole batch to get what-does-the-batch-cover. Some tools ( ours included) will let you combine the coverage from the individual tests, to produce covverage for the set, so you don't have to run them twice.
Our tools have one nice extra: if you collect test-specific coverage, when you modify the code, the tool can tell which individual tests need to be re-run. You need a bit of straightforward scripting for this, to compare the results of the instrumentation data for the changed sources to the results for each test.