I am using assert statement to make test case fail, but I need to continue other assert statements even after first assert failure. To do that, I came to know Collector class is to be used. I now need to convert assert statement into checkThat() method.
The below assert statement is to be converted into collector.checkThat() method.
Can anyone please help me?
assertTrue("Login failure",
(SeleniumClass.waitUntilElementVisible(webDriver, By.xpath(".//*
[#id='xyz']"))));
You can use the Hamcrest CoreMatchers.
import static org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers.is;
collector.checkThat(
"Login failure",
SeleniumClass.waitUntilElementVisible(
webDriver, By.xpath(".//*[#id='xyz']")
),
is(true)
)
Related
I am trying to implement a logger in my repo and I am having some issues with implementing logger with Junit.
Sample assertion:
logger.info("Asserting the response.");
assertThat(response.statusCode())
.withFailMessage("The test failed with status code:" + response.statusCode())
.isEqualTo(200);
I want to use logger.error() function in place of withFailMessage but I can't seem to find any method.
Standard assertions (i.e., assertThat()) are meant to fail immediately with an AssertionError.
If you would like to have custom logic in case of failures, Soft Assertions together with the callback feature might be what you are looking for.
Your example would become something like:
SoftAssertions softly = new SoftAssertions();
softly.setAfterAssertionErrorCollected(error -> logger.error("Assertion failed: {}", error));
softly.assertThat(response.statusCode())
.isEqualTo(200);
Due to the way pytest works, it is not possible (or recommended) to import other modules in a pytest module. Instead, one should properly edit it's conftest.py file.
Several times, I am put in a situation where I need to share constants/functions to several tests modules. And fixture fails to be as practical as functions. Even if they can be indirectly parametrized with the indirect parameter, they are still situations where it's not possible, or simple, to use this approach.
For constants, I am in the following situation, here is an extract of my conftest.py:
TARGET_NAME_1 = 'MY_OP4510'
TARGET_NAME_2 = 'MY_ML605'
TARGET_NAME_3 = 'TARGET_WITH_CHILD'
CONFIG_FILE_NAME = 'config.ini'
#pytest.fixture()
def target_name_1():
"""This fixture returns a target name"""
return TARGET_NAME_1
#pytest.fixture()
def target_name_2():
"""This fixture returns a target name"""
return TARGET_NAME_2
#pytest.fixture()
def target_name_3():
"""This fixture returns a target name"""
return TARGET_NAME_3
#pytest.fixture()
def target_config_path():
"""This fixture returns the config path"""
return CONFIG_FILE_NAME
Every time I have to add a constant, I have to add a fixture. Also, this increase the number of parameters the tests functions will receive (if in this case, I could use the autouse parameter, for some other fixtures that actually execute code, I do not necessary want to auto-use them as they could prevent other test cases from working).
I am looking for a way to simplify this code, would you have a good pattern/implementation to suggest ?
I want non-static method of an object returned by a static factory method to return a specific result.
After I have done this setup my test code will be calling the ConnectionFactory.getConn("ABC") indirectly through another piece of code which is being tested.
PowerMockito.when(ConnectionFactory.getConn("ABC").getCurrentStatus()).thenReturn(ConnectionStatus.CONNECTED);
I get a NPE for the above statement.
I already have #PrepareForTest({FXAllConnectionFactory.class, ConnectionStatus.class}) at the beginning of my junit test class.
What would be the correct way of doing it?
Thanks in advance :)
I guess there is no point in creating a fluent/chained call for your test setup.
You see:
PowerMockito.when(ConnectionFactory.getConn("ABC").getCurrentStatus()).thenReturn(ConnectionStatus.CONNECTED);
is probably meant to configure two calls:
ConnectionFactory.getConn("ABC") and then
getCurrentStatus() on the result of that first call
And what makes you think that PowerMockito magically knows what should be returned by that first call to getConn()?
In other words:
First provide a mocked Connection object X; and configure your mocks so that getConn() returns that object
In addition to that, you have to configure X to return the desired value upon a call to getCurrentStatus() ... on X!
So, the answer is actually: what you want to do isn't possible. The idea is; you specify behavior such as:
when A.foo() is called; then return some X
There is no magic power within PowerMockito to turn
when A.foo().bar() is called thren return Y
into
when A.foo() is called, return X; when X.bar() is called return Y
You have to specify that step by step.
I am using Python 3.2.2, and building a Tkinter interface to do some Active Directory updating. I am having trouble trying to handle pythoncom.com_error exceptions.
I grabbed some code from here:
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/303345-create-an-account-in-ms-active-directory/
However, I use the following (straight from the above site) handle the exceptions raised:
except pythoncom.com_error,(hr,msg,exc,arg):
This code is consistent with many of the sites I have seen that handle these exceptions, however with Python 3.2.2, I get a syntax error if I include the comma after "pythoncom.com_error". If I remove the comma, the program starts, but then when the exception is raised, I get other exceptions because "hr", "msg" etc are not defined as global variables.
If I remove the comma and all of the bits in the brackets, then it all works well, except I can't see exactly what happens in the exception, which I want so I can pass through the actual error message from AD.
Does anyone know how to handle these pythoncom exceptions properly in Python 3.2.2?
Thanks in advance!
You simply need to use the modern except-as syntax, I think:
import pythoncom
import win32com
import win32com.client
location = 'fred'
try:
ad_obj=win32com.client.GetObject(location)
except pythoncom.com_error as error:
print (error)
print (vars(error))
print (error.args)
hr,msg,exc,arg = error.args
which produces
(-2147221020, 'Invalid syntax', None, None)
{'excepinfo': None, 'hresult': -2147221020, 'strerror': 'Invalid syntax', 'argerror': None}
(-2147221020, 'Invalid syntax', None, None)
for me [although I'm never sure whether the args order is really what it looks like, so I'd probably refer to the keys explicitly; someone else may know for sure.]
I use this structure (Python 3.5) --
try:
...
except Exception as e:
print ("error in level argument", e)
...
else:
...
I'm trying to setup a test in JUnit w/ EasyMock and I'm running into a small issue that I can't seem to wrap my head around. I was hoping someone here could help.
Here is a simplified version of the method I'm trying to test:
public void myMethod() {
//(...)
Obj myObj = this.service.getObj(param);
if (myObj.getExtId() != null) {
OtherObj otherObj = new OtherObj();
otherObj.setId(myObj.getExtId());
this.dao.insert(otherObj);
}
//(...)
}
Ok so using EasyMock I've mocked the service.getObj(myObj) call and that works fine.
My problem comes when JUnit hits the dao.insert(otherObj) call. EasyMock throws a *Unexpected Method Call* on it.
I wouldn't mind mocking that dao in my test and using expectLastCall().once(); on it, but that assumes that I have a handle on the "otherObj" that's passed as a parameter at insert time...
Which of course I don't since it's conditionally created within the context of the method being tested.
Anyone has ever had to deal with that and somehow solved it?
Thanks.
You could also use EasyMock.isA(OtherObj.class) for a little more type safety.
If you can't get a reference to the object itself in your test code, you could use EasyMock.anyObject() as the expected argument to yourinsert method. As the name suggests, it will expect the method to be called with.. well, any object :)
It's maybe a little less rigorous than matching the exact argument, but if you're happy with it, give it a spin. Remember to include the cast to OtherObjwhen declaring the expected method call.
The anyObject() matcher works great if you just want to get past this call, but if you actually want to validate the constructed object is what you thought it was going to be, you can use a Capture. It would look something like:
Capture<OtherObj> capturedOtherObj = new Capture<OtherObj>();
mockDao.insert(capture(capturedOtherObj));
replay(mockDao);
objUnderTest.myMethod();
assertThat("captured what you expected", capturedOtherObj.getValue().getId(),
equalTo(expectedId));
Also, PowerMock has the ability to expect an object to be constructed, so you could look into that if you wanted.
Note also that if you use EasyMock.createStrictMock();, the order of the method calls is also important and if you break this rule, it would throw an unexpected method call.