Can someone tell me please: how to take a screenshot when test method fails (jUnit 5). I have a base test class with BeforeEach and AfterEach methods. Any other classes with #Test methods extends base class.
Well, it is possible to write java code that takes screenshots, see here for example.
But I am very much wondering about the real problem you are trying to solve this way. I am not sure if you figured that yet, but the main intention of JUnit is to provide you a framework that runs your tests in various environments.
Of course it is nice that you can run JUnit within your IDE, and maybe you would find it helpful to get a screenshot. But: "normally" unit tests also run during nightly builds and such - in environments where "taking a screenshot" might not make any sense!
Beyond that: screenshorts are an extremely ineffective way of collecting information! When you have a fail, you should be locking for textual log files, html/xml reports, whatever. You want that failing tests generate information that can be easily digested.
So, the real answer here is: step back from what you are doing right now, and re-consider non-screenshot solutions to the problem you actually want to solve!
You don't need to take screen shots for JUnit test failes/passes, rather the recommended way is to generate various reports (Tests Passed/Failed Report, Code coverage Report, Code complexity Report etc..) automatically using the below tools/plugins.
You can use Cobertura maven plugin or Sonarqube code quality tool so that these will automatically generate the reports for you.
You can look here for Cobertura-maven-plugin and here for Sonarqube for more details.
You need to integrate these tools with your CI (Continuous Integration) environments and ensure that if the code is NOT passing certain quality (in terms of tests coverage, code complexity, etc..) then the project build (war/ear) should fail automatically.
Related
I am running UI testing with Jest and I am using a custom reporter to generate a JUNIT.xml file at the end of the run https://github.com/jest-community/jest-junit , so that my azure pipeline can read it and generate nice analytics. My test framework is organize around Test suite that represent a big functionality, then each aspect of that functionality is check within a test contain in the suite ( That check might require multiple steps ) and I would like show each of those steps. This way i think it would be more readable for anyone looking at the report and it would be very easy to get context on why a test failed.
I try to put assertion at each steps. But JUNIT only record the assertion that failed.
I also try to change the way my test are organize and make a step a test itself. But, in Jest, and it seem in a lot of other runner as well ( at least in Node ) it seem that it's not possible to guarantee easily that test are run in a specific sequence. Also, it's really verbose to code suite like this.
Does anybody have an idea on how I could achieve this granularity ?
Thank you.
Can we use JUnit to test java batch jobs? Since Junit runs locally and java batch jobs run on the server, i am not sure how to start a job (i tried using using the JobOperator class) from JUnit test cases.
If JUnit is not the right tool, how can we unit test java batch code.
I am using using IBM's implementation of JSR 352 running on WAS Liberty
JUnit is first of all an automation and test monitor framework. Meaning: you can use it to drive all kinds of #Test methods.
From an conceptual point, the definition of unit tests is pretty vague; if you follow wikipedia, "everything you do to test something" can be seen as unit test. Following that perspective, of course, you can "unit test" batch code that runs on a batch framework.
But: most people think that "true", "helpful" unit tests do not require the presence of any external thing. Such tests can be run "locally" at build time. No need for servers, file systems, networking, ...
Keeping that in mind, I think there are two things you can work with:
You can use JUnit to drive "integration" or "functional tests". Meaning: you can define test suites that do the "full thing" - define batches, have them processed to check for expected results in the end. As said, that would be integration tests that make sure the end-to-end flow works as expected.
You look into"normal" JUnit unit-testing. Meaning: you focus on those aspects in your code that are "un-related" to the batch framework (in other words: look out for POJOs) and unit-test those. Locally; maybe with mocking frameworks; without relying on a real batch service running your code.
Building on the answer from #GhostCat, it seems you're asking how to drive the full job (his bullet 1.) in your tests. (Of course unit testing the reader/processor/writer components individually can also be useful.)
Your basic options are:
Use Arquillian (see here for a link on getting started with Arquillian and Liberty) to run your tests in the server but to let Arquillian handle the tasks of deploying the app to the server and collecting the results.
Write your own servlet harness driving your job through the JobOperator interface. See the answer by #aguibert to this question for a starting point. Note you'll probably want to write your own simple routine polling the JobExecution for one of the "finished" states (COMPLETED, FAILED, or STOPPED) unless your jobs have some other means of making the submitter aware.
Another technique to keep in mind is the startup bean. You can run your jobs simply by starting the server with a startup bean like:
#Startup
#Singleton
public class StartupBean {
JobOperator jobOp = BatchRuntime.getJobOperator();
// Drive job(s) on startup.
jobOp.start(...);
This can be useful if you have a way to check the job results separate from using the JobOperator interface (for which you need to be in the server). Your tests can simply poll and check for the job results. You don't even have to open an HTTP port, and the server startup overhead is only a few seconds.
I'd like to define two different suites in the same JUnit TestCase Class; one for behaviour tests and another for efficiency tests. Is it possible?
If yes, how? If not, why not?
Additional details: I'm using JUnit 3.8.1.
If I understand you correctly, you're trying to partition your tests. Suites, on their own, are not really the mechanism you need, rather it's JUnit's categories you need to investigate:
http://java.dzone.com/articles/closer-look-junit-categories
I've not used these as I've usually found the overhead of test partitioning too much effort, but this may work for you. I think TestNG has supported this concept for quite a while.
Also, if you're using Maven you get a partitioning of tests into unit and integration tests for free - check out the Failsafe plugin - which is good for separating tests you want to run quickly as part of every build from longer running tests.
We have a group of developers moving from C++ to C# and WinRT. We used D'Oxygen as part of our C++ developer builds, and I'd like to continue to have document generation as part of the developer build in C#/WinRT.
It's easy to turn on XML Doc generation, and I believe that will provide warnings for malformed tags, but without actual HTML output, I think our developers will be missing valuable feedback.
Looks like NDoc is now defunct, and I took a quick look at Sandcastle, but found it rather complex. Ideally, I'm looking for something that doesn't unduly burden developers, or require them to remember extra steps as they edit, build, test, and commit. In other words, the best solution would be something that "just happens", like a post-build step, and doesn't add significantly to each developer's build time.
If anyone has had some experience doing this in C#/WinRT, I'd sure like some advice.
Thanks in advance!
Get Sandcastle Help File Builder.
Create a help project for your library in the Visual Studio solution.
Remove Build check mark from Debug solution configuration to build the documentation project only in Release configurations, since Debug is most often used during development. For release build testing or performance testing you can either create another solution configuration or simply switch the option back and forth.
Build the documentation once
Include the documentation file in the solution so it shows up in the Pending Changes window when the file changes.
Kindly ask your developers to build with the release configuration that updates the documentation before check-in or use any other policy to require updating the documentation.
I don't think it makes sense to build the documentation all the time, but it helps to make it easy to do so that when you actually need an updated version - you can build it really quickly.
You can also make sure to use FXCop or StyleCop (forgot which) and configure it to treat missing XML documentation warnings as errors - at least in release builds. Doing it for debug configurations might slow down development and make changes difficult since developers often want to try things out before committing to a final implementation worth documenting.
EDIT*
Sandcastle provides various output formats as shown in the project properties:
I would like to mention ForgeDoc (of which I'm the developer), it could be what you are looking for. It is designed to be fast and simple, and it generates proper MSDN-like HTML output. It also has a command-line interface so you can just call it from a post-build event command in Visual Studio.
I think you should give it a try, as I would really like to hear about your thoughts.
There is so much written about unit testing but I have hardly found any books/blogs about integration testing? Could you please suggest me something to read on this topic?
What tests to write when doing integration testing?
what makes a good integration test?
etc etc
Thanks
Anything written by Kent Beck, father of both JUnit and SUnit, is a great place to start (for unit tests / test writing in general). I'm assuming that you don't mean "continuous integration," which is a process-based build approach (very cool, when you get it working).
In my own experience, integration tests look very similar to regular unit tests, simply at a higher level. More mock objects. More state initialization.
I believe that integration tests are like onions. They have layers.
Some people prefer to "integrate" all of their components and test the "whole" product as an the "integration" test. You can certainly do this, but I prefer a more incremental approach. If you start low-level and then keep testing at higher composition layers, then you will achieve integration testing.
Maybe it is generally harder to find information on integration testing because it is much more specific to the actual application and its business use. Nevertheless, here's my take on it.
What applies to unit-tests also applies to integration tests: modules should have an easy way to mock their externals inputs (files, DB, time...), so that they can be tested together with the other unit-tests.
But what I've found extremely useful, at least for data-oriented applications, is to be able to create a "console" version of the application that takes input files that fully determine its state (no dependencies on databases, network resources...), and outputs the result as another file. One can then maintain pairs of inputs / expected results files, and test for regressions as part of nightly builds, for example. Having this console version allows for easier scripting, and makes debugging incredibly easier as one can rely on a very stable environment, where it is easy to reproduce bugs and to run the debugger.
J.B. Rainsberger has written about them. Here's a link to an InfoQ article with more info.
http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/jbrains-integration-test-scam