I have some integration tests (with Selenium) which are run with failsafe maven plugin. Failsafe generates XML reports files only.
1) I want to generate HTML reports
2) I want to have a link in Jenkins to the html reports
For the 1) I installed the "maven-surefire-report-plugin" to use the failsafe-report-only goal.
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-report-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.13</version>
<executions>
<execution>
<phase>post-integration-test</phase>
<goals>
<goal>failsafe-report-only</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>
But in the standard output, nothing seems to be generated :
[INFO]
[INFO] >>> maven-surefire-report-plugin:2.13:failsafe-report-only (default) # BaseContrats >>>
[INFO]
[INFO] <<< maven-surefire-report-plugin:2.13:failsafe-report-only (default) # BaseContrats <<<
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-surefire-report-plugin:2.13:failsafe-report-only (default) # BaseContrats ---
In my failsafe-reports directory, I have only XML report files but not the HTML ones.
Is it the good plugin to generate html reports for failsafe?
For the 2), I installed the Jenkins plugin "Selenium HTML report" and added the post build action "Publish Selenium HTML report" and configured it with "target/failsafe-reports" value for "Selenium tests results location" parameter, but nothing is displayed in Jenkins interface (surely because my html reports file are not generated...).
Could you help me for these 2 points?
Answer for the part 1) to generate HTML reports for Failsafe.
Add the following to pom.xml
<reporting>
<plugins>
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-report-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.18.1</version>
<configuration>
<skipSurefireReport>${skipSurefireReport}</skipSurefireReport>
<reportsDirectories>
<reportsDirectory>${basedir}/target/failsafe-reports</reportsDirectory>
</reportsDirectories>
</configuration>
</plugin>
</plugins>
</reporting>
<properties>
<skipSurefireReport>true</skipSurefireReport>
</properties>
I am assuming you are using mvn verify to run the integration tests using failsafe-plugin.
By default, this generates the (*.txt & *.xml) reports in {basedir}/target/failsafe-reports. This should be specified in <reportDirectories>. You can point to any directory which has TEST-*.xml reports.
And then run the cmd
mvn site
This would generate html reports for the Failsafe run integration tests. By default, The files would be in {basedir}/target/site/failsafe-report.html.
This location be changed.
Related
I've a pretty standard Java-Maven build with some plain JUnit tests and some for Arquillian. JaCoCo is hooked via Maven like this:
<properties>
<sonar.jacoco.reportPath>${project.basedir}/../target/jacoco.exec</sonar.jacoco.reportPath>
</properties>
<pluginManagement>
<plugins>
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
<configuration>
<argLine>${argLine}</argLine>
</configuration>
</plugin>
</plugins>
</pluginManagement>
<plugins>
<plugin>
<groupId>org.jacoco</groupId>
<artifactId>jacoco-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>0.8.4</version>
<configuration>
<destFile>${sonar.jacoco.reportPath}</destFile>
<append>true</append>
</configuration>
<executions>
<execution>
<id>agent</id>
<goals>
<goal>prepare-agent</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
<execution>
<id>report</id>
<phase>test</phase>
<goals>
<goal>report</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>
</plugins>
Running Sonar now seems to work, however the code coverage is all wrong. I'm not sure if these are separate issues or if there is one problem with the configuration producing all of them, so I'll just list them:
test suites are not run at all (meaning JUnit tests with #RunWith(AllTests.class))
Arquillian tests (with #RunWith(Arquillian.class)) are run, but the code coverage is wrong, i.e. entities have a code coverage of 0%
an entire module is not tested and I'm not sure why (all but one of the tests has #RunWith(Parameterized.class), but this annotation works in another module)
(After Qword's suggestion I tried it without the reportPath. However the reports in target/sites/jacoco/ are still missing the coverage.)
I'm wondering if the problem is with the JUnit runners or maybe because some of these tests are in another module than the classes they test (Arquillian / integration tests especially). On the other hand, some of the JUnit runners seem to work as well. Maybe it's a third component that breaks the build.
I tried arquillian-extension-jacoco as well, this plug-in doesn't seem to work at all (tests won't even start).
Is the problem with the JUnit runners? With the integration tests? How do I fix this?
You don't actually need to specify sonar.jacoco.reportPath. First of all, it's been deprecated in favor of sonar.jacoco.reportPaths. Second, if you specify the latter property, all reports will be created in a single binary file, but this is not default Jacoco behaviour (and SonarQube deprecated that as well).
I would suggest, as a first step, to
Entirely remove properties sonar.jacoco.reportPath and sonar.jacoco.reportPaths
Remove the configuration node from Jacoco plugin definition
Now, you'll won't find anymore the jacoco.exec file but instead for every module you'll find a new directory target/sites/jacoco in which there will be reports in CSV, XLM, and HTML. This is the standard Jacoco behaviour in v0.8.4.
I'm not entirely sure this will fix all your problems, but at least
I'm quite sure SonarQube will be able to correctly pick up the reports and show the coverage
You'll be able to analyse coverage with a simple mvn clean install on your local machine without having to go to SonarQube every time
I'm struggling getting the F8 CD-Pipeline to work on OpenShift. I use a Jenkinsfile downloaded from the F8 Jenkinsfile Library for Maven builds with steps "CanaryReleaseAndStage". The stage deploy step there looks like the following:
stage('Rollout Staging') {
kubernetesApply(environment: envStage)
}
I looked up the implementation of kubernetesApply() from the Kubernetes Pipeline Plugin. If no file parameter is present in the call (like here) it applies the Kubernetes/OpenShift resources defined in file "target/classes/META-INF/fabric8/openshift.yml", which is generated upon build.
In this file (which is also uploaded as artifact to the nexus, so I can easily fetch it) there are three resources defined:
A Service
A Deployment config, containing a Docker image reference (without tag), also containing a ConfigChange trigger listening for an ImageStreamTag 'my-project:latest'
A Route
... but no ImageStream. However on the build log I see that an image stream definition apparently got generated on a different file:
[INFO] F8: Found tag on ImageStream my-project tag: sha256:c15b56841387a7e0aea960020ccf2efb48f21bd4d12d826e2cd04a94f4d9d748
[INFO] F8: ImageStream my-project written to /home/jenkins/workspace/my-project-dir/target/my-project-is.yml
But I'm afraid that one never gets applied to Kubernetes. Hence there is no image stream in the staging project.
In this configuration the staging deployment cannot even deploy the pod. If I add an image stream manually to the staging project it deploys but is never updated when new builds occur.
I've updated to the newest fabric/jenkins image 2.2.331, but it also does not seem to work here.
My pom.xml (parts essential for f8 building):
<project ...>
<modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
<groupId>my.package</groupId>
<artifactId>myproject/artifactId>
<version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
<properties>
<fabric8.mode>openshift</fabric8.mode>
<fabric8.build.strategy>docker</fabric8.build.strategy>
<maven.compiler.source>1.8</maven.compiler.source>
<maven.compiler.target>1.8</maven.compiler.target>
</properties>
<build>
<plugins>
<plugin>
<groupId>io.fabric8</groupId>
<artifactId>fabric8-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>3.2.28</version>
<configuration>
<images>

</images>
</configuration>
<executions>
<execution>
<goals>
<goal>resource</goal>
<goal>build</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>
</plugins>
</build>
</project>
So I'd like to know:
How is the CD pipeline supposed to work regarding updates to the staging deployments here?
Why is this image stream definition created if it is not applied. Am I missing some configuration here maybe.
Thanks for any insight!
Any chance of seeing your pom.xml and full build? It sounds like you are using fabric8-maven-plugin right? Its doing a S2I binary build and generating an image stream? It just sounds like somethings going wrong and the generated image stream isn't being included in your target/classes/META-INF/fabric8/openshift.yml maybe?
I wonder if something is going wrong in the order of your maven goals or something (e.g. typically fabric8:resource is first, then fabric8:build which then adds the ImageStream into the generated YAML files)
I'm using the com.samaxes.maven minify-maven-plugin to minify a collection of JS source files written using some of the ES6 features Google Closure supports. Here's the relevant configuration in my POM:
<!-- minify-maven-plugin: Minification using Google Closure -->
<plugin>
<groupId>com.samaxes.maven</groupId>
<artifactId>minify-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>1.7.6</version>
<executions>
<!-- Creation of the common-[version].js file -->
<execution>
<id>common-minify</id>
<phase>prepare-package</phase>
<configuration>
<charset>UTF-8</charset>
<jsSourceDir>.</jsSourceDir>
<jsSourceFiles>
...
</jsSourceFiles>
<jsFinalFile>./js/common-${project.version}.js</jsFinalFile>
<jsEngine>CLOSURE</jsEngine>
<closureLanguageIn>ECMASCRIPT6</closureLanguageIn>
<closureLanguageOut>ECMASCRIPT5</closureLanguageOut>
</configuration>
<goals>
<goal>minify</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
<!-- 2 other similarly configured executions are here. -->
...
</executions>
</plugin>
The problem is, when I run the maven goal this configuration, I get the following error message:
[INFO] Creating the merged file [common-1.8.24.js].
[INFO] Creating the minified file [common-1.8.24.min.js].
Jan 03, 2017 12:03:06 PM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager println
SEVERE: [1mcommon-1.8.24.js:5577: [31mERROR[39m - object literals cannot contain duplicate keys in ES5 strict mode[0m
supportsDataForwarding: function () {
^
This looks to me like Google Closure is trying to compile using ES5 Strict mode, even though I specified the non-strict ECMASCRIPT5 mode in my <closureLanguageOut> option (see doc here). Why is it not disabling strict mode?
i had the same problem and found a way to let the minify-maven-plugin not fail the build in case it complains about ES5 strict mode:
<plugin>
<groupId>com.samaxes.maven</groupId>
<artifactId>minify-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>1.7.6</version>
<executions>
<execution>
<id>default-minify</id>
<phase>process-resources</phase>
<configuration>
<charset>UTF-8</charset>
<closureWarningLevels>
<es5Strict>OFF</es5Strict>
</closureWarningLevels>
...
</configuration>
<goals>
<goal>minify</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
You may further fine-tune using the following documentation How to tell closure compiler which warnings you want. Hope this helps :)
I have implemented a Maven plugin which is used to create test database (with random name) before Maven test phase, and drops that database when the test phase is completed.
The plugin need to be executed two times, before test phase (when is used to create database) and after test phase (when is used to drop that test database).
Which Maven lifecycle phase will be always executed after test phase, whether test phase is successfully executed or not?
There are no particular phase in the Maven lifecycle that corresponds to pre- and post-test. This is because unit tests are not supposed to require an external environment. It sounds like what you want to do are not unit tests but integration tests instead, because they require an environment to be set up.
From the docs:
test - test the compiled source code using a suitable unit testing framework. These tests should not require the code be packaged or deployed
integration-test - process and deploy the package if necessary into an environment where integration tests can be run
And there is a pre-integration-test, integration-test and post-integration-test that are used to setup, run and destroy the test environment.
pre-integration-test: perform actions required before integration tests are executed. This may involve things such as setting up the required environment.
integration-test: process and deploy the package if necessary into an environment where integration tests can be run.
post-integration-test: perform actions required after integration tests have been executed. This may including cleaning up the environment.
As such, it would be easier and a lot cleaner to do this in integration-test phase using the maven-failsafe-plugin.
Now, if you really want to run that as unit tests, I would not write the creation / deletion of the database as a Maven plugin. It would be a lot better to let your application create the test database when it is configured in a test environment. (For example, if you're using Spring, it has a lot of facilities for that.)
And, if you really want to run that as unit tests in the test phase, and using your plugin, you will have to skip the default execution of the maven-surefire-plugin and then define an execution of your Maven plugin creating the database, a new execution of the maven-surefire-plugin and an execution of your Maven plugin dropping the database, bound to the test phase.
This works because Maven invokes the plugins in the order as they are defined in the POM when they're bound to the same phase.
A configuration would look like:
<plugin>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.19.1</version>
<executions>
<execution>
<id>default-test</id>
<configuration>
<skip>true</skip>
</configuration>
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>
<plugin>
<groupId><!-- group id of your plugin --></groupId>
<artifactId><!-- artifact id of your plugin --></artifactId>
<version><!-- version --></version>
<executions>
<execution>
<id>create-db</id>
<phase>test</phase>
<goals>
<goal><!-- your goal --></goal>
</goals>
<!-- add configuration -->
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>
<plugin>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.19.1</version>
<executions>
<execution>
<id>test</id>
<phase>test</phase>
<goals>
<goal>test</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>
<plugin>
<groupId><!-- group id of your plugin --></groupId>
<artifactId><!-- artifact id of your plugin --></artifactId>
<version><!-- version --></version>
<executions>
<execution>
<id>drop-db</id>
<phase>test</phase>
<goals>
<goal><!-- your goal --></goal>
</goals>
<!-- add configuration -->
</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>
We develop multiple branches of a project concurrently. Each developer has multiple working copies, each working copy uses its own DB schema. (There will typically be a working copy per branch, but sometimes even more than one working copy per branch.) We need to let Maven know the DB credentials (for the db-migration plugin, for unit tests, for the dev instance of the servlet).
We can't put the credentials in the pom.xml because each developer might use different DB schema names. We can't put the credentials in settings.xml because each developer uses more than one schema.
Where do we put the credentials?
For example, http://code.google.com/p/c5-db-migration/ describes that the DB credentials need to be present in pom.xml but I would like to externalize them out to a file that's not under revision control.
You could put them into a properties file inside the project directory but which is excluded from source control.
With Maven it's possible to read properties from an external file by using a <build><filters><filter> element as instructed here.
Read following answers:
How to read an external properties file in Maven
Reading properties file from Maven POM file
Read a file into a Maven property
or just:
<project>
<build>
<plugins>
<plugin>
<groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId>
<artifactId>properties-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
<executions>
<execution>
<phase>initialize</phase>
<goals>
<goal>read-project-properties</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
<configuration>
<files>
<file>dev.properties</file> <======== IT IS!!!!!
</files>
</configuration>
</executions>
</plugin>
</plugins>
</build>
</project>