What are the persistence options for fitnesse files? So far it seems like a file system is the only thing supported. There does appear to be an out of date database plugin. Is there anything else that is supported (S3, database, etc.)? Is there a way to control where files are persisted if using the filesystem?
I believe there is very little in that area. The location of the files can be controlled using a command line option. See http://fitnesse.org/FitNesse.FullReferenceGuide.UserGuide.QuickReferenceGuide#FitNesseCommandLINE
-d /path/to/fitnesse/root
How I've used the FitNesse wiki is as a local development tool, with the pages on the file system. Once I'm satisfied with the tests I commit them to version control (e.g. git) so that they become part of the (integration) test pipeline setup (e.g. they are run as part of the CI/CD pipeline of the project).
There is a plugin I believe that will automatically commit any save actions to Git, but I've never used that. Saving each edit action just pollutes version control in my opinion. I only want to see tests after they have been checked/completed, and that tends not to be each save.
Working on a shared wiki environment (where I would expect a non-file system approach would fit in) you run into the same problem, I expect. Developing automated tests is a development task that requires some iterations before it is 'done', and not all attempts reach that 'done' state. So using shared storage for wiki persistence creates 'noise' in the test-set: which are the tests that form the current reference set that should pass and what is work in-progress.
If you are working on a larger project where new features are developed together with their automated tests it becomes even more important to know which test changes belong to which features/changes. Having tests on the file system, in version control, allows you to develop test in sync with code changes in the same branch. This is what I would recommend.
Jenkins declarative pipeline is too powerful for us, often users can abuse it. We are thinking to use an opinionated YAML to describe CI/CD pipeline. And it seems there are two choices.
Write a plugin and consume YAML and dynamically create stage / steps.
Write a plugin to convert a YAML to Jenkins pipeline.
I am not expert on Jenkins, so I hope some expert can give some guidance and maybe an example.
using official plugin pipeline-as-yaml, but it has a fixed grammar.
using or customization wolox-ci
create your own shared libaray. However, they are easy from beginning but full grammer design is required when used widely. Here is a psudo code based on curry.
// create a file named yamlCompiler.groovy in shared library,
def call(str){
def rawMap = readYaml(text: str)
// consume yaml and get a lambda function
return {
stage{
steps.each{it ->
it."$type"(it)
}
}
}
}
Use yamlCompiler in your jenkinsfile code block.
#Library('your libs name')
def str =
'''
steps:
- type: sh
script: ls -la
- type: echo
message: xxx
'''
Closure closure = yamlCompiler(str)
closure.call()
I'm looking for a similar solution. We run hardened predefined pipelines for every project, but still want to allow dev teams to customise certain steps within the process —without allowing them the full power of a Jenkinsfile.
I'm also exploring the possibility of an —in your words— "opinionated YAML".
I've so far only found one example of such an implementation: Wolox-CI supports their own pre-defined build steps via YAML. You'll be able to see the steps they support here.
I'm thinking of parsing the YAML using Snake YAML. Here's an SO answer with an example on how to do it.
Two solutions:
create a shared library to abstract the actual pipeline and provide to your users some guidance on how to setup a shared library and a Jenkinsfile sample. Here is an example of embeded pipeline https://github.com/SAP/jenkins-library/blob/master/vars/piperPipeline.groovy
use another tool like https://drone.io/
If you're not an expert and don't want/have the time to become one, the second solution might be the best one.
Really? Is the only difference here when the plugin is executed?:
Write a plugin and consume YAML and dynamically create stage / steps.
Write a plugin to convert a YAML to Jenkins pipeline.
Forgive me, because I may be a little hardened, but abstracting a layer for the dynamic creation of a declarative, or scripted, Jenkinsfile written in the simple groovy lang syntax so that it can be pretty-printed in yml prevents users from updating your yml exactly how? It seems to me your abstraction only adds to the complexity with which you wish to implement usability.
One, all the current yml plugins for Jenkins do exactly that. Two, they don't actually have the full breadth of "features" (yes, I'm using that term loosely here) accessible by implementing the groovy/(java) classes already available in the Jenkins domain (referencing the DSL). Two solutions exist right now for this, and I've investigated both, and implemented both, extensively. One is wolox-ci, which is the better of the two, and the other is Pipeline-as-YAML. In my opinion, it's easy to use, but both lack the full breadth of implementation features simply using groovy provides. So why force it? Simply so your users can have a pretty-printed yml file, and not have to be concerned with simple syntax, which you claim hardens your infrastructure-as-code backend so that the same users can't screw it up? Sorry, I'm calling bull pucky on that assertion. What's to stop anyone from totally screwing up your builds by pushing a change to the yml file which breaks the integration with groovy, or worse, completely changes an algorithm you worked hard to customize?
Sorry, I just don't get it. Sure, making something more human readable is always a good thing. Doing it because of the reasons you've stipulated makes no sense, though. Also, unless you have a super simple defined algorithm in your CI/CD process, without any non-continuous-passing-style transform methods being implemented, then using the current iterations of the yml-as-Jenkinsfile-templates plugins is probably not the way you want to go.
Now, you could write your own plugin to do this, but what's the technical debt on that, versus just learning the groovy syntax? Also, it still doesn't prevent users from making code changes to your build infrastructure, then integrating those changes in a simple yml file.
I'm working on a service class that needs to process some sort of data payload. In my automated tests, I'm adding some mock data to check the behavior of the service for different inputs. I need to extract these mock data to several files so I can reuse them for other tests. Where do I put such file in a Grails (2.4) app? By convention, most Java projects have src/test/resources for the purpose, but Grails doesn't seem to consider that.
If you are writing unit tests you can put them under test/unit/resources and if you are writing integration tests you put them under test/integration/resources.
I have a scenario that requires me to revert to a clean snapshot before or after each Coded UI test method is executed. I have researched using the TFS Lab Management API (see http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/shair/2011/12/22/tfs-api-part-42-getting-started-with-lab-management-api/) to revert to a specific snapshot as part of the TestInitialize and/or TestCleanup method, but I can only get this to work when executed locally. When executed on a remote machine I get errors authenticating to the TFS service.
My other option is to somehow do a 'foreach test in testrun' into the build process template (LabDefaultTemplate.11.xaml). I have identified the area that I think this would fit best, but cannot find any documentation on running a loop on each test.
Is this something that is possible, or is there somehow a built in method to accomplish this that I have overlooked?
To do what you propose you should switch to Release Management and create a separate test run for each of your groupings, in your case each test. You can use RM to orchestrate looping through each of your runs and executing then.
http://nakedalm.com/execute-tests-release-management-visual-studio-2013/
However running a UI test should not break your application and I would suggest that either your tests are way too long, or there is some flaw in the design of your application.
My Jenkins job runs many tests that create log files. In case of failure, I want to look at the log of the failed test. I'd rather use Jenkins web-server to do it, even have a link in the email it sends me.
Is there any plugin that can do it? Or maybe another way?
You provide few details in your question, so it is impossible to give specific advice. In a general level: this is already possible. When your test framework creates JUnit XML files with test results, the test output can be included between the <failure> and </failure> tags. Usually test frameworks should take care of this automatically, so you are probably not using a test framework and are manually generating the XML files containing test results?
I recommend you adopt some test framework. It is usually well worth the effort.