I am writing a specflow scenario with multiple input and output parameters (about 4-5 each). When using scenario outline, I need to write a wide table giving both input and output columns in the same row. Is there any way where I can specify the examples separately for the step definitions? This is for improved readability.
Current state
Given - State of the data
When I trigger action with parameters <input1> and <input2> and ...
Then my output should contain <output1> and <output2> ...
Examples:
| input1 | input2 |... | output1 | output2 |...
Can I do this?
Given - State of the data
When I trigger action with parameters <input1> and <input2> and ...
Examples of input
Then my output should contain <output1> and <output2> ...
Examples of output
No, unfortunately that (or anything similar) is not possible.
You could make your inputs and outputs more abstract and possibly merge a few columns. Example: instead of Country | PostalCode | City | Street | House | Firstname | Lastname | etc. you should have | Address | Job title | with values like "EU", "US, missing postal code", "HQ" for the address.
You can't have multiple Example tables for scenario outline but you can pass in data tables for regular scenarios.
The data table will be accessible only to the step that uses it, however you could save it in Scenario Context for subsequent steps.
Not sure if this will work for you if your scenario is complex and spans multiple lines but I thought I'd mention it.
Scenario: Checking outputs for inputs
Given - State of the data
When I trigger action with the following parameters
input1 | input2 | input3 |
data | data | data |
Then my output should contain the following outputs
output1 | output2 | output3 |
data | data | data |
Related
This code selects cases which selects range of diagnosis (here range being 7567 to 75679) against multiple columns which stores the diagnosis codes (here DX1, DX2, DX3....etc.). Following works but it is pain to change the code every time when I am looking for new range of diagnosis. How do I shorten the code?
IF (RANGE(DX1,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX2,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX3,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX4,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX5,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX6,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX7,'7567','75679') |RANGE(DX8,'7567','75679')
| RANGE(DX9,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX10,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX11,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX12,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX13,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX14,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX15,'7567','75679')
| RANGE(DX16,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX17,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX18,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX19,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX20,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX21,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX22,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX23,'7567','75679')
| RANGE(DX24,'7567','75679') | RANGE(DX25,'7567','75679'))ABDWALDEF=1.
EXECUTE.
count ABDWALDEF= DX1 to DX25 ('7567' thru'75679').
exe.
if ABDWALDEF>1 ABDWALDEF=1.
exe.
Personally, I would not reccomend string ranges in SPSS. You just need to make sure you know what you are doing, because string ranges are different from numerical ranges:
Take for example code 756780:
if DXs are numbers. it will not fit into the (7567, 75679) range, because 756780>75679.
if DXs are strings, it will fit into the same range of strings, because strings are sorted based on the first character, then the second, and so on. Fist 4 characters are identical, and in 5th position there is "9">"8". So in strings, "75679">"756780". Therefore, 756780 would be part of your range
As #eli-k mentioned in the comment, and you are really sure you want to work with numerica ranges, and not string ranges:
if all the codes are really numbers in text format, you might as well
change them to numbers and everything gets easier:
alter type DX1 to DXn (f10).
I am new to BDD specflow.
I have to write a scenario wherein after I capture an image, i have to select a value for each defined attribute for that image from a selection list
For Eg:
|Body Part |Location |Group |
| Leg | Left | Skin |
| Hand | Upper | Burn |
| Arm | Right | Ulcer |
I need a way in which i can select a different value for each attribute, every time.
Thanks in advance!
You are looking for Scenario Outline;
Scenario outlines allow us to more concisely express these examples through the use of a template with placeholders, using Scenario Outline, Examples with tables and < > delimited parameters.
Specflow takes each line in the Example table and create from the line a scenario to execute.
I have a feature that logs into a trading system and keys a number of trades. Theres a lot of reusable steps at the beginning of each trade (initial trade set up) But each trade has different arguments.
Here is an example
Scenario: Trade 1
Given I have selected my test data: "20003"
And I have connected to VMS with the following details:
| Field | Value |
| Username | user |
| Password | password |
| Session | myServer |
When I run the DCL command to set my privileges to full
Then I expect to see the following:
| Pass Criteria | Timeout |
| Privileges Set | 00:00:30 |
When I ICE to the test account: "System Test"
Then I expect to be ICED see the following:
| Pass Criteria | Timeout |
| "ICED to System Test" | "00:00:10" |
When I run a dcl to delete the company: "Test_Company"
Then I expect to see a confirmation that company: "Test_Company" has been deleted or doesnt exist
So within those steps the 2 things that could change is the "Given" argument so the test data ID and also the Test company at the end.
What I wanted was some way to run a background step so that its being able to know what parameters to enter. So if it was Trade 1 for example it would enter 20003, if it was Trade 2 enter 20004 etc.
Can I do this? I was thinking using the "Example" table that Scenario Outline uses. Or is there a better way to do this? I dont want these repeatable steps in all of my scenarios as it takes up lots of room and doesnt look too readable.
So I did some searching and couldn't find a solution that didn't require a lot of coding so I made this up:
this is what the background looks like
Background:
Given I have selected my test data:
| Scenario | ID |
| DirectCredit_GBP | 20003 |
| Cheque_GBP | 20004 |
| ForeignCheque_GBP | 20005 |
And in order to find which row it should use the method behind it uses ScenarioContext. Here is the method:
[Given(#"I have selected my test data:")]
[When(#"I have selected my test data:")]
public static void setTestDataID(Table data)
{
string scenario = ScenarioContext.Current.ScenarioInfo.Title;
string testDataId = data.ReadTable("Scenario", scenario, "ID"));
TestDriver.LoadTestData(testDataId);
}
What the method does is search the table for the scenario name (using an extension method I wrote) and get the ID, once its got the ID it passes it into my TestDriver method.
It seems to work fine and keeps the test readable.
I am testing out F# and using NUnit as my test library; I have discovered the use of double-back ticks to allow arbitrary method naming to make my method names even more human readable.
I was wondering, whether rightly or wrongly, if it is possible to parameterise the method names when using NUnit's TestCaseAttribute to change the method name, for example:
[<TestCase("1", 1)>]
[<TestCase("2", 2)>]
let ``Should return #expected when "#input" is supplied`` input expected =
...
This might not be exactly what you need, but if you want to go beyond unit testing, then TickSpec (a BDD framework using F#) has a nice feature where it lets you write parameterized scenarios based on back-tick methods that contain regular expressions as place holders.
For example, in Phil Trelford's blog post, he uses this to define tic-tac-toe scenario:
Scenario: Winning positions
Given a board layout:
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
| O | O | X |
| O | | |
| X | | X |
When a player marks X at <row> <col>
Then X wins
Examples:
| row | col |
| middle | right |
| middle | middle |
| bottom | middle |
The method that implements the When clause of the scenario is defined in F# using something like this:
let [<When>] ``a player marks (X|O) at (top|middle|bottom) (left|middle|right)``
(mark:string,row:Row,col:Col) =
let y = int row
let x = int col
Debug.Assert(System.String.IsNullOrEmpty(layout.[y].[x]))
layout.[y].[x] <- mark
This is a neat thing, but it might be an overkill if you just want to write a simple parameterized unit test - BDD is useful if you want to produce human readable specifications of different scenarios (and there are actually other people reading them!)
This is not possible.
The basic issue is that for every input and expected you need to create a unique function. You would then need to pick the correct function to call (or your stacktrace wouldn't make sense). As a result this is not possible.
Having said that if you hacked around with something like eval (which must exist inside fsi), it might be possible to create something like this, but it would be very slow.
I am relatively new to BDD and I have a question regarding scenario outlines. When looking at samples over the internet I have the feeling that the placeholders can take any values. The number of elements in their domain is not restricted. Here is one example:
Scenario Outline: eating
Given there are <start> cucumbers
When I eat <eat> cucumbers
Then I should have <left> cucumbers
Examples:
| start | eat | left |
| 12 | 5 | 7 |
| 20 | 5 | 15 |
The placeholder <start> for example can be any number so the number of values is infinite.
In my specs I have to deal with contracts which can have one of four states (planned, ongoing, paused, and closed). My specs say that I can edit planned contracts but I am not allowed to edit contracts which have one of the remaining three states.
I think I would write a scenario named "Updating a planned contract" and one scenario outline where the status of a contract is a placeholder.
Scenario: Update a planned contract
Given the list of contracts as follows
| name | status | some value |
| c1 | planned | 123 |
And I have edited contract c1 as follows
| field | value |
| name | c1 |
| some value | 456 |
When I save contract c1
Then the list of contracts should be as follows
| name | status | some value |
| c1 | planned | 456 |
Scenario Outline: Update contract
Given there is a <status> contract
And I have edited that contract
When I save that contract
Then I an error 'only planned contracts are allowed to change' should be displayed
Examples:
| status |
| ongoing |
| paused |
| closed |
Is that the right way? One expicit scenario and one parameterized? Or should I write the scenario outline as explicit scenarios for each possibility? I am not sure because the status of a contract is restricted by four possible values as opposed to the examples on the internet.
One thing I find that helps is to remember that Gherkin is just a syntax for Specification by Example. You are trying to provide the examples that make most sense to you in the business domains language.
As such, what you are proposing is perfectly valid. You have one example of a scenario that uses tables to define what happens when a planned contract is edited, and another set of examples that produce errors when contracts in other states. You could also do it explicitly by expanding the outline for each state. Both are valid, and you can always refactor your feature sepcifications as you would the codebase.
What you are aiming to do here however is to provide a grammar, a framework, a language, call it what you will, that you can use to have conversations with your business analysts. You want to be able to pull out this document and say "This is how the system works now, how do we change this to make it support your new feature?".
Personally, I'm avoiding tabular and outline forms in my features right now as I want to make it look as friendly as possible to all I show it to, and as yet, my features are still easy to describe.