Is it possible to run my simulation directly without seeing the GUI? All I am interested in are console output data, so there is no need for me to interact with a GUI to play, pause or reset my simulation.
Yes, it is. The easiest way to do this is to run it as a batch model (even if you only run one run at a time).
If you're using the standard distribution with Eclipse and have created projects as described in the docs, you will have a Run configuration called Batch <your_model_name> model If you run this, you'll launch in batch mode - input parameters will be taken from a batch file you write as a one off job (or as often as you want to change parameters).
See this documentation for more information on how to set up and run batch models.
Related
I have google test based test suite. Since the tests manipulate the filesystem and do other things that I don't want to be left behind in case of a test crash, besides just not playing nicely with running tests on parallel, I want to run each test case in a new container. I am currently using CTest (aka. CMake test) to run the gtest binary, but I am not very attached to either of these, so if the best option is some other tool, I can accept that.
Can anyone suggest a way to automate this? Right now I am adding each individual test case manually to CTest with a call to docker run as part of the test command, but it is brittle and time consuming. Maybe I am doing this wrong?
You can run your GTest runner with --gtest_list_tests to list all tests.
You can then loop through this list and call your GTest runner with --gtest_filter set to the name of specific test.
The format of the list is a bit awkward to parse though, so need some shell scripting skills to get the actual test names.
Check the exit code of the GTest runner the know whether the test succeeded or failed.
I do not know if this integrates well with CTest.
I have a significant set of Groovy pipeline scripts for our Jenkins build process. I am in the process of moving those scripts onto another instances, and would like to replicate the set of approved scripts that were not originally white listed.
Is it possible to export the list of approved signatures and import them into another instance?
The only other solution I have is to constantly run and rerun the scripts and approving each signature as it breaks the build. Since the scripts are quite complex, and not every run is guaranteed to hit each line, this is not going to be a quick process.
The other option would be to create a master 'white list' script which runs all the currently non-approved scripts again and again until all instances had been approved.
Neither of these options is great, so I'm hoping for a simple import/export to avoid having to do this work altogether, but I certainly can't see an option available to be in the UI.
Cheers
I do not believe there is import/export functionality by default but maybe there's a plugin that'll do it.
If you have access to the directory Jenkins' is installed or runs in you should be able to find the scriptApproval.xml file.
If you explore that you'll find approvedScriptHashes and approvedSignatures etc. You can lift this file entirely and paste it in the new instance or copy across the specifics you need (either way you'll need a restart).
Looks like there's an open request for this sort of functionality here
We have several automated build scripts, some of which are run automatically every 2 hours, and some of which are only ever run manually.
If a build script is started manually while another is already running, it can cause...problems. Such as merging untested branches into the production branch.
I'd like to prevent this happening again, and the simplest solution in my mind is to have each build script start by checking that another is not currently running.
Is there a way in ant to directly check if another ant instance/script is currently running?
If not, what's the simplest way to add such a check? My first thought is a file created at the beginning and deleted at the end of a build. I'd prefer a way that handles user-cancelled builds nicely, but it's not necessary. It needs to work if a build succeeded and if a build failed (but was not killed by the user).
If these are separate Ant processes, then I think the only solution is to define a lockfile of some sort that each Ant process needs to acquire before it can continue.
Perhaps the tempfile task could be used for this?
Actually, a sort-of semaphore based on a directory might be better because the tempfile really is a unique tempfile. The first thing your script does is use mkdir to create a shared resource directory name, but it only does this if the directory does not exist.
Upon exit it invokes delete on this shared resource name.
The idea is that the content and name of the directory is meaningless -- it only serves as an "IPC" cooperative locking mechanism.
This isn't particularly elegant, but I think your only other option is to set up a build server that handles scheduled and continuous builds based on various triggers. One that many people use is Jenkins (or has it been renamed?)
[Update]
Perhaps Do I have a way to check the existence of a directory in Ant (not a file)? would do the trick?
To be honest, this approach may work in the short term, but it just moves the problem around. Instead of resetting unit test results you'll be removing lockfiles by hand to get builds working again. My advice is to set up a CI build system, but I recognize this is a fair amount of work (and introduces a whole different set of future problems.)
Robot framework is keyword base testing framework. I have to test remote server so
i need to do some prerequisite steps like
i)copy artifact on remote machine
ii)start application server on remote
iii) run test on remote server
Before robot framework we do it using ant script
I can run only test script with robot . But Can we do all task using robot scripting if yes what is advantage of this?
Yes, you could do this all with robot. You can write a keyword in python that does all of those steps. You could then call that keyword in the suite setup step of a test suite.
I'm not sure what the advantages would be. What you're trying to do are two conceptually different tasks: one is deployment and one is testing. I don't see any advantage in combining them. One distinct disadvantage is that you then can't run your tests against an already deployed system. Though, I guess your keyword could be smart enough to first check if the application has been deployed, and only deploy it if it hasn't.
One advantage is that you have one less tool in your toolchain, which might reduce the complexity of your system as a whole. That means people can run your tests without first having installed ant (unless your system also needs to be built with ant).
If you are asking why you would use robot framework instead of writing a script to do the testing. The answer would be using the framework provides all the metrics and reports you would otherwise script for yourself.
Choosing a frame work makes your entire QA easier to manage, save your effort to write code for the parts that are common to the QA process, so you can focus on writing code to test your product.
Furthermore, since there is an ecosystem around the framework, you can probably find existing code to do just about everything you may need, and get answers to how to do something instead of changing your script.
Yes, you can do this with robot, decently easily.
The first two can be done easily with SSHLibrary, and the third one depends. Do you mean for the Robot Framework test case to be run locally on the other server? That can indeed be done with configuration files to define what server to run the test case on.
Here are the commands you can use from SSHLibrary of Robot Framework.
copy artifact on remote machine
Open Connection
Login or Login With Private Key
Put Directory or Put File
start application server on remote
Execute Command
For Running Tests on Remote Machine(Assuming Setup is there on machine)
Execute Command (use pybot path_to_test_file)
You may experience connections losts,but once tests are triggered they will be running on remote machine
We have an app.exe that uses another 3rd party installation wizard app, InstallAnywhere, to install our application.
It is a text-based wizard - meaning a new shell is spawned (and the child process is executing some java.exe in order for its wizard steps to work) when
app.exe -i console
in the parent shell is executed.
Can pexpect be used in this case as a kind of question/answer interaction ?
We tried it with Hudson but it appears that Hudson can only monitor the parent process and not its child process. When Hudson job kicks off the python script, it starts but fails to begin at step 1 of the wizard - it hangs.
How can we overcome this ?
Thanks
If I'm reading this correctly, you want to interact with your executing installer (in this case, using pexpect) during a Hudson job, probably to do automated testing.
I'm thinking that expect may get you where you want to go if you call expect from a shell script (or batch file) that is, in turn, run from Hudson. The script would execute the tests, using your favorite flavor of expect, during which it either exits successfully or fails. Hudson would detect the failure, and you could then react accordingly. Your script, and any expect messages, would write to stdout, which Hudson would collect into your build log.
However, Flexera has a testing framework that allows you to test an installer via JUnit. Look at the bottom of this page. Or check out the JavaDocs.
This might give you more precision than an expect hack. You might even be able to write a Hudson plugin and do way with expect and shell scripts completely.
Update: after looking over the Javadocs, I found that the main class GUIAutomationFixture uses Java's Robot class. This means you probably won't be able to run this class on a headless server. You'll likely need either Windows, or a Linux/Unix box with a working X system.