I have many applications which I want to test, which have a largely overlapping set of features. Here is an oversimplified example of a scenario I might have:
Given <name> is playing a game,
When they shoot at a <color> target
Then they should <event>
Examples:
| name | color | event |
| Alice | red | hit |
| Alice | blue | miss |
| Bob | red | miss |
| Bob | blue | hit |
| Bob | green | hit |
It's a silly example, but suppose really I have a lot of players with different hit/miss conditions, and I want to run just the scenarios for a given name? Say, I only want to run the tests for Alice. There's still advantage to having all the hit/miss tests in a single Scenario Outline (since, after all, they're all closely related).
One approach would be to just duplicate the test for every name and tag them, so something like:
#Alice
Given Alice is playing a game
When she shoots at a <color> target
Then she should <event>
Examples:
| color | event |
| red | hit |
| blue | miss |
This way I can run behave --tags #Alice, But then I'm repeated the same scenario for every user, and that's a lot of duplication. Is there a good way to still compress all the examples into one scenario - but only selectively run some of them? What's the right approach here?
Version 1.2.5 introduced better ways to distinguish scenario outlines. It is now possible to uniquely distinguish them and thus select a unique scenario generated from an outline with --name= at the command line. For instance, suppose the following feature file:
Feature: test
Scenario Outline: test
Given <name> is playing a game,
When they shoot at a <color> target
Then they should <event>
Examples:
| name | color | event |
| Alice | red | hit |
| Alice | blue | miss |
| Bob | red | miss |
| Bob | blue | hit |
| Bob | green | hit |
Let's say I want to run only the test for Bob, red, miss. It is in the first table, 3rd row. So:
behave --name="#1.3"
will select this test. In version 1.2.5 and subsequent versions. A generated scenario gets a name which includes "#<table number>.<row number>" where <table number> is the number of the table (starting from 1) and <row number> is the number of the row.
This won't easily allow you to select all scenarios that pertain to a single user. However, you can achieve it in another way. You can split your examples in two:
Examples: Alice
| name | color | event |
| Alice | red | hit |
| Alice | blue | miss |
Examples: Bob
| name | color | event |
| Bob | red | miss |
| Bob | blue | hit |
| Bob | green | hit |
The table names will appear in the generated scenario names and you could ask behave to run all the tests associated with one table:
behave --name="Alice"
I do not know of a way to access the example name in steps and thus get rid of the first column.
The full set of details is in the release notes for 1.2.5.
Related
The main problem is that example table is too long (below the example is a mock short, my real test would be ~300 lines). Is it possible to generate these table? I have mypage30.. it would be hard to maintain it
Scenario Outline: Check categories
Given I visit '<mypage>'
When I select '<category>'
Then the selected category is shown
Examples:
| mypage | category |
| page1 | mouse |
| page1 | cat |
| page1 | horse |
| page1 | do |
| page1 | duck |
| page2 | mouse |
| page2 | cat |
| page2 | horse |
| page2 | do |
| page2 | duck |
It's impossible to generate a content of .feature file automatically.
Yet I guess in your case you can make it other way.
One way is to store your table in .xlsx file and to use this file as a data source.
If you choose this option, it's very simply implemented in SpecFlow: https://specflow.org/plus/documentation/Prepare-feature-files-for-external-examples/
All you need is to specify the path to your source file:
#source:CalculatorExamples.xlsx
Examples:
| case | a | b | result |
Another way is to generate all the data within your test scenario. I don't know how you wanted to generate this table so I assume that the first way is better.
I have a Google Sheet with one page for team leaders to list their desired team members (first names, last names, emails) by row--each TL fills in one row--, and a second page where team members are listed who have actually registered with my program.
Page 1
+------------------------+------------+---------------+------------+--------------------+
| Team Leader First Name | First Name | Email Address | First Name | Email Address |
+------------------------+------------+---------------+------------+--------------------+
| Danielle | Elizabeth | XXX#tamu.edu | Matthew | XXX#tamu.edu |
| Stoian | William | XXX#tamu.edu | Victoria | XXX#email.tamu.edu |
| Christa | Olivia | XXX#tamu.edu | | |
+------------------------+------------+---------------+------------+--------------------+
Page 2
+--------------------+-------------------------+
| Scholar First Name | Scholar Preferred Email |
+--------------------+-------------------------+
| elizabeth | xxx#gmail.com |
| william | xxx#tamu.edu |
+--------------------+-------------------------+
I want to be able to see at a glance which of the names listed by the TL on pg 1 have not registered and thus don't appear on pg 2.
In the example above, I want Olivia, Matthew, and Victoria's names to appear red because she does not show up on pg2 (which means they still need to register). Everyone else should appear normally.
I tried at first to importrange from pg1 to get a clean list of the team members, then conditional formatting to match against pg2, the idea I had being it shows up red if a name is not found.
Import range from page 2 to page 1 the scholar first name to F12:F14
Conditional Formatting: Apply to range B2:B999(first name list in page 1)
=NOT(OR(ISNUMBER(MATCH(TRIM(B2),$F$12:$F$13,0)),ISBLANK(B2)))
Conditional Formatting2: Apply to range D2:D999(Second First name list)
=NOT(OR(ISNUMBER(MATCH(TRIM(D2),$F$12:$F$13,0)),ISBLANK(D2)))
Note: Instead of importing, You could also reference the second sheet using INDIRECT.
I'm trying to execute an entire SpecFlow Feature using three different UserID/Password combinations. I'm struggling to find a way to do this in the .feature file without having to introduce any loops in the MSTest.
On the Scenario level I'm doing this:
Scenario Template: Verify the addition functionality
Given the value <x>
And the value <y>
When I add the values together
Then the result should be <z>
Examples:
|x|y|z|
|1|2|3|
|2|2|4|
|2|3|5|
Is there a way to do a similar table at the feature level that will cause the entire feature to be executed for each row in the table?
Is there other functionality available to do the same thing?
I don't think the snippet you have is working is it? I've updated the below with the corrections I think you need (as Fresh also points out) and a couple of possible improvements.
With this snippet, you'll see that the scenario is run for each line in the table of examples. So, the first test will connect with 'Bob' and 'password', ask your tool to add 1 and 2 and check that the answer is 3.
I've also added an ID column - that is optional but I find it much easier to read the results with an ID number.
Scenario Outline: Verify the addition functionality
Given I am connecting with <username> and <password>
When I add <x> and <y> together
Then the result should be <total>
Examples:
| ID | username | password | x | y | total |
| 1 | Bob | password | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 2 | Helen | Hello123 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | Dave | pa£sword | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 4 | Bob | password | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 5 | Helen | Hello123 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 6 | Dave | pa£sword | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 7 | Bob | password | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| 8 | Helen | Hello123 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| 9 | Dave | pa£sword | 2 | 2 | 4 |
"Is there a way to do a similar table at the feature level that will
cause the entire feature to be executed for each row in the table?"
No, Specflow (and indeed the Gherkin language) doesn't have a concept of a "Feature Outline" i.e. a way of specifying a collection of features which should be run in their entirety.
You could possibly achiever what you are looking for by making use of Specflow tags to tag related scenarios. You could then use your test runner to trigger the testing of all the scenarios with that tag e.g.
#related
Scenario: A
Given ...etc...
#related
Scenario: B
Given ...etc.
SpecFlow+ Runner (aka SpecRun, http://www.specflow.org/plus/), provides infrastructure (called test targets) to be able to run the same test suite (or selected scenarios) with different settings. With this you can solve problems like the one you have mentioned. It can be also used to run the same web tests with different browsers, etc. Check this screencast for details: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZYV4Dvhw3w
Hi here is what I what I have:
Scenario Outline: Seatching for stuff
Given that the following simple things exists:
| id | title | description | temp |
| 1 | First title | First description | low |
| 2 | Second title | Second description with öl | Medium |
| 3 | Third title | Third description | High |
| 11 | A title with number 2 | can searching numbers find this 2 | Exreme |
When I search for <criteria>
Then I should get <result>
And I should not get <excluded>
Examples
|criteria|results | excluded |
| 1 | 1 | 2,3,11 |
| 11 | 11 | 1,2,3 |
| title | 1,2,3 | 11 |
| öl | 2 | 1,3,11 |
| Fir* | 1 | 2,3,11 |
| third | 3 | 1,2,11 |
| High | 3 | 1,2,11 |
As you can see I'm trying to test a search field for a web-application using cucumber and the scenario outline structure in order to test several search criteria.
I'm not sure how to handle the input I would get as result and excluded in my steps.
Maybe this doesn't work at all?
Is there a workaround?
There's nothing wrong with what you're doing. Cucumber will just take that as a single string. The fact that it's actually comma-separated values means nothing to Cucumber.
Your step definition would still look like this:
Then /^I should not get ([^"]*)$/ do |excluded|
# excluded will be a string, "2,3,11"
values = excluded.split(",")
# Do whatever you want with the values
end
In Ruby on Rails, if all of the validation rules for a given model are being tested within that model's spec (or unit tests), is it still considered necessary to write a Cucumber scenario for each validation?
Would it suffice to instead write two scenarios: One for when valid data is entered, and one for when invalid data is entered?
This is a good question, and the answer is: It depends.
You can think of Cucumber as a way of communicating between the product owner, developers and testers.
If you feel that having the validations in Cucumber adds to the shared understanding of what the product does, then keep them there.
One approach is to combine the validations into a scenario outline:
Scenario Outline: User tries to register but skips a mandatory field
Given I am registering
And I leave the "<field>" blank
When I click "Submit"
Then I should see "<message>"
And I should not be registered
| field | message |
| Forename | Please enter your forename |
| Surname | Please enter your surname |
| Date of Birth | Please enter your date of birth |
This is a great question, and one that I have been dealing with recently.
It may be different for your organization, but in my organization we try to leave the field validation tests to the unit tests or some other framework that handles these situations better. Aside from that, I am of the school of thought that Cucumber is meant purely for automated acceptance testing (AKA a communications tool between you/your team and the PO) -- and that other methods should be used for anything outside that scope.
Why leave anything open to suggestion? Allowing for assumptions made by developers is inherently risky in terms of generating rework.
How each field a form behaves under different circumstances (create, display, edit, persona) is clearly acceptance criteria.
If you hide it away in a unit test then you are disconnecting it from the living documentation
You really shouldn't need unit tests if you are really bought into the BDD way.
Feature: Edit staff personal
Scenario Outline: Form validation
Given I am editing a staff personal details
And the form contains a "<Mandatory?>" field with a label "<Label>"
And text fields have a input length of between "<Min Length>" and "<Max Length>"
And select fields have these "<Options>"
When I submit the form by clicking the save button
Then an error displays if validation fails
But commits my changes if validation is successful and returns the form back to display mode
Examples:
| Label | Mandatory? | Type | Min length | Max length | Options
| Title | true | select | 0 | 0 | Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, Dr, Prof |
| Surname | true | text | 2 | 50 | null |
| Forename | true | text | 2 | 50 | null |
| Known as / Other Surname | false | text | 2 | 50 | null |
| Known as forename | false | text | 2 | 50 | null |
| Date of birth | true | date-picker | 0 | 0 | null |
| NI number | true | ni-number | 0 | 0 | null |