Currently working on a series of projects that are contained within one solution in VS2017. Each project is a specflow project, within one solution. I would like to setup the Hooks.cs file such that it's valid for any test within the entire solution, not just the project. I'd also like to make step definitions from one project available to the other projects as a base or utility step definition.
How would I go about structuring specflow to make this possible?
You can use steps and hooks from different assemblies.
You can add in the configuration a list of additional step assemblies like this:
<specFlow>
<stepAssemblies>
<stepAssembly assembly="MySharedBindings" />
</stepAssemblies>
</specFlow>
The documentation is here: https://specflow.org/documentation/Use-Bindings-from-External-Assemblies/
But there are some known problems with it:
IntelliSense and Syntax Highlighting has some problems (https://github.com/techtalk/SpecFlow/issues/838)
Hooks could be registered double (https://github.com/techtalk/SpecFlow/issues/1004)
Related
I am developing a web application which started life by running dotnet new angular (Clear blog explanation of usage).
To extend the functionality of the default code I started developing a Web API. I added 3 new .Net Core Library Projects named Shared, Scheduling and Scheduling_Tests.
Some Domain Model classes were defined in Scheduling, some base classes were defined in Shared and finally some NUnit tests were defined in ShedulingTests.
When I build the Solution, 2 new folders appear in my Web Application project: Shared and Scheduling. I also get build errors like the following:
Error CS0579 Duplicate 'System.Reflection.AssemblyCompanyAttribute'
I'm not sure where to go with this one, any advise would be very welcome.
This happens because the new .NET tools automatically create the attributes and add them to the assembly, so they now appear twice in the build.
There are two ways to fix it:
Delete AssemblyInfo.cs
Keep AssemblyInfo.cs, but add tags to your CSProj file to suppress the attributes in AssemblyInfo.
For example:
<PropertyGroup>
<TargetFramework>netstandard2.0</TargetFramework>
<GenerateAssemblyCompanyAttribute>false</GenerateAssemblyCompanyAttribute>
<GenerateAssemblyFileVersionAttribute>false</GenerateAssemblyFileVersionAttribute>
<GenerateAssemblyVersionAttribute>false</GenerateAssemblyVersionAttribute>
<GenerateAssemblyConfigurationAttribute>false</GenerateAssemblyConfigurationAttribute>
<GenerateAssemblyDescriptionAttribute>false</GenerateAssemblyDescriptionAttribute>
<GenerateAssemblyProductAttribute>false</GenerateAssemblyProductAttribute>
<GenerateAssemblyTitleAttribute>false</GenerateAssemblyTitleAttribute>
</PropertyGroup>
(Thanks to https://johnkoerner.com/csharp/dealing-with-duplicate-attribute-errors-in-net-core/)
Have you check if there is any AssembleyInfo.cs file available in your project? If yes, then try to delete it and rebuild your project.
I have an assets/CDN project which contains my own and third party libs like JQuery. My own scripts are written in TypeScript. All these files get referenced in about five different projects.
If I want to write some TypeScript in one of those five projects that references some TypeScript in the assets project I manually generate and copy across a declaration file.
What would be your recommendation for a better way to manage this process?
I'm using Grunt to run the TypeScript compiler. I can run it with the 'declarations' option but this won't let me put all the declarations in a separate folder ready to be 'collected' by the other projects.
I've looked at the TS Project and DTS Bundle but these don't seem very flexible and I'm worried I'll have to switch to something else later as TypeScript moves in another direction. Plus I'm not keen on the single file approach. But I'm not ruling them out entirely.
I wrote typings which has the express goal of solving definition files in TypeScript (https://github.com/typings/typings). It's hard to tell if it'll work with what you're asking though, since I don't know how you consume the other projects you have. If you want to be able to use dependencies and package it them in dependencies of your other projects, all without having to make a single "declaration" generation step and no conflicts, it might be worth trying it out.
The only overhead of it right now is having to convert DefinitelyTyped into external module declarations, since they're incompatible.
I want to use Boost Test to unit test my code in Visual Studio 2010. I've downloaded and built the latest version of the library.
I've read a lot on the subject here and elsewhere on the internet and people seem to suggest having a second project within your solution exlusively for your tests.
Fine, sounds good. I'm having trouble actually setting this up however. I've yet to find a clear explanation of the best way to set this up.
Do I need to use a Project Reference to make my unit test project reference my main project?
If so, do I still need to add the Include & Source directories of my main project in the properties of my unit test project? If so, what's the advantage of using the Project Reference in the first place?
Do I have to have my main project output a library for my unit test project to link in? Again, I thought that Project References would make this unnecessary but it seems I don't really understand the Project References.
If at all possible could I get a very idiot proof, step by step procedure for setting up a Boost Test unit test project alongside a main project in VS2010?
Would I be better off going with the method laid out here (one project, different configurations to build tests or actual project exe):
http://blog.yastrebkov.com/2010/07/boost-test-setup-and-usage.html
Many thanks,
There is no magic behind setting up a Boost.Test project. Maybe because it's a regular C++ (executable) project in no way different from a "normal" application. This is what I do:
Create a new C++ project. I always choose Win32 Executable with precompiled headers. I have a naming convention, that all test projects using Boost.Test start with "tests.boost.testee_name..."
In "stdafx.h", add the include for <boost/unit_test.hpp> and define the BOOST_TEST_MODULE (I always choose the project name). Also, add all other includes for external components this project requires, e.g. other boost libraries, stl headers etc. This results in considerably faster compilation times.
The testee must be a library (dynamic or static). So "add reference" to all required dependencies. You can of course test header-only libraries, in that case do not add references.
Add source files to your test project, according to Boost.Test manual. The convention I enforce is one BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_SUITE per file.
For convenience, I have a custom property sheet tailored for boost unit test, which I add to each boost test project. Among others it contains a post-build event, which runs the tests.
I have to add that, lately, I switched to MSTest with Visual Studio 2012 which allows a more comfortable way to manage the tests and test results. Nevertheless, for the most important parts of the software, I am still writing boost tests in order to ensure correctness with older toolsets and potentially other platforms.
Cheers,
Paul
I'm about to start a C++ project but I'm stuck at the basics.
I want to use the (linux) Code::Blocks IDE, and it's easy to create a normal project. However I want to do TDD using the UnitTest++ framework, and I don't know how to set everything up cleanly.
I've already asked a question about where to put the UnitTest::RunAllTests() command, and they told me the best place is the main() of a separate program.
How do I go about doing this in Code::Blocks? I think I need to create 2 projects:
The "real" project with its own main();
The unit testing project containing the tests and the main() with UnitTest::RunAllTests() inside.
Then somehow have the first project build and run the second during its build process. I don't know how to do that yet but I can find out on my own.
My questions are:
this is the right method?
do I have to create also a project for the UnitTest++ framework, in order to let other people build it on other platforms? Or is dropping the complied library in the project's path enough?
how can I organize the directories of these projects together? It'd be nice to put the tests related to each package in the same directory as that package, but is it ok to have multiple projects in the same directory tree?
I'll partly answer my own questions, as I've managed to get everything working.
Following the instructions on the official documentation page, I've put the UnitTest++ folder with the compiled library and all the source files in my project's path.
Then I created a test project for all the unit testing, with a main function containing the famous UnitTest::RunAllTests(). I put $exe_output as a post-build process here, in order to have the tests executed automatically every time I build this project.
I created the "real" project where my code to be tested will go. In the build settings I specified the test project as a dependency of the real project, so that every time I build the real one, it also builds the test project first.
With these settings I can work on my tests and on the real code, and I only have to build the real one to have the updated tests executed. Any failing test will also make the build fail.
Now two questions remain: "is this the best approach?" and "right now each project lives in a different directory. Is it wiser to leave it this way or should I put each test in the same folder as the real code to be tested?"
So I have main.cpp and main2.cpp with int main in each. I want to get 2 exes out of it. Is it possible and what would be instruction to create such project?
Nope, Visual Studio's project model is rigidly built around the assumption that "one project generates one output".
If you need two executables, you have to create two projects. You can keep them in the same solution to make things easier for yourself, but they have to be separate projects.
Edit
Ok, as other answers have pointed out, it can of course be done, if you're desperate. You can add a custom build step, which does anything you like, including building another executable. (However, the build system won't understand that this file should be considered project output, and so some scenarios may fail: for example the file won't be automatically copied to the output folder, and when checking dependencies before a rebuild, it might not be able to understand which files to check, and what (or how) to rebuild.)
Visual Studio (at least up to 2008, not sure about 2010) also allows the use of nmake files, but then I think you're stretching the definition of "a Visual Studio project".
But under "normal" circumstances, one project implies one output. And in order to get two executables, you'd normally create two projects.
You need a solution which includes two projects. Have a read of the Visual Studio documentation on solutions and projects.
Here's my solution, since nobody in a Google search seems to suggest this method. It's quite simple and I've used/seen it used in other IDEs (like Code::Blocks).
Within your project, create a configuration for each output that you want. Then, only include one main source file in each configuration.
In VS, this means for each source file with main: right-click -> Properties -> Excluded From Build = Yes. So, once you're done, only one main source is built for each configuration. You can then specify a different output for each configuration in the Project Properties. I did this on VS 2010, but it should probably work with other versions.
I'm using this approach so that I can have several tests for one project, without cluttering the solution with more test projects than actual code projects.
I don't know if it can be done ,but the only change you have ,to do this ,is with custom build step.
EDIT: Since someone downvoted this ,i did a test making a dummy configuration.
In the custom build step I two Link-cmds (copied form original link-cmdline and modified it a bit) taking as input main1.obj resp. main2.obj and outputting App1.exe resp. App2.exe.
It's executed after Compiling and before linking.
It worked !
The downside is I cannot prevent (yet) the linking ot the orinal exe (which errors on duplicate main function).
Solution to this could be to have a lib project excluding the sources with main()from build and build them in the custum-step too.
So the answer to the question should : Yes ,it can be done!
You can't have more than one main() function in a single visual studio project. So you can't compile 2 executables, the only way is to make two different project in the same solution
You can create a solution with two project one for each output you want. Then head to Build menu and select Batch Build.. and select both projects.
If you want both exe files to be in one place you can specify a custom Post-build action:
For both project:
view the project properties page and in Build events select Post-Build events, then in the Command line field enter the command that will copy the output to the location you want, something like:
copy $(TargetPath) c:\yourlocation /Y
Then after you build the solution the output files will be copied to that location.
Another option you have is to use conditional compilation with sth like
main()
{
#ifdef VERSION1
call_main_logic();
#else
call_main2_logic();
#endif
}
and then define different configurations within the project. For each configuration you will then need to define preprocessor symbols appropriately (in: project settings -> configuration properties -> C/C++ -> preprocessor).
Please note, that it will be only one executable created at a time, but with switching configurations you'll get the one that does what you want at the moment.
... which may suit your needs or not, depending on more specific situation that you are in.
Edit: In addition, since different configurations create their separate output folders, you will have your both execs as outputs.