Is there a way to incorporate a clean up script in Postman?
Use case: After the collection run : (either success or failure). I need to clear data in some of the databases/data-stores
similar construct to try{} finally{}
for eg : as a part of collection runner contains two apis
api1 -> which puts the data in redis.
api2 -> functional verification
(expecting the clean up hook) to remove the data from that was put in step 1.
writing at the end of test script of api2 will work fine only if there are no errors in execution of test script.
the problem gets worse when there are large number of apis and multiple data entries. We can handle this by setNextRequest, however that brings additional code to be written in each test script.
You could probably achieve this by running the collection file within a script, using Newman. This should give you more flexibility and control over running certain actions at different points before, during and after the run.
More information about the different options can be found here: https://github.com/postmanlabs/newman/blob/develop/README.md#api-reference
If its just clearing out certian variable values, this can be done within the Tests tab of the last request in your collection.
Related
The need here is to run a pre-request script before each call in a folder of a postman collection, optionally, while running from Newman collection.
For example, if running a test suite of 10 calls in one folder, the call would usually be:
newman run <collectionPath> --folder <folderPath>
Is there any option of passing something like,
newman run <collectionPath> --folder <folderPath> --pre-request_script someScript.js --test_script someTest.js
?
The reason why (an obvious) postman collection test / pre-request script is not being used is that
(the main reason) huge amounts of collections are already written and it will be difficult to go into each one of them and add this code. It will be way more convenient to govern this behavior via command line.
the test / pre-request script may vary across different newman runs and these parameters would remove the need of complex conditional code within pre-requests / test scripts.
Is there any other alternative or solution for the same?
From the latest version you can add pre-requests, tests, variables directly to the collection or something different on each sub folder. These collections can just be used in the normal way via newman. It might solve your problem.
http://blog.getpostman.com/2017/12/13/keep-it-dry-with-collection-and-folder-elements/
I'm trying to understand the Enterprise Guide process flow. As I understand it, the process flow is supposed to make it easy to run related steps in the order they need to be run to make a dependent action able to run and be up to date somewhere later in the flow.
Given that understanding, I'm getting stuck trying to make the process flow work in cases where the temporary data is purged. I'm warned when closing Enterprise Guide that the project has references to temporary data which must be the tables I created. That should be fine, the data is on the SAS server and I wrote code to import that data into SAS.
I would expect that the data can be regenerated when I try run an analysis that depends on that data again later, but instead I'm getting an error indicating that the input data does not exist. If I then run the code to import the data and/or join tables in each necessary place, the process flow seems to work as expected.
See the flow that I'm working with below:
I'm sure I must be missing something. Imagine I want to rerun the rightmost linear regression. Is there a way to make the process flow import the data without doing so manually for each individual table creation the first time round?
The general answer to your question is probably that you can't really do what you're wanting directly, but you can do it indirectly.
A process flow (of which you can have many per project, don't forget) is a single set of programs/tasks/etc. that you intend to run as a group. Typically, you will run whole process flows at once, rather than just individual pieces. If you have a point that you want to pause, look at things, then continue, then you have a few choices.
One is to have a process flow that goes to that point, then a second process flow that starts from that point. You can even take your 'import data' steps out of the process flow entirely, make an 'import data' process flow, always run that first, then run the other process flows individually as you need them. In fact, if you use the AUTOEXEC process flow, you could have the import data steps run whenever you open the project, and imported data ready and waiting for you.
A second is to use the UI and control+click or drag a box to select on the process flow to select a group of programs to run; select the first five, say, then run them, then select 'run branch from program...' option to run from that point on. You could also make separate 'branches' and run just the one branch at a time, making each branch dependent on the input streams.
A third option would be to have different starting points for different analysis tasks, and have the import data bit be after that starting point. It could be common to the starting points, and use macro variables and conditional execution to go different directions. For example, you could have a macro variable set in the first program that says which analysis program you're running, then the conditional from the last import step (which are in sequence, not in parallel like you have them) send you off to whatever analysis task the macro variable says. You could also have macro variables that indicate whether an import has been run once already in the current session that then would tell you not to rerun it via conditional steps.
Unfortunately, though, there's no direct way to run something and say 'run this and all of its dependencies', though.
We have managed to have Jenkins correctly parse our XML output from our tests and also included the error information, when there is one. So that it is possible to see, directly in the TestCase in Jenkins the error that occurred.
What we would like to do is to have Jenkins keep a log output, which is basically the console output, associated with each case. This would enable anyone to see the actual console output of each test case, failed or not.
I haven't seen a way to do this.
* EDIT *
Clarification - I want to be able to see the actual test output directly in the Jenkins interface, the same way it does when there is an error, but for the whole output. I don't want only Jenkins to keep the file as artifact.
* END OF EDIT *
Anyone can help us on this?
In the Publish JUnit test result report (Post-build Actions) tick the Retain long standard output/error checkbox.
If checked, any standard output or error from a test suite will be
retained in the test results after the build completes. (This refers
only to additional messages printed to console, not to a failure stack
trace.) Such output is always kept if the test failed, but by default
lengthy output from passing tests is truncated to save space. Check
this option if you need to see every log message from even passing
tests, but beware that Jenkins's memory consumption can substantially
increase as a result, even if you never look at the test results!
This is simple to do - just ensure that the output file is included in the list of artifacts for that job and it will be archived according to the configuration for that job.
Not sure if you have solve it yet, but I just did something similar using Android and Jenkins.
What I did was using the http://code.google.com/p/the-missing-android-xml-junit-test-runner/ to run the tests in the Android emulator. This will create the necessary JUnit formatted XML files, on the emulator file system.
Afterwards, simply use 'adb pull' to copy the file over, and configure the Jenkin to parse the results. You can also artifact the XML files if necessary.
If you simply want to display the content of the result in the log, you can use 'Execute Shell' command to print it out to the console, where it will be captured in the log file.
Since Jenkins 1.386 there was a change mentioned to Retain long standard output/error in each build configuration. So you just have to check the checkbox in the post-build actions.
http://hudson-ci.org/changelog.html#v1.386
When using a declarative pipeline, you can do it like so:
junit testResults: '**/build/test-results/*/*.xml', keepLongStdio: true
See the documentation:
If checked, the default behavior of failing a build on missing test result files or empty test results is changed to not affect the status of the build. Please note that this setting make it harder to spot misconfigured jobs or build failures where the test tool does not exit with an error code when not producing test report files.
In CPP unit we run unit test as part of build as part of post build setup. We will be running multiple tests as part of this. In case if any test case fails post build should not stop, it should go ahead and run all the test cases and should report summary how many test cases passed and failed. how can we achieve this.
Thanks!
His question is specific enough. You need a test runner. Encapsulate each test in its own behavior and class. The test project is contained separately from the tested code. Afterwards just configure your XMLOutputter. You can find an excellent example of how to do this in the linux website. http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/CppUnit.html
We use this way to compile our test projects for our main projects and observe if everything is ok. Now it all becomes the work of maintaining your test code.
Your question is too vague for a precise answer. Usually, a unit test engine return a code to tell it has failed (like a non zero return code in the shell on linux) or generate some output file with results. The calling system handle this. If you have written it (some home made scripts) you have to give the option to go on tests execution even if an error occurred. If you are using some tools like continuous integration server, then you have to go through the doc and find the option that allows you to go on when tests fails.
A workaround is to write a script that return a "OK" result even if the unit test fails, but there you lose some automatic verification ...
Be more specific if you want more clues.
my2c
I would just write your tests this way. Instead of using the CPPUNIT_ASSERT macros or whatever you would write them in regular C++ with some way of logging errors.
You could use a macro for this too of course. Something like:
LOGASSERT( some_expression )
could be defined to execute some_expression and to log the expression together with FILE and LINE if it fails, and you can also log exceptions of course, as well as ones that are not thrown, simply by writing them in your tests (with macros if you want to log the expression that caused them with FILE and LINE).
If you are writing macros I would advise you to limit the content of your macro to calling an inline function with extra parameters.
I'm one of the people involved in the Test Anything Protocol (TAP) IETF group (if interested, feel free to join the mailing list). Many programming languages are starting to adopt TAP as their primary testing protocol and they want more from it than what we currently offer. As a result, we'd like to get feedback from people who have a background in xUnit, TestNG or any other testing framework/methodology.
Basically, aside from a simple pass/fail, what information do you need from a test harness? Just to give you some examples:
Filename and line number (if applicable)
Start and end time
Diagnostic output such as the difference between what you got and what you expected.
And so on ...
Most definitely all things from your list for each individual item:
Filename
Line number
Namespace/class/function name
Test coverage
Start time and end time
And/or total time (this would be more useful for me than the top two items)
Diagnostic output such as the
difference between what you got and
what you expected.
From the top of my head not much else but for the group of tests I would like to know
group name
total execution time
It must be very, very easy to write a test, and equally easy to run them. That, to me, is the single most important feature of a testing harness. If someone has to fire up a GUI or jump through a bunch of hoops to write a test, they won't use it.
An arbitrary set of tags - so I can mark a test as, for example "integration, UI, admin".
(you knew I was going to ask for this didn't you :-)
To what you said I'd add:
Method/function/class name
Coverage counting tool, with exceptions (Do not count these methods)
Result of N last runs available
Mandate that ways to easily parse test results must exist
Any sort of diagnostic output - especially on failure is critical. If a test fails, you don't want to always have to rerun the test under a debugger to see what happened - there should be some cludes in the output.
I also like to see a before and after snapshot of critical system variables like memory or hard disk space available as those can provide great clues as well.
Finally, if you're using random seeds for any of the tests, write the seed out to the logfile so that the test can be reproduced if necessary.
I'd like the ability to concatenate and nest TAP streams.
A unique id (uuid, md5sum) to be able to identify an individual test -- say, for use when inserting test results in a database, or identifying them in a bug tracker to make it possible for QA to rerun an individual test.
This would also make it possible to trace an individual test's behavior from build-to-build through the entire lifecycle of multiple revisions of a product. This could eventually allow larger-scale correlations between 'historic' events (new hire, product release, hardware upgrades) and the profile(s) of tests that fail as a result of such events.
I'm also thinking that TAP should be emitted through a dedicated side-channel rather than mixed in with stdout. I'm not sure this is under the scope of the protocol definition.
I use TAP as output protocol for a set of simple C++ test methods, and have seen the following shortcomings:
test steps cannot be put into groups (there's only the grouping into several test scripts; but for running all tests in our software, I need at least one more level of grouping, so that a single test step would be identified by like "DB connection" -> "Reconnection Test" -> "test step #3")
seeing differences between expected and actual output is useful; I either print the diff to stderr (as comment) or actually launch a graphical diff tool
the protocol and tools must be really language-independent. For example, so far I only know of the Perl "prove" tool for running tests, which is limited to running Perl scripts
In the end, the test output must be suitable as basis for easily generating an HTML report file which lists succeeded tests very concisely, gives detailed output for failed tests, and makes it possible to quickly jump into the IDE to the failing test line.
optional ascii coloured output, green for good, yellow for pending, red for errors
the idea of things being pending
a summary at the end of the test report of commands that will run the individual tests where
List item
something went wrong
something in the test was pending
Extension idea for TAP:
1..4
ok 1 - yay
not ok 2 - boo
ok 3 - yay #json:{...}
ok 4 - see my json
Ability to attach a #json comment...
- can be safely ignored by existing code
- well-defined tags can be easily reserved at testanything.org
- easy to produce, parse and read complex types
- yaml is a pain