would like to know if there is a tutorial to learn how to test with this tool this type of change?. I meant... I needed to introduce a CSS class change in a component but I don't know how to test it... i've checked youtube but I cant quite understand how would be the best approach...
Edit: Applitools customer support is very helpful - consider contacting them for a more personal assistance.
Applitools is a cloud service that smartly detects changes to your UI that are noticeable to the human eye.
It does so by comparing screenshots taken during your automatic end-to-end tests to baseline images taken during the last test that you approved.
I mention this because you tagged your question as unit-testing. This is not unit-testing as it requires launching a browser (automatically - using Selenium for example) to run the automated tests.
Per your question - you should make sure that you have a baseline image that contains the component in discussion before your class change (do it by running an automated test that calls Applitools Eyes API to create a checkpoint (eyes.checkWindow) when your test reaches a page that contains this component. Then, approve the new test as a baseline, apply your class change and run the test again.
Applitools will let you know if a visual difference occurred following your change. So, for example, if this is just an under-the-hood change - you will not see a visual difference, but if this actually affects the UI then you'll see a visual difference. If you're happy with this difference you simply approve this run as your new baseline.
To show an example I'll use the Applitools tutorial for Selenium + Java. See the comments - you run this once, make your class change and run it again:
import com.applitools.eyes.Eyes;
import com.applitools.eyes.RectangleSize;
import org.openqa.selenium.By;
import org.openqa.selenium.WebDriver;
import org.openqa.selenium.firefox.FirefoxDriver;
import java.net.URISyntaxException;
public class TestApplitoolsWebsite {
public static void main(String[] args) throws URISyntaxException, InterruptedException {
WebDriver driver = new FirefoxDriver();
Eyes eyes = new Eyes();
// This is your api key, make sure you use it in all your tests.
eyes.setApiKey("YOUR_API_KEY");
try {
// Start visual testing with browser viewport set to 1024x768.
// Make sure to use the returned driver from this point on.
driver = eyes.open(driver, "Applitools", "Test Web Page", new RectangleSize(1024, 768));
driver.get("http://applitools.com");
// Visual validation point #1
eyes.checkWindow("Main Page");
driver.findElement(By.cssSelector(".features>a")).click();
// Visual validation point #2
// Let's assume this page contains the class you'll change
eyes.checkWindow("Features page");
// End visual testing. Validate visual correctness.
eyes.close();
} finally {
// Abort test in case of an unexpected error.
eyes.abortIfNotClosed();
driver.close();
}
}
}
Of course - if your class change impacts several places in the application / website then it's best to make sure your test covers all these places and that you take screenshots of all these places.
Related
I need a good practice to deal with my issue.
The issue is: I need to run automatic tests against a site. The site has different configurations that completely change its design (on some pages). For example I can config 2 different pages of login. And I need to test them both.
First of all I must make sure that a correct test is run against a correct configuration. So before each test I need to change site's config. It is not good if I have a thousand of test.
So a solution that comes to my mind is to not reconfigure the site each time but do it once and run all the tests that are corresponding to this configuration. But this solution doesn't seems to me as an easy one to make.
For now what I did is: I created a method that is run once before all the other tests and in this method I configure the site to make config that are used in the majority of the tests. All the other tests for now change the config before execution and after execution they change it back. It's not good at all.
To do so I used NUnit3 SetUpFixture and OneTimeSetUp attributes:
/// <summary>
/// Runs once before all the test in order to config the environment
/// </summary>
[SetUpFixture]
public class ConfigTests
{
[OneTimeSetUp]
public void RunBeforeAnyTests()
{
IWebDriver driver = new ChromeDriver();
try
{
//Here I config the stie
CommonActions actions = new CommonActions(driver);
actions.SwitchOffCombinedPaymentPage();
driver.Dispose();
}
catch (Exception)
{
driver.Dispose();
}
}
}
What I thought after this is that I'll be able to send parameters to SetUpFixture but first of all it's impossible and second of all it won't resolve the problem as this feature will just be run twice and the tests will be run against the last configuration.
So guys, how to deal with a site testing that has a lot of configurations?
I'd use a test run parameter from the command-line (or in the .runsettings file if you are using the VS adapter) Your SetUpFixture can grab that parameter and do the initialization and any individual fixtures that need it can grab it as well.
See the --params option to nunit3-console and the TestContext.TestParameters property for accessing the values.
This answers your "first of all it's impossible" part. I didn't answer "second of all... " because I don't understand it. I'll add more if you can clarify.
I developed an API which aims to get the location of the user and stuff like that.
I would like to test my code, so I created a Windows Phone 8 Unit Test project.
However, it seems that the tests which I can do are very limited, because:
I can't switch off/on network, GPS... => to test cases like the user
doesn't have a location service enables on his phone;
I can't emulate a location. The only default location I get is the default
one of the emulator (near Seattle)
Is there a way to make some more accurate tests ?
Unit testing consists of testing your code in complete isolation. When you have code that interacts with external resources (e.g., Location Services), you need to design seams into your architecture which will allow you to mock out that external code.
You mentioned testing code that could behave differently when GPS is enabled/disabled. This is a good example of where a seam could be introduced. For example, consider that you had the following code:
var watcher = new GeoCoordinateWatcher();
watcher.Start();
if (watcher.Permission.Equals(GeoPositionPermission.Granted))
{
// Do stuff that requires GPS
}
else
{
// Handle situation where GPS is disabled
}
You aren't able to test this code in isolation because it is tightly coupled to the Location Services (specifically, the GeoCoordinateWatcher class). To address this, you can introduce an abstraction with the following interface:
public interface IGpsChecker
{
bool IsGpsEnabled();
}
Using this interface, your code could be changed to:
if (m_gps_checker.IsGpsEnabled()) // m_gps_checker is supplied to your class via constructor, etc.
{
// Do stuff that requires GPS
}
else
{
// Handle situation where GPS is disabled
}
In your production code, you would provide the class with an implementation that simply uses the original logic:
public class LocationServicesGpsChecker : IGpsChecker
{
public bool IsGpsEnabled()
{
var watcher = new GeoCoordinateWatcher();
watcher.Start();
return watcher.Permission.Equals(GeoPositionPermission.Granted);
}
}
However, in your test code you would provide a test double to the class that you're testing, giving you precise control of the conditions under which you're working.
The emulator error youre experiencing is a well known one.
Here is the work around.
Launch your app
Press the start button
Open the emualtors Maps app
Set your location with the emulators GPS location tool
find your location with the Maps app
Return to your app
Now you can use the built in visual studio network emulation tool
In most cases if you continue to update your location on the emulators GPS simulation tool it will continue to work. On occasion you will have to repeat steps 2 -> n
As with any other unit tests, you may have to "mock" these scenarios:
You may have to "mock" the scenario of location services not available.
You may have to prepare a hard coded set of coordinates (longitude/latitude) values to run your test with.
Hope this answers your question.
I have a small problem, I have created some Selenium tests. The problem is I can't order the testcases I have created. I know unit testing should not be ordered but this is what I need in my situation. I have to follow these steps: login first, create a new customer, change some details about the customer and finally log out.
Since there is no option to order unit tests in NUnit I can't execute this.
I already tried another option, to create a unittest project in Visual Studio, because Visual Studio 2012 has the ability to create a ordered unit test. But this is not working because I can't run a unit test while I am running my ASP.NET project. Another solution file is also not a good option because I want to verify my data after it has been submitted by a Selenium test.
Does someone of you have another solution to solve my problem?
If you want to test all of those steps in a specific order (and by the sounds of it, as a single session) then really it's more like an acceptance test you are talking about; and in that case it's not a sin to write more complex test methods and Assert your conditions after each step.
If you want to test each step in true isolation (a pure unit test) then each unit test must be capable of running by itself without any reference to any other tests; but when you're testing the actual site UI itself this isn't really an option for you.
Of course if you really you want to have every single test somehow setup every single dependency without reference to any other actions (e.g in the last test you would need to fake the login token, your data layer will have to pretend that you added a new customer, etc. A lot of work for dubious benefit...)
I say this based on the assumption that you already have unit tests written for the server-side controllers, layers, models, etc, that you run without any reference to the actual site running in a browser and are therefore confident that the various back-end part of your site do what they are supposed to do
In your case I'd recommend more of a hybrid integration/acceptance test
void Login(IWebDriver driver)
{
//use driver to open browser, navigate to login page, type user/password into box and press enter
}
void CreateNewCustomer(IWebDriver driver)
{
Login(driver);
//and then use driver to click "Create Customer" link, etc, etc
}
void EditNewlyCreatedCustomer(IWebDriver driver)
{
Login(driver);
CreateNewCustomer(driver);
//do your selenium stuff..
}
and then your test methods:
[Test]
void Login_DoesWhatIExpect()
{
var driver = new InternetExplorerDriver("your Login URL here");
Login(driver);
Assert(Something);
}
[Test]
void CreateNewCustomer_WorksProperly()
{
var driver = new InternetExplorerDriver("your Login URL here");
CreateNewCustomer(driver);
Assert(Something);
}
[Test]
void EditNewlyCreatedCustomer_DoesntExplodeTheServer()
{
var driver = new InternetExplorerDriver("your Login URL here");
EditNewlyCreatedCustomer(driver);
Assert(Something);
}
In this way the order of the specific tests do not matter; certainly if the Login test fails then the CreateNewCustomer and EditNewlyCreatedCustomer tests will also fail but that's actually irrelevant in this case as you are testing an entire "thread" of operation
Is there a way to inject providers when writing unit tests using Karma(Testacular) and Jasmine in angular?
Our team decided recently to use angularjs $log to write debugging details to the console. This way we can leverage the ability to disable the logging via the $logProvider.debugEnabled() method.
angular.module("App", ["prismLogin", "ui.bootstrap"])
.config(["$routeProvider", "$logProvider",
function ($routeProvider, $logProvider) {
$routeProvider
//routes here edited for brevity
//This is the offending line, it breaks several pre-existing tests
$logProvider.debugEnabled(true);
}]);
However after adding the $logProvider.debugEnabled(true); line several of our tests no longer execute successfully, failing with the following message:
TypeError: Object doesn't support property or method 'debugEnabled' from App
So my question again, is it possible to mock the $logProvider? Or should I provide my own configuration block for the test harness?
I attempted searching for a way to mock the app module with no luck. It seems to me that using the concrete app module instead of a mock is very brittle. I would like to avoid reworking tests associated with the app module every time a change is made in the app or run configuration blocks.
The tests that are failing are units of code with no relation to the $logProvider? I feel as if I a missing something here and making things much harder than they should be. How should one go about writing tests that are flexible and are not affected by other side effects introduced in your application?
It appears that this is a know issue with angular-mocks.
Until the issue is addressed , I was able to resolve the issue by adding the following method to the angular.mock.$LogProvider definition in angular-mocks.js at line 295.
this.debugEnabled = function(flag) {
return this;
};
I've been trying to write some initial NUnit unit tests for MonoRail, having got some basics working already. However, while I've managed to check whether a Flash["message"] value has been set by a controller action, the BaseControllerTest class doesn't seem to store the output for a view at all, so whether I call RenderView or the action itself, nothing gets added to the Response.OutputContent data.
I've also tried calling InPlaceRenderView to try to get it to write to a StringWriter, and the StringWriter also seems to get nothing back - the StringBuilder that returns is also empty.
I'm creating a new controller instance, then calling
PrepareController(controller,"","home","index");
So far it just seems like the BaseControllerTest is causing any output to get abandoned. Am I missing something? Should this work? I'm not 100% sure, because while I'm also running these unit tests in MonoDevelop on Linux, although MonoRails is working OK there.
While I haven't got an ideal method for testing Views, this is possibly less important when ViewComponents can be tested adequately. To test views within the site itself, I can use Selenium. While in theory that can be made part of an NUnit test suite, that didn't run successfully under MonoDevelop in my tests (failing to start the connection to Selenium RC consistently, despite the RC interactive session working fine). However, the Selenium tests can be run as a set from Firefox, which is not too bad - unit testing with NUnit, then Integration/System testing scripting using a Selenium suite, and that setup will work in a Linux/MonoDevelop setup.
As for testing the underlying elements, you can check for redirections and check the flash value set or the like, so that's all fine, and for testing ViewComponents the part-mocked rendering does return the rendered output in an accessible form, so they've proved much easier to test in NUnit (with a base test class of BaseViewComponentTest) as follows:
[Test]
public void TestMenuComponentRendersOK()
{
var mc = new MenuComponent();
PrepareViewComponent(mc);
var dict = new System.Collections.Specialized.ListDictionary();
dict.Add("data",getSampleMenuData());
dict.Add("Name","testmenu");
// other additional parameters
mc.RenderComponent(mc,dict);
Assert.IsTrue(this.Output.Contains(""),"List items should have been added");
}