I am trying to add a shared step to a test case that is being created using
CreateWorkItemAsync()
It is no problem to create test steps and add them to the test case
ITestStep testStep1 = testBase.CreateTestStep();
but I am trying to add an existing shared step to the test case. I cannot find a way in the Azure Devops SDK to do so.
There is a ISharedStepReference Interface which used to call a shared step set from a test case.
You should be able to add a shared step into a specific test case. A code snippet for your reference:
ITestManagementService testService = tfsCollection.GetService<ITestManagementService>();
ITestManagementTeamProject teamProject = testService.GetTeamProject(teamProjectName);
//find test case by testcase id
ITestCase testcase1 = teamProject.TestCases.Find(192); //192 is the testcase id
//find share steps by sharedstep id
ISharedStep sharedStep1 = teamProject.SharedSteps.Find(140); //140 is the shared step id
//Add shareSteps to the specific test case
ISharedStepReference sharedStepReference = testcase1.CreateSharedStepReference();
sharedStepReference.SharedStepId = sharedStep1.Id;
testcase1.Actions.Add(sharedStepReference);
testcase1.Save();
What I ended up doing is creating the test case using
CreateWorkItemAsync()
and then getting that work item using
GetWorkItemAsync()
and then editing the field
Microsoft.VSTS.TCM.Steps
as xml and inserting my own nodes into the proper places to add shared steps to the test case. You can see the format of the shared steps by getting a test case with an API GET request and looking at the format of Microsoft.VSTS.TCM.Steps.
Related
I need to :
1. Create a single page location application
2. Display all the asset present in the selected location in a table
3. Provide a button from which user can navigate to WOTRACK to view all the workorder(s) created on selected location and its asset(s).
I am facing difficulty in the 3rd one. I have tried Launch in Context and it is working fine except am not able to pass sql query like 'location={location} and assetnum in ({asset.assetnum})'. I need to filter workorders with particular location and all its assets.
I tried to save all the assets in the location to a Non-persistant attribute and passing the values of the attribute in the Launch in context url, Its working as expected but to do so I have written a script on 'Initialize value' which is causing performance issues.
script goes like this:
from psdi.server import MXServer;
from psdi.mbo import MboConstants;
if app == "LOCATION1" :
if mbo.getString("LOCATION") is not None:
Locsite = mbo.getString("SITEID")
desc = mbo.getString("DESCRIPTION")
MaxuserSet = MXServer.getMXServer().getMboSet("MAXUSER", mbo.getUserInfo())
MaxuserSet.setWhere(" userid='"+user+"' ")
MaxuserSet.reset()
UserSite = MaxuserSet.getMbo(0).getString("DEFSITE")
if Locsite == UserSite:
AssetSet = mbo.getMboSet("ASSET")
AssetSet.setFlag(MboConstants.DISCARDABLE, True);
if not AssetSet.isEmpty():
AssetList = ""
AssetMbo = AssetSet.moveFirst()
while AssetMbo is not None:
AssetList = AssetList + str(AssetMbo.getString("ASSETNUM")) + "%2C"
AssetMbo = AssetSet.moveNext()
mbo.setValue("non-persitant",str(AssetList),11L)
and in the LIC url i have given : 'http://xx.x.x.xx/maximo/ui/?event=loadapp&value=wotrack&tabid=List&additionalevent=useqbe&additionaleventvalue=location={LOCATION}|assetnum={non-persistant}'
Is there any other feasible solution to the requirement?
Thanks in Advance
Launch In Context is better used for sending the user to an outside-of-Maximo application and passing along some data from inside-Maximo to provide context in that external app.
What you are doing sounds like a good place to use a workflow process with an Interaction node. The developer tells the Interaction node which app to take the user to and which Relationship to use to find the data the user should work with there.
Why don't you add a table control inside the table details (expanded table row) and show a list of the work orders there. From the WONUM in that table, you could have an app link to take them to WOTRACK, if they want more details about a particular work order. No customization (automation scripting) needed. No workflow needed. Nice and simple.
I have a bit of structural dilemma in soap. When running tests, it can be possible to run tests at project, test suite or test case level.
Now currently what happens is that we can run a whole project via project level and it will display a prompt box to select an endpoint (through a project level setup script and produces a project report using the project level tear down script).
However, it may be possible that the tester may not want to run a whole project and only wants to run a test suite or even a test case. Now it may be possible that the tester may only want to run only a test suite or even only a test case. Now it would be a hassle disabling suites or cases you don't want to run.
Now the problem i have is that if I start putting prompt boxes to select endpoints at suite or case level, everytime we hit a suite or case, it will always ask for an endpoint. Another thing is that I am thinking not creating suite or test case reposts because if running many suites or cases one by one, it is just an overkill on reporting.
I like your thinking on this, but I was speaking with my professional colleague and what we're thinking is this:
Add the below code for all test suites and test case level in their relevant setup scripts where it asks for endpoint (this is same code used in project set up script for selecting endpoint):
import com.eviware.soapui.support.*
def alert = com.eviware.soapui.support.UISupport
def urls = []
project.properties.each
{
if (it.value.name.startsWith("BASE_URL_"))
{
urls.push(it.value.name.replace("BASE_URL_", ""))
}
}
def urlName = alert.prompt("Please select the environment URL", "Enter URL", urls)
if (urlName)
{
def url = project.getPropertyValue("BASE_URL_" + urlName)
def urlBase = "BASE_URL_" + urlName
project.setPropertyValue("BASE_URL", url)
switch (urlBase){
case "BASE_URL_TEST":
project.setPropertyValue("DOMAIN_NAME", "TEST");
break;
case "BASE_URL_STAGE":
project.setPropertyValue("DOMAIN_NAME", "STAGE");
break;
default:
project.setPropertyValue("DOMAIN_NAME", "NO DOMAIN");
break;
}
}
else
{
log.warn 'haven\'t received user input'
log.warn 'No base URL is selected or cancelled, try again'
assert false
}
Now what we add is the following and we may need to use properties but again see what you think is best:
If test is ran at project level, it will prompt to select endpoint through project setup script but it will not ask for selecting endpoint through test suite or test case setup script. So it's only a single endpoint selection
If test is ran at suite level, it will prompt to select endpoint through project setup script but it will not ask for selecting endpoint through test case setup script. So it's only a single endpoint selection
For running at test case level, well it only runs for that test case so it's at the lowest level as it asks for an endpoint for that test case.
We can't have setup scripts disabled at any level because there maybe over code in those setup script that will need to be exectued, we just need a way to say depending on which level, don't ask for selecting endpoints at lower levels.
Seems complicated to implement but does anyone know best way to implement this or do they even have a better idea than this theory?
Thanks
For a moment, let us assume you get it done for all levels (project, suite, and each case). May be you forgot about the step level ;-)
Do you have any Pros in your approach?, for me, NO.
Cons in your approach:
Each time user executes a test (be it project / suite / any test case), engineer needs to select value from the drop down, which is unwanted though testing against the same server as previous test case & little annoying.
Test execution requires manual intervention each time test execution is invoked.
User Interface is required as drop down being used.
Will be come road block / hurdle for end to end automation or to achieve automation.
Test execution can't done in headless mode. And this is important if you need to use Continuous Integration tools.
Proposed Approach :-
If I have to do the above, I would do the following. That would be clean, damn simple, no such complications would arise that you had mentioned in the long summary.
Looks there are following project properties defined with addresses of the test servers:
BASE_URL_TEST
BASE_URL_STAGE
There is also another project property defined BASE_URL and all the above logic is to allow the user to select the value from above properties to base URL value.
Now all user have to do is change the value for project property BASE_URL. I would think just user have to set one of the below value by hand what he / she needed as (one of them) before proceeding with their tests.
${#Project#BASE_URL_TEST} or
${#Project#BASE_URL_STAGE}
NOTE that a property value can be referred into another property by the use of Property Expansion like above.
With the above, user can set whatever is needed and change only if required or have to change the test server.
No setup script at any level is required any more, and just simply change the value of the property.
Properties are given to make to life simple, which can be used in N number of places and maintain the project easily.
Most Importantly, overcome the Cons mentioned in the beginning.
It is general practice that SoapUI is used to design the tests, and SOAPUI_HOME/bin/testrunner.bat or .sh utility to execute the tests in command line mode and that is the way to achieve Continuous Integration.
That's why use of properties helps here to achieve the above without any issues.
Even simple:
Just have one project property BASE_URL (remove others), user have to just edit the property value and have the test server name / IP address and is done for once, say http://testjuniper. Isn't it dead simple?
And I believe, the engineer would definitely know which server he / she is using to execute the tests.
Having said that, now user do not have to bother at all, irrespective of executing a project / suite / test case, as long as testing is carried out against the same server / environment.
Once, the test execution is finished against TEST environment, the engineer may move on to other environment say STAGING, just change BASE_URL property value accordingly.
I am creating an application where I pass in one or more test cases to the TestLoader that then get run.
I can run and add the testcase to the suite like this
suite1 = unittest.TestLoader().loadTestsFromTestCase(mymodule.Testcase01)
suite = unittest.TestSuite([suite1])
However, what I actually want to do is something like this
myTestcaseAsString="mymodule.Testcase01"
suite1 = unittest.TestLoader().loadTestsFromTestCase(myTestcaseAsaString)
suite = unittest.TestSuite([suite1])
What I want to happen is that the value of myTestcaseAsaString is passed into loadTestsFromTestCase as if it was hard coded like the first example
Is that possible? (my long term goal is to be able to add multiple testcases to teh same suite - if that makes a difference)
Thanks
Grant
This is what I ended up doing
suite2 = unittest.TestLoader().loadTestsFromTestCase(eval(testcasemodule))
I have full control over the testcasemodule value
Thanks
Grant
Can any one know how to transfer the groovyscript response into the properties step of SOAP UI. I am trying to generate the random numbers using the groovy script, and when i am gettign the random generated numbers how do i transfer that value to properties in soap ui which can be used for the TCs as a parametered value.
TIA
To make it simple,
Use below code to store any value on,
test case level custom properties:
testRunner.testCase.setPropertyValue("propertyName","value");
test suite level custom properties:
testRunner.testCase.testSuite.setPropertyValue("propertyName","value");
project level custom properties:
testRunner.testCase.testSuite.project.setPropertyValue("propertyName","value");
Use below code to check whether value stored successfully on runtime:
test case level:
log.info testRunner.testCase.getPropertyValue("propertyName");
test suite level:
log.info testRunner.testCase.testSuite.getPropertyValue("propertyName");
project level:
log.info testRunner.testCase.testSuite.project.getPropertyValue("propertyName");
Use below code to use the property value inside anywhere on,
test case level:
${#TestCase#propertyName}
test suite level:
${#TestSuite#propertyName}
project level:
${#Project#propertyName}
global level:
${#Global#propertyName}
Here you go:
The below groovy script code snippet will generate a random number and set the value into to a test case level custom property, say PROPERTY_NAME.
Groovy Script
context.testCase.setPropertyValue('PROPERTY_NAME', (Math.abs(new Random().nextInt()) + 1).toString())
In the same test case, it can be accessed in any test requests as ${#TestCase#PROPERTY_NAME}
EDIT: Based on the change you wanted while above original code works though
def a = 9
def AccountName = ''
(0..a).each { AccountName = AccountName + new Random().nextInt(a) }
context.testCase.setPropertyValue('Property_Name', AccountName.toString())
Even you achieve the same thing using below (just updated value in nextInt() to the first answer)
context.testCase.setPropertyValue('PROPERTY_NAME', (Math.abs(new Random().nextInt(999999998)) + 1).toString())
I'm new to cucumber, but enjoying it.
I'm currently writing some Frank tests, and would like to reuse blocks of cucumber script across multiple features - I'd like to do this a the cucumber level if possible (not inside the ruby).
For example, I might have 4 scripts that all start by doing the same login steps:
given my app has started
then enter "guest" in "user-field"
and enter "1234" in "password-field"
and press "login"
then I will see "welcome"
then *** here's the work specific to each script ***
Is there any way to share these first 5 lines across multiple scripts? Some kind of "include" syntax?
Generally there are 2 approaches:
Backgrounds
If you want a set of steps to run before each of the scenarios in a feature file:
Background:
given my app has started
then enter "guest" in "user-field"
and enter "1234" in "password-field"
and press "login"
then I will see "welcome"
Scenario: Some scenario
then *** here's the work specific to this scenario ***
Scenario: Some other scenario
then *** here's the work specific to this scenario ***
Calling steps from step definitions
If you need the 'block' of steps to be used in different feature files, or a Background section is not suitable because some scenarios don't need it, then create a high-level step definition which calls the other ones:
Given /^I have logged in$/ do
steps %Q {
given my app has started
then enter "guest" in "user-field"
and enter "1234" in "password-field"
and press "login"
then I will see "welcome"
}
end
Also, in this case I'd be tempted not to implement your common steps as separate steps at all, but to create a single step definition: (assuming Capybara)
Given /^I have logged in$/ do
fill_in 'user-field', :with => 'guest'
fill_in 'password-field', :with => '1234'
click_button 'login'
end
This lends a little bit more meaning to your step definitions, rather than creating a sequence of page interactions which need to be mentally parsed before you realise 'oh, this section is logging me in'.
A better approach is suggested to use ruby level "methods" to code reuse instead of nested steps from code maintenance and debugging perspective.
Here is the link to more detail:
Reuse Cucumber steps
Description
The following method proposes an alternative approach to one of the solutions described in Jon M's answer.
Namely, instead of calling nested steps inside step definitions, such common blocks of steps can be extracted into external .feature files which can be included into your feature file (in a manner of speaking).
How-to
1. Expose utility / helper methods to be able to run steps parsed from a .feature file
# features/support/env.rb
# expose Cucumber runtime
InstallPlugin do |_, registry|
runtime = registry.instance_variable_get('#registry').instance_variable_get('#runtime')
Cucumber.define_singleton_method(:runtime) { runtime }
end
# extend current World with methods to run dynamic (already parsed) steps
Before do
step_invoker = Cucumber::Runtime::SupportCode::StepInvoker.new(Cucumber.runtime.support_code)
define_singleton_method(:dynamic_steps) do |steps|
steps.each do |step|
dynamic_step(step)
end
end
define_singleton_method(:dynamic_step) do |step|
LOGGER.info("Running template step: #{step[:text]}")
step_invoker.step(step)
end
end
2. Create a template file which will contain the steps to be shared
# features/templates/my_profile.template.feature
#template
Feature: Steps to navigate to my_profile_page
Scenario: login_page
Given my app has started on "login_page"
And I enter "guest" in "user-field" on "login_page"
And I enter "1234" in "password-field" on "login_page"
And I press "login" on "login_page" and go to "welcome_page"
Scenario: welcome_page
Given that I am on "welcome_page"
And I click "my_profile_button" on "welcome_page" and go to "my_profile_page"
Scenario: my_profile_page
...
3. Create an utility module which will parse steps from a .feature file
# features/support/template_parser.rb
require 'gherkin/parser'
require 'gherkin/pickles/compiler'
module TemplateParser
class << self
def read_from_template(template_path, from: nil, till: nil)
pickles = load_template(template_path)
flow = construct_flow(pickles)
slice_flow(flow, from, till)
end
private
def load_template(template_path)
source = {
uri: template_path,
data: File.read(template_path),
mediaType: 'text/x.cucumber.gherkin+plain'
}
def source.uri
self[:uri]
end
gherkin_document = Gherkin::Parser.new.parse(source[:data])
id_generator = Cucumber::Messages::IdGenerator::UUID.new
Gherkin::Pickles::Compiler.new(id_generator).compile(gherkin_document, source)
end
def construct_flow(pickles)
pickles.to_h do |pickle|
[
pickle.name,
pickle.steps.map(&:to_h).map { |step| step[:argument] ? step.merge(step[:argument]) : step }
]
end
end
def slice_flow(flow, from, till)
raise NameError, "From step '#{from}' does not exist!" unless from.nil? || flow.keys.include?(from)
raise NameError, "Till step '#{till}' does not exist!" unless till.nil? || flow.keys.include?(till)
from_idx = from.nil? ? 0 : flow.keys.index(from)
till_idx = till.nil? ? -1 : flow.keys.index(till)
flow.slice(*flow.keys[from_idx...till_idx])
end
end
end
4. Create a step definition that will load this template and inject the specified steps dynamically at runtime
And('I complete the {string} template from the {string} until the {string}') do |template, from, till|
template_path = "features/templates/#{template}.template.feature"
flow = TemplateParser.read_from_template(
template_path,
from: from.empty? ? nil : from,
till: till.empty? ? nil : till
)
flow.each_value { |steps| dynamic_steps(steps) }
end
5. Use this step inside your main feature file, by declaring which blocks of steps to use
# features/tests/welcome.feature
Feature: User is welcomed
Scenario: Verify that user sees welcome text
Given I complete the 'my_profile' template from the 'login_page' until the 'my_profile_page'
Then I see 'welcome' on 'welcome_page'
6. Make sure you omit the #template .feature files from being run in your tests
$ bundle exec cucumber --tags ~#template
Limitations
Con:
This method exposes some internals of the private API of cucumber-ruby, which may change in future.
Con:
This is a non-standard way of sharing steps between feature files.
Helper methods are the preferred way to achieve this, as per FAQ.
Pro:
The common blocks of steps are syntax-highlighted, and have proper IntelliSense support in your editor of choice.
Pro:
You can encode entire "workflows" easily this way, allowing you to encode your workflow expectations in a DRY way.
Namely, you can reuse those workflow steps by completing the first part of a workflow, change a few things on a single page as per your test requirements, resume those workflow steps from the follow-up page, and add an appropriate verification at the end of the workflow that covers those test requirements.