I started working with behavior driven tool cucumber. Its a fun tool to use. While i was working on a problem. I came across that most of time, I am not reusing my code.
That's why I want to call a scenario from another scenario. I have searched but found nothing helpful. Can I do that ?
Another same question posted here on github
This may be what you're looking for: https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber/wiki/Calling-Steps-from-Step-Definitions
So there are a couple of things you can do. If you have a step you want to reuse like the following:
Given /^I log in as (.*)$/ do |name|
# ...
end
You can call it within another step like so:
Given /^(.*) is logged in$/ do |name|
step "I log in as #{name}"
end
You can also do the following within a step definition:
steps %Q{
Given I log in as #{name}
}
I came to the same question - and found this post. Maybe it is on purpose that you cannot call Scenarios from other Scenarios. The framework is based on that you think about creating practical Stepdefinitions, so they can be used many times. The basis is to think before creating steps...
I created own Steps vor Login-Method, Pagetransitions to search-page or new File etc..
So in many Scenarios i reuse these Steps - and then add new ones (that can be reused, too).
Now you can think about how big one step should be. You can size it as one action in the testobject or use it as a routine to come to a certain startpoint of your Test over multiple actions. E.G. Given Go to Startpage of creating a security request
Java Code:
#Given ("^Go to Startpage of creating a security request$")
public void GoToStartpageOfCreatingASecurityRequest(){
//logic to get to the demanded point in testobject...
}
So as any other framework cucumber has its limits but they are intended and you have ways to work around it. ;)
Do not forget to use assertions in your test. Wether you use JUNIT or TestNG (I use TestNG). ;)
Related
I want to have an option on the cucumber report to mute/hide scenarios with a given tag from the results and numbers.
We have a bamboo build that runs our karate repository of features and scenarios. At the end it produces nice cucumber html reports. On the "overview-features.html" I would like to have an option added to the top right, which includes "Features", "Tags", "Steps" and "Failures", that says "Excluded Fails" or something like that. That when clicked provides the same exact information that the overview-features.html does, except that any scenario that's tagged with a special tag, for example #bug=abc-12345, is removed from the report and excluded from the numbers.
Why I need this. We have some existing scenarios that fail. They fail due to defects in our own software, that might not get fixed for 6 months to a year. We've tagged them with a specified tag, "#bug=abc-12345". I want them muted/excluded from the cucumber report that's produced at the end of the bamboo build for karate so I can quickly look at the number of passed features/scenarios and see if it's 100% or not. If it is, great that build is good. If not, I need to look into it further as we appear to have some regression. Without these scenarios that are expected to fail, and continue to fail until they're resolved, it is very tedious and time consuming to go through all the individual feature file reports and look at the failing scenarios and then look into why. I don't want them removed completely as when they start to pass I need to know so I can go back and remove the tag from the scenario.
Any ideas on how to accomplish this?
Karate 1.0 has overhauled the reporting system with the following key changes.
after the Runner completes you can massage the results and even re-try some tests
you can inject a custom HTML report renderer
This will require you to get into the details (some of this is not documented yet) and write some Java code. If that is not an option, you have to consider that what you are asking for is not supported by Karate.
If you are willing to go down that path, here are the links you need to get started.
a) Example of how to "post process" result-data before rendering a report: RetryTest.java and also see https://stackoverflow.com/a/67971681/143475
b) The code responsible for "pluggable" reports, where you can implement a new SuiteReports in theory. And in the Runner, there is a suiteReports() method you can call to provide your implementation.
Also note that there is an experimental "doc" keyword, by which you can inject custom HTML into a test-report: https://twitter.com/getkarate/status/1338892932691070976
Also see: https://twitter.com/KarateDSL/status/1427638609578967047
I am doing BDD test on an app with cucumber, and I want to have clear instruction as it is recommanded in cucumber doc. The thing is that we have to do reusable step definitions so the maintenance cost is acceptable.
Example of scenario we have
Given I am on project page
When I click on 'buttonAddProject' //not easily readable
And I click on 'switchProjectPrivate'
And I click on 'buttonDeleteProject'
etc..
I don't want to have a function for each step like that: I change projet visibily or I delete project,
because this is basically just a click on a button, and we are going to have hundred of function like this. I also can't change the param in key to something more suitable, because every button key should be unique to avoid ambiguity.
So is there a way to do this with cucumber ?:
Given I am on project page
When I click on 'Add' //easily readable
And I click on 'Private'
And I click on 'Delete'
Bindings: //this keyword doesn't exist
'Add' : 'buttonAddProject'
'Private': 'switchProjectPrivate'
'Delete':'buttonDeleteProject'
I have tried that:
Scenario Outline:
Given I am on project page
When I click on <Add> //easily readable
And I click on <Private>
And I click on <Delete>
Examples:
|Add |Private |Delete |
|'buttonAddProject'|switchProjectPrivate'|'buttonDeleteProject'|
it works... but I need to do this for every scenario in the file, and if I really want to use scenario outline to iterate several times, I would have to copy paste this for every line, not really what I want.
How to organize this tests to make them more readable without making things to complex ?
First of all Cucumber scenarios that show HOW each thing is done are not maintainable or particularly useful.
What are cucumber scenario should describe and document is WHAT you are doing. To do this you need to determine WHY you are clicking on these buttons and what is achieved by these actions.
Now I have no idea from your scenarios about WHAT you are adding, WHY it is private or WHY you are then deleting it. But I can speculate from your post. The scenarios you should be writing should be something like.
Scenario: Delete a project
Given there is an existing project
And I am viewing the project
When I delete the project
Then ...
Scenario: Create a project
When I create a project
Then a project should be created
When you write your scenarios in this manner you push the details of how you interact with your UI down into your step definitions. So you might have something like
When 'I create a project' do
visit project_page
click "Create Project"
end
or better just
When 'I create a project' do
# must be on project page
click "Create Project"
When you work this way step definition re-use becomes less relevant and valuable. Each step does more and does something more specific.
You can continue this pattern of pushing the HOW down by having step definitions make calls to helper methods. This is particularly useful when dealing with Given's which get alot of re-use. Lets explore this with Given there is an existing project
Given 'there is an existing project' do
#project = create_project
end
Here we are pushing how we create an existing project down into the helper method create_project. The crude way to this would be to go through your UI visiting the project page and adding a new project. However this is really slow. You can optimise this process by bypassing your UI.
The most important point, whatever you decide to do, is that you are taking HOW you do something out of Cucumber and into some underlying code so now Cucumber is only interested in WHAT you are doing and WHY its important.
Making this change is probably the single most important thing you can do when Cuking. If you keep the HOW in your cucumber scenarios and step definitions you will end with a large number of brittle step definitions and very large scenarios that break all the time because everything is coupled together. You will get lots of bugs where making a change to get one step definition working causes lots of other scenarios to break. You will get lots of bugs where small changes to how you do a particular thing cause lots of unrelated scenarios to break.
Finally you are not doing BDD if you are writing the test after the code has been written. You can only do BDD if you write your scenarios collaboratively before the code is written.
Each step must be tied to a step definition. If you like to reuse an existing step def, you can just pass the command as argument (" Add", "Private","Delete"). You will have to use both the scenario name and the corresponding command to perform the required action.It will be something like this,
Scenario: scenario1_deleteproject
Given I am on project page
When I click on 'Add'
And I click on 'Private'
And I click on 'Delete'
Scenario: scenario2_createproject
Given I am on project page
When I click on 'Add'
And I click on 'Private'
And I click on 'Delete'
The step definition:
#When("When I click on {string}")
public void I_Click_On_Something(String command)
{
Switch(Command)
{
case Add:
//perform steps here
case delete:
//perform steps here
default:
}
If you want to differentiate the commands between the scenario, you will have to use scenario name ( need a class with definitions of scenario & command). You can grab the scenario name #Before hook.
I am working on a project where there may be several configurations (site for customer A , site for customer B,...). Each configuration has potentially different interactions (it is rare).
So I wrote my code with scenarios for certain configurations.
#config1 #config2 #config3
Scenario: A
Given hello
#config1
Scenario: B
Given hello
Scenario: C
Given hello
The problem is that I can’t find a solution to say when I’m on config "config3" that I want scenario A and C.
I’ve tested a lot of combinations with ~#config3 or not #config3. But I can’t do what I want to do.
Is that even possible?
A big thanks for your help.
One thing is that you are trying to combine a scenario with tag and without a tag which might not even possible as per my knowledge.
One solution to this is that you can have a tag on scenario c and combine that with other tags.
Let us assume you have #tagc on scenario c. Then you can use that with other tags to make it work.
if you want to run scenario 1 and 3: (#config3 or #tagc) Scenario 1 and 2: (#config1)
Reference: https://cucumber.io/docs/cucumber/api/#tags
I have to execute certain Examples from Scenario Outlines.
Let's see the following example:
Feature: Temp
Scenario Outline: Test.Something.On.<environment>
When action is performed on "<environment>"
Examples:
|environment|
|lab |
|prod |
I would like to execute only the example with lab from the upper presented Examples.
I tried the followings:
Filter by line number: mvn clean test -Dcucumber.options="src/test/resources/features/Temp.feature:8" - this way only the lab scenario was executed, however this is not a long term solution;
Filter by name: mvn clean test -Dcucumber.options="name lab" - it works for Scenario but not for Scenario Outline even if the name of the scenario will be Test.Something.On.lab;
decompose the Scenario Outline in Scenarios and tag the proper scenarios with #lab and #prod - I hate code duplication and the subsequent maintenance, therefore I hope there is an another solution for this.
Any suggestions?
Big thanks.
Another sub-keywords: maven, java, cucumber-java8, cucumber-junit, junit
Use two examples in yoour scenario outline and tag each example in a similar way as you have done in your third option. That should give you the behaviour you are asking for.
I have a site that completely differs on the front-end between the mobile and desktop versions.
You cannot scope steps when defining them on Cucumber, so I am stuck with two solutions (as I see):
Write every step that conflicts with the other version, explicitly saying which version I am
Set up a "background" which tells me what is my context, and change all the step definitions to check for this context
None of this seem optimal to me.
Is there a better/cleaner way to do this?
You can use tags and hooks for this, tag each scenario/feature with the version of the site it tests:
#mobile
Scenario: Logging in on mobile
Given I visit the login page
#desktop
Scenario: Logging in on desktop
Given I visit the login page
Use some hooks to set a variable indicating the version of the site being tested:
Before '#mobile' do
#version = :mobile
end
Before '#desktop' do
#version = :desktop
end
Then in your steps:
Given /^I visit the login page$/ do
if #version == :desktop
# Desktop specific code
elsif
# Mobile specific code
else
raise "Don't know what to do!"
end
end
I ended up using a solution similar to Jon M.
For the concurring steps I made a "meta" step, that passes on to the correct context. Here is an example:
When /^I log in$/ do
step %Q{I log in on #{#context}}
end
Then in another file (separated by context) I have:
When /^I log in on mobile$/ do
# do stuff
end
To setup the context, I created a support module. Basically, it keeps the current context and also has a default one, that you can change with a step:
Given /^I am on the "(.*?)" version$/ do |version|
#context = version
end
It's not exactly how I setup the context part, but you get the picture.
The advantage in this, is that I can have infinite contexts and this "meta" steps will pick them up. I also don't have bloated steps. Each step stays simple and only deals with it's own context logic.
The downside is that for each non-default context I have, I need a Background stating that I am on a different context.
I won't accept a right answer here, since there is no such thing. You can deal with it with different approaches and until now, there isn't even a best practice about this :)