The intern testing framework (http://theintern.io) comes with built in istanbul support.
Adding lcov to the reports array generates only a lcov.info file which might be converted with genhtml:
define({
// ..
reporters: [
'lcov'
],
//..
});
Is it possible to generate a full html report?
You can use the 'lcovhtml' (Intern 1.4–2.2) or 'LcovHtml' (Intern 3+) reporter to generate a full HTML coverage report.
Related
I have an application that runs a Jest test suite from the command line, then takes the JSON output, parses it and then fills table in a database as per the output file. The application runs shell command:
npm run all
and in the package.json file the all script looks like this:
"scripts": {
"all": "../node_modules/.bin/jest --json --outputFile=testResults.json",`
......
}
So I get the testResults.json file and I am able to parse it - so far so good.
But during the test case run I would like to add some extra data to the output. Something like details - where the problems is, how to fix it, some troubleshooting information etc. For example to put one more field in :
require('testResults.json').testResults[x].assertionResults[y].details
You see, the detail property is not part of the json output file format. But can I create it from within the test case (pseudo example):
test('Industry code should match ind_full_code', async () => {
result = await stageDb.query(QUERY);
// And here I want to add this custom information to some global property available?
reporter.thisTestCase.assertionResults.details = "Here is what you should do to fix this ...." // <- Ideally this is how easy I imagine it to be.
expect(result.results).toEqual([]);
}, 2 * 100 * 1000)
I just want to give a little bit more information to the QA or whomever on test failure.
In other words I need the option to change the output from within the test case.
I've been looking into custom reporters, but their listeners are passed the same information as to the json reported.
I've found a need for a similar feature in Jest. The ability to add documentation to the test is rarely supported by test frameworks.
However I found a way to do this with the soon to be default runner: Jest Circus. I then made my own Jest Circus environment. A custom Jest Circus environment provides more test events/lifecycles and access to the actual test code that is being ran.
// Example of a custom Jest Circus environment
export default class MyCustomNodeEnvironment extends NodeEnvironment {
handleTestEvent(event: Circus.Event, state: Circus.State) {
if(event.name === 'test_fn_start') {
console.log(event.test.toString())
// will log the actual test code.
}
}
}
// jest.config.js
{
"testEnvironment": "<rootDir>/my-custom-environment.js",
"testRunner": "jest-circus/runner"
}
I then used regex patterns to find comments in the test functions and add them to the Allure report (Allure report demo).
If you'd like to create your own Jest environment and implement this yourself I've made a template repo or if you prefer a gist of a basic Jest Circus environment.
If you like how Allure reports look you should checkout my open source project jest-circus-allure-environment.
I tried a lot of mocha reporters, that can create report HTML files, but none of them showed the console output for every test and just showed the source code of the test.
Why is that? The console output is the exact information that i want to see in my reports!
Tried:
- mocha-simple-html-reporter
- mochawesome
- .others maybe
The only reporter that shows the console output is the Intellij bundled one, but there is no way i can make it create test report html file for me with console command
Mochawesome generates new report for every spec we have. And since by default it overwrites old reports, this means it will only keep last test spec run. This we can fix by setting overwrite flag to false. Changing this flag to false would just generate new file at each run. So you should delete old ones before running, manually or by using some script.
{
"reporter": "mochawesome",
"reporterOptions": {
"charts": false,
"html": true,
"json": true,
"reportDir": "cypress/reports",
"reportFilename": "report",
"overwrite": true
}
}
I want to show only "dots" report in command prompt and complete "progress" report saved in a text file. Is there any way to achieve this? Thanks in advance.
I don't know of an existing module for human readable text file outputs, hopefully someone can recommend one. If you want something human readable you could write your own reporter following the patterns in jasmine-reporters.
I do generate a junit format xml file for use with jenkins alongside my dots, here is a snippet from config.set({ ... }) in my karma.conf showing how to output to two reporters:
plugins : [
'karma-phantomjs-launcher',
'karma-jasmine',
'karma-junit-reporter'
],
reporters: ['progress','junit'],
junitReporter : {
outputFile: path.join(__dirname, '..', 'junit-unit-frontend.xml'),
suite: ''
},
I need to be able to report qUnit tests to a file so my build server can parse them.
I'm using qUnit (grunt-contrib-qunit) through Grunt along with the jUnit reporter found here.
I can get the report to write to the log just as it states but I'm having trouble getting it into a file. I've tried qunit callbacks in my gruntfile but none of them seem to get the xml info. I also tried to simply redirect stdout but it (of course) printed all of the non-xml command-line stuff along with the xml.
In short, I've got the XML echoing properly in the console.log statement. I just need to get this to a file somehow. Either through Grunt, phantomjs, or any other means.
Well, if you're running QUnit tests from Grunt, then you have the full power of Node at your disposal. I've never used that JUnit plugin, but if it just gives you callback in your QUnit HTML file, then you would need a browser solution (even if that is phantomjs).
Phantom uses QtWebKit, which has implemented the File API so you could implement a solution using that from JUnit's callback, but, of course, that would fail if you run the tests in certain other browsers (namely IE9 or under). Here's how that might look (no guarantees on this being exact, I have not run it):
QUnit.jUnitReport = function(report) {
function onInitFs(fs) {
fs.root.getFile('qunit_report.xml', {create: true}, function(fileEntry) {
fileEntry.createWriter(function(fileWriter) {
fileWriter.onwriteend = function(e) { /* if you need it */ };
fileWriter.onerror = function(e) { /* if you need it */ };
var blob = new Blob([report.xml], {type: 'application/xml'});
fileWriter.write(blob);
}, someErrorHandlerFunction);
}, someErrorHandlerFunction);
}
window.requestFileSystem(window.TEMPORARY, 1024*1024, onInitFs, someErrorHandlerFunction);
}
And again, if you need to do something to write the file in IE9 or under (or some mobile browsers) you'll need another solution, like kicking off an ajax request to upload the data to a server that stores the file. You could even run that "server" from within Grunt and have Node write the file.
I'm writing unit-tests with the Jasmine-framework.
I use Grunt and Karma for running the Jasmine testfiles.
I simply want to load the content of a file on my local file-system (e.g. example.xml).
I thought I can do this:
var fs = require('fs');
var fileContent = fs.readFileSync("test/resources/example.xml").toString();
console.log(fileContent);
This works well in my Gruntfile.js and even in my karma.conf.js file, but not in my
Jasmine-file. My Testfile looks like this:
describe('Some tests', function() {
it('load xml file', function() {
var fs = require("fs");
fileContent = fs.readFileSync("test/resources/example.xml").toString();
console.log(fileContent);
});
});
The first error I get is:
'ReferenceError: require is not defined'.
Does not know why I cannot use RequireJS here, because I can use it
in Gruntfiel.js and even in karma.conf.js?!?!?
Okay, but when manually add require.js to the files-property in karma.conf.js-file,
then I get the following message:
Module name "fs" has not been loaded yet for context: _. Use require([])
With the array-syntax of requirejs, nothing happens.
I guess that is not possible to access Node.js functionality in Jasmine when running the
testfiles with Karma. So when Karma runs on Node.js, why is it not possible to access the 'fs'-framework of Nodejs?
Any comment/advice is welcome.
Thanks.
Your test do not work because karma - is a testrunner for client-side JavaScript (javascript who run in browser), but you want to test node.js code with it (which run on the server part). So karma just can't run server-side tests. You need different testrunner, for example take a look to jasmine-node.
Since this comes up first in the Google search, I received a similar error but wasn't using any node.js-style code in my project. Turns out the error was one of my bower components had a full copy of jasmine in it including its node.js-style code, and I had
{ pattern: 'src/**/*.js', included: false },
in my karma.conf.js.
So unfortunately Karma doesn't provide the best debugging for this sort of thing, dumping you out without telling you which file caused the issue. I had to just tear that pattern down to individual directories to find the offender.
Anyway, just be wary of bower installs, they bring a lot of code down into your project directory that you might not really care to have.
I think you're missing the point of unit testing here, because it seems to me that you're copying application logic into your test suite. This voids the point of a unit test because what it is supposed to do is run your existing functions through a test suite, not to test that fs can load an XML file. In your scenario if your XML handling code was changed (and introduced a bug) in the source file it would still pass the unit test.
Think of unit testing as a way to run your function through lots of sample data to make sure it doesn't break. Set up your file reader to accept input and then simply in the Jasmine test:
describe('My XML reader', function() {
beforeEach(function() {
this.xmlreader = new XMLReader();
});
it('can load some xml', function() {
var xmldump = this.xmlreader.loadXML('inputFile.xml');
expect(xmldump).toBeTruthy();
});
});
Test the methods that are exposed on the object you are testing. Don't make more work for yourself. :-)