I understand the difference between imperative and declarative cucumber steps, but I have not seen any real world examples of this. I always feel like my feature files are becoming too verbose.
It seems like there would need to be a cucumber feature for each step in the life cycle:
foobars/list_foobars.feature
foobars/create_foobar.feature
foobars/view_foobar.feature
foobars/edit_foobar.feature
foobars/delete_foobar.feature
In the create feature alone, it seems like you would want to list out the fields that can be entered, which ones are required, what happens when you enter invalid data, etc. I don't know of a declarative way to do this. Of course in subsequent features, you would just say Given a foobar exists rather than going through all the steps to create one.
How detailed do you go when describing your application's behavior? Can you provide some examples of feature files that you feel are acceptably complete?
I like to keep cucumber tests human readable, so assuming we have a story for editing a foobar with invalid data, I'd want a scenario like:
# foobars/edit_foobar.feature
Feature: As a user, I want to edit a Foobar, so I can Baz
Scenario: Validation Errors
Given I am logged in as a user
And a foobar exists
And I edit the foobar with invalid data
Then I should see validation errors
I think that captures what we want out of the story, without having to deal with all the details of which fields to edit, what buttons to submit, etc. It doesn't test all the possible cases, but those should really be tested via unit tests (model tests that the validations are set, and controller tests that the flash messages are set or request tests that the errors are being served).
The other scenarios are similar:
Scenario: Successful Edit
Given I am logged in as a user
And a foobar exists
And I edit the foobar with valid data
Then I should see the valid data
Some people will want to specify the valid data as part of the test itself, but I personally prefer to delegate these to the step definitions in order to keep the scenarios clean. You just need one example to make sure the golden case works, because again this isn't the appropriate place to test that all the form fields work (and it will become a maintenance headache if you do specify every single field).
I am thinking maybe not test this at all using Cucumber, instead just make a comment in the Feature section.
Alternatively maybe one can do something like this:
# categories.feature
Scenario: Manage categories
Given I want to manage categories
When I <crud_type> a category
Then I should be taken to the listing page
Examples:
| crud_type |
| create |
| edit |
| delete |
Scenario: View category
Given I want to view a particular category
When I click on a category in the category list
Then I should see that category's view page
Related
I am trying to convert Selenium test to Gherkin. Is there way to implement if statements in Gherkin?
Example : assume the code is written in the below format. I am just writing description as below. Please understand the part after double slash is the actual Selenium code:
// launch the application
// login to application
// navigate to page
String str;
if(str== "XYZ")
{
// verify title
}
//verify text field 1
//verify test field 2
//verify select box
For this I am trying to write code in Gherkin as follows
Given user launches the application
When user login with valid credentials
and navigate to required page
When String str is "XYZ"
Then verify title
And verify text field 1
And verify test field 2
And verify select box
but this code is incorrect because if the str is not equal to "XYZ" we want that title should not be verified but other verification like text field1,2 and select box should be verified.
You don't implement if in Gherkin.
Gherkin is about communication and those you want to communicate with, non coders, don't know what an if statement is. They don't care either.
The solution? Two scenarios to cover both cases.
Ideally, this level of detail would not be in your Gherkin scenario. The best approach is describe business use cases, not low level details. This is what Gherkin is designed for: communicating with non-technical stakeholders so that you can work out if you are building the right thing in the first place. Here is what I would write:
Given the user is logged in
And the user is on the required page
When they enter data that requires the optional fields to be validated
And they enter invalid data in the optional fields
Then the form shows an error on the optional fields
The low level details don't matter (that the string is specifically "XYZ" or that it is the title field is not important), so these should be hidden in the step definition and/or unit tests.
In order to continue to check the other fields, you can just add another step after this:
When they enter invalid data in all of the other fields
Then each other field has an error message attached to it.
Again, there is no need to specify the actual fields, or separate them into their own steps. The idea is to express the high level business value of the scenario, i.e. that the form is validated when it should be.
The advantage to keeping things high level is that when the form changes (as it eventually probably will), then this scenario can remain untouched. Which is correct as the business case is the same: it should validate when it's supposed to. All the changes will be in the step definitions. This means that there is no reason to have another discussion with your stakeholders about whether your scenarios are still testing the right thing.
You can write the scenario, somewhat like this:
Given the user launches the application
When user login with valid credentials
And navigates to required page
Then he should see the page datails
Inside the Then step you manage all the logic.
Then(/^he should see the page details$/) do
if condition
...
else
...
end
end
Gherkin is not a programming language to use if or else conditions. It is a part of BDD framework, that is implemented, to make the stakeholders and other non technical resources understand what the test process is about. Hence, it is always recommended, you keep the gherkin as simple and as generic as possible.
Strictly speaking you should create an alternative statement along the lines of:
Given user launches the application
When user login with valid credentials
and navigate to required page
When String str is NOT "XYZ"
In one of step definitions I have created a function say “someFunction” that takes a DataTable, which has been defined in my feature file Feature1.
Feature1.feature
Given: User enters the following data
Varibale1|Variable2|Variable3
Value1|Value2|Value3
StpeDef.java
#Given(“^User enters the following data$”)
public void someFunction(DataTable input){
}
Now in another feature file “Feature2.feature”, one of my scenario needs to use same step i.e. call someFunction. I know I can use the same step definition but does that mean that I would have to redefine same DataTable input in Feature2 file.
If not, how would I do it?
Please note that I understand the Backgound keyword and its use, but if I say I need to keep these scenarios in different feature files, how should this be done?
You'll have to duplicate the common background. Since duplication is unwanted, you should consider giving a name/title to the resulting state that is represented by that common background and create a single given step that can be re-used. Something like "Given: the user has entered valid contact data" or "Given: the shopping cart has 3 items" (where any 3 will do).
I have created the below diagram and I wanted to know if the diagram that I have done is correct.
The below diagram is based on an android application. When the application loads the user is given 3 button to select add, update and help. On click on add button the user is given an option to add a new user or add a new item. When he select either of the options he enters the required data once the data is entered the system check if all the values are entered correctly and then finally saved. The same process is applied for update.
Your diagram misses an entry point. Though it's rather obvious that the top action is the start, only the entry point is the one indicating the beginning.
You can omit most of the diamonds and directly transfer via a guard from actions. So your conditions should be guards and written as [Yes] or [No]. The top most action (and quite some others) is(/are) indeed what should be written inside (or aside) the diamond below.
An excerpt for an update could look like this:
Finally Values added does not look like an action but rather as state. It should be omitted. Alternatively use differently named end flows.
So far for the formal points. But as #eyp said: it's a good one and one can understand what you tried to express. The above is just for the picky teachers.
It's a good one but it lacks some detail in the diamonds. You should write besides the diamon the question before choosing the next setp to do.
For example in the diamond after Check update value you may write is valid? or another question that clarifies more the business logic.
I have the following Gherkins:
Given i go to the URL
And i enter the <NRIC or FIN> as NRIC / FIN
And i select the option to proceed Next
And i select the first available available Handset Color
And i select the option to proceed Next
And i enter <Full Name> as Name
When i select the option to proceed Next
The "I select the option to proceed Next" appears three times. How should this be written as in the Step Definitions Java class file?
As well as the Declarative/Imperative question have a think about what requirement you're describing. I find it's helpful to include the Scenario: in the examples for this reason. It's very unusual to have that much detail in a Given step
Are you testing the creation of an order (bit of a guess)? If so then your enter/select steps should be the Whens in the scenario, so something like:
Scenario: Create a new order
Given I have gone to the URL
When I enter the NRIC/FIN: <NRIC/FIN>
And I choose the first available Handset Colour
And I enter <Full Name> as Name
Then my new order should be confirmed (or whatever)
However, if you're creating the order simply to set up the scenario to test something else then you can cheat and just state that the order should exist:
Scenario: Check the status of an order
Given that I have created an order:
| NRIC/FIN | Colour | Full Name |
| xxxxx | Red | John Doe |
When I check the status of my order
Then I should see a new order...
It's up to the automation whether it clicks through the screens to create that order or just inserts it into the database, all that matters is that by the time you get to the Whens the order should exist.
In an ideal BDD world the Gherkin would be written before the implementation, but it often doesn't work that way. I still find it useful to try and pretend I'm writing the Features in that ideal world. Asking "How would I have written this before we started development?" can help to separate the actual requirements (I can enter an order) from implementation details (I click Next after entering each item of data).
When writing cucumber scenarios you can adopt either a imperative or declarative style. I would prefer to write the same thing as below.
Given i go to the URL
And i enter NRIC / FIN
And i select the first available Handset Color
And i enter <Full Name> as Name
Then I should see that
So it depends on who is going to read your scenarios. A link worth reading is imperative - declarative
I've created my own solution with a custom entity of type activity. I'd like to show a message whenever a new instance of it is created using an existing contact but not allow the user to create one, if only attempting to do that without going via contact.
Basically, my aim is that it won't be impossible to just create that activity (the form will be hidden directly at any attempt except for one way only). The user will have to go to contacts (or leads etc.) and in there add and create an instance of the custom activity entity. That way, I can assure that the field "regarding" will be filled out already.
I'm guessing that I need to detect somehow that the opening of the form is a creation attempt. How can I do that?
Also, as it is now, the user can't create a contact-less activity of the custom type because it doesn't appear on the menu with other activities. I must have disabled it somehow but I have no idea how. Anybody who has one?
You could do this a bunch of ways but the easiest would probably be to:
Make the regarding field read only.
Make the regarding field mandatory.
That way if a user opens a create new form they wont be able to set the regarding and because its mandatory they wont be able to save the record. When they open via an existing contact the regarding field will be mapped automatically. That said in this case just making it mandatory my be enough.
(As a side JavaScript can be used to identify the current form state, but I'm not sure how useful that is here).
In terms of where custom activities appear, by default mine show in a number of locations, for example:
CRM > Workplace > Activities > Ribbon > Other Activities > XXX.
CRM > Workplace > Activities > View Selector > XXX.
They don't show under the left hand navigation of the workplace because they are grouped under 'Activities'. I'm pretty sure these are all the default settings.
You can exercise greater control by editing the sitemap, where you can put pretty much anything, anywhere.
In addition to Mr Wood, I'd like to show you some code. It works as supposed to but I'm not sure if it's optimal.
var foo = function () {
var whatIsGoingOn = Xrm.Page.ui.getFormType();
if (whatIsGoingOn === 1)
alert("Let there be an entity!");
else
alert("Not a creation...");
}
The other states' (deletion, update etc.) numeric values are listed here.
Answering the second part of your question:
When you create a custom activity you can choose whether to have it appear in 'normal' Activity menus or not by checking the box at the top right of the entity form. This is a once-only choice as far as I know and can't be changed later.
For your setup, I would suggest NOT checking this box, so it does not appear in the activity menus to avoid users even being tempted to do it that way.
Instead, add an explicit relationship to the activity N:1 to Contact, and another N:1 to Lead. Use this relationship to add your activity to the left navigation of Contact and Lead forms, or add a grid for them (depends on how you want to use this and if you need to filter the view to something other than the default "Associated View").
When a user navigates to this section they will see if any previous activities of this type exist, and be able to add a new one. BUT this means that the child record is a child via this relationship, not using "regarding", so use a script on the form for the activity so that if Contact is filled in, it is copied to Regarding, and if Lead is filled in then that is copied. If neither, then use an alert or other means to warn the use that something is wrong (see comment earlier). If you want Regarding to be read-only but filled in by script, you will need to make sure to use the force the value to be saved:
Xrm.Page.getAttribute("regardingobjectid").setSubmitMode("always");
You must have the lookups for Contact and Lead on the form to be able to use them in your scripts, but you can make them not "visible by default" so they are there but not seen by the user (and taking up no space).