I have the following Message-level entry in my Error List from CodeContracts:
CodeContracts: Checked 410 assertions: 404 correct (6 masked)
I can't figure out:
What masked assertions are
How to locate the 6 that it mentions
Whether or not I should be concerned about them
Sorry for not posting code... I have no idea how to recreate this in a small sample :)
Many thanks
It's simple, in your project properties>Code Contracts>Static Checking> put the warning at "hi".
Now ccCheck made more warning.
Bye.
These seem to be assertions that are masked by virtue of their inclusion in the "baseline" file. From the documentation (emphasis mine):
6.6.8 Baseline
Bringing an existing code base to a point where the verier emits only a few warnings is dicult and time consuming, as it requires adding numerous contracts. To make it easier to use contracts on existing code bases, and to focus warnings introduced by new code or code changes, the Baseline functionality can be used.
To use the baseline functionality, check the box labelled Baseline and provide a file name to store the baseline in. The path is relative to the project output directory. When the analysis is run and the baseline file does not exist, the baseline is created. During this run, all warnings are shown in the output and stored in the baseline file as XML.
When the analysis is run and the baseline file exists, then the baseline acts as a filter and warnings already found in the baseline are not shown again. New warnings are shown and stored in a file called <baseline>.new, where <baseline> is the file name of the baseline file. Since the files are stored as textual XML, it is possible to edit them and to add additional failures to the baseline. The format does not depend on method ordering and additional XML tags for grouping can be introduced freely.
I was wondering about the "masked" messages, too; I turned off the "baseline" option, and they no longer appeared. The answer to your second question therefore seems to be "clear the 'baseline' check box."
As to whether you should be concerned about them, I would say, yes, you should.
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 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
We want to "Categorize" our work orders more systematically. So far, we've been using Description, but we feel it is not a reliable way. We were hoping to use Failure Class as a starting point, but we find that having on a different tab discourages technicians and the help desk from classifying the work order.
Is it possible to add/duplicate the Failure Class field to Work Order Tracking screen?
Normally, I wouldn't ask, but was not clear if this was possible because Failure Class, Codes, and Tracking are different tables in Maximo. So, I wasn't sure how this would work exactly...
The simple answer is to use Application Designer's copy / paste functionality to duplicate the field. The specific field in question is on the top level of the Work Order Tracking application and facilitates interaction with the FAILURECODE attribute of the Main Object of the application, which is WORKORDER. Therefore, a copy / paste operation should be all you need. (Note: Application Designer's copy / paste functionality is used via that application's toolbar buttons, not Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V.) And if using Application Designer's copy / paste functionality doesn't work to your satisfaction, I would recommend exporting the XML for the application, copying the line of XML as desired and giving it a unique id, and importing the updated XML back in to Maximo. (Application Designer has toolbar buttons for exporting and importing an application's XML.)
You mentioned difficulty getting users to fill it in as a driver for asking the question. Another solution, which you can do as well as or instead of copying the field, is to specify the Failure Class on each Asset. Then, when an Asset is put on a Work Order, its Failure Class will be copied over, saving the users work and risk of not choosing correctly. And another idea is to highlight the Failure tab until a Failure Class is supplied.
And you also mentioned that the driver behind getting them to fill in the Failure Class, and etc, was to help categorize work. To that point, you should know that Failure Classes, in specific, and Failure Codes, in general, are intended to be used to help you determine what's going wrong with your assets, how often, and how the problems are being fixed. So, using them to categorize work is a bad idea. Instead, you should be using the Work Type field and Classifications, because categorizing work is what these are meant to be used for. The Work Type field is already on the Work Order tab, and Classifications fields are on the Specifications tab. You could copy the Classifications fields the same as I directed above for the Failure Class field.
I'm writing a few custom CIFilters for a program. Based on the fact that CIKernel's kernelsWithString: will take multiple kernels from the same file (and a few similar clues I can't recall right now), it seems like I could provide them all in 1 plugin. Am I barking up the wrong tree, or is this doable?
I made an admittedly flawed attempt at this, and the 2 filters do show up. However, one was flawed, and using [[CIFilter filterWithName:filterName] attributes] on it produces null for the parameter list.
I believe I've fixed it now, but [CIPlugIn loadAllPlugIns] "loads newly added image units, but image units (and the filters they contain) that are already loaded are not removed." Either my fix is being ignored, or I haven't actually fixed it. Unless somebody knows a method that unloads a filter (which the Core Image Programming Guide implies is possible), I can't be sure without rebooting.
Apparently I had a misunderstanding of how the CIPlugin system works: it is not global. That is, each program's loaded plugins are independent of other programs'. So to update a plugin, simply close all programs that are using it, and replace the plugin.
To answer the main issue, yes, it's fairly easy to put multiple filters in 1 plugin.
Each filter needs it's own XxxPlugInLoader : NSObject <CIPlugInRegistration> class and Xxx : CIFilter class. (The filters' bundleForClass appear to all load from the same bundle.)
The kernels can be in the same *.cikernel file or not, but if together avoid loading the *.cikernel for each filter (it won't hurt, but it's inefficient).
Set up 1 Description.plist and 1 Description.strings, with the info for all the filters. In the plist, each filter's CIFilterClass entry must match the CIFilter class defined above. Each filters CIAttributeDescription entry is a key into the strings file.
I'm trying to automate a process for our documentation team. They have a pretty big batch of framemaker files across several books and use RoboHelp to generate EclipseHelp for two different versions of our project.
Each framemaker file has the appropriate tags set to indicate which version a particular piece of documentation applies to. Currently the writers modify the conditional build expression to specify the correct set of tags and run File->Generate->EclipseHelp each time. I can run the generation process just fine, but I can't figure out how to change which tags it's using.
I've read through RoboHelp's scripting guide and the only references I can find to Conditional Build Tags is the ability to create and delete them. I can't find any references to Conditional Build Expressions. Does anyone know any way to modify it from a script? Alternatively, if someone can suggest a different way of organizing RoboHelp/Framemaker that is more conducive, I'm all ears, though I have basically zero familiarity with either.
The Conditional Build Expression forms form of your EclipseHelp Single Source layout. As such your script needs to refer to the tags there.
I'm going to answer with what I found - even though it's only a partial answer - just in case it can help someone, or possibly give someone enough to figure out a more proper answer.
Basically I found that each Single Source Layout has a corresponding *.ssl file. If your layout is called OnlineHelp, it will be (in my experience) OnlineHelp.ssl and will be in the same directory as your .xpj file. The ssl file is just a bunch of xml and has some number of sections. One of the sections will have the same name as the content category where you would go in the UI to change the Conditional Build Expression. In that section is an element named "BuildExpression". Set that to whatever you need and reopen your RoboHelp project. It's a bit of a hack, but I set up a groovy script to do that before running my ExtendScript and it gets the job done.