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.
Related
I'm starting with BDD (cucumber + capybara + selenium chromedriver) and TDD (rspec) with factory_bot and I'm getting an error on cucumber features - step_definitions.
uninitialized constant User (NameError)
With TDD, everything is ok, the factory bot is working fine. The problem is with the cucumber.
factories.rb
FactoryBot.define do
factory :user_role do
name {"Admin"}
query_name {"admin"}
end
factory :user do
id {1}
first_name {"Mary"}
last_name {"Jane"}
email {"mary_jane#gmail.com"}
password {"123"}
user_role_id {1}
created_at {'1/04/2020'}
end
end
support/env.rb
require 'capybara'
require 'capybara/cucumber'
require 'selenium-webdriver'
require 'factory_bot_rails'
Capybara.register_driver :selenium do |app|
Capybara::Selenium::Driver.new(app, browser: :chrome)
end
Capybara.configure do |config|
config.default_driver = :selenium
end
Capybara.javascript_driver = :chrome
World(FactoryBot::Syntax::Methods)
And the problem is happening here
support/hooks.rb
Before '#admin_login' do
#user = create(:user)
end
step_definitions/admin_login.rb
Given("a registered user with the email {string} with password {string} exists") do |email, password|
#user
end
I don't know why, but I can't access the user using cucumber and factory_bot.
Anybody could help me please?
I think I need to configure something on the cucumber.
What do you think guys?
First of all Luke is correct about this being a setup issue. The error is telling you that the User model cannot be found which probably means Rails is not yet loaded. I can't remember the exact details of how cucumber-rails works but one of the things it does is to make sure that each scenario becomes an extension of a Rails integration test. This ensures that all of the Rails auto-loading has taken place and that these things are available.
Secondly I'd suggest you start simpler and use a step to create your registered user rather than using a tag. Using tags for setup is a Cucumber anti-pattern.
Finally, and more controversially I'd suggest that you don't use factory-bot when cuking. FactoryBot uses a separate configuration to create model objects directly in the datastore. This bypasses any application logic around the creation of these objects, which means the objects created by FactoryBot are going to end up being different from the objects created by your application. In real life object creation involves things like auditing, sending emails, conditional logic etc. etc. To use FactoryBot you either have to duplicate that additional creation logic and behavior or ignore it (both choices are undesirable).
You can create objects for cuking much more effectively (and quicker) by using the following pattern.
Each create method in the Rails controller delegates its work to a service object e.g.
UserController
def create
#user = CreateUserService.new(params).call
end
end
Then have your cukes use a helper module to create things for you. This module will provide tools for your steps to create users, using the above service
module UserStepHelper
def create_user(params)
CreateUserService.new(default_params.merge(params))
end
def default_params
{
...
}
end
end
World UserStepHelper
Given 'there is a registered user' do
#registered_user = create_user
end
and then use that step in the background of your feature e.g.
Background:
Given there is a registered user
And I am an admin
Scenario: Admin can see registered users
When I login and view users
Then I should see a user
Notice the absence of tagging here. Its not desirable or necessary here.
You can see an extension of this approach in a sample application I did for a CukeUp talk in 2013 here https://github.com/diabolo/cuke_up/commits/master. If you follow this commit by commit starting from first commit at the bottom you will get quite a good guide to setting up a rails project with cucumber in just the first 4 or 4 commits. If you follow it through to the end (22 commits) you'll get a basic powerful framework for creating and using model objects when cuking. I realize the project is ancient and that obviously you will have to use modern versions of everything, but the principles still apply, and I use this approach in all my work and having been doing so for at least 10 years.
So if you're using rails, it's probably advised to use cucumber-rails over cucumber. This is probably an issue where your User models have not been auto-loaded in.
Cucumber auto-loads all ruby files underneath features, with env.rb first, it's almost certainly an issue with load order / load location
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.
I'm trying to write a step that will match the following steps that are similar and capture parameters:
Step1: And I delete the filter(s) using the "UI"
Step2: Then I delete the filter(s) using the "API" for "doc-browser" context
Step3: I delete the filter(s) using the "API" for "doc-browser" context with user "file_user2"
I don't want to create 3 separate steps, they all start with I delete the filter using the #{arg} and the last 2 just extend on that.
I thought this was going to accomplish it:
And(/^I delete the filter\(s\) using the "([^"]*)"(?: for "([^"]*)" context| with user "([^"]*)")?/) do |delete_method, context, user|
case delete_method
when 'API'
if user.nil?
SearchFilters.new.delete_global_local_filters(delete_method, api_context_val: context)
else
SearchFilters.new.delete_global_local_filters(delete_method, { api_context_val: context, username: user })
end
when 'UI'
SearchFilters.new.delete_global_local_filters(delete_method, filter_name: #filter_name)
end
end
However, I'm not capturing my username.
Is it possible to accomplish having one step definition that captures all 3 variations and still captures my arguments?
Just duplicating my mailing list answer in case anyone else is interested in this question.
I understand you don't want to use three different steps, but in this case you really should because
The implementation of each step is a clear one liner, so you are removing a case statement.
The regex for this step is horrible and you will be removing that
Each individual step provides the opportunity to simplify the parameters being passed, you have 2 API and one UI paramter which can just be removed entirely (if I understand the code correctly you can remove all the params and regexs)
This is a clear case where a little bit of repetition is a price well worth paying for a simpler implementation.
Reducing the number of step definitions by using regex's and params is often an anti-pattern.
All best
Andrew
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'm using cucumber with webrat/mechanize to test a PHP site and I'm trying to improve the speed the tests run by avoiding running unnecessary steps.
I want to use a scenario outline to check a whole lot of pages are accessible/protected depending on the user who is logged in:
Scenario Outline: Check page access is secure
Given I am logged in as "<user>"
And I am on <page>
Then I should see "<message>"
Examples:
|user |page |message |
|admin |home page |Welcome to my site |
|admin |admin page|Site administration |
|editor|home page |Welcome to my site |
|editor|admin page|Access denied |
|guest |home page |Please login |
|guest |admin page|Access denied |
...
This works, but given I have 10 roles and hundreds of pages to check, there is a lot of overhead in running the login step every time the outline runs.
I'm wondering if there is a way to run the login step once for each role, then visit each page in turn without needing to login every time. i.e run "login, visit 1, visit 2, visit 3" instead of "login, visit 1, login, visit 2, login, visit 3".
I've tried using hooks, and Background, but can't seem to find an approach that works. Is this possible?
Instead of putting all the information about what is accessible/protected in the feature, consider putting them in the step defs (even better would be to use the definitions in your application, but that isn't easy if your app is not in process)
If you can live with a feature that is as abstract as
Given I am an admin
Then I should be able to access admin pages
Then you can do all the work much more efficiently in step defs
Following is just a code sketch to give some idea of what you can do ...
# step def
module AccessHelper
AdminPages = {
{page: ..., msg: ...
...
}
def login_as ... ; end
def correct_message? msg ...; end
def check_admin_access_for user
#errors = []
login_as #I
AdminPages.each do |page|
visit page[:path]
errors << page unless correct_message?
end
end
end
World(AccessHelper)
Then "I should be able to access admin pages" do
check_admin_access_for #I
#errors.should be_empty
end
You can of course expand this using the full power of ruby to meet you particular needs. The fundamental idea is that you can always take several cucumber actions and abstract them into one cucumber action.
Hope thats useful
You could implement the Given step to only log in once for each role:
# lazily log in each role as needed, and keep the login in a hash table
$logins = Hash.new do |_logins, role|
_logins[role] = do_expensive_login(role)
end
Given /^I am logged in as "([^"]+)"$/ |role|
#login = $logins[role]
end
Of course, if the future steps can change the state of the login, or change the world such that the login is no longer valid, this might hose you down the line, so tread carefully.