I am new to C# and am trying to use SpecFlow as I used to use Gherkin by giving a unique name to an item and then passing in the name in the Step Definition. My question is about how to add in the identifier when I create an object so I can call the object without having to pass in the actual name of the object every time that I create a step.
So, for instance the code would look something like this:
[When(#"I click the (.*) button")]
public void ClickTheButton(string ButtonName)
{
driver.Click(ButtonName)
//ButtonName would be a string that would call to the ID for the ADD button
}
I want to be able to put in something like "Add" (so the line would read "When I click the ADD button") and then have the code search for the "ADD" identifier.
I know that this is possible in Ruby/Cucumber by using a DOM and then passing in XML with gherkin names. In Ruby/Cucumber the object would look something like this:
<button gherkin_name="ADD" key="id" value="add_button_12685"/>
However, I am finding absolutely no way of doing that in C# with SpecFlow and this is something that I really need to be able to do.
Is there a way to do this at all? All I'm really trying to do is link a handle/parameter name that business users could actually use to a Page Object like you can in Ruby/Cucumber without making the user know the code in the background. And, incidentally, the names of the objects are almost exactly like the gherkin line that I added in, thus they are very weird to have a user write. This is the reason that I'd like to have just an identifier for the user.
Thanks in advance for your help.
EDIT: I realise now I was not clear enough in my original post so perhaps some background will help. I am using Selenium-Webdriver to test a website that has hundreds of items on it. Writing a different step for every single item on every single page would be exceedingly tedious and time consuming. Because there are many of the exact same items with the exact same characteristics (for instance there are something like 50 buttons that all behave similarly on a single page and the site is dozens of pages) on the pages, writing a single method for testing them seems the most logical idea. Identifying these items with an identifier that the business could use would cut down on bulk inside of the Steps, the number of steps written, and the likelihood that the business users would feel comfortable using the code which is the end goal.
You can do what you want if you are using the PageObject pattern and have a property Buttons (probably on a base PageObject class) which exposes the available buttons as a collection (which can be done via reflection) and then you can just do something like:
[When(#"I click the (.*) button")]
public void ClickTheButton(string ButtonName)
{
myPage.Buttons.First(button=>button.Name==ButtonName).Click;
}
but I would take what AutomatedChaos said into consideration and not use this in a step in the gerkin but just have this as a helper method something like this
[When(#"I add a widget")]
public void AddAWidget(string ButtonName)
{
ClickTheButton("Add")
}
private void ClickTheButton(string ButtonName)
{
myPage.Buttons.First(button=>button.Name==ButtonName).Click;
}
your Buttons property doesn't have to be done with reflection, the simplest implementation is something like this:
public IEnumerable<IWebElement> Buttons
{
yield return AddButton;
yield return RemoveButton;
yield return SomeOtherButton;
//etc etc
}
but using reflection will mean that as you add buttons to the page object you don't need to remember to add them to this method, they will be found automatically.
SpecFlow is only the BDD framework. It will not drive browsers itself, you need to install additional packages that drives the browser.
With C#, you have a few options:
Selenium, the best known and works with the Page Object you are accustomed with.
Fluent Automation, an upcoming library that works as a wrapper on top of Selenium, and makes the interfacing easier (more natural language)
CodedUI, Microsofts web and UI test solution that comes natively with Visual Studio Test edition.
On a personal note, I consider Selenium (with or without Fluent Automation) the best fitted to work with SpecFlow (comparisson)
If you want to install Selenium or other packages, you can install the NuGet package manager to easily search, install and update packages for you.
Lastly, have you considered to use more domain specific Gherkin phrases like When I add a Wabberjock instead of When I press the Add button? This is where the power of BDD lies: Exposing the intention while hiding the implementation details.
Related
I work with Specflow (if there is such a function there)
Programming language C#.
I want a screenshot to be taken after each selenium action.
Why? -> I want that after the first automation, a series of pictures of the successful test run is created (so that business analysts in the future can quickly see via pictures, what is tested with which test caseid).
It should be possible to specify via a flag whether the screenshot should be created or not. So my main problem is:
How do I ensure that my screenshot function is automatically called after each "driver.FindElement.... "and then "variable.click" or similar?
I don't want to manually insert "makeScreenshot()" everywhere.
It would be wonderful if a different method could be called after each method call. That looks up what the "command is". If the syntax then matches something like "Click()", the screenshot is triggered, otherwise not.
If there is no such thing. Something like "Screenshot(variable.Click())" would also be conceivable. That would still be clean and easily implemented everywhere via copy paste.
Does anyone have an idea or a link? (I'm a bit of a noob and need code examples to get started)
Potential solution 1:
You could add a extension method to your project for IWebElement, which would allow you to create your own custom click and find methods that screenshot after clicking. For example:
public static class IWebElementExtensions
{
public static void ClickAndScreenshot(this IWebElement element,
IWebDriver driver,
ScenarioContext scenarioContext)
{
element.Click();
Screenshot ss = ((ITakesScreenshot)driver).GetScreenshot();
ss.SaveAsFile($"{scenarioContext.ScenarioInfo.Title}_{scenarioContext.StepContext.StepInfo.Text.Replace("\"", "")}.png",
ScreenshotImageFormat.Png);
}
}
If you add the above class to your project and reference it in your steps, it would click the element, and then take a screenshot and add the scenario and step info to the filename to identify it later (consider how you plan to manage these screenshots, might be worth adding a subfolder per scenario, or datetimes to the filename for diagnostics).
You can then make use of this method in your Specflow steps:
[When(#"I click a login button")]
public void WhenIClickALoginButton()
{
By someLoginButton = By.Id("login");
_driver.FindElement(someLoginButton).ClickAndScreenshot(_driver, _scenarioContext);
}
You could do something similar for finding the element. You could create an extension method that finds the element, takes a screenshot and then returns the element as a return type to be used by your WebDriver.
You would have to change your current click() methods to take advantage of this new method (find and replace should help make this trivial), but your screenshot code would all be in one place if you need to change it. Doing it this way means you can pick and choose when to call that method as well depending on your steps, as you could stick to the original Click() method if not interested in a screenshot in a particular step.
Potential Solution 2:
I feel like taking a screenshot after every Specflow step rather then each Selenium action is worth mentioning as a potential solution, focusing on chunks of user actions rather then every Selenium action.
For example, you could configure a hooks file to take a screenshot after every specflow step:
[Binding]
public class Hooks
{
IWebDriver _driver;
public Hooks(IWebDriver driver)
{
_driver = driver;
}
[Scope(Tag = "screenshot")]
[AfterStep]
public void TakeScreenshotAfterStep(ScenarioContext scenarioContext)
{
Screenshot screenshot = ((ITakesScreenshot)_driver).GetScreenshot();
screenshot.SaveAsFile($"{scenarioContext.ScenarioInfo.Title}_{scenarioContext.StepContext.StepInfo.Text}.png",
ScreenshotImageFormat.Png);
}
[AfterScenario]
public void AfterScenario()
{
_driver.Dispose();
}
}
For a example Feature:
Feature: Login
#screenshot
Scenario: Successful Login
GIVEN I navigate to stack overflow
WHEN I login
THEN I am logged in
#someOtherTag
Scenario: API test with no UI
GIVEN I have a cool API
WHEN I do a GET
THEN I GET some cool stuff
This would generate 3 screenshots after each step for the Successful login scenario, but it wouldn't take any for the API test due to the tag scope on the after step, which should tick the box around being able to specify when to do this.
The above relies on your Specflow steps not being too large though... if you're doing multiple large chunks of user actions within one step, it may skip a lot, but if that's only a rare occurrence you could do some extra screenshot taking within those steps using the extension from potential solution 1.
I hope this helps, I apprieciate it's not a pure answer but from experience of when these sorts of screenshots can be useful, I'd recommend solution 2 and use it as an opportunity to make sure your Specflow steps aren't doing too much.
I have a background in C++ and recently I started working in C#.
I have written following pieces of code (in Visual Studio):
var list_Loads = database.GetData<Load>().ToList();
var test_list = list_Loads.Where(o => (o.Name.Substring(0, 3) == "123")).ToList();
When I run the program and I move my mouse over both lists, first I get the count, which is very useful, but when I ask for the entries, this is what I get:
0 : namespace.Load
1 : namespace.Load
2 : namespace.Load
...
Not very useful, as you can imagine :-)
So my question: how can I show the Name attributes of those objects?
I thought: no problem. I have a background in native visualisers, so it should be rather easy to turn this into useful information, but then it comes:
In order to alter the way that those objects are represented, there is the first proposal to add a [DebuggerDisplay] "tag" to the definition of that class in source code.
However, as those classes are part of a framework I'm just referring to, I don't have access to the source code and hence I can't modify this.
Then I found another solution, which comes down to: "Write an entire C# project, debug, test and install it and it might work" (see documentation on "Custom visualisers of data" on the Microsoft website).
I almost choked in my coffee: writing an entire project, just for altering the view of an object??? (While, in C++, you just create a simple .natvis file, mention the classname and some configuration, launch .nvload and that's it.
Does anybody know a simple way to alter the appearance of C# object, without needing to pass through the whole burden of creating an entire C# project?
By the way, when I try to load a natvis file in Visual Studio immediate window, this is what I get:
.nvload "C:\Temp_Folder\test.natvis"
error CS1525: Invalid expression term '.'
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks in advance
OP (my emphasis):
In order to alter the way that those objects are represented, there is the first proposal to add a [DebuggerDisplay] "tag" to the definition of that class in source code.
However, as those classes are part of a framework I'm just referring to, I don't have access to the source code and hence I can't modify this.
Does anybody know a simple way to alter the appearance of C# object, without needing to pass through the whole burden of creating an entire C# project?
If you just want to specify [DebuggerDisplay] on a type, you don't have to have access to the source code. You can make use of [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] and control how a type appears in the debugger. The only downside is that [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] naturally only affects the current assembly whose code your mouse is hovering over. If you wish to use the customised display in other assemblies that you own, then you must repeat the [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] definition.
Here's an easy before-and-after example with DateTime. I picked DateTime because we generally don't have access to the source code and it has some interesting properties:
var items = new List<DateTime>
{
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-2),
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-1),
DateTime.Now
};
...which on my machine defaults to:
Maybe I'm fussy and I just want to see:
Day of the week and
Day of the year
...I can do that via:
using System.Diagnostics;
[assembly: DebuggerDisplay("{DayOfWeek} {DayOfYear}", Target = typeof(DateTime))]
...which results in:
Example:
namespace DebuggerDisplayTests
{
public class DebuggerDisplayTests
{
public DebuggerDisplayTests()
{
var items = new List<DateTime>
{
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-2),
DateTime.Now.AddDays(-1),
DateTime.Now
};
}
}
.
.
.
}
Overrides
[assembly:DebuggerDisplay()] can also be used as a means to override pre-existing [DebuggerDisplay] on a 3-rd party type. Don't like what style they have chosen? Is the type showing far too much information? Change it with [assembly:DebuggerDisplay()].
I am learning how to use the Telerik test environment.
I created a test that runs through my program. One of the steps is to create a repository, into which I will upload data. I would like to run this test numerous times as a load test, so the name needs to be dynamic. I would like to create a name such as "Repository_Date_Time, since no matter how many times I use it, uniqueness is guaranteed.
I created a code step right before the text box insertion step. I would like to generate a string, and then use it in the next step so that the repository is created with a unique name.
Code generated is: this is in the steps within the telerik application
[WebTest_CodedStep] : New Coded Step
Then, within this step, I can hard code stuff:
[CodedStep(#"New Coded Step")]
public void WebTest_CodedStep()
{
}
I want to use something like this: string currentTime = DateTime.Now.ToString("HH:mm:ss");
and then use the saveNow contained data as an ending to a string to make it unique, but it must be done within the following step:
Type 'Moshe-Master Repository Test01' into Item0Textboxchanged
TypedText: Moshe-Master Repository Test01
So that the red name will be substituted by a variable carrying the new string which I creatred.
The TypedText box is the value being typed automatically, and I would like to change it with the generated value from the previous step. Can a TypedText value be dynamic?
Thanks!
EDIT: I just realized that therre is a way to use a variable as input, however, I do not know where I can create it. The location where I can put it as input is in the top right state-chart with all current data being used for that particular step. (bindings) is set to collection at the moment. When I try to change it into a variable it tells me that the variable needs to be created- it does not specify where.
I'm wondering how others deal with trying to centralize MessageBox function calling. Instead of having long text embedded all over the place in code, in the past (non .net language), I would put system and application base "messagebox" type of messages into a database file which would be "burned" into the executable, much like a resource file in .Net. When a prompting condition would arise, I would just do call something like
MBAnswer = MyApplication.CallMsgBox( IDUserCantDoThat )
then check the MBAnswer upon return, such as a yes/no/cancel or whatever.
In the database table, I would have things like what the messagebox title would be, the buttons that would be shown, the actual message, a special flag that automatically tacked on a subsequent standard comment like "Please contact help desk if this happens.". The function would call the messagebox with all applicable settings and just return back the answer. The big benefits of this was, one location to have all the "context" of messages, and via constants, easier to read what message was going to be presented to the user.
Does anyone have a similar system in .Net to do a similar approach, or is this just a bad idea in the .Net environment.
We used to handle centralized messages with Modules (VB). We had one module with all messages and we call that in our code. This was done so that we change the message in one place (due to business needs) and it gets reflected everywhere. And it was also easy to handle change in one file instead of multiple files to change the message. Also we opened up that file to Business Analysts (VSS) so that they can change it. I don't think it is a bad idea if it involves modules or static class but it might be a overkill to fetch it from DB.
HTH
You could use resource files to export all text into there (kinda localization feature as well). Resharper 5.0 really helps in that highlighting text that can be moved to resource.
Usually it looks like this:
Before: MessageBox.Show(error.ToString(), "Error with extraction");
Suggestion: Localizable string "Error with extraction"
Right click Move to Resource
Choose resource file and name (MainForm_ExtractArchive_Error_with_extraction), also check checkbox Find identical items in class ...
Call it like this MessageBox.Show(error.ToString(), Resources.MainForm_ExtractArchive_Error_with_extraction);
Best of all it makes it easy to translate stuff to other languages as well as keeping text for MessageBox in separate Resource. Of course Resharper does it all for you so no need to type that much :-)
I suppose you could use a HashTable to do something similar like this, this can be found in:
using System.Collections;
To keep it globally accessable i was thinking a couple of functions in a class holding the hashtable to get/set a certain one.
lets see now.
public class MessageBoxStore
{
private HashTable stock;
public string Get(string msg)
{
if (stock.ContainsKey(msg))
return stock[msg];
else
return string.Empty;
}
public string Set(string msg, string msgcontent)
{
stock[msg] = msgcontent;
}
}
or something like that, you could keep multiple different information in the hashtable and subsequently compose the messagebox in the function too.. instead of just returning the string for the messagebox contents...
but to use this it would be quite simple.
call a function like this on program load.
public LoadErrorMessages()
{
storeClass = new MessageBoxStore();
storeClass.Set("UserCantDoThat", "Invalid action. Please confirm your action and try again");
}
for example, and then.
MessageBox.Show(storeClass.Get("UserCantDoThat"));
i put this in a new class instead of using the HashTable get/set methods direct because this leaves room for customization so the messagebox could be created in the get, and more than 1 piece of information could be stored in the set to handle messagebox title, buttontype, content, etc etc.
Basically I'm trying to implement some sort of poor man's Aspect Oriented Programming in C#. I had thought about using a ContextAttribute but they seem only be be bound at the class level. Is there any way that I can put an attribute in such that it will receive the same parameters as the method which it annotates or some way to access the context in which it fired?
I have this code
public void AddUser(User user)
{
var errors = DataAnnotationsValidationRunner.GetErrors(user);
if (errors.Any())
throw new RulesException(errors);
users.Add(user);
}
from which I would like to extract the first 3 lines so I had something like
[Validated]
public void AddUser(User user)
{
users.Add(user);
}
I think you are missing a third component. Most AOP implementations (e.g. Aspect#) rely on a proxy or interceptor to actually execute the code. In your scenario, you lack whichever component needed to 1) know the attribute exists on the method, and 2) trigger the mechanism (or become it) needed to execute the code within the attribute.
Fortunately, there are already many (fairly) simple solutions available in open source. The simplest option I can think of would be to use a compile-time weaver like PostSharp. Grab a copy of that, and in the samples you'll find several examples of exactly what you are trying to do (you'd be interested in the OnMethodInvocationAspect).
The end result is that your code looks exactly like it does in the sample you provided, yet it's also running the code you wish.
Don't know exactly how your solution should look like, but in C# attributes do not execute code as long as you don't request them (as far as I know). And if you query for the attribute, you also have the context. So there is something wrong with your strategy in my opinion.