Is it possible to nest TestMethods in ClassCleanup and have them run/behave as TestMethods instead of regular method calls?
I have a TestClass to test an AppMngr class I created to manage a process. I test for the ability to Open/Close the app (e.g. MyNotepadMngrClass.Open() and ...Close()). I have several more classes that do work inside that process (e.g. MyNotepadWorkerClass.WriteLine() or ...DoSomething() ). When testing the other classes I need to start notepad and close it when done. ClassInitialize/ClassCleanup are obvious places for this. But I want to confirm notepad closed.
So I created a static [TestMethod] for the Close operation. I call it from ClassCleanup in MyNotepadWorkerTestClass. It performs the close operation fine. But if I add something like -- Assert.IsFalse(true); -- to the body of my close method the test run does not fail.
Let me know if what I am trying to do fundamentally wrong. Appreciate any you can give help.
P.S. Hey TestStand guys, I am looking for Setup/Ceanup behaviour during RunSelectedStep. TestDriven.NET gives me RunSelectedStep. So how do I catch failures during ClassInitialize and ClassCleanup.
ClassCleanup is by definition to be used "after all the tests in the test class have run" (from msdn), so you probably can't add new test methods in there. You'll need to restructure your test.
Related
Id like to have one file or class, in which i can control, which tests should be executed.
I know there is TestNG for Java, which can be used for that.
But i cant find anything for C# in google or here in stackoverflow related to this problem
My current test framework has 17 automation tests (17 classes) and much more will be added this year.
Therefor id like to have one file/class/method, in which i can set, which tests should be executed/not executed, as i don't want every test to be triggered, when i'm actively working on 2-3 automation tests.
My first idea:
In NUnit we can set a [Ignore("reason")] parameter above the class or method, which skips this test.
Is it possible to control these parameter outside of the class?
Id be happy and thankful for any other suggestions!
Nunit is the way to go for a single class with however many #Test methods you create.
You can use The #Ignore annotation you suggested to filter out tests that are not ready, or just dont want to execute.
And You can also use Event Listeners. Very useful tool that will help you control the actions of before, after, fail, pass etc... processed of all your tests. you can specify a condition on the unwanted tests and in the "TestStarted" event listener you Assert an ignore, this will effect all your tests marked by the specific condition.
I'm working on refactoring a testing application that uses NUnit 3.6. Most of the application was written by non-developers and is in need of refactoring/re-organization. There are a lot of legacy helper classes that use the standard
Console.Out.WriteLine();
Console.Error.WriteLine();
methods to log errors and test progress. Some effort was made to use the NUnit
TestContext.Progress.WriteLine();
TestContext.Out.WriteLine();
TestContext.Error.WriteLine();
methods to provide "live output" as test run, but it's not consistent. Moving forward, I want all helper classes/methods to use the Console.Out/Error methods so that they can be detached without the NUnit dependency and then redirect the output in the [SetUp] methods for each test.
[SetUp]
public void BaseTestSetupMethod(){
Console.SetError(TestContext.Error);
/* Set Console.Out to TestContext.Out or TestContext.Progress */
}
What is the difference between TestContext.Out and TestContext.Progress?
Which one should I redirect Console.Out to for general messages like printing the name of the current running test and the operations that it's doing?
I read through the documentation for NUnit 3, including the https://github.com/nunit/docs/wiki/TestContext page. While it lists the difference between TestContext.Out and TestContext.Progress, they are not really descriptive and have no examples of why you would use one over the other in practice.
The answer is indeed on the linked documentation page (https://github.com/nunit/docs/wiki/TestContext), but it's been a while since this question was asked so perhaps the documentation page has been improved since then.
At least now it says:
Out
Gets a TextWriter used for sending output to the current test result.
Error
Gets a TextWriter used for sending error output intended for immediate
display.
Progress
Gets a TextWriter used for sending normal (non-error) output intended for immediate display.)
The keyword here is "immediate display" - when something is sent to Error and Progress the intention is that the test runner should display it immediately, while text sent to Out will not be visible until each test case has terminated.
This is because NUnit 3 will catch Console.Out and not output it until the test case finished. In NUnit 2, the regular Console.Out and Error was visible immediately.
Figure above showed a TestSuite/Plan in Ranorex.
[SETUP] represents launching .exe recording while [TEARDOWN] represents exiting .exe.
How can I imitate the test case plan structure using only Visual Studio coded ui.
Since it will be repetitive to launch and close my .exe in every test case. If possible I would like to set it only once.
Does a [TestMethod] in coded ui represents a test case?
We have faced the same problem and resolved it by first making an assumption.
A Microsoft TestMethod is not corresponding to a Ranorex Test Case, it is a Ranorex Run Configuration (as defined in the test suite).
A Run Configuration comes with configuration. As you may already know, on the command line, it is possible to execute a Ranorex Test Case or a Ranorex Run Configuration, but it is better/easier to execute a Run Configuration since it comes with context (and also most development can be done by non-programmer from within Ranorex!).
In the end, what we did is use TestMethod to call Run Configuration(s).
The following Ranorex How To article describes how to do this:
http://www.ranorex.com/news/article/howto-test-automation-with-tfs-and-ranorex.html
If this method does not suit your setup, you can probably invoke Ranorex Test Cases directly in test method (and do whatever sequence you wish to replicate as shown in your test suite), but that would be more complicated and involve more maintenance IMHO (which must be done by programmers).
Hope this helps!
Hugo
You're right about [TestMethod] representing a test case.
To Imitate the [Setup] and [TearDown] behavior of Ranorex, instead of using the [TestInitialize] and [TestCleanup] attributes, you should use the [ClassInitialize] and [ClassCleanup] attributes (or [AssemblyInitialize] and [AssemblyCleanp] if you want them to run once for all classes in the project).
Note that these methods must be static, and the initialize ones should accept a TestContext parameter.
I'm using the latest NUnit to run Selenium tests. The tests are compiled into a class library DLL file which is then run by NUnit.
My problem is that before the automation begins, I need to run some initialization such as creating a log file, setting up specific parameters, etc. I don't see a way to do this in NUnit - setup() does this but for every Test or Fixture - I just need to run this code once at the start of the application.
Any idea how I can do what I want?
Your help is very appreciated.
J.
Take a look at SetUpFixtureAttribute (more information here). It says:
This is the attribute that marks a class that contains the one-time setup or teardown methods for all the test fixtures under a given namespace. The class may contain at most one method marked with the SetUpAttribute and one method marked with the TearDownAttribute.
I am using VS 2008 for unit testing. Even if my code calls
Assert.Fail("some message");
Test passess ??
and even
Assert.IsTrue(false); this also passes test.
How is this possible. I am expecting test to fail . i want to forcefully fail it .
Please help !
Probably you are catching exceptions somewhere in the test code. Assert class uses exceptions to fail the test, so if you are catching it the test passes.
Please paste the code for more accurate answer.
Are you using the Assert class built into .NET? If so, I suspect TRACE was not defined.
Sometimes, when I click "run tests", I've seen the test engine build in Release configuration but then proceed to run tests against an older Debug configuration build. I would call that a bug in the VS2008 test engine. Anyway, try cleaning your Debug AND Release folders and running it again.
I can't be sure without knowing more about what you're doing, but it sounds like you're expecting the .NET classes to work like the NUnit classes -- can't be sure -- but if you are, that will never work.
The .NET classes only work if Trace is defined (view the Project Properties, the click the Build tab, then click the "Define TRACE constant"). -- But for Unit Tests this is not helpful -- those classes do not throw exceptions or otherwise fail unit tests... they pop up message boxes for those subscribing to the "debug later" mantra.
If you want Assert.Fail to fail a unit test you'll need a unit testing framework that provides a class which does this (again, like NUnit). Please, let us know what testing framework you're using (or not using?) and we'll be able to help you a bit more if you're still having trouble with this.