I have this array of objects.
let links = [
{
url: 'some url 1',
status: 200
},
{
url: 'some url 2',
status: 200
}
]
Which is the result of calling LinkFunction asyncronously inside before:
before(async () => {
try {
links = await LinkFunction();
} catch (err) {
assert.fail(err);
}
});
I would like to check if the url and status properties exist and if their types are correspondingly string and number.
Note: The specified object is just a sample of a big response. So the loop is required for iteration in any case.
I've done this iteration:
it('Array to contain some props', () => {
links.map(property => {
expect(property).to.have.property('url').to.be.a('string');
expect(property).to.have.property('status').to.be.a('number');
});
});
But I would like to have something like this:
it('Array to contain some props', () => {//or describe would be better here
links.map(property => {
it('link array to contain url string', () => {
expect(property).to.have.property('url').to.be.a('string');
});
it('link array to contain status number', () => {
expect(property).to.have.property('status').to.be.a('number');
});
});
});
Unfortunately it statements are ignored inside map. Maybe it's because of the several nested it statements. So How can I implement a similar logic?
Update:
My full code:
You might want to use forEach instead of map.
Also, "Passing arrow functions (aka "lambdas") to Mocha is discouraged" so you will probably want to change those to normal functions.
Having said that, it works fine if links is defined as mocha initially runs the test file and collects the individual it tests:
const expect = require('chai').expect;
describe('links', function() {
let links = [
{
url: 'some url 1',
status: 200
},
{
url: 'some url 2',
status: 200
}
]
links.forEach(function(property) {
it('link array to contain url string', function() {
expect(property).to.have.property('url').to.be.a('string');
});
it('link array to contain status number', function() {
expect(property).to.have.property('status').to.be.a('number');
});
});
});
..results in:
> mocha
links
√ link array to contain url string
√ link array to contain status number
√ link array to contain url string
√ link array to contain status number
4 passing (14ms)
Update
As you have found, it only works at the top level or with a describe:
before(function() {
it('will NOT work here', function() { });
});
it('will work here', function() {
it('will NOT work here', function() { });
});
Also, links must be available while the test is first running and the it tests are being collected by mocha so this doesn't work either:
describe('links', function() {
let links = [];
before(function() {
links = [
{
url: 'some url 1',
status: 200
},
{
url: 'some url 2',
status: 200
}
];
});
// This won't work...
links.forEach(function(property) {
// .. since links is still an empty array when this runs
it('should...', function() { /* ... */ });
});
});
From your question update it looks like your code retrieves links from an async function call in before. Because of this, there is no way to have links populated at the time the test is first running and the it tests are collected.
So it looks like you won't be able to map across the items in links to create your it tests, and will instead need to take the approach you described by mapping across the items in links within a single test.
Related
I've been stuck on this for a while. Take the following code as an example:
models.Summoner.findOne({
include: [{ model: models.RankedStats, as: 'SummonerRankedStats', required: true }],
where: { summonerId: summonerId, server: server }
}).then(function(summoner) {
models.RankedStats.create({
totalWins: 0,
totalLosses: 0
}).then(function(rankedStats) {
summoner.setSummonerRankedStats(rankedStats).then(function() {
console.log(summoner.SummonerRankedStats)
//This outputs undefined
summoner.getSummonerRankedStats().then(function(srs) {
console.log(srs)
//This outputs the RankedStats that were just created
})
models.Summoner.findOne({
include: [{ model: models.RankedStats, as: 'SummonerRankedStats', required: true }],
where: { summonerId: summonerId, server: server }
}).then(function(summoner) {
console.log(summoner.SummonerRankedStats)
//This outputs the SummonerRankedStats object
})
})
})
})
So, to put it simply... If I have a Summoner (var summoner) and perform a .setAssociation() or .createAssociation() on it, and then log summoner, the data created isn't there. If I fetch it again from the database (with .getAssociation() or by searching for that Summoner again) I can access it, but I was hoping to avoid that extra DB call.
Is there a way to add this information to the original object when using .create() or .set()? It can be achieved by doing something like:
summoner.dataValues.SummonerRankedStats = rankedStats
But that seems somewhat hacky :)
Is there a correct way to do it, or does it even make any sense?
Thanks in advance!
I am currently testing a web page via WebDriver I/O. I would like to be able to select a couple of links and "click" them. Currently, I have the following:
it('Should click links', function(done) {
client
.elements('a').then(function(links) {
console.log(links);
console.log('---------');
for (var i=0; i<links.value.length; i++) {
client.getAttribute(links.value[i].ELEMENT)
}
expect(true).toBe(true);
done();
})
;
});
When I execute this test, I see the following in the console window:
{ state: 'success',
sessionId: '85d25e09-13d8-475a-81b6-87431d2d8f3c',
hCode: 1234567890,
value:
[ { ELEMENT: '0' },
{ ELEMENT: '1' },
{ ELEMENT: '2' } ],
class: 'org.openqa.selenium.remote.Response',
status: 0 }
---------
{ ELEMENT: '0' }
{ ELEMENT: '1' }
{ ELEMENT: '2' }
My question is, how do I "click" the link? When I printed out the link, I was expecting to see an ID, an href, an xpath, or some way to reference the link. But I don't see anything. When I look at the docs, they mention that the elements are returned as WebElement JSON objects. However, I can't seem to find any docs on WebElement.
What am I missing?
You tell it to click on the element, just like the docs say: http://webdriver.io/api/action/click.html
In your case, the code would be something like:
it('Should click links', function(done) {
client
.elements('a').then(function(links) {
console.log(links);
console.log('---------');
for (var i=0; i<links.value.length; i++) {
client.click(links[i])
}
expect(true).toBe(true);
done();
})
;
});
Your code will probably be different, but this should get you started. Now, a couple of quick points:
1) You should avoid having mulitple assertions inside a test. It violates OAPT and can make your tests harder to find when one is failing.
2) You might check out Protractor (http://www.protractortest.org) for E2E testing. It doesn't require Angular and it can make your testing life a lot easier.
I have a factory, which goes into a controller, and I am trying to get data from that display on an HTML page. I am having trouble specifying an Object's pathway however.
My Factory:
app.factory('APIMethodService', function() {
var Head = "api.example.com";
return {
apis:
[{
accounts: [
{
v1: [
{
uri: Head+"/v1/accounts/",
item1: "AccountNumber",
item2: "MoneyInAccount"
}],
v2: [
{
uri: Head+"/v2/accounts/",
item1: "AccountNumber",
item2: "MoneyInAccount"
}]
}
],
customers: [
{
v1: [
{
uri: Head+"/v1/customers/",
item1: "CustomerName",
item2: "CustomerID",
item3: "CustomerEmail"
}]
}
]
}]
};
});
My Controller:
app.controller('APIController', function($scope, APIMethodService) {
$scope.title = "API";
$scope.apiList = APIMethodService;
$scope.accountList = $scope.apiList.accounts.v1;
$scope.accountList2 = $scope.apiList[0][0];
});
My HTML
<div ng-controller="APIController">
<div id="api" class="row">
<div class="col-xs-12">
<div class="row" style="font-size:20px">
{{title}} Page!
<table class="table table-striped">
<tr ng-repeat="api in apiList | orderBy:'uri' | filter:search">
<td>{{api.uri}}</td>
<td>{{api.item1}}</td>
<td>{{api.item2}}</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
The errors I get are in regards to the Controller trying to parse out the individual objects I wish to grab, like accounts or customers, and then any version v#, they may have.
So it will say something such as
TypeError: Cannot read property 'v1' of undefined
I just need some help specifying the proper pathways into my factory service.
You have a few problems. First, you are referring to the object returned from the factory incorrectly. APIMethodService is the factory that you're injecting, so you need to first reference the object that that factory is returning like this:
APIMethodService.apis
This will give you your entire JSON object.
From there, the rest of your object is made up of arrays of objects, so referring to 'v1' won't do you any good. You need to specify an index instead. If you want v1, you'll need:
APIMethodService.apis[0].accounts[0].v1
This will give you the v1 array, which again is an array of objects.
Customers would be:
APIMethodService.apis[0].customers[0].v1
The first problem you have is that the factory returns an object with a single property called apis. So basically this $scope.apiList.accounts.v1 should be $scope.apiList.apis.accounts.v1. Bu that's not all as this won't either work since dotting(.) into apis is an array you'd have to use the index. In this case it would be $scope.apiList.apis[0] and then you could .accounts[0].v1 which is also an array containing a single object.
Now if you can I would suggest to you that you'd change how you represent this data structure.
This is how you could do it.
app.factory('APIMethodService', function() {
var Head = "api.example.com";
return {
accounts: {
v1: {
uri: Head+"/v1/accounts/",
items: ["AccountNumber","MoneyInAccount"]
},
v2: {
... // skipped for brevity
}
},
customer: {
... // code skipped for brevity
}
};
});
And then it's just a matter of dotting into your APIMethodService-object like APIMethodService.accounts.v1.items[0] if you want the AccountNumber method name.
Constructing your url could then be done like this.
var baseUrl = APIMethodService.accounts.v1.uri; // 'api.example.com'
var url = baseUrl + APIMethodService.accounts.v1.items[0]; // 'AccountNumber'
// url = "api.example.com/v1/accounts/AccountNumber"
Again, this is one way you could do it but this can be further enhanced upon. The examples I provided are simply for demo purposes and this is not in any way the only way to do it.
Expanding upon recieved comments/questions your service (and data representation) could now look like this.
app.factory('APIMethodService', function() {
var Head = "api.example.com";
return {
accounts: {
v1: {
uri: Head+"/v1/accounts/",
items: [
{
name:'AccountNumber',
description:'Show the account number'
},
{
name:'AccountOwner',
description:'Show information about the owner of the account'
},
{
name:'MoneyInAccount',
description:'Show money in the Account'
}
]
},
v2: {
... // skipped for brevity
}
},
customer: {
... // code skipped for brevity
}
};
});
// Get descriptions
var accountNumberDescription = APIMethodService.accounts.v1.items[0].description; // 'Show the account number'
var accountOwnerDescription = APIMethodService.accounts.v1.items[1].description; // 'Show information about the owner of the account'
var moneyInAccountDescription = APIMethodService.accounts.v1.items[2].description; // 'Show money in the Account'
By using objects with properties like this it's alot easier to understand what you are trying to do. With arrays with indexes you'd have to know or take a look at the source to see what's going on. Here, someone viewing your code they can instantly understand that it is the description you are getting.
I have the following models in my Sailsjs application with a many-to-many relationship:
event.js:
attributes: {
title : { type: 'string', required: true },
description : { type: 'string', required: true },
location : { type: 'string', required: true },
maxMembers : { type: 'integer', required: true },
currentMembers : { collection: 'user', via: 'eventsAttending', dominant: true },
creator : { model: 'user', required: true },
invitations : { collection: 'invitation', via: 'eventID' },
tags : { collection: 'tag', via: 'taggedEvents', dominant: true },
lat : { type: 'float' },
lon : { type: 'float' },
},
tags.js:
attributes: {
tagName : { type: 'string', unique: true, required: true },
taggedEvents : { collection: 'event', via: 'tags' },
},
Based on the documentation, this relationship looks correct. I have the following method in tag.js that accepts an array of tag strings, and an event id, and is supposed to add or remove the tags that were passed in:
modifyTags: function (tags, eventId) {
var tagRecords = [];
_.forEach(tags, function(tag) {
Tag.findOrCreate({tagName: tag}, {tagName: tag}, function (error, result) {
tagRecords.push({id: result.id})
})
})
Event.findOneById(eventId).populate('tags').exec(function(error, event){
console.log(event)
var currentTags = event.tags;
console.log(currentTags)
delete currentTags.add;
delete currentTags.remove;
if (currentTags.length > 0) {
currentTags = _.pluck(currentTags, 'id');
}
var modifiedTags = _.pluck(tagRecords, 'id');
var tagsToAdd = _.difference(modifiedTags, currentTags);
var tagsToRemove = _.difference(currentTags, modifiedTags);
console.log('current', currentTags)
console.log('remove', tagsToRemove)
console.log('add', tagsToAdd)
if (tagsToAdd.length > 0) {
_.forEach(tagsToAdd, function (tag) {
event.tags.add(tag);
})
event.save(console.log)
}
if (tagsToRemove.length > 0) {
_.forEach(tagsToRemove, function (tagId) {
event.tags.remove(tagId)
})
event.save()
}
})
}
This is how the method is called from the event model:
afterCreate: function(record, next) {
Tag.modifyTags(tags, record.id)
next();
}
When I post to event/create, I get this result: http://pastebin.com/PMiqBbfR.
It looks as if the method call itself is looped over, rather than just the tagsToAdd or tagsToRemove array. Whats more confusing is that at the end, in the last log of the event, it looks like the event has the correct tags. When I then post to event/1, however, the tags array is empty. I've also tried saving immediately after each .add(), but still get similar results.
Ideally, I'd like to loop over both the tagsToAdd and tagsToRemove arrays, modify their ids in the model's collection, and then call .save() once on the model.
I have spent a ton of time trying to debug this, so any help would be greatly appreciated!
There are a few problems with your implementation, but the main issue is that you're treating certain methods--namely .save() and .findOrCreate as synchronous methods, when they are (like all Waterline methods) asynchronous, requiring a callback. So you're effectively running a bunch of code in parallel and not waiting for it to finish before returning.
Also, since it seems like what you're trying to do is replace the current event tags with this new list, the method you came up with is a bit over-engineered--you don't need to use event.tags.add and event.tags.remove. You can just use plain old update.
So you could probably rewrite the modifyTags method as:
modifyTags: function (tags, eventId, mainCb) {
// Asynchronously transform the `tags` array into an array of Tag records
async.map(tags, function(tag, cb) {
// For each tag, find or create a new record.
// Since the async.map `cb` argument expects a function with
// the standard (error, result) node signature, this will add
// the new (or existing) Tag instance to the resulting array.
// If an error occurs, async.map will exit early and call the
// "done()" function below
Tag.findOrCreate({tagName: tag}, {tagName: tag}, cb);
}, function done (err, tagRecords) {
if (err) {return mainCb(err);}
// Update the event with the new tags
Event.update({id: eventId}, {tags: tagRecords}).exec(mainCb);
});
}
See the full docs for async.map here.
If you wanted to stick with your implementation using .add and .remove, you would still want to use async.map, and do the rest of your logic in the done method. You don't need two .save calls; just do run all the .add and .remove code first, then do a single .save(mainCb) to finish it off.
And I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by deleting the .add and .remove methods from currentTags (which is a direct reference to event.tags), but it won't work and will just cause confusion later!
I'm trying to get a handle on using $resource in angularjs and I keep referencing this answer AngularJS $resource RESTful example for good examples. Fetching a record and creating a record work fine, but now i'm trying to add a "section" to an existing mongo record but can't figure it out.
documents collection
{
_id: 'theid',
name: 'My name",
sections: [
{
title: 'First title'
},
{
title: 'Second title'
}
]
}
angular controller snippet
var document = documentService.get({_id: 'theid'});
// TRYING TO ADD $scope.section TO THE SECTIONS ARRAY IN THE VARIABLE document.
//document.sections.push($scope.section); <-- This does NOT work
//document.new_section($scope.section); <-- could do this and then parse it out and insert it in my backend code, but this solution seems hacky and terrible to me.
document.$save(function(section) {
//$scope.document.push(section);
});
documentService
return $resource(SETTINGS.base + '/documents/:id', { id: '#id' },
{
update: { method: 'PUT' }
});
From the link i posted above, If I was just updating the name field, I could just do something like this:
var document = documentService.get({_id: 'theid'});
document.name = "My new name";
document.$save(function(section) {
//$scope.document.push(section);
});
I'm just trying to add an object to a nested array of objects.
Try this:
documentService.get({_id: 'theid'}, function(document) {
document.sections.push($scope.section);
document.$save();
});