Develop Reference

Is there a way to run particular Protractor test depending on the result of the other test?

This kind of question has been asked before but most of this question has pretty complicated background.
The scenario is simple. Let's say we are testing our favorite TODO app.
Test cases are next:
TC00 - 'User should be able to add a TODO item to the TODO list'
TC01 - 'User should be able to rename TODO item'
TC02 - 'User should be able to remove TODO item'
I don't want to run the TC01 and TC02 if TC00 fails (the TODO item is not added so I have nothing to remove or rename)
So I've been researching on this question for the past 3 days and the most common answers fro this question are:
• Your tests should not depend on each other
• Protractor/Jasmine does not have feature to dynamically turn on/off tests ('it' blocks)
There reason why I'm asking this question here is because it looks like a very widespread case and still no clear suggestion to handle this (I mean I could not find any)
My javascript skills are poor but I understand that I need to play around, let's say' passing 'done' or adding the if with the test inside...
it('should add a todo' ()=> {
todoInput.sendKeys('test')
addButton.click();
let item = element(by.cssContainingText('.list-item','test')
expect(item.isPresent()).toBe(true)
}
In my case there are like 15 tests ('it' blocks) after adding the item to the list. And I want to skip SOME OF THE tests if the 'parent' test failed.
PLEASE NOTE:
There is a solution out there which allows to skip ALL remaining test if one fails. This does not suit my needs

Man, I spent good couple of weeks researching this, and yes there was NO clear answers, until I realized how protractor works in details. If you understand this too you'll figure out the best option for you.
SOLUTION IS BELOW AFTER SHORT THEORY
1) If you try to pass async function to describe you see it'll fail, because it only accepts synchronous function
What it means for you, is that whatever condition you want to pass to it block, it can't be Promise based (Promise == resolves somewhen, but not immediately). What you're trying to do essentially IS a Promise (open page, do something and wait to see if the condition satisfies your criteria)
if (conditionIsTrue) { // can't be Promise
it('name', () => {
})
}
Thats first thing to consider...
2) When you run protractor, it picks up spec files specified in config and builds the queue of describe/it AND beforeAll/afterAll blocks. IMPORTANT DETAIL HERE IS THAT IT HAPPENS BEFORE THE BROWSER EVEN STARTED.
Look at this example
let conditionIsTrue; // undefined
it('name', () => {
conditionIsTrue = true;
})
if (conditionIsTrue) { // still undefined
it('name', () => {
})
}
By the time Protractor reaches if() statement, the value of conditionIsTrue is still undefined. And it maybe overwritten inside of it block, when browser starts, later on, but not when it builds the queue. So it skips it.
In other words, protractor knows which describe blocks it'll run before it even opens the browser, and this queue can NOT be modified during execution
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
1.1 Define a global variable outside of describe
let conditionIsTrue; // undefined
describe("describe", () => {
it('name1', async () => {
conditionIsTrue = await element.isPresent(); // NOW IT'S TRUE if element is present
})
it('name2', async () => {
if (conditionIsTrue) {
//do whatever you want if the element is present
} else {
console.log("Skipping 'name2' test")
}
})
})
So you won't skip the it block itself, however you can skip anything inside of it
1.2 The same approach can be used for skipping it blocks across different specs, using environment variable. Example:
spec_1.js
describe(`Suite: 1`, () => {
it("element is present", async () => {
if (await element.isPresent()) {
process.env.FLAG = true
} else {
process.env.FLAG = false
}
});
});
spec_2.js
describe(`Suite: 2`, () => {
it("element is present", async () => {
if (process.env.FLAG) {
// do element specific actions
}
});
});
Another possibility I found out, but never had a chance to check is to use Grunt task runner, which may help you implement the following scenario
Run protractor to execute one spec
Check a desired condition
Export this condition to environment variable
Exit protractor
In your Grunt task implement a conditional logic for executing the rests of conditional specs, by starting protractor again
But honestly, I don't see why you'd want to go this time consuming route, which requires a lot of code... But just as an FYI

There is one way provided by Protractor which might achieve what you want to achieve.
In protractor config file you can have onPrepare function. It is actually a callback function called once protractor is ready and available, and before the specs are executed. If multiple capabilities are being run, this will run once per capability.
Now as i understand you need to do a test or we can say execute a parent function and then based on its output you want to run some tests and do not want to run other tests.
onPrepare function in protractor config file will look like this :
onPrepare: async () => {
await browser.manage().window().maximize();
await browser.driver.get('url')
// continue your parent test steps for adding an item and at the last of function you can assign a global variable say global.itemAdded = true/false based on the result of above test steps. Note that you need to use 'global.' here to make it a global variable which will then be available in all specs
}
Now in you specs file you can run tests (it()) based on global.itemAdded variable value
if(global.itemAdded === true) {
it('This test should be running' () => {
})
}
if(global.itemAdded === false) {
it('This test should not be running' () => {
})
}

Postman:how to set up library of (semi-)complicated reusable scripts for collection

Update
I've completely rewritten this question based on subsequent investigation. Hopefully this will generate some answers.
I'm new to Postman, and trying to figure out how to most efficiently build a collection of tests for a REST application. There are a bunch of utility functions that I'd like to have accessible in each of my test scripts, but cut-and-paste-ing them in to each test script seems like a horrible solution.
In looking at the various "scopes" that Postman allows you to squirrel away data (e.g. globals, environment, collection), it seems that all of these are merely string/number stores. In other words, it properly stores them if you can/do stringify the results. But it doesn't actually allow you to store proper objects or functions. This makes sense, since each script seems to be run as a separate execution, so the idea of sharing pointers to things between different scripts doesn't make sense.
It seems like the accepted way to share utility functions is to toString() the function in the defining script (e.g. the Collection Pre-Req script), and then eval() that stringified version in the test script. For instance:
Collection Pre-Req Script
const utilFunc = () => { console.log("I am a utility function"); };
pm.environment.set("utilFunc",utilFunc.toString() );
Test Script
const utilFunc = eval(pm.environment.get("utilFunc"));
utilFunc();
The test script will successfully print to console "I am a utility function".
I've seen people do more complicated things where, if they have more than one utility function, put them in to an object like utils.func1 and utils.func2, and have the overall function return the utils object, so the test script still only has to have a single line at the top importing the whole thing.
The problem I'm running in to is scoping - since the literal text of the function is executed in the Test Script, everything thing that the utility function has to have must be in that code, or otherwise exist at eval() time in the Test Script. For instance, if I do:
Collection Pre-Req Script
const baseUtilFunc = (foo) => { console.log(foo); };
const utilFunc1 = (param) => { baseUtilFunc("One: " + param); };
const utilFunc2 = (param) => { baseUtilFunc("Two: " + param); };
pm.environment.set("utilFunc1",utilFunc1.toString() );
pm.environment.set("utilFunc2",utilFunc2.toString() );
Test Script
const utilFunc1 = eval(pm.environment.get("utilFunc1"));
const utilFunc2 = eval(pm.environment.get("utilFunc2"));
utilFunc1("Test");
This fails because, in the Test Script, baseUtilFunc does not exist. Obviously, in this example, it'd be easy to fix. But in a more complicated world where the utility functions I expect to use in my Test Scripts are themselves built on top of underlying helper functions, it gets more difficult.
So what is the right way to handle this issue? Do people just cram all the relevant logic in to one big function that they then call toString() on? Do they embed an extraction-from-environment-and-then-eval in each util function within its definition, so that it works in the Test Script context? Do they export each individual method?

There are different ways to do it. The way I did recently for one of the projects is creating a project in Git and then using raw url to fetch the data. I have a sample created at below repo
https://github.com/tarunlalwani/postman-utils
To load the file you will need to associate the below code at collection level
if (typeof pmutil == "undefined") {
var url = "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tarunlalwani/postman-utils/master/pmutils.js";
if (pm.globals.has("pmutiljs"))
eval(pm.globals.get("pmutiljs"))
else {
console.log("pmutil not found. loading from " + url);
pm.sendRequest(url, function (err, res) {
eval(res.text());
pm.globals.set('pmutiljs', res.text())
});
}
}
As shown in below screenshot
And the later in the tests or Pre-Requests you will run the below line of code to load it
eval(pm.globals.get("pmutiljs"))
And then you can use the functions easily in test.

Looking for a way to write custom Puppeteer commands

Previously using Nightwatch.js I was able to create custom Nightwatch commands: https://github.com/nightwatchjs/nightwatch-docs/blob/master/guide/extending-nightwatch/custom-commands.md
I'm wondering if there is anything that exists like this for Puppeteer-- the closest thing I've seen is: Is there a way to add script to add new functions in evaluate() context of chrome+puppeeter?
But it's still far away from what I want. I would like to be able to call page.commonAction(...) instead of
page.x();
page.y();
page.z();

You can always create your own script with functions you can call. For example, I have a myFunctions.js in the same folder, from which I name
const mf = require('./myFunctions.js');
Inside the myFunctions.js I have, for example, this function:
async function verifyElementPresent(page, selector) {
let verifySelector = await page.$(selector);
if (verifySelector !== null) {
console.log(found('> OK - Element present'));
} else {
console.log(notfound('>>> ERROR - Element not present: ' + selector));
}
}
So now, in my Puppeteer script all I have to do is write:
mf.verifyElementPresent(page, '#headerTitle');
And it'll print in console the result.
Hope this helps.

Best way to test IIFE (Immediately Invoked Function Expression)

So I have an existing application which uses IIFEs extensively in the browser. I'm trying to introduce some unit testing into the code and keep with the pattern of IIFE for new updates to the code base. Except, I'm having trouble even writing a test which gives me a handle to the code. For example I see this type of logic all over the code base:
var Router = (function (router) {
router.routeUser = function(user) {
console.log("I'm in! --> " + user)
};
return router;
})(Router || {});
Then the JS file is included in a script tag in the markup:
<script src="js/RouteUser.js"></script>
and called like this in the production code:
Router.routeUser(myUser)
So my question is, how do I write a test which tests the method routeUser? I've tried this in my Mocha Test:
var router = require('../../main/resources/public/js/RouteUser');
suite('Route User Tests', function () {
test('Route The User', function () {
if (!router)
throw new Error("failed!");
else{
router.routeUser("Me")
}
});
});
But I get an exception:
TypeError: router.routeUser is not a function
at Context.<anonymous> (src\test\js\RouteUser.test.js:8:20)
Then I tried returning the method, which gives the same error:
var Router = (function (router) {
return {
routeUser: function (user) {
console.log("I'm in! --> " + user)
}
}
}
)(Router || {});
Can anyone point me the right direction here?

It sounds that...
you have a codebase of scripts that are only used in the browser context (usage of IIFE suggests this)
you'd like to introduce browserless unit tests (Jest, Mocha?) using node.js (good idea!)
but you probably don't want to migrate the whole codebase to a different coding style at this moment in time (can be a lot of work depending on the size of your codebase)
Given these assumptions, the problem is that you want your code to...
act as a script when used on production (set global window.Router etc)
act as a module when used in unit tests so that you can require() it in unit tests
UMD
UMD, or universal module definition, used to be a common way to write code so that it can work in multiple environments. Interesting approach, but very cumbersome, and I like to think UMD is a thing of the past nowadays...
I'll leave it here for completeness.
Just take UMD's idea
If the only thing you want for now to make a specific script act as a module too, so that it's importable in tests, you could do a small tweak:
var Router = (function (router) {
router.routeUser = function(user) {
console.log("I'm in! --> " + user)
};
if (typeof exports === "object") {
module.exports = router;
// now the Mocha tests can import it!
}
return router;
})(Router || {});
Long term solution
In the long run, you can get lots of benefits by rewriting all your code to use ONLY modules and use a tool like webpack to package it for you. The above idea is a small step in your direction that gives you one specific benefit (testability). But it is not a long term solution and you'll have some trouble handling dependencies (what if your Router expects some globals to be in place?)

If you intend to run your Mocha tests in the browser, you do not have to alter your existing code.
Let's walk through the IIFE pattern, because based on your code, I think you may misunderstand how it works. The basic shape is this:
var thing = (function() {
return 1;
})();
console.log(thing) // '1'
It's a var declaration setting thing equal to the value on the right side of the equals sign. On the right, the first set of parens wraps a function. Then, a second set of parens sits right next to it, at the end. The second set invokes the function expression contained in the first set of parens. That means the return value of the function will be the right-side value in the var statement. So thing equals 1.
In your case, that means that the outer Router variable is set equal to the router variable returned by your function. That means you can access it as Router in your tests, after including the script in the DOM:
suite('Route User Tests', function () {
test('Route The User', function () {
if (!Router) // <- Notice the capital 'R'
throw new Error("failed!");
else {
Router.routeUser("Me") // <- capital 'R'
}
});
});
If you intend to run your tests with node, see Kos's answer.

Global beforeEach and afterEach in protractor

In each spec I have beforeEach and afterEach statements. Is it possible to add it somehow globally to avoid code duplication between specs ?

Purpose of beforeEach() and afterEach() functions are to add a block of repetitive code that you would need to execute every time you start or complete executing each spec(it). There are other ways to add generalised code to avoid code repetition, here are few -
If you have a piece of code that you would require to run only once before starting a test suite(describe), then you can use beforeAll() and afterAll() functions that jasmine provides.
If you want to run a piece of code that you want to run only once when the execution starts before starting all the test scripts, then add it in your onPrepare() and onComplete() function.
If you want to add a piece of code that should run even before protractor has started instantiating itself or after it has shut itself down, then use beforeLaunch and afterLaunch.
So it all depends on the scenario that you want to use them in. Hope it helps.

My team has the same desire, to run bits of boilerplate code at the start of every test file. From the discussion here, it doesn't sound like there are hooks to globally add to the beforeEach(), afterEach(), etc.
However, we do use the onPrepare() function to abbreviate the amount of before/after boilerplate code that gets repeated in each spec file. Below is a beforeAll() example, but the pattern could be used for beforeEach()/afterEach(). In this case, we're setting up test users in the database with a DataSeeder class, which we do in the outer-most describe() block in every spec file. (I'm also leaving in my catchProtractorErrorInLocation pattern, because it's super useful for us.)
In protractor.conf.ts add boilerplate code to browser.params object.
onPrepare: function () {
...
const browser = require('protractor').browser;
// Define the ConsoleHelper & DataSeeder instances, which will be used by all tests.
const DataSeeder = require('./e2e/support/data-seeder.js');
browser.params.dataSeeder = new DataSeeder();
browser.catchProtractorErrorInLocation = (error, location) => {
throw new Error(`Error in ${location}\n ${error}`);
};
browser.catchProtractorErrorInBeforeAll = (error) => browser.catchProtractorErrorInLocation(error, 'beforeAll()');
// Return a promise that resolves when DataSeeder is connected to service and ready to go
return browser.params.dataSeeder.waitForConnect();
},
With that in place, we can easily do beforeAll() setup code in an abbreviated set of lines.
beforeAll(() => {
return browser.params.dataSeeder.createTestUsers()
.catch(browser.catchProtractorErrorInBeforeAll);
});
You obviously need to do different things in your setup, but you can see how the pattern can apply.