On the Jasmine website I see that we can disable suites by xdescribe or individual specs by xit. Is there a way to disable only an expectation (like xexpect)?
The reason why I'm asking this is because I'm writing e2e tests with Protractor and in our continuous integration we don't yet (if ever) have access to the database, though locally we can run real end to end tests with access to the database, for example.
I would like to mark individual expectations as optional, depending on a configuration or environment variable. It would be nice to make a switch once, and then create a wrapper around expect, that only fails if we are running the tests locally (with access to the database).
So for example I can create a new spec family:
if (process.env.DB_AVAILABLE) {
dbit = it;
} else {
dbit = xit;
}
and write specs that depend on database connection as following:
dbit('creates new user', function () {});
Is there a way to do the same with expect (e.g. dbexpect)?
If there is something fundamentally wrong with my approach, don't hold it back and let me know.
You could create your own xexpect by implementing all the methods/properties with an empty function:
var xexpect = function() {
return xexpect;
};
Object.getOwnPropertyNames(jasmine.Expectation.prototype).forEach(function(name){
xexpect[name] = xexpect;
});
Object.defineProperty(xexpect, 'not', {get: xexpect});
Usage :
xexpect(1).toBeGreaterThan(2);
xexpect(true).not.toEqual(true);
Related
I want to run certain tests depending on certain conditions. If the condition is met then run, otherwise skip the test. I want to do that before being in the test (or maybe jest provide a function to cancel a test inside it? So that it doesn't throw an error)
You can see here what I have :
The setup: I'm testing different crypto-wallet for a DEX, so I have a battery of tests that runs for all those wallets. By design, some features are on some wallets and others don't have them. Here I'm trying to sign a transaction running on an EVM chain different from Ethereum (AVAX here). This will not work on all wallets (normal) like ethwallet, but will for others. I want to test only those that I know support this feature.
My problem: wallet is initialized in beforeAll, and I don't have access to this object outside test() (the expected log is k2, k1 is out of scope and return gibberish). How can I access it then and know if I run the test or skip it? You can see that I tried to implement testif() but unfortunately not working because I have not the good value outside of test().
According with this Github issue you can do something like:
const runTest = wallet ? it : it.skip
runTest( "testName", async () => {
// ...
}
And the code will execute it or it.skip.
I'm using Sinon for stubbing some data retrieval methods during unit testing. Most of these data methods are async, so the resolves syntax has been handy so far for this. What I'm trying to achieve is to dynamically generate different test data based on Math.random() to cover different branches on my code automatically, without having actually to provide hardcoded sample input data for each case. Still, I've realized that the stub just is actually called once upon initialization and, not the return value of it gets fixed/constant during the execution of the testing process (Mocha based). Is there any way to actually provide different outcomes for a single stub using? I've checked the onCall syntax, but it also provides fixed output, just selectable based on current iteration index, but not actual dynamic output, which could even be args/params based, perhaps.
All ideas are welcome!
Current stubbing using Sinon:
sinon.stub(dynamodb, 'get').resolves(stubGet())
The stub itself:
function stubGet () {
// Choose random repo
const i = Math.round(Math.random() * sampleData.length)
const repo = sampleData[i]
// Should it have "new code/push date"?
const isNew = Math.round(Math.random()) === 1
if (isNew) {
repo.pushed_at = { S: '1970-01-01T00:00:00Z' }
}
console.log('repo', repo)
const item = { Item: repo }
console.log(item)
return item
}
The goal would be to hopefully get the random repo or the isNew value.
Randomness is unpredictable. Test code should be predictable, including test data. Otherwise, your tests could be failed with some random data in someday
We should write multiple test cases, each test case uses fixed, as simple as possible test data to test each branch, scene, etc. of the code. Assert whether the returned value meets your expectations.
You should make the test code, test data predictable. For more info, see Unpredictable Test Data
Using Protractor 5.1.2 and Jasmine2 for describing test cases, how does one get the current testcase/spec being run in the beforeEach method?
I would like to do some different setup based on which test case I'm running. I do not want to put these tests in different spec files with repeating code except for the little bit I want to change in the setup.
Example of what I'm looking for:
...
beforeEach(() => {
if(currentSpec/TestCase.name == "thisName") {
// Do a particular login specific to testcase.name
} else {
// Do a default login
}
});
...
My research into this brought up much older solutions (2+ years) that are very out of date and seem to keep saying that accessing the currently running testcase/spec is something they (protractor) try to keep hidden. I feel like wanting to do particular setup for a particular test case in a suite of test cases is not a unique thing. I could just be using the wrong search terms.
I am not sure how to do what you want with beforeEach(). But, I think you can get the same effect by using a helper file. This will allow you to setup a common file that any spec can reference so you can use a common set of functions. To set this up, you will:
Create a central file (I call mine util.js)
const helper = function(){
this.exampleFunction = function(num){
return num; //insert function here
}
this.exampleFunction2 = function(elem){
elem.click() //insert function here
}
}
Inside your spec.js file you will do:
const help = require('path/to/util.js');
const util = new help();
describe('Example with util',function(){
it('Should use util to click an element',function(){
let elem = $('div.yourItem');
util.exampleFunction2(elem);
});
});
You can then call these functions from any spec file. You would then be able to seperate your tests into seperate spec files, but have a common set of functions for the parts that are the same.
Another way to do this, without creating separate files is to just use a local function.
Example spec.js file:
describe('Should use functions',function(){
afterEach(function(){
$('button.logout').click();
)};
it('Should run test as user 1',function(){
$('#Username').sendKeys('User1');
$('#Password').sendKeys('Password1');
$('button.login).click();
doStuff();
)};
it('Should run test as user 2',function(){
$('#Username').sendKeys('User2');
$('#Password').sendKeys('Password2');
$('button.login').click();
doStuff();
)};
function doStuff(){
$('div.thing1').click();
$('div.thing2').click();
)};
)};
As per comments for multiple describes:
describe('Test with user 1',function(){
beforeEach(function(){
//login as user 1
});
it('Should do a thing',function(){
//does the thing as user 1
});
});
describe('Test with user 2',function(){
beforeEach(function(){
//login as user 2
});
it('Should do another thing',function(){
//does the other thing as user 2
});
});
The whole point of beforeEach is that it is the same for each test.
If you want to do different things, then they belong in the specific test.
Write a helper function and call it from the specific test if you want to have common functionality that does slightly different things depending on an argument.
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.
I am having some issues writing some unit tests where i would like to stub out the functionality of the neo4j Thingdom module.
After a few hours of failed attempts i have been searching around the web and the only point of reference i found was a sample project which used to sinon.createStubInstance(neo4j.GraphDatabase); to stub out the entire object. For me, and becuase this seemed to a be a throw away project i wanted a more fine grained approach so i can test that for instance as the Thingdom API outlines when saving a node you create it (non persisted) persist it and then you can index it if you wish which are three calls and could be outlined in multiple specific tests, which i am not sure can be achieved with the createStubInstance setup (i.e. found out if a function was called once).
Example "create node" function (this is just to illustrate the function, i am trying to build it out using the tests)
User.create = function(data, next){
var node = db.createNode(data);
node.save(function(err, node){
next(null,node);
});
};
I am able to stub functions of the top level object (neo4j.GraphDatabase) so this works:
it('should create a node for persistence', function(){
var stub = sinon.stub(neo4j.GraphDatabase.prototype, 'createNode');
User.create({}, res);
stub.calledOnce.should.be.ok;
stub.restore();
});
The issue comes with the next set of test i wish to run which tests if the call to persist the node to the database is called (the node,save) method:
I am not sure if this is possible or it can be achieved but i have tried several variations of the stub and non seem to work (on neo4j.Node, neo4j.Node.prototype) and they all come back with varying errors such as can't wrap undefined etc. and this is probably due to the createNode function generating the node and not my code directly.
Is there something i am glaringly doing wrong, am i missing the trick or can you just not do this? if not what are the best tactics to deal with stuff like this?
A possible solution is to return a stubbed or mocked object, giving you control on what happens after the node is created:
it('should create a node for persistence and call save', function () {
var stubbedNode = {
save: sinon.stub().yields(undefined, stubbedNode)
};
var stub = sinon.stub(neo4j.GraphDatabase.prototype, 'createNode').returns(stubbedNode);
User.create({}, res);
stub.calledOnce.should.be.ok;
stub.restore();
stubbedNode.save.calledOnce.should.be.ok;
});
We couldn't do it directly, the way the module is setup it doesn't work to well with Sinon. What we are doing is simply abstracting the module away and wrapping it in a simple facade/adapter which we are able to stub on our unit tests.
As we are not doing anything bar calling the neo4j module in that class we are integration (and will validate when regression testing) testing that part to make sure we are hitting the neo4j database.