Hi all,
I think that hacking the pom.xml of the fit/enduser cannot be a long lasting
solution. So I agree about introducing a specific profile for developing of IT
tests, it could help for the current developing needs.
It would also be cool to have more granularity and run specific tests using
maven like Francesco pointed out.
Actually, as it seems to me, the main problem is that to develop and run an IT
test for the enduser we must wait for the complete cargo system to startup, we
have no granularity. It is not feasible while developing tests. We need to run
single tests (while developing) against a running syncope environment (enduser
ui + core), and at the moment AFAIK we are not able to run single tests through
maven, we have to use js tools as Matteo said.
Best regards,
Andrea
Il giorno 18 nov 2016, 17:31, alle ore 17:31, Matteo Di Carlo
<matteo.dica...@tirasa.net> ha scritto:
>
>
>On 18/11/2016 16:00, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>> On 18/11/2016 15:20, Matteo Di Carlo wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I would like to share some considerations about enduser testing.
>>>
>>> After tests have been written or updated we are able to run them
>>> manually through node and protractor directly from
>>> ${enduser-test.dir}: a directory created in /fit/enduser/target
>>> during pre-integration-test phase. During the same phase protractor,
>
>>> phantomjs and node are installed too.
>>> Actually in the build cycle these four operations are skipped, so
>>> every time we work on enduser tests we need to temporarily modify
>>> syncope-fit-enduser-reference pom to run tests manually.
>>>
>>> Could be usefull to create a Enduser test specific maven profile ?
>>
>> Hi Matteo,
>> please go ahead and post your proposed changes to
>> fit/enduser-reference/pom.xml somewhere (Gist?), I am not sure to
>> understand why you need it: is your purpose to build an easy way to
>> leave Syncope running with the ability to manually run some JS tests
>> against it?
>>
>> In fit/core-reference you can achieve something similar by running
>>
>> mvn -Pdebug
>>
>> or
>>
>> mvn -Pdebug,all
>>
>> and then (for example)
>>
>> mvn test -Dtest=GroupITCase
>>
>> Is my understanding correct? Could you please provide a concrete
>> example, besides your proposed changes?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>
>Hi Francesco,
>correct. the goal is developing enduser tests in a faster way, but
>mainly I couldn't find where to run Node outside the enduser-test.dir
>if
>not created.
>We can run tests with mvn clean verify, but running them with node
>while
>developing brings few advantages :
>
>-we can choose which test to run, e.g. if we are working on a single
>test we don't have to run them all,
>-we can change protractor configuration, e.g. what browser to use for
>testing or the order with which we want to run tests, and see results
>without rebuild,
>-we can change html views (since protractor works with html elements it
>
>can happen that we need to add tags to html files) and run the same
>test
>again.
>
>To achieve this goals everything I did is
>
>1. removing <skipTests>true</skipTests> from every plugins that
>excecute pre-integration-test phase,
>2. mvn -Pjrebel,
>3. move to enduser-test.dir
>4. write, modify tests or configuration files
>5. copy updated test files in enduser-test.dir
>6. delete test files I'm not interested to, from enduser-test.dir
>7. run nodejs/node/node nodejs/bin/protractor protractor-conf.js
>from
>enduser-test.dir
>
>So I think a appropriate profile could be a solution. Changes I made to
>
>the pom is a quick solution to work temporarily.
>If there is a mvn parameter to force building Syncope without skipping
>pre-integration-test phase would be much quicker !
>
>Matteo.
