On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 6:22:24 PM UTC-7, Doris Tian wrote: > > I got it, thank you so much, I will pay much attention to the following > work. > > Here is a new hot problem blocked me, I was confused by this issue for > several weeks. Could you take a look and give me some advice? > Here is the link: > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!starred/watir-general/Om5dyceOtjM > Or you can search the topic: watir & ruby: cannot write double-byte > characters in IE > > > Waiting for you kind reply. > > Thanks > Doris >
Saw it, didn't have anything to add as I have been blissfully excused from having to deal with any DBCS stuff since the days when I tested things going into Windows 95, 98, and Win2K > > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:50:18 AM UTC+8, Chuck van der Linden wrote: >> >> I repeat, this is BAD AUTOMATION PRACTICE. You can find many many a >> resource on effective automation that tell you not to do this. Here's an >> example from this page >> http://xunitpatterns.com/Principles%20of%20Test%20Automation.html >> >> Principle: Keep Tests Independent >>> *Also known as: *Independent Test >>> When doing manual testing <http://xunitpatterns.com/manual%20test.html>, >>> it is common to have long test procedures that verify many aspects of the >>> SUT's behavior in a single test. This is necessary because the steps >>> involved in setting up the starting state of the system for one test may be >>> simply a repetition of the steps used to verify other parts of it's >>> behavior. When tests are executed manually, this repetition is not >>> cost-effective. As well, human testers have the ability to recognize when a >>> test failure should preclude continuing execution of the test, when it >>> should cause certain tests to be skipped or when the failure is irrelevant. >>> If tests are interdependent and (even worse) order dependent, we will be >>> depriving ourselves of the useful feedback test failures provide. >>> *Interacting >>> Tests* <http://xunitpatterns.com/Erratic%20Test.html#Interacting+Tests> >>> (see >>> Erratic Test on page X) tend to fail in a group. The failure of a test >>> that moved the SUT <http://xunitpatterns.com/SUT.html> into the state >>> required by the dependent test will lead to the failure of the dependent >>> test too. With both tests failing, how can we tell if it is because of a >>> problem in code that both rely on in some way or is it a problem in code >>> that only the first relies on. With both tests failing we can't tell. We >>> are only talking about two tests here. Imagine how much worse this is with >>> tens or hundreds of tests. >>> An Independent >>> Test<http://xunitpatterns.com/Principles%20of%20Test%20Automation.html#Independent+Test> >>> can >>> be run by itself. It sets up its own Fresh >>> Fixture<http://xunitpatterns.com/Fresh%20Fixture.html> (page >>> X) to put the SUT <http://xunitpatterns.com/SUT.html> into a state that >>> lets it verify the behavior it is testing. Tests that build a Fresh >>> Fixture <http://xunitpatterns.com/Fresh%20Fixture.html> are much more >>> likely to be independent than tests that use a Shared >>> Fixture<http://xunitpatterns.com/Shared%20Fixture.html>(page >>> X). The latter can lead to various kinds of *Erratic >>> Tests*<http://xunitpatterns.com/Erratic%20Test.html> >>> including *Lonely >>> Tests*<http://xunitpatterns.com/Erratic%20Test.html#Lonely+Test> >>> , *Interacting >>> Tests*<http://xunitpatterns.com/Erratic%20Test.html#Interacting+Tests> >>> and *Test Run >>> Wars*<http://xunitpatterns.com/Erratic%20Test.html#Test+Run+War>. >>> With independent tests, unit >>> test<http://xunitpatterns.com/unit%20test.html> failures >>> give us Defect >>> Localization<http://xunitpatterns.com/Principles%20of%20Test%20Automation.html#Defect+Localization> >>> to >>> help us pinpoint the source of the failure. >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:49:16 AM UTC-7, Doris Tian wrote: >>> >>> Thank you so much. I find this link >>> http://wiki.openqa.org/display/WTR/Test+Unit is talk about the order of >>> unit test. Followings are some parts I picked up from it: >>> >>> When we run the test script from the command line, Test::Unit uses >>> reflection to go through our test class and execute all the test cases >>> declared in it. The runner by default executes the test cases >>> alphabetically, so if you need to chain test cases, prefix letters from the >>> alphabet or numbers after the *test* prefix to force them to run in >>> order. ex. test_a_mytest. >>> >>> Note: If you use numbers in your method names, note that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, >>> 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 will be executed in this order: 1, 10, 11, 12, 2, 3, >>> 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Instead, use this format: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, >>> 09, 10, 11, 12. ex. test_01_mytest, test_02_mytest, test_03_mytest will run >>> in the order expected. >>> But in my test scripts: I totally have 24 cases in 24 ruby files, and >>> they are named as test01.rb, test02.rb.......test24.rb. When I run these >>> cases through the bat file. The order is 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, >>> 09, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 13, 19, 22, 24. This order >>> confused me. I don't know why it will skip 13 and 19 and 22, but finally >>> all the cases are run. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Doris >>> >>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:38:37 PM UTC+8, Chuck van der Linden wrote: >>>> >>>> Test unit presumes your tests are atomic, not chained, and does not run >>>> tests in any particular order that I know of. >>>> >>>> This is a common problem for people with bad automation habits. Your >>>> tests should each take care of creating data they need, and cleaning up >>>> after themselves, so that you can run any test, in any order, or even in >>>> parallel (in order to do things like test different browsers at the same >>>> time, or execute across multiple servers to speed up test execution. >>>> >>>> If your tests need to be run in a particular order, you have a bad test >>>> design. it's a common test automation 'code smell' >>>> >>>> Test Unit was designed primarily for unit tests, and well written unit >>>> tests are always atomic in nature. >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:31:34 AM UTC-7, Doris Tian wrote: >>>>> >>>>> sorry for my mistake. >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Here's a new problem, I don't know the reason. >>>>> >>>>> I write automation scripts with ruby & watir. >>>>> The structure of the scripts is as followings: >>>>> 1. I write every test case in different ruby file named as test01.rb, >>>>> test02.rb, test03.rb >>>>> 2. I divide the function of the scripts into three parts, and put them >>>>> into 1.rb, 2.rb and 3.rb according to the function. >>>>> 1> 1.rb such as (there are 24 files in 1.rb) >>>>> require 'test1/test01.rb' >>>>> require 'test1/test02.rb' >>>>> require 'test1/test03.rb' >>>>> require 'test1/test04.rb' >>>>> …… >>>>> require 'test1/test24.rb' >>>>> 3. I create a bat file to run all the ruby file (1.rb, 2.rb, 3.rb), >>>>> using 'ruby -Ku -rjcode 1.rb' >>>>> >>>>> The problem is: >>>>> when I run the bat file, it will run the test cases in the 1.rb, I >>>>> think it will run the files according to the sequence I write. it will >>>>> run >>>>> as: test01.rb, test02.rb, ……test24.rb. >>>>> BUT, the actual result is: it runs test01.rb -----test12.rb, but it >>>>> will skip test13.rb to run test20.rb. and then will run test14.rb, >>>>> test15.rb. I'm confused that. >>>>> Could you give me some advice? >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to your reply. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Doris >>>>> >>>> -- Before posting, please read http://watir.com/support. In short: search before you ask, be nice. [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/watir-general [email protected]
