Hi, @Ian: to simplify your tests, you can override the webtest method to perform verfifyNoSoftFailures() after executing the closure you pass as argument.
Some time ago (one or two years if I correctly remember) we already had a similar discussion in this list. I think too that it could be interesting to have the possibility to "collect" verification errors and make the test fail at the end. The xml report format needs to be enhanced for that to be able to store more than one failure per test. As always: a patch is welcome ;-) Cheers, Marc. -- Web: http://www.efficient-webtesting.com Blog: http://mguillem.wordpress.com Ian Homer wrote: > Nice one ... I've taken your example into the groovy world with ... > > def fullTestName="My Test" > webtest() { > group login > group soft.curry("$fullTestName : Title 1", {verifyTitle 'Title > 1'}) > group inputForm1.curry(name:'Test',age:65,sex:'Female',smoker:'No') > group soft.curry("$fullTestName : Title 2", {verifyTitle 'Title > 2'}) > group inputForm2.curry(name:'Test',age:65,sex:'Male',smoker:'No') > group soft.curry("$fullTestName : Title 3", {verifyTitle 'Title > 3'}) > } > verfifyNoSoftFailures() > > All soft failures are stored whilst running the main webtest and then > reported as failures in separate webtests. I don't see this approach as > particularly elegant. For example the webtest reports are not so clear > (because of the grouping). But it does the job for now. It would be > interesting to see if there is interest in an improvement to this > technique. > > The "soft" closure is defined as > > def soft={ description, steps -> > groovy { log.info("Executing soft steps : $description ") } > retry (maxcount:2,counterName:'i') { > try { > ifStep { > condition { verifyProperty name:'i',value:0 } > then { steps() } > } > ifStep { > condition { not { verifyProperty name:'i',value:0 } } > then { groovy { softFailures << description } } > } > } catch (e) { log.error(e) } > } > } > > (Side Note : I couldn't use the "else" step in groovy because it clashes > with the groovy / java else syntax - anyone know if there is a way of > addressing this conflict?) > > and "verfifyNoSoftFailures" method is defined as > > def verfifyNoSoftFailures() { > softFailures.each { description -> > try { > webtest(description) { > storeProperty name:'fail',value:'false' > verifyProperty description:"$description > (failed)",name:'fail',value:'true' > } > } catch (e) { log.error(e) } > } > softFailures.clear() > } > > (Side Note: I couldn't find a simple step to trigger a failure hence > I've done the verbose storeProperty/verifyProperty to trigger a failure > - anyone know how to to do this in a cleaner way?) > > and I have a class variable "softFailures" to store the soft failures > > def softFailures=[] > > Cheers, > > Ian > > On 11 Jun 2009, at 19:27, John Spann wrote: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> This is actually very easy to implement, although we write xml tests >> with ant macros, which I don't know how to re-use in groovy tests. >> You should be able to utilize the same logic inside your groovy tests, >> though. >> >> First, we wrote a macro which allows for a soft failure: >> >> <macrodef name="softFail" description="Wraps Steps such that the >> failures are ignored"> >> <element name="steps" implicit="true"/> >> <sequential> >> <retry description="softFail Wrapper" maxcount="2" >> counterName="softFailCounter"> >> <ifStep> >> <condition> >> <verifyProperty description="Verify this is the >> first run" name="softFailCounter" value="0" propertyType="dynamic" /> >> </condition> >> <then> >> <steps/> >> </then> >> <else> >> <setProperty description="Set softFailure to true >> so the test will fail" name="softFailure" value="true" >> propertyType="dynamic" /> >> </else> >> </ifStep> >> </retry> </sequential> </macrodef> >> >> We then wrote a second macro which verifies no failure occurred: >> >> <macrodef name="checkSoftFailure" description="Fail the test if a soft >> failure occurred"> >> <sequential> >> <not> >> <verifyProperty description="Check if #{softFailure} is set >> to true" name="softFailure" value="true" propertyType="dynamic" /> >> </not> >> </sequential> >> </macrodef> >> >> Our tests then look like this: >> >> <webtest name="Soft Fail Example"> >> <steps> >> <!-- Do stuff --> >> <softFail> >> <!--Step or steps that can fail --> >> </softFail> >> <!-- Do more stuff --> >> <checkSoftFailure/> >> </steps> >> </webtest> >> >> Hope that helps, >> >> John Spann | Associate Software Engineer >> >> Citrix Online Division >> Citrix Systems, Inc. >> 6500 Hollister Avenue >> Goleta, CA 93117 USA >> www.citrix.com >> >> Phone: 805.690.3489 >> Cell: 805.729.0008 >> Email: [email protected] >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Ian Homer <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]>, Ian Homer <[email protected]> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:17:48 -0700 >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: [Webtest] RE: Continuing tests after a step failure >> >> Hi, >> >> Just reading back catalog of topics on the mailing list having >> questioned to myself whether tests could continue a step failure and I >> found this thread. >> >> Personally I think there is some value in having a soft step failure, >> i.e. a step failure that does not cause subsequent steps in a webtest >> to fail. For example I have a test case that involves multiple forms >> and I want to verify the title of each form as I go through the >> flow. I ran this test and it failed on the second form because the >> title on the second page was not correct. That's fine - because >> that's a failed test, however this failure does not in reality prevent >> the functional flow from continuing, the second form can still be >> filled in and run OK. Now I could out the tests into separate >> webtests, and I could write the steps as macrodefs (or Groovy closures >> as I'm writing tests in Groovy), but this seems an unnecessary >> abstraction when I have a single script which I'd like to cover >> various functional aspects. >> >> For example my groovy test script might be written as ... >> >> webtest("test name") { >> group login >> verifyTitle 'Title 1' >> group inputForm1.curry(name:'Test',age: >> 65,sex:'Female',smoker:'No') >> verifyTitle 'Title 2' >> group inputForm2.curry(name:'Test',age:65,sex:'Male',smoker:'No') >> verifyText 'Title 3' >> } >> >> (where login, inputForm1 and inputForm2 are closures defining how I >> log in and fill in the two forms) >> >> Having a construct where I could identify one of the steps as a soft >> failure, e.g. >> >> soft { verifyTitle 'Title 2' } >> >> would be extremely useful, keep my test as a single script and allow >> me to identify steps which do not break the flow on failure. >> >> What's the general consensus on this and would this approach be >> something that would be considered? >> >> Ian >> >> -- >> Ian Homer >> mobile ... made simple >> http://bemoko.com | twitter: ianhomer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WebTest mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest >> > _______________________________________________ WebTest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest
