Selenium
Locked
12
12
Re: Selenium
 
|
Re: Selenium
|
|
Re: Selenium
|
|
Al, I'm assuming that you meant WebTest instead of webtools there, but nonetheless - we _could_ use something like DbUnit for this. It could be a HUGE dataset to get going to put things back together, but it can totally be done and is perfect for this type of concern.
Cheers, Tim
-- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 On Jan 29, 2007, at 5:18 AM, Al Byers wrote:
|
smime.p7s (3K)
Re: Selenium
|
|
Re: Selenium
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Sykes
I'd really prefer to do what has been proposed as a best practice and write tests using the same OFBiz framework tools that we use to write applications, like simple-methods, services, etc... But yes, it is possible to call a service through a web request and there is one in the webtools wecapp that has been there for years. The trick is you have to set export="true" for all services called this way, which is another reason to do logic-level test (including service calls) in a more black-box way, especially if they are not for testing things that are intended to be available externally. -David On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:01 AM, Andrew Sykes wrote: > Assuming an automated web browser type technology is the way to go for > testing... > > What does everyone think of having an option to run a service > synchronously from webtools? > > This would allow a lot of clever asserts from the test tool? > Without the > need to make the tool dispatcher aware? Would this be an adequate > approach? > -- > Kind Regards > Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]> > Sykes Development Ltd > http://www.sykesdevelopment.com > |
Re: Selenium
|
|
Re: Selenium
|
|
On Jan 29, 2007, at 10:58 PM, Al Byers wrote: > Could this be a matter of differing requirements? I am guessing > that one > could think of testing as a means to insure that the core code is > functioning properly. I realize that I was thinking about what I > would want > from a project management point of view. > > In that case, I think my requirements would be: > > 1. Something that would let me jump around and assess the state of > multiple > projects. That would imply that I do not want to use a command-line > interface. I don't want to have to log in to different systems. I > would > want to see the available tests and pick all or some of them. > > 2. If I want to check the state of a task, I want to be able to run > a test > that is appropriate for that task whether it be an acceptance test > on the > response to a request or an internal test on business logic > functionality. I > would like the same command interface for all tests. Of course, > WebTest does > not have such an interface, but it does not seem like it would be too > difficult to glean the available tests and descriptions from the > ant script > files. > somewhere in my build files. I can pull it together whenever you're ready Al. It doesn't prompt you though (but it could still be VERY easy to control with arguments being passed in) > I see WebTest as a vehicle for doing the above. It is designed for > web-based > tests, but it seems like with a little work it could also be a > harness for > running JUnit tests. Perhaps a special event handler for running > JUnit tests > and another for wrapping web requests with a transaction. > > Let me try again at refining my wish list: > > 1. A prompting interface. > 2. The ability to run all tests from that interface. > > -Al > > On 1/29/07, David E. Jones <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> I'd really prefer to do what has been proposed as a best practice and >> write tests using the same OFBiz framework tools that we use to write >> applications, like simple-methods, services, etc... >> >> But yes, it is possible to call a service through a web request and >> there is one in the webtools wecapp that has been there for years. >> The trick is you have to set export="true" for all services called >> this way, which is another reason to do logic-level test (including >> service calls) in a more black-box way, especially if they are not >> for testing things that are intended to be available externally. >> >> -David >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:01 AM, Andrew Sykes wrote: >> >> > Assuming an automated web browser type technology is the way to >> go for >> > testing... >> > >> > What does everyone think of having an option to run a service >> > synchronously from webtools? >> > >> > This would allow a lot of clever asserts from the test tool? >> > Without the >> > need to make the tool dispatcher aware? Would this be an adequate >> > approach? >> > -- >> > Kind Regards >> > Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]> >> > Sykes Development Ltd >> > http://www.sykesdevelopment.com >> > >> >> >> >> |
Re: Selenium
|
|
Re: Selenium
|
|
Andrew, Okay, I see where you're going with that. It sounds like a great idea and very do-able, and useful for many things other than just testing. BTW, In general I do really like this approach of writing unit tests as services so we can take advantage of all of the flexibility and efficiency that we get for the main application code. If you (or anybody!) wants to work on this, please do! I'll try to bring it up during the dev conference too as we're working on testing infrastructure if it hasn't been implemented by then. -David On Jan 30, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Andrew Sykes wrote: > David, > > I think we're talking about different things here, perhaps I should > detail the suggestion a bit more clearly... > > The idea was to have a page that allowed you to run a service > synchronously much like the "schedule service", however, it would then > display the results tabularly in the browser. For each value pair > displayed, there would be a checkbox to allow you to save the value in > the session, then when you returned to run another service if the > one of > the input params matched one of the previous saved values, it would > automatically populate the input box. > > This would allow people relying predominantly on a browser based test > tool to run pretty fancy multi-service sequences. > > I admit, it does sound a bit hacky, but I have a rough draft which I'm > using for some testing and it does make certain things a lot easier. > > Can you give me your thoughts please? > > - Andrew > > > On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 20:35 -0700, David E. Jones wrote: >> I'd really prefer to do what has been proposed as a best practice and >> write tests using the same OFBiz framework tools that we use to write >> applications, like simple-methods, services, etc... >> >> But yes, it is possible to call a service through a web request and >> there is one in the webtools wecapp that has been there for years. >> The trick is you have to set export="true" for all services called >> this way, which is another reason to do logic-level test (including >> service calls) in a more black-box way, especially if they are not >> for testing things that are intended to be available externally. >> >> -David >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:01 AM, Andrew Sykes wrote: >> >>> Assuming an automated web browser type technology is the way to >>> go for >>> testing... >>> >>> What does everyone think of having an option to run a service >>> synchronously from webtools? >>> >>> This would allow a lot of clever asserts from the test tool? >>> Without the >>> need to make the tool dispatcher aware? Would this be an adequate >>> approach? >>> -- >>> Kind Regards >>> Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]> >>> Sykes Development Ltd >>> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com >>> >> > -- > Kind Regards > Andrew Sykes <[hidden email]> > Sykes Development Ltd > http://www.sykesdevelopment.com > |
Re: Selenium
|
|
Re: Selenium
|
|
Re: Selenium
|
|
Re: Selenium
|
|
Re: Selenium
|
|
Re: Selenium
Administrator
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |