For C# there is a way to write a statement for waiting until an element on a page appears:
WebDriverWait wait = new WebDriverWait(driver, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
IWebElement myDynamicElement = wait.Until<IWebElement>((d) =>
{
return d.FindElement(By.Id("someDynamicElement"));
});
But is there a way to do the same in phpunit's selenium extension?
Note 1
The only thing I've found is $this->timeouts()->implicitWait(), but obviously it's not what I'm looking for.
Note 2
This question is about Selenium2 and PHPUnit_Selenium2 extension accordingly.
The implicitWait that you found is what you can use instead of waitForCondition.
As the specification of WebDriver API (that you also found ;)) states:
implicit - Set the amount of time the driver should wait when searching for elements. When searching for a single element, the driver should poll the page until an element is found or the timeout expires, whichever occurs first.
For example, this code will wait up to 30 seconds for an element to appear before clicking on it:
public function testClick()
{
$this->timeouts()->implicitWait(30000);
$this->url('http://test/test.html');
$elm = $this->clickOnElement('test');
}
The drawback is it's set for the life of the session and may slow down other tests unless it's set back to 0.
From my experience it is very hard to debug selenium test case from phpunit, not to mention maintaining them. The approach I use in my projects is to use Selenium IDE, store test cases as .html files and only invoke them via phpunit. If there is anything wrong, I can lunch them from IDE and debug in a much easier why. And Selenium IDE has waitForElementPresent, waitForTextPresent and probably some other method, which can solve your issue. If you want to give it a try, you can use this method in your class inheriting from Selenium Test Case class.
$this->runSelenese("/path/to/test/case.html");
Related
I have a PHP daemon script running on the command line that can be connected to via telnet etc and be fed commands.
What it does with the command is based on what modules are loaded, which is currently done at the start. (psuedocode below for brevity)
$modules = LoadModules();
StartConnection();
while(true){
ListenForCommands();
}
function LoadModules(){
$modules = Array();
$dir = scandir("modules");
foreach($dir as $folder){
include("modules/".$folder."/".$folder.".php");
$modules[$folder] = new $folder;
}
}
function ListenForCommands(){
if(($command = GetData())!==false){
if(isset($modules[$command])){
$modules[$command]->run();
}
}
}
So, an example module called "bustimes" would be a class called bustimes, living in /modules/bustimes/bustimes.php
This works fine. However, I'd like to make it so modules can be updated on the fly, so as part of ListenForCommands it looks at the filemtime of the module, works out if it's changed, and if so, effectively reloads the class.
This is where the problem comes in, obviously if I include the class file again, it'll error as the class already exists.
All of the ideas I have of how to get around this problem so far are pretty sick and I'd like to avoid doing.
I have a few potential solutions so far, but I'm happy with none of them.
when a module updates, make it in a new namespace and point the reference there
I don't like this option, nor am I sure it can be done (as if I'm right, namespaces have to be defined at the top of the file? That's definitely workaroundable with a file_get_contents(), but I'd prefer to avoid it)
Parsing the PHP file then using runkit-method-redefine to redefine all of the methods.
Anything that involves that kind of parsing is a bad plan.
Instead of including the file, make a copy of the file with everything the same but str_replacing the class name to something with a rand() on the end or similar to make it unique.
Does anyone have any better ideas about how to either a) get around this problem or b) restructure the module system so this problem doesn't occur?
Any advice/ideas/constructive criticism would be extremely welcome!
You should probably load the files on demand in a forked process.
You receive a request
=> fork the main process, include the module and run it.
This will also allow you to run several commands at once, instead of having to wait for each one to run before launching the next.
Fork in php :
http://php.net/manual/en/function.pcntl-fork.php
Tricks with namespaces will fail if module uses external classes (with relative paths in namespace).
Trick with parsing is very dangerous - what if module should keep state? What if not only methods changed, but, for example, name of implemented interface? How it will affect other objects if they have link to instance of reloaded class?
I think #Kethryweryn is something you can try.
When I'm trying to execute a functional unittest of a module within my Yii code, I keep receiving the following error:
CException: CHttpRequest is unable to determine the request URI.
At first, I though it was because it couldn't find the module. However, If I change the url to a wrong one, I get a correct error,s tating it couldn't find the view.
This is how my testing code looks like
public function testViewControllerModule()
{
ob_start();
Yii::app()->runController('module/controller/view');
}
Any ideas on what I might be missing?
bool.devs answer works so far.
This blog post explains the origin of the exception pretty well:
http://mattmccormick.ca/2012/09/14/unit-testing-url-routes-in-yii-framework/
In my case, I generalized the solution and have set the following variables in /www/protected/tests/bootstrap.php:
...
$_SERVER['SCRIPT_FILENAME'] = 'index-test.php';
$_SERVER['SCRIPT_NAME'] = '/index-test.php';
$_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'] = 'index-test.php';
Yii::createWebApplication($config);
Consider using 'index-test.php' instead of 'index.php' because it contains the config 'test.php' which is responsible for fixtures and maybe other test relevated configurations.
If someone has better suggestions feel free to comment :)
Kind regards
I think it's because you haven't set any server variables, i.e $_SERVER and you might be doing something like this in your controller:
Yii::app()->request ....
So before you run your test, make sure you use a fixture for the server variables also. I think this should suffice for now:
$_SERVER=array(
'REQUEST_URI'=>'index.php', // the other fields should follow
);
However to run functional tests i would recommend using SeleniumRC, you won't have to do these workarounds then, and can simulate user clicks also, i think.
Read the initial guide to Functional Testing , read the selenium rc phpunit guide, and also the CWebTestCase documentation.
Notes: You might still have to use fixtures for some variables, and i don't have much experience in testing(which is bad), so i'm not very sure if i am completely correct about selenium.
I have quite an interesting (and annoying) problem here. For some reason, the PHP method ReflectionClass::getDocComment() is returning false on my production environment (while there actually is a block comment in the class of course...).
Causing the Doctrine AnnotationReader / DocParser to fail:
(Doctrine\Common\Annotations\AnnotationReader.php:143)
public function getClassAnnotations(ReflectionClass $class)
{
$this->parser->setTarget(Target::TARGET_CLASS);
$this->parser->setImports($this->getImports($class));
$this->parser->setIgnoredAnnotationNames($this->getIgnoredAnnotationNames($class));
return $this->parser->parse($class->getDocComment(), 'class ' . $class->getName());
}
I've looked around and haven't seen very much about this problem, so I'm wondering why this is happening on my Production server when it does not on my Local environment.
Would it be because of some PHP config??
Would it be because of some read / write / file access rights (chown, etc...)??
Would it be because of some caching configuration??
I must say I am running out of ideas.
Any help is much appreciated.
Thanks.
Ok. This appeared to be linked to some strange behavior of eAccelerator stripping all the comments when caching the byte code...
http://wildlyinaccurate.com/eaccelerator-and-doctrine-2/
(Re-)Quoting beberlei from the Doctrine team:
This premature optimization to remove the docblocks should be
reverted. Docblocks are a PHP Token for a reason, they are part of the
language and should be used that way. Please revise your stand on this
otherwise projects must suggest NOT to use eAccelerator by default.
Solution is either to disable eAccelerator OR to reconfigure it with the option:
--with-eaccelerator-doc-comment-inclusion
(Source: https://eaccelerator.net/ticket/229)
The next weirdness I'm seeing with PHPUnit:
class DummyTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
public function testDummy() {
$this->assertTrue(false, 'assert1');
$this->assertTrue(false, 'assert2');
}
public function testDummy2() {
$this->assertTrue(false, 'assert3');
}
}
As soon as the first assertion fails in a test, the rest of the test is ignored.
So (with a simple call of phpunit DummyTest.php):
The above code will display 2 tests,
2 assertions, 2 failures. What?
If I make all the tests pass, then
I'll get OK (2 tests, 3 assertions).
Good.
If I only make all the tests pass
except for assert2, I get 2 tests, 3
assertions, 1 failure. Good.
I don't get it, but PHPUnit's been around for ages, surely it has to be me?
Not only are the counts not what I'd expect, only the error message for the first failed assert in the code above is displayed.
(BTW, I'm analyzing the xml format generated by PHPUnit for CI rather than testing real code, hence the practice of multiple assertions in the one test.)
First off: That is expected behavior.
Every test method will stop executing once an assertion fails.
For an example where the opposite will be very annoying*:
class DummyTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
public function testDummy() {
$foo = get_me_my_foo();
$this->assertInstanceOf("MyObject", $foo);
$this->assertTrue($foo->doStuff());
}
}
if phpunit wouldn't stop after the first assertion you'd get an E_FATAL (call to a non member function) and the whole PHP process would die.
So to formulate nice assertions and small tests it's more practical that way.
For another example:
When "asserting that an array has a size of X, then asserting that it contains a,b and c" you don't care about the fact that it doesn't contain those values if the size is 0.
If a test fails you usually just need the message "why it failed" and then, while fixing it, you'll automatically make sure the other assertions also pass.
On an additional note there are also people arguing that you should only have One Asssertion per Test case while I don't practice (and I'm not sure if i like it) I wanted to note it ;)
Welcome to unit testing. Each test function should test one element or process (process being a series of actions that a user might take). (This is a unit, and why it is called "unit testing.") The only time you should have multiple assertions in a test function is if part of the test is dependent on the previous part being successful.
I use this for Selenium testing web pages. So, I might want to assert that I am in the right place every time I navigate to a new page. For instance, if I go to a web page, then login, then change my profile, I would assert that I got to the right place when I logged in, because the test would no longer make sense if my login failed. This prevents me from getting additional error messages, when only one problem was actually encountered.
On the other side, if I have two separate processes to test, I would not test one, then continue on to test the other in the same function, because an error in the first process would mask any problems in the second. Instead, I would write one test function for each process. (And, if one process depended on the success of the other, for instance, post something to a page, then remove the post, I would use the #depends annotation to prevent the second test from running if the first fails.)
In short, if your first assert failing does not make the second one impossible to test, then they should be in separate functions. (Yes, this might result in redundant code. When unit testing, forget all that you have learned about eliminating redundant code. That, or make non-test functions and call them from the test functions. This can make unit tests harder to read, and thus harder to update when changes are made to the subject of the tests though.)
I realize that this question is 2 years old, however the only answer was not very clear about why. I hope that this helps others understand unit testing better.
I'm looking for a simpler test framework. I had a look at a few PHPUnit and SimpleTest scripts and I find the required syntactic sugar appalling. SnapTest sounded nice, but was as cumbersome. Apache More::Test was too procedural, even for my taste. And Symfony lime-test was ununique in that regard.
BDD tools like http://everzet.com/Behat/#basics are very nice, but even two abstraction levels higher than desired.
Moreover I've been using throwaway test scripts till now. And I'm wondering if instead of throwing them away, there is a testing framework/tool which simplifies using them for automated tests. Specifically I'd like to use something that:
evaluates output (print/echo), or even return values/objects
serializes and saves it away as probe/comparison data
allows to classify that comparison output as passed test or failure
also collects headers, warning or error messages (which might also be expected output)
in addition to a few $test->assert() or test::fail() states
Basically I'm too lazy to do the test frameworks work, manually pre-define or boolean evaluate and classify the expected output. Also I don't find it entertaining to needlessly wrap test methods into classes, plain include scripts or functions should suffice. Furthermore it shouldn't be difficult to autorun through the test scripts with a pre-initialized base and test environment.
The old .phpt scripts with their --expect-- output come close, but still require too much manual setup. Also I'd prefer a web GUI to run the tests. Is there a modern rehersal of such test scripts? (plus some header/error/result evalation and eventually unit test::assert methods)
Edit, I'll have to give an example. This is your typical PHPUnit test:
class Test_Something extends PHPUnit_Test_Case_Or_Whatever {
function tearUp() {
app::__construct(...);
}
function testMyFunctionForProperResults() {
$this->assertFalse(my_func(false));
$this->assertMatch(my_func("xyzABC"), "/Z.+c/");
$this->assertTrue(my_func(123) == 321);
}
}
Instead I'd like to use plain PHP with less intermingled test API:
function test_my_function_for_proper_results() {
assert::false(my_func(false));
print my_func("xyz_ABC");
return my_func(123);
}
Well, that's actually three tests wrapped in one. But just to highlight: the first version needs manual testing. What I want is sending/returning the test data to the test framework. It's the task of the framework to compare results, and not just spoon-feeded booleans. Or imagine I get a bloated array result or object chain, which I don't want to manually list in the test scripts.
For the record, I've now discovered Shinpuru.
http://arkanis.de/projects/shinpuru/
Which looks promising for real world test cases, and uses PHP5.3-style anonymous functions instead of introspection-class wrappers.
Have to say - it isn't obvious how your example of a simplified test case would be possible to implement. Unfortunately the convolutedness is - more or less - something that has to be lived with. That said, I've seen cases where PHPUnit is extended to simplify things, as well as adding web test runners, tests for headers, output etc (thinking SilverStripe here - they're doing a lot of what you want with PHPUnit). That might be your best bet. For example:
evaluates output (print/echo):
enable output buffering and assert against the buffer result
collect headers, warning or error messages
register your own handler that stores the error message
wget against urls and compare the result (headers and all)
Etc.