We Keep Coding

Intellij IDEA - How to run specific testng groups in a class?

I have a maven java project in the latest Intellij IDEA with Testng plugin. I want to run specific groups in a test class without manually creating an xml config file for this.
Can I do that through the run configuration menu instead ? Unfortunately, the menu only lets me select groups, classes, methods etc. but not the groups inside a particular class.

Let's assume you have the following code sample:
import org.testng.annotations.*;
public class Test1 {
#Test(groups = { "functest", "checkintest" })
public void testMethod1() {
}
#Test(groups = {"functest", "checkintest"} )
public void testMethod2() {
}
#Test(groups = { "functest" })
public void testMethod3() {
}
}
To run only checkintest group go to Run Configuration, create new TestNG config -> select Test kind "Group" -> select checkintest group.
Only testMethod1, testMethod2 will be run.

Running JUnitCore with instances instead of classes

I'm looking to run JUnit 4.12+ programmatically, and a cursory search for doing so yielded (amongst many other similar posts) this answer, which prescribes the following basic solution:
#RunWith(Suite)
#Suite.SuiteClasses ({
MyTestClass1.class,
MyTestClass2.class
})
public class MyTestSuite {
}
Result testResults = JUnitCore.runClasses(MyTestSuite.class);
...and I was able to get this working, no sweat. So far so good!
Problem is: I have some pretty sophisticated test classes that need to be instantiated/injected with very specific properties at runtime...not something that can be done from inside a no-arg constructor. But the above method (specifying to just run any old instance of a set of classes) doesn't allow you to instantiate your test classes, configure them, and then run them.
Is there a way to do this? I couldn't find anything looking at the JUnit API. I am looking for something like:
MyTestClass1 mtc1 = new MyTestClass1(...);
MyTestClass2 mtc2 = new MyTestClass2(...);
Result testResults = JUnitCore.run(mtc1, mtc2);

You probably need custom runner to achieve that. Junit 4/5 comes with third party runner that can perform dependency Injection for Constructors and Methods. Few runner which are pretty popular are Mockito(MockitoJUnitRunner) and SpringJUnit4ClassRunner in case you are using Spring. You can check out custom runner and implementation details at:
https://github.com/junit-team/junit4/wiki/Custom-runners

I got this working with a custom Runner with sample (Groovy pseudo-code) as follows:
class MyRunner extends Runner {
#Override
Description getDescription() {
return null
}
#Override
void run(RunNotifier notifier) {
// LoginTests.class is a test class I want to run
LoginTests loginTests = new LoginTests(<my args here>)
Description description = Description.createSuiteDescription(LoginTests)
notifier.fireTestStarted(description)
try {
log.info("About to doSomething()...")
loginTests.doSomething()
log.info("Did it...")
notifier.fireTestFinished(description)
} catch(Throwable throwable) {
log.info("doSomething() failed...")
notifier.fireTestAssumptionFailed(new Failure(description, throwable))
}
}
}
Result testResults = new JUnitCore().run(Request.runner(new MyRunner()))

Check that JUnit Extension throws specific Exception

Suppose I develop an extension which disallows test method names to start with an uppercase character.
public class DisallowUppercaseLetterAtBeginning implements BeforeEachCallback {
#Override
public void beforeEach(ExtensionContext context) {
char c = context.getRequiredTestMethod().getName().charAt(0);
if (Character.isUpperCase(c)) {
throw new RuntimeException("test method names should start with lowercase.");
}
}
}
Now I want to test that my extension works as expected.
#ExtendWith(DisallowUppercaseLetterAtBeginning.class)
class MyTest {
#Test
void validTest() {
}
#Test
void TestShouldNotBeCalled() {
fail("test should have failed before");
}
}
How can I write a test to verify that the attempt to execute the second method throws a RuntimeException with a specific message?

Another approach could be to use the facilities provided by the new JUnit 5 - Jupiter framework.
I put below the code which I tested with Java 1.8 on Eclipse Oxygen. The code suffers from a lack of elegance and conciseness but could hopefully serve as a basis to build a robust solution for your meta-testing use case.
Note that this is actually how JUnit 5 is tested, I refer you to the unit tests of the Jupiter engine on Github.
public final class DisallowUppercaseLetterAtBeginningTest {
#Test
void testIt() {
// Warning here: I checked the test container created below will
// execute on the same thread as used for this test. We should remain
// careful though, as the map used here is not thread-safe.
final Map<String, TestExecutionResult> events = new HashMap<>();
EngineExecutionListener listener = new EngineExecutionListener() {
#Override
public void executionFinished(TestDescriptor descriptor, TestExecutionResult result) {
if (descriptor.isTest()) {
events.put(descriptor.getDisplayName(), result);
}
// skip class and container reports
}
#Override
public void reportingEntryPublished(TestDescriptor testDescriptor, ReportEntry entry) {}
#Override
public void executionStarted(TestDescriptor testDescriptor) {}
#Override
public void executionSkipped(TestDescriptor testDescriptor, String reason) {}
#Override
public void dynamicTestRegistered(TestDescriptor testDescriptor) {}
};
// Build our test container and use Jupiter fluent API to launch our test. The following static imports are assumed:
//
// import static org.junit.platform.engine.discovery.DiscoverySelectors.selectClass
// import static org.junit.platform.launcher.core.LauncherDiscoveryRequestBuilder.request
JupiterTestEngine engine = new JupiterTestEngine();
LauncherDiscoveryRequest request = request().selectors(selectClass(MyTest.class)).build();
TestDescriptor td = engine.discover(request, UniqueId.forEngine(engine.getId()));
engine.execute(new ExecutionRequest(td, listener, request.getConfigurationParameters()));
// Bunch of verbose assertions, should be refactored and simplified in real code.
assertEquals(new HashSet<>(asList("validTest()", "TestShouldNotBeCalled()")), events.keySet());
assertEquals(Status.SUCCESSFUL, events.get("validTest()").getStatus());
assertEquals(Status.FAILED, events.get("TestShouldNotBeCalled()").getStatus());
Throwable t = events.get("TestShouldNotBeCalled()").getThrowable().get();
assertEquals(RuntimeException.class, t.getClass());
assertEquals("test method names should start with lowercase.", t.getMessage());
}
Though a little verbose, one advantage of this approach is it doesn't require mocking and execute the tests in the same JUnit container as will be used later for real unit tests.
With a bit of clean-up, a much more readable code is achievable. Again, JUnit-Jupiter sources can be a great source of inspiration.

If the extension throws an exception then there's not much a #Test method can do since the test runner will never reach the #Test method. In this case, I think, you have to test the extension outside of its use in the normal test flow i.e. let the extension be the SUT.
For the extension provided in your question, the test might be something like this:
#Test
public void willRejectATestMethodHavingANameStartingWithAnUpperCaseLetter() throws NoSuchMethodException {
ExtensionContext extensionContext = Mockito.mock(ExtensionContext.class);
Method method = Testable.class.getMethod("MethodNameStartingWithUpperCase");
Mockito.when(extensionContext.getRequiredTestMethod()).thenReturn(method);
DisallowUppercaseLetterAtBeginning sut = new DisallowUppercaseLetterAtBeginning();
RuntimeException actual =
assertThrows(RuntimeException.class, () -> sut.beforeEach(extensionContext));
assertThat(actual.getMessage(), is("test method names should start with lowercase."));
}
#Test
public void willAllowTestMethodHavingANameStartingWithAnLowerCaseLetter() throws NoSuchMethodException {
ExtensionContext extensionContext = Mockito.mock(ExtensionContext.class);
Method method = Testable.class.getMethod("methodNameStartingWithLowerCase");
Mockito.when(extensionContext.getRequiredTestMethod()).thenReturn(method);
DisallowUppercaseLetterAtBeginning sut = new DisallowUppercaseLetterAtBeginning();
sut.beforeEach(extensionContext);
// no exception - good enough
}
public class Testable {
public void MethodNameStartingWithUpperCase() {
}
public void methodNameStartingWithLowerCase() {
}
}
However, your question suggests that the above extension is only an example so, more generally; if your extension has a side effect (e.g. sets something in an addressable context, populates a System property etc) then your #Test method could assert that this side effect is present. For example:
public class SystemPropertyExtension implements BeforeEachCallback {
#Override
public void beforeEach(ExtensionContext context) {
System.setProperty("foo", "bar");
}
}
#ExtendWith(SystemPropertyExtension.class)
public class SystemPropertyExtensionTest {
#Test
public void willSetTheSystemProperty() {
assertThat(System.getProperty("foo"), is("bar"));
}
}
This approach has the benefit of side stepping the potentially awkward setup steps of: creating the ExtensionContext and populating it with the state required by your test but it may come at the cost of limiting the test coverage since you can really only test one outcome. And, of course, it is only feasible if the extension has a side effect which can be evaulated in a test case which uses the extension.
So, in practice, I suspect you might need a combination of these approaches; for some extensions the extension can be the SUT and for others the extension can be tested by asserting against its side effect(s).

After trying the solutions in the answers and the question linked in the comments, I ended up with a solution using the JUnit Platform Launcher.
class DisallowUppercaseLetterAtBeginningTest {
#Test
void should_succeed_if_method_name_starts_with_lower_case() {
TestExecutionSummary summary = runTestMethod(MyTest.class, "validTest");
assertThat(summary.getTestsSucceededCount()).isEqualTo(1);
}
#Test
void should_fail_if_method_name_starts_with_upper_case() {
TestExecutionSummary summary = runTestMethod(MyTest.class, "InvalidTest");
assertThat(summary.getTestsFailedCount()).isEqualTo(1);
assertThat(summary.getFailures().get(0).getException())
.isInstanceOf(RuntimeException.class)
.hasMessage("test method names should start with lowercase.");
}
private TestExecutionSummary runTestMethod(Class<?> testClass, String methodName) {
SummaryGeneratingListener listener = new SummaryGeneratingListener();
LauncherDiscoveryRequest request = request().selectors(selectMethod(testClass, methodName)).build();
LauncherFactory.create().execute(request, listener);
return listener.getSummary();
}
#ExtendWith(DisallowUppercaseLetterAtBeginning.class)
static class MyTest {
#Test
void validTest() {
}
#Test
void InvalidTest() {
fail("test should have failed before");
}
}
}
JUnit itself will not run MyTest because it is an inner class without #Nested. So there are no failing tests during the build process.
Update
JUnit itself will not run MyTest because it is an inner class without #Nested. So there are no failing tests during the build process.
This is not completly correct. JUnit itself would also run MyTest, e.g. if "Run All Tests" is started within the IDE or within a Gradle build.
The reason why MyTest was not executed is because I used Maven and I tested it with mvn test. Maven uses the Maven Surefire Plugin to execute tests. This plugin has a default configuration which excludes all nested classes like MyTest.
See also this answer about "Run tests from inner classes via Maven" and the linked issues in the comments.

JUnit 5.4 introduced the JUnit Platform Test Kit which allows you to execute a test plan and inspect the results.
To take a dependency on it from Gradle, it might look something like this:
testImplementation("org.junit.platform:junit-platform-testkit:1.4.0")
And using your example, your extension test could look something like this:
import org.junit.jupiter.api.extension.ExtendWith
import org.junit.jupiter.api.fail
import org.junit.platform.engine.discovery.DiscoverySelectors
import org.junit.platform.testkit.engine.EngineTestKit
import org.junit.platform.testkit.engine.EventConditions
import org.junit.platform.testkit.engine.TestExecutionResultConditions
internal class DisallowUpperCaseExtensionTest {
#Test
internal fun `succeed if starts with lower case`() {
val results = EngineTestKit
.engine("junit-jupiter")
.selectors(
DiscoverySelectors.selectMethod(ExampleTest::class.java, "validTest")
)
.execute()
results.tests().assertStatistics { stats ->
stats.finished(1)
}
}
#Test
internal fun `fail if starts with upper case`() {
val results = EngineTestKit
.engine("junit-jupiter")
.selectors(
DiscoverySelectors.selectMethod(ExampleTest::class.java, "TestShouldNotBeCalled")
)
.execute()
results.tests().assertThatEvents()
.haveExactly(
1,
EventConditions.finishedWithFailure(
TestExecutionResultConditions.instanceOf(java.lang.RuntimeException::class.java),
TestExecutionResultConditions.message("test method names should start with lowercase.")
)
)
}
#ExtendWith(DisallowUppercaseLetterAtBeginning::class)
internal class ExampleTest {
#Test
fun validTest() {
}
#Test
fun TestShouldNotBeCalled() {
fail("test should have failed before")
}
}
}

How to use JUnit4TestAdapter with objects

I am trying to write a test suite using JUnit4 by relying on JUnit4TestAdapter. Having a look at the code of this class I saw that it only works with a Class as input. I would like to build a test class and set a parameter on it before running it with my TestSuite. Unfortunately, Junit4TestAdapter is building the test by using reflection (not 100% sure about the mechanism behind it), which means that I cannot change my test class on runtime.
Has anybody done anything similar before? Is there any possible workaround to this issue? Thanks for your help!
public class SimpleTest {
#Test
public void testBasic() {
TemplateTester tester = new TemplateTester();
ActionIconsTest test = new ActionIconsTest();
test.setParameter("New Param Value");
tester.addTests(test);
tester.run();
}
}
/////
public class TemplateTester {
private TestSuite suite;
public TemplateTester() {
suite = new TestSuite();
}
public void addTests(TemplateTest... tests) {
for (TemplateTest test : tests) {
suite.addTest(new JUnit4TestAdapter(test.getClass()));
}
}
public void run() {
suite.run(new TestResult());
}
}
/////
public interface TemplateTest {
}
/////
public class ActionIconsTest extends BaseTestStrategy implements TemplateTest {
#Test
public void icons() {
//Test logic here
}
public void navigateToTestPage() {
//Here I need the parameter
}
}
/////
public abstract class BaseTestStrategy {
protected String parameter;
#Before
public void init() {
navigateToTestPage();
}
public abstract void navigateToTestPage();
public void setParameter(String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
}
I am trying to test a web application with Selenium. The way I want to test is by splitting the functionality, e.g., I want to test the available icons (ActionIconsTest), then I'd like to test other parts like buttons, etc.
The idea behind this is to have a better categorization of the functionality available in certain screen. This is quite coupled with the way we are currently developing our web app.
With this in mind, TemplateTest is just an interface implemented by the different kind of tests (ActionIconTest, ButtonTest, etc) available in my system.
TemplateTester is a Junit suite test with all the different tests that implement the interface TemplateTest.
The reason for this question is because I was trying to implement a Strategy pattern and then realized of the inconvenient of passing a class to Junit4TestAdapter in runtime.

Well, taking in account that JUNIT needs your tester's Class object as an object factory (so he can create several instances of your tester), I can only suggest you pass parameters to your tester through System Properties.
Moreover, it's the recommended way of passing parameters: http://junit.org/faq.html#running_7

Extending Junit ParentRunner Class to filter test methods

I have a requirement of reading a text file which contains list of all the testmethods in yes/no value and to pick the "yes" marked testmethods only for a TestCase Class,and to execute in Junit.
So I have written a script to read the file and to group it in a map< TestCaseName,ArrayList_ofEnabledTestMethods > . To run that I found one option is to use Assume.assumeTrue().
But I wanted to try some otherway... instead of writting extra lines before each test methods , So I tried to write a custom runner (ABCSuite which extends ParentRunner) and planned to use it in my TestSuite file like below :
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.junit.runners.Suite;
#RunWith(ABCSuite.class)
#Suite.SuiteClasses({TestCalc.class})
public class BatTest{
}
Here TestCalc.class contains all the test methods some of which is marked "yes" in the earlier mentioned text file .
Please let me know how I can use of extending the ParentRunner class/Junit Libraries to achieve this . If any good tutorial is there or any link which addressed this before please.. share

You can do this by extending BlockJUnit4ClassRunner:
public class FilterRunner extends BlockJUnit4ClassRunner {
private List<String> testsToRun = Arrays.asList(new String[] { "test1" });
public FilterRunner(Class<?> klass) throws InitializationError {
super(klass);
}
#Override
protected void runChild(final FrameworkMethod method, RunNotifier notifier) {
Description description= describeChild(method);
if (method.getAnnotation(Ignore.class) != null || !testsToRun.contains(method.getName())) {
notifier.fireTestIgnored(description);
} else {
runLeaf(methodBlock(method), description, notifier);
}
}
}
You can fill in testsToRun as you like. The above will mark the other tests as Ignored. You use this like:
#RunWith(Suite.class)
#SuiteClasses({Class1Test.class})
public class TestSuite {
}
#RunWith(FilterRunner.class)
public class Class1Test {
#Test
public void test1() {
System.out.println("test1");
}
#Test
public void test2() {
System.out.println("test2");
}
}
This produces the following output:
test1
If you don't want to add the #FilterRunner to each test class, look at my answer to How to define JUnit method rule in a suite?.

The JUnit way of implementing this would be an implementation of a Filter. It must be instantiated by the Runner that implements Filterable. Filters are applied recursively through the tree of tests. So you only need to apply that filter once in your base suite.
You need to extend a runner and in the constructor apply the filter. To make things more flexible, you could configure the filters that should be applied with annotations.
I had the same requirement and that worked out well.