Like the title says, I'm looking for some simple way to run JUnit 4.x tests several times in a row automatically using Eclipse.
An example would be running the same test 10 times in a row and reporting back the result.
We already have a complex way of doing this but I'm looking for a simple way of doing it so that I can be sorta sure that the flaky test I've been trying to fix stays fixed.
An ideal solution would be an Eclipse plugin/setting/feature that I am unaware of.
The easiest (as in least amount of new code required) way to do this is to run the test as a parametrized test (annotate with an #RunWith(Parameterized.class) and add a method to provide 10 empty parameters). That way the framework will run the test 10 times.
This test would need to be the only test in the class, or better put all test methods should need to be run 10 times in the class.
Here is an example:
#RunWith(Parameterized.class)
public class RunTenTimes {
#Parameterized.Parameters
public static Object[][] data() {
return new Object[10][0];
}
public RunTenTimes() {
}
#Test
public void runsTenTimes() {
System.out.println("run");
}
}
With the above, it is possible to even do it with a parameter-less constructor, but I'm not sure if the framework authors intended that, or if that will break in the future.
If you are implementing your own runner, then you could have the runner run the test 10 times. If you are using a third party runner, then with 4.7, you can use the new #Rule annotation and implement the MethodRule interface so that it takes the statement and executes it 10 times in a for loop. The current disadvantage of this approach is that #Before and #After get run only once. This will likely change in the next version of JUnit (the #Before will run after the #Rule), but regardless you will be acting on the same instance of the object (something that isn't true of the Parameterized runner). This assumes that whatever runner you are running the class with correctly recognizes the #Rule annotations. That is only the case if it is delegating to the JUnit runners.
If you are running with a custom runner that does not recognize the #Rule annotation, then you are really stuck with having to write your own runner that delegates appropriately to that Runner and runs it 10 times.
Note that there are other ways to potentially solve this (such as the Theories runner) but they all require a runner. Unfortunately JUnit does not currently support layers of runners. That is a runner that chains other runners.
With IntelliJ, you can do this from the test configuration. Once you open this window, you can choose to run the test any number of times you want,.
when you run the test, intellij will execute all tests you have selected for the number of times you specified.
Example running 624 tests 10 times:
With JUnit 5 I was able to solve this using the #RepeatedTest annotation:
#RepeatedTest(10)
public void testMyCode() {
//your test code goes here
}
Note that #Test annotation shouldn't be used along with #RepeatedTest.
I've found that Spring's repeat annotation is useful for that kind of thing:
#Repeat(value = 10)
Latest (Spring Framework 4.3.11.RELEASE API) doc:
org.springframework.test.annotation
Unit Testing in Spring
Inspired by the following resources:
blog post
this solution
commented version
Example
Create and use a #Repeat annotation as follows:
public class MyTestClass {
#Rule
public RepeatRule repeatRule = new RepeatRule();
#Test
#Repeat(10)
public void testMyCode() {
//your test code goes here
}
}
Repeat.java
import static java.lang.annotation.ElementType.ANNOTATION_TYPE;
import static java.lang.annotation.ElementType.METHOD;
import java.lang.annotation.Retention;
import java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy;
import java.lang.annotation.Target;
#Retention( RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME )
#Target({ METHOD, ANNOTATION_TYPE })
public #interface Repeat {
int value() default 1;
}
RepeatRule.java
import org.junit.rules.TestRule;
import org.junit.runner.Description;
import org.junit.runners.model.Statement;
public class RepeatRule implements TestRule {
private static class RepeatStatement extends Statement {
private final Statement statement;
private final int repeat;
public RepeatStatement(Statement statement, int repeat) {
this.statement = statement;
this.repeat = repeat;
}
#Override
public void evaluate() throws Throwable {
for (int i = 0; i < repeat; i++) {
statement.evaluate();
}
}
}
#Override
public Statement apply(Statement statement, Description description) {
Statement result = statement;
Repeat repeat = description.getAnnotation(Repeat.class);
if (repeat != null) {
int times = repeat.value();
result = new RepeatStatement(statement, times);
}
return result;
}
}
PowerMock
Using this solution with #RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class), requires updating to Powermock 1.6.5 (which includes a patch).
Anything wrong with:
#Test
void itWorks() {
// stuff
}
#Test
void itWorksRepeatably() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
itWorks();
}
}
Unlike the case where you are testing each of an array of values, you don't particularly care which run failed.
No need to do in configuration or annotation what you can do in code.
This works much easier for me.
public class RepeatTests extends TestCase {
public static Test suite() {
TestSuite suite = new TestSuite(RepeatTests.class.getName());
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
suite.addTestSuite(YourTest.class);
}
return suite;
}
}
There's an Intermittent annotation in the tempus-fugit library which works with JUnit 4.7's #Rule to repeat a test several times or with #RunWith.
For example,
#RunWith(IntermittentTestRunner.class)
public class IntermittentTestRunnerTest {
private static int testCounter = 0;
#Test
#Intermittent(repition = 99)
public void annotatedTest() {
testCounter++;
}
}
After the test is run (with the IntermittentTestRunner in the #RunWith), testCounter would be equal to 99.
This is essentially the answer that Yishai provided above, re-written in Kotlin :
#RunWith(Parameterized::class)
class MyTest {
companion object {
private const val numberOfTests = 200
#JvmStatic
#Parameterized.Parameters
fun data(): Array<Array<Any?>> = Array(numberOfTests) { arrayOfNulls<Any?>(0) }
}
#Test
fun testSomething() { }
}
I build a module that allows do this kind of tests. But it is focused not only in repeat. But in guarantee that some piece of code is Thread safe.
https://github.com/anderson-marques/concurrent-testing
Maven dependency:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.lite</groupId>
<artifactId>concurrent-testing</artifactId>
<version>1.0.0</version>
</dependency>
Example of use:
package org.lite.concurrent.testing;
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Rule;
import org.junit.Test;
import ConcurrentTest;
import ConcurrentTestsRule;
/**
* Concurrent tests examples
*/
public class ExampleTest {
/**
* Create a new TestRule that will be applied to all tests
*/
#Rule
public ConcurrentTestsRule ct = ConcurrentTestsRule.silentTests();
/**
* Tests using 10 threads and make 20 requests. This means until 10 simultaneous requests.
*/
#Test
#ConcurrentTest(requests = 20, threads = 10)
public void testConcurrentExecutionSuccess(){
Assert.assertTrue(true);
}
/**
* Tests using 10 threads and make 20 requests. This means until 10 simultaneous requests.
*/
#Test
#ConcurrentTest(requests = 200, threads = 10, timeoutMillis = 100)
public void testConcurrentExecutionSuccessWaitOnly100Millissecond(){
}
#Test(expected = RuntimeException.class)
#ConcurrentTest(requests = 3)
public void testConcurrentExecutionFail(){
throw new RuntimeException("Fail");
}
}
This is a open source project. Feel free to improve.
You could run your JUnit test from a main method and repeat it so many times you need:
package tests;
import static org.junit.Assert.*;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.junit.runner.Result;
public class RepeatedTest {
#Test
public void test() {
fail("Not yet implemented");
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
boolean runForever = true;
while (runForever) {
Result result = org.junit.runner.JUnitCore.runClasses(RepeatedTest.class);
if (result.getFailureCount() > 0) {
runForever = false;
//Do something with the result object
}
}
}
}
Related
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")
}
}
}
This is a sample program:
public class FunctionalTest {
public int f(int r) {
int result = r * 5;
return result;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
FunctionalTest funct = new FunctionalTest();
System.out.println(funct.f(5));
}
}
I'm a beginner.
How to write a functional test for this code?
How to write functional tests? Do I need to TestNG?
Is it enough to write the examination method?
Could someone explain to me and write a sample functional test for this program?
Well, if you're specifically asking for functional testing, there's not much you can do with that code snippet. You can do a unit test from the f method using JUnit like this:
#Test
public void testF(){
FunctionalTest t1 = new FunctionalTest();
assertEquals((t1.f(1) % 5), 0); //checks that is getting multiplied by 5.
}
However, you want functional testing, so by running your compiled app and assessing the result you're testing your app functionality by multiple units (AKA integration): your f method and your main method.
Regards!
First of all, you need to have a clear definition of contract you want to verify. From the code, I assume it is something like "the method should return the number equal to argument multiplied by 5".
TestNG, JUnit or other test frameworks is not mandatory for your case. The test may look like:
public void testF() {
int arg = 5;
int result = new FunctionalTest().f(arg);
assert result == arg * 5;
}
Also please keep in mind that to use assert you need JVM started with -ea flag.
Beware the terms you used:
the functional testing provide values to your user/customer
That implies:
black box testing: you have to test your whole system (hard+soft)
the test should target your user/customer needs (explicit report or test)
You can use whatever you want to test the feature (from unit test to jbehave).
In your case (using JUnit 4 and AssertJ):
import org.assertj.core.api.Assertions;
import org.junit.Test;
import java.io.BufferedReader;
import java.io.InputStream;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
/*
As an user
I want have 25 whatever I sent
*/
public class NumberGenerationTest {
private static final String PATH = "directory of your class file";
private InputStream stdout;
/* Nominal case */
#Test
public void shall_return_number_25_when_called_with_5() throws Exception {
when_I_call_FunctionalTest_with("5");
then_it_returns("25");
}
/* Nominal case or potential error case */
#Test
public void shall_return_number_25_when_called_with_10() throws Exception {
when_I_call_FunctionalTest_with("10");
then_it_returns("25");
}
/* Nominal case or potential error case */
#Test
public void shall_return_number_25_when_called_with_ABC() throws Exception {
when_I_call_FunctionalTest_with("ABC");
then_it_returns("25");
}
private void when_I_call_FunctionalTest_with(String parameter) throws Exception {
ProcessBuilder builder = new ProcessBuilder("java" ,"-classpath", PATH,"FunctionalTest" , parameter);
builder.redirectErrorStream(true);
Process process = builder.start();
stdout = process.getInputStream ();
}
private void then_it_returns(String expectedResult) throws Exception {
BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader (new InputStreamReader(stdout));
String line = reader.readLine ();
Assertions.assertThat(line).isNotNull();
Assertions.assertThat(line).isEqualTo(expectedResult);
}
}
It seems you have an error in your main() ... or not.
I know that if I need to mock a static method, this indicates that my design has some issue, but in my case this does not seem to be a design issue.
BundleContext bundleContext = FrameworkUtil.getBundle(ConfigService.class).getBundleContext();
Here FrameworkUtil is a class present in an api jar. Using it in code cant be a design issue.
my problem here is while running this line
FrameworkUtil.getBundle(ConfigService.class);
returns null So my question, is there any way by which I can replace that null at runtime
I am using Mockito framewrok and my project does not allow me to use powermock.
if I use
doReturn(bundle).when(FrameworkUtil.class)
in this way getBundle method is not visible since its a static method.
You are correct that is not a design issue on your part. Without PowerMock, your options become a bit murkier, though.
I would suggest creating a non-static wrapper for the FrameworkUtil class that you can inject and mock.
Update: (David Wallace)
So you add a new class to your application, something like this
public class UtilWrapper {
public Bundle getBundle(Class<?> theClass) {
return FrameworkUtil.getBundle(theClass);
}
}
This class is so simple that you don't need to unit test it. As a general principle, you should only EVER write unit tests for methods that have some kind of logic to them - branching, looping or exception handling. One-liners should NOT be unit tested.
Now, within your application code, add a field of type UtilWrapper, and a setter for it, to every class that currently calls FrameworkUtil.getBundle. Add this line to the construtor of each such class
utilWrapper = new UtilWrapper();
And replace every call to FrameworkUtil.getBundle with utilWrapper.getBundle.
Now in your test, you make a mock UtilWrapper and stub it to return whatever Bundle you like.
when(mockUtilWrapper.getBundle(ConfigService.class)).thenReturn(someBundleYouMade);
and for the class that you're testing, call setUtilWrapper(mockUtilWrapper) or whatever. You don't need this last step if you're using #InjectMocks.
Now your test should all hang together, but using your mocked UtilWrapper instead of the one that relies on FrameworkUtil.
unit test
package x;
import static org.junit.Assert.*;
import org.junit.Before;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.mockito.Mockito;
public class GunTest {
#Before
public void setUp() throws Exception {
}
#Test
public void testFireTrue() {
final Gun unit = Mockito.spy(new Gun());
Mockito.doReturn(5).when(unit).getCount();
assertTrue(unit.fire2());
}
#Test
public void testFireFalse() {
final Gun unit = Mockito.spy(new Gun());
Mockito.doReturn(15).when(unit).getCount();
assertFalse(unit.fire2());
}
}
the unit:
fire calls the static method directly,
fire2 factors out the static call to a protected method:
package x;
public class Gun {
public boolean fire() {
if (StaticClass.getCount() > 10) {
return false;
}
else {
return true;
}
}
public boolean fire2() {
if (getCount() > 10) {
return false;
}
else {
return true;
}
}
protected int getCount() {
return StaticClass.getCount();
}
}
Is there currently a way to disable TestNG test based on a condition
I know you can currently disable test as so in TestNG:
#Test(enabled=false, group={"blah"})
public void testCurrency(){
...
}
I will like to disable the same test based on a condition but dont know how. something Like this:
#Test(enabled={isUk() ? false : true), group={"blah"})
public void testCurrency(){
...
}
Anyone has a clue on whether this is possible or not.
An easier option is to use the #BeforeMethod annotation on a method which checks your condition. If you want to skip the tests, then just throw a SkipException. Like this:
#BeforeMethod
protected void checkEnvironment() {
if (!resourceAvailable) {
throw new SkipException("Skipping tests because resource was not available.");
}
}
You have two options:
Implement an annotation transformer.
Use BeanShell.
Your annotation transformer would test the condition and then override the #Test annotation to add the attribute "enabled=false" if the condition is not satisfied.
There are two ways that I know of that allow you the control of "disabling" tests in TestNG.
The differentiation that is very important to note is that SkipException will break out off all subsequent tests while implmenting IAnnotationTransformer uses Reflection to disbale individual tests, based on a condition that you specify. I will explain both SkipException and IAnnotationTransfomer.
SKIP Exception example
import org.testng.*;
import org.testng.annotations.*;
public class TestSuite
{
// You set this however you like.
boolean myCondition;
// Execute before each test is run
#BeforeMethod
public void before(Method methodName){
// check condition, note once you condition is met the rest of the tests will be skipped as well
if(myCondition)
throw new SkipException();
}
#Test(priority = 1)
public void test1(){}
#Test(priority = 2)
public void test2(){}
#Test(priority = 3)
public void test3(){}
}
IAnnotationTransformer example
A bit more complicated but the idea behind it is a concept known as Reflection.
Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(computer_programming)
First implement the IAnnotation interface, save this in a *.java file.
import java.lang.reflect.Constructor;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import org.testng.IAnnotationTransformer;
import org.testng.annotations.ITestAnnotation;
public class Transformer implements IAnnotationTransformer {
// Do not worry about calling this method as testNG calls it behind the scenes before EVERY method (or test).
// It will disable single tests, not the entire suite like SkipException
public void transform(ITestAnnotation annotation, Class testClass, Constructor testConstructor, Method testMethod){
// If we have chose not to run this test then disable it.
if (disableMe()){
annotation.setEnabled(false);
}
}
// logic YOU control
private boolean disableMe() {
}
}
Then in you test suite java file do the following in the #BeforeClass function
import org.testng.*;
import org.testng.annotations.*;
/* Execute before the tests run. */
#BeforeClass
public void before(){
TestNG testNG = new TestNG();
testNG.setAnnotationTransformer(new Transformer());
}
#Test(priority = 1)
public void test1(){}
#Test(priority = 2)
public void test2(){}
#Test(priority = 3)
public void test3(){}
One last step is to ensure that you add a listener in your build.xml file.
Mine ended up looking like this, this is just a single line from the build.xml:
<testng classpath="${test.classpath}:${build.dir}" outputdir="${report.dir}"
haltonfailure="false" useDefaultListeners="true"
listeners="org.uncommons.reportng.HTMLReporter,org.uncommons.reportng.JUnitXMLReporter,Transformer"
classpathref="reportnglibs"></testng>
I prefer this annotation based way for disable/skip some tests based on environment settings. Easy to maintain and not requires any special coding technique.
Using the IInvokedMethodListener interface
Create a custom anntotation e.g.: #SkipInHeadlessMode
Throw SkipException
public class ConditionalSkipTestAnalyzer implements IInvokedMethodListener {
protected static PropertiesHandler properties = new PropertiesHandler();
#Override
public void beforeInvocation(IInvokedMethod invokedMethod, ITestResult result) {
Method method = result.getMethod().getConstructorOrMethod().getMethod();
if (method == null) {
return;
}
if (method.isAnnotationPresent(SkipInHeadlessMode.class)
&& properties.isHeadlessMode()) {
throw new SkipException("These Tests shouldn't be run in HEADLESS mode!");
}
}
#Override
public void afterInvocation(IInvokedMethod iInvokedMethod, ITestResult iTestResult) {
//Auto generated
}
}
Check for the details:
https://www.lenar.io/skip-testng-tests-based-condition-using-iinvokedmethodlistener/
A Third option also can be Assumption
Assumptions for TestNG - When a assumption fails, TestNG will be instructed to ignore the test case and will thus not execute it.
Using the #Assumption annotation
Using AssumptionListener Using the Assumes.assumeThat(...)
method
You can use this example: Conditionally Running Tests In TestNG
Throwing a SkipException in a method annotated with #BeforeMethod did not work for me because it skipped all the remaining tests of my test suite with no regards if a SkipException were thrown for those tests.
I did not investigate it thoroughly but I found another way : using the dependsOnMethods attribute on the #Test annotation:
import org.testng.SkipException;
import org.testng.annotations.Test;
public class MyTest {
private boolean conditionX = true;
private boolean conditionY = false;
#Test
public void isConditionX(){
if(!conditionX){
throw new SkipException("skipped because of X is false");
}
}
#Test
public void isConditionY(){
if(!conditionY){
throw new SkipException("skipped because of Y is false");
}
}
#Test(dependsOnMethods="isConditionX")
public void test1(){
}
#Test(dependsOnMethods="isConditionY")
public void test2(){
}
}
SkipException: It's useful in case of we have only one #Test method in the class. Like for Data Driven Framework, I have only one Test method which need to either executed or skipped on the basis of some condition. Hence I've put the logic for checking the condition inside the #Test method and get desired result.
It helped me to get the Extent Report with test case result as Pass/Fail and particular Skip as well.
We occasionally have bugs that appear once in every X runs. Before people check in stuff (where it is automatically JUnit'd), our devs need to pass JUnit locally via Eclipse.
Is there some convenient way (built in or high-quality Plugin) to make Eclipse run the same test X times and stop if there's a failure? An alternative to just clicking Run X times?
Note that I'm looking for something in the UI (e.g., right click and say "Run X times" instead of just "Run").
If the for loop works, then I agree with nos.
If you need to repeat the entire setup-test-teardown, then you can use a TestSuite:
Right-click on the package containing the test to repeat
Go to New and choose to create a JUnit test SUITE
Make sure that only the test you want to repeat is selected and click through to finish.
Edit the file to run it multiple times.
In the file you just find the
addTestSuite(YourTestClass.class)
line, and wrap that in a for loop.
I'm pretty sure that you can use addTest instead of addTestSuite to get it to only run one test from that class if you just want to repeat a single test method.
If you really want to run a test class until failure, you need your own runner.
#RunWith(RunUntilFailure.class)
public class YourClass {
// ....
}
which could be implemented as follows...
package com.example;
import org.junit.internal.runners.*;
import org.junit.runner.notification.*;
import org.junit.runner.*;
public class RunUntilFailure extends Runner {
private TestClassRunner runner;
public RunUntilFailure(Class<?> klass) throws InitializationError {
this.runner = new TestClassRunner(klass);
}
#Override
public Description getDescription() {
Description description = Description.createSuiteDescription("Run until failure");
description.addChild(runner.getDescription());
return description;
}
#Override
public void run(RunNotifier notifier) {
class L extends RunListener {
boolean fail = false;
public void testFailure(Failure failure) throws Exception { fail = true; }
}
L listener = new L();
notifier.addListener(listener);
while (!listener.fail) runner.run(notifier);
}
}
...releasing untested code, feeling TDD guilt :)
Based on #akuhn's answer, here is what I came up with - rather than running forever, this will run 50 times or until failure, whichever comes first.
package com.foo
import org.junit.runner.Description;
import org.junit.runner.Runner;
import org.junit.runner.notification.Failure;
import org.junit.runner.notification.RunListener;
import org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier;
import org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner;
import org.junit.runners.model.InitializationError;
public class RunManyTimesUntilFailure extends Runner {
private static final int MAX_RUN_COUNT = 50;
private BlockJUnit4ClassRunner runner;
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public RunManyTimesUntilFailure(final Class testClass) throws InitializationError {
runner = new BlockJUnit4ClassRunner(testClass);
}
#Override
public Description getDescription() {
final Description description = Description.createSuiteDescription("Run many times until failure");
description.addChild(runner.getDescription());
return description;
}
#Override
public void run(final RunNotifier notifier) {
class L extends RunListener {
boolean shouldContinue = true;
int runCount = 0;
#Override
public void testFailure(#SuppressWarnings("unused") final Failure failure) throws Exception {
shouldContinue = false;
}
#Override
public void testFinished(#SuppressWarnings("unused") Description description) throws Exception {
runCount++;
shouldContinue = (shouldContinue && runCount < MAX_RUN_COUNT);
}
}
final L listener = new L();
notifier.addListener(listener);
while (listener.shouldContinue) {
runner.run(notifier);
}
}
}
I know it doesn't answer the question directly but if a test isn't passing every time it is run it is a test smell known as Erratic Test. There are several possible causes for this (from xUnit Test Patterns):
Interacting Tests
Interacting Test Suites
Lonely Test
Resource Leakage
Resource Optimism
Unrepeatable Test
Test Run War
Nondeterministic Test
The details of each of these is documented in Chapter 16 of xUnit Test Patterns.
Here is a post I wrote that shows several ways of running the tests repeatedly with code examples:
http://codehowtos.blogspot.com/2011/04/run-junit-test-repeatedly.html
You can use the #Parametrized runner, or use the special runner included in the post
There is also a reference to a #Retry implementation
I don't believe there's a built in way for junit to do exactly what you're asking for.
If multiple runs produce different result, you should have a unit test testing that case. Wich might be as simple as running a for loop in the relevant test cases.
It is possible to implement such an loop with TestRules (since JUnit 4.9)
A very simple implementation that runs every Test 10 times:
import org.junit.rules.TestRule;
import org.junit.runner.Description;
import org.junit.runners.model.Statement;
public class SimpleRepeatRule implements TestRule {
private static class SimpleRepeatStatement extends Statement {
private final Statement statement;
private SimpleRepeatStatement(Statement statement) {
this.statement = statement;
}
#Override
public void evaluate() throws Throwable {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
statement.evaluate();
}
}
}
#Override
public Statement apply(Statement statement, Description description) {
return new SimpleRepeatStatement(statement);
}
}
usage:
public class Run10TimesTest {
#Rule
public SimpleRepeatRule repeatRule = new SimpleRepeatRule();
#Test
public void myTest(){...}
}
For a more useful implementation based on an annotation that define which test method has to been executed how often have a look at this blog:
http://www.codeaffine.com/2013/04/10/running-junit-tests-repeatedly-without-loops/