We run nightly regression scripts using Specflow. Was wondering if there is a way to log the specflow console logs to a file. Since it runs at night, we are not sure about the step where the failure occurred.We do use ReportUnit to convert the nunit xml to html. Will be good to have those console logs in the html too.
you can add hooks which execute before scenario steps ([BeforeStep] and [AfterStep]) and log in there. You can access the ScenarioStepContext to get details of the current step.
A lot has changed with SpecFlow in the last 6 years. Specifically SpecFlow logs each step (along with whether it passes or fails) to the standard output. You can also generate test results files using whichever unit test framework you want. That being said, I did come across a use case where the existing logging that SpecFlow does was not working with Azure DevOps. For my case, I had passing tests, which periodically ran extremely slow. In Azure DevOps release pipelines, a passing test does not get the standard output saved for viewing later. I needed to log the date/time for when a step began, and when it finished.
A before/after step hook using the ScenarioContext object was how I got this logging to work:
[Binding]
public class Hooks
{
[BeforeStep]
public void BeforeStep(ScenarioContext scenario)
{
var stepInfo = scenario.StepContext.StepInfo;
var stepText = $"{stepInfo.StepDefinitionType} {stepInfo.Text}";
// log 'stepText' some place
}
[AfterStep]
public void AfterStep(ScenarioContext scenario)
{
var stepInfo = scenario.StepContext.StepInfo;
var stepText = $"{stepInfo.StepDefinitionType} {stepInfo.Text}";
// log 'stepText' some place
}
}
Related
I was importing ttl ontologies to dbpedia following the blog post http://michaelbloggs.blogspot.de/2013/05/importing-ttl-turtle-ontologies-in-neo4j.html. The post uses BatchInserters to speed up the task. It mentions
Batch insertion is not transactional. If something goes wrong and you don't shutDown() your database properly, the database becomes inconsistent.
I had to interrupt one of the batch insertion tasks as it was taking time much longer than expected which left my database in an inconsistence state. I get the following message:
db_name store is not cleanly shut down
How can I recover my database from this state? Also, for future purposes is there a way for committing after importing every file so that reverting back to the last state would be trivial. I thought of git, but I am not sure if it would help for a binary file like index.db.
There are some cases where you cannot recover from unclean shutdowns when using the batch inserter api, please note that its package name org.neo4j.unsafe.batchinsert contains the word unsafe for a reason. The intention for batch inserter is to operate as fast as possible.
If you want to guarantee a clean shutdown you should use a try finally:
BatchInserter batch = BatchInserters.inserter(<dir>);
try {
} finally {
batch.shutdown();
}
Another alternative for special cases is registering a JVM shutdown hook. See the following snippet as an example:
BatchInserter batch = BatchInserters.inserter(<dir>);
// do some operations potentially throwing exceptions
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread() {
public void run() {
batch.shutdown();
}
});
I've a WPF Application that actually uses a Web server for downloading the app and execute it on the client... I've also created a staging enviorment for that application when I put the release as soon as new features are added / bug fixed.
I've not found a reasonable way of promoting from staging to production since the app.config is hashed... so I can't change my pointments (DB/Services) editing it...
My actual way is publishing for staging, increasing of 1 the publish version and publishing for production...but this is quite frustrating.... since I've to do twice the work...any sugeestion?
Thanks
Our team encountered the same situation a year ago. We've solved the situation by following this steps:
Determine the latest ClickOnce application version;
Removing the *.deploy extensions;
Making the necessary *.config file changes;
Updating the manifest file (*.manifest) by using 'Mage.exe' and your certificate (see also: MSDN);
Update the deployment manifest (*.application) in the application version directory and in the root directory, again by using 'Mage.exe';
Adding back the *.deploy extensions.
Hereby a short code sample for calling Mage, really not that complicated though.
// Compose the arguments to start the Mage tool.
string arguments = string.Format(
#"-update ""{0}"" -appmanifest ""{1}"" -certfile ""{2}""",
deploymentManifestFile.FullName,
applicationManifestFile.FullName,
_certificateFile);
// Add password to the list of arguments if necessary.
arguments += !string.IsNullOrEmpty(_certificateFilePassword) ? string.Format(" -pwd {0}", _certificateFilePassword) : null;
// Start the Mage process and wait it out.
ProcessStartInfo startInfo = new ProcessStartInfo(_mageToolPath, arguments);
startInfo.UseShellExecute = false;
startInfo.CreateNoWindow = true;
startInfo.RedirectStandardOutput = true;
Process mageProcess = Process.Start(startInfo);
mageProcess.WaitForExit();
// Show all output of the Mage tool to the current console.
string output = mageProcess.StandardOutput.ReadToEnd();
// Determine the update of the manifest was a success.
bool isSuccesfullyConfigured = output.ToLower().Contains("successfully signed");
We noticed a slight oddity in the Sitecore API code. The code is below for your reference. The code is trying to get a database by doing new Database(database). But randomly it was failing.
This code worked for a while with Database db = new Database(database); but started failing randomly yesterday. When we changed the code to Database db = Database.GetDatabase(database);, the code started working again. What is the difference between the two approaches and what is recommended by Sitecore?
I've seen this happen twice now - multiple times in production and a couple of times in my development environment.
public static void DeleteItem(string id, stringdatabase)
{
//get the database
Database db = new Database(database);
//get the item
item = db.GetItem(new ID(id));
if (item != null)
{
using(new Sitecore.SecurityModel.SecurityDisabler())|
{
//delete the item
item.Delete();
}
}
}
A common way you will see people get a specific database is:
Sitecore.Data.Database master = Sitecore.Configuration.Factory.GetDatabase("master");
This is equivalent to Sitecore.Data.Database.GetDatabase("master").
When you call either of these methods it will first check the cache for the database. If not found it will build up the database with all of the configuration values within the config file via reflection. Once the database is created it will be placed in the cache for future use.
When you use the constructor on the database it is simply creating a rather empty database object. I am rather suprised to hear it was working at all when you used this method.
The proper approach to get a specific database would be to use:
Sitecore.Configuration.Factory.GetDatabase("master");
// or
Sitecore.Data.Database.GetDatabase("master");
If you are looking to get the database used with the current request (aka context database) you can use Sitecore.Context.Database. You can also use Sitecore.Context.ContentDatabase.
So I want to test one of my Functions in my Web Project, but it's not actually connected to anything in the project yet (someone else is working on that part). The Function takes in an "ID" field, goes off and does some queries and gets some data, performs some calculations on it, and then writes a bunch of lines to a FileStream and returns that stream. I pretty much just want to test it by having it write the file to my own computer locally, and working with that file directory after the Function completes.
So my question is mainly:
1) How do I call this Function just for testing purposes so I can test all the queries/calculations/File writes, etc without it being connected to another part of the application just yet.
2) How can I change the 'Return fs' for the FileStream to write to my own computer locally to view the file that has been written.
Thanks guys!
To make your function testable you need to isolate all your dependencies and replace them in your test with stubs mocks. You can achieve this by wrappers around the file system classes and making sure your data layers classes have interfaces. With this your code could look like:
public class Something
{
IDataProvider provider;
IFileSystem fileSystem;
public Something(IDataProvider provider, IFileSystem fileSystem)
{
this.provider = provider;
this.fileSystem = fileSystem;
}
void DoThing(int id)
{
// make database call to get data
var data = provider.GetData(id);
fileSystem.Write("someFilePath",data);
}
}
With this you can write a test as such (in this casing using Moq like syntax):
void SomeTest()
{
var mockDataProvider = new Mock<IDataProvider>();
var mockFileSystem = new Mock<IFileSystem>();
var something = new Something(mockDataProvider.Object, mockFileSystem.Object);
var data = "someData";
mockDataProvider.Setup(x => x.GetData(5)).Return(data);
DoThing(5);
mockFileSystem.Verify(x => x.Write("someFilePath",data);
}
You need to read up on Unit Testing as this solves your problem in so many ways - it would also introduce you to dependency injection and mocking, which would be a great way to handle your problem.
Here is an overview...
Set up your class so it accepts the data-access and file-writer in the constructor. You can then pass in mock or stub version of the data access and file writer so you don't physically need to connect to a database or write to the file system to test your code.
In the "real world" you pass in the genuine data access and file writer.
In "test world" you use something such as MOQ or Rhino Mocks to create a pretend version of the data access, this means you can predict what will come back from the data access every time you test as it isn't the real database, it's some data you have prepared. You can also create a pretend file-writer that doesn't actually need to write a real file.
You can then test your class in isolation.
Dependency Injection:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163739.aspx
Moq
http://code.google.com/p/moq/
Here is some background about my app:
I am developing an Android app that will display a random quote or verse to the user. For this I am using an SQLite database. The size of the DB would be approximately 5K to 10K records, possibly increasing to upto 1M in later versions as new quotes and verses are added. Thus the user would need to update the DB as and when newer versions are of the app or DB are released.
After reading through some forums online, there seem to be two feasible ways I could provide the DB:
1. Bundle it along with the .APK file of the app, or
2. Upload it to my app's website from where users will have to download it
I want to know which method would be better (if there is yet another approach other than these, please do let me know).
After pondering this problem for some time, I have these thoughts regarding the above approaches:
Approach 1:
Users will obtain the DB along with the app, and won't have to download it separately. Installation would thereby be easier. But, users will have to reinstall the app every time there is a new version of the DB. Also, if the DB is large, it will make the installable too cumbersome.
Approach 2:
Users will have to download the full DB from the website (although I can provide a small, sample version of the DB via Approach 1). But, the installer will be simpler and smaller in size. Also, I would be able to provide future versions of the DB easily for those who might not want newer versions of the app.
Could you please tell me from a technical and an administrative standpoint which approach would be the better one and why?
If there is a third or fourth approach better than either of these, please let me know.
Thank you!
Andruid
I built a similar app for Android which gets periodic updates with data from a government agency. It's fairly easy to build an Android compatible db off the device using perl or similar and download it to the phone from a website; and this works rather well, plus the user gets current data whenever they download the app. It's also supposed to be possible to throw the data onto the sdcard if you want to avoid using primary data storage space, which is a bigger concern for my app which has a ~6Mb database.
In order to make Android happy with the DB, I believe you have to do the following (I build my DB using perl).
$st = $db->prepare( "CREATE TABLE \"android_metadata\" (\"locale\" TEXT DEFAULT 'en_US')");
$st->execute();
$st = $db->prepare( "INSERT INTO \"android_metadata\" VALUES ('en_US')");
$st->execute();
I have an update activity which checks weather updates are available and if so presents an "update now" screen. The download process looks like this and lives in a DatabaseHelperClass.
public void downloadUpdate(final Handler handler, final UpdateActivity updateActivity) {
URL url;
try {
close();
File f = new File(getDatabasePath());
if (f.exists()) {
f.delete();
}
getReadableDatabase();
close();
url = new URL("http://yourserver.com/" + currentDbVersion + ".sqlite");
URLConnection urlconn = url.openConnection();
final int contentLength = urlconn.getContentLength();
Log.i(TAG, String.format("Download size %d", contentLength));
handler.post(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
updateActivity.setProgressMax(contentLength);
}
});
InputStream is = urlconn.getInputStream();
// Open the empty db as the output stream
OutputStream os = new FileOutputStream(f);
// transfer bytes from the inputfile to the outputfile
byte[] buffer = new byte[1024 * 1000];
int written = 0;
int length = 0;
while (written < contentLength) {
length = is.read(buffer);
os.write(buffer, 0, length);
written += length;
final int currentprogress = written;
handler.post(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
Log.i(TAG, String.format("progress %d", currentprogress));
updateActivity.setCurrentProgress(currentprogress);
}
});
}
// Close the streams
os.flush();
os.close();
is.close();
Log.i(TAG, "Download complete");
openDatabase();
} catch (Exception e) {
Log.e(TAG, "bad things", e);
}
handler.post(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
updateActivity.refreshState(true);
}
});
}
Also note that I keep a version number in the filename of the db files, and a pointer to the current one in a text file on the server.
It sounds like your app and your db are tightly bound -- that is, the db is useless without the database and the database is useless without the app, so I'd say go ahead and put them both in the same .apk.
That being said, if you expect the db to change very slowly over time, but the app to change quicker, and you don't want your users to have to download the db with each new app revision, then you might want to unbundle them. To make this work, you can do one of two things:
Install them as separate applications, but make sure they share the same userID using the sharedUserId tag in the AndroidManifest.xml file.
Install them as separate applications, and create a ContentProvider for the database. This way other apps could make use of your database as well (if that is useful).
If you are going to store the db on your website then I would recommend that you just make rpc calls to your webserver and get data that way, so the device will never have to deal with a local database. Using a cache manager to avoid multiple lookups will help as well so pages will not have to lookup data each time a page reloads. Also if you need to update the data you do not have to send out a new app every time. Using HttpClient is pretty straight forward, if you need any examples please let me know