Sorry, misunderstanding here: I will try both suggestions from Stackoverflow and decide for one option.
Regarding your suggestion, Dan, I guess that is a new JIRA Improvement once I validated the parametrized testing with my test case, right? > Am 25.05.2020 um 17:24 schrieb Carsten Schinzer > <cars...@dcs-verkaufssysteme.de>: > > Thanks for the hint, Dan! > > Also, I just came across this one: > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3361239/excluding-a-non-param-test-in-parameterized-test-class > > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3361239/excluding-a-non-param-test-in-parameterized-test-class> > > I certainly support running each of the parameter sets as an individual test, > i.e. test counters go up per set executed. > I will try both suggestions, the one you suggested and the one from the link > above. > > Warm regards > > > Carsten > > >> Am 25.05.2020 um 17:21 schrieb Daniel Watford <d...@foomoo.co.uk >> <mailto:d...@foomoo.co.uk>>: >> >> Hi Carsten, >> >> I don't know if there were any reasons historically that precluded use of >> the parameterized test pattern, but I think it can be quite useful if you >> are able to make use of it. >> >> Another test class that could benefit is FlexibleStringExpanderTests where >> the parameterized test pattern appears to have been implemented without >> test library support. >> >> A benefit of converting FlexibleStringExpanderTests would be that all the >> various parameterized tests would contribute to the overall test count of a >> build, rather than being rolled up as part of the public testParsing(), >> testWithVerbosity() and testQuietly() methods. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Dan. >> >> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 15:43, Carsten Schinzer < >> cars...@dcs-verkaufssysteme.de <mailto:cars...@dcs-verkaufssysteme.de>> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> >>> I find no other reference to org.junit.Parameterized in the code stack on >>> trunk which indicates that no-one else has committed parameterized unit >>> tests. I am asking because I have a test case where I would need that (I >>> want to run all options for the CustRequestStatusType against the status >>> check service an be sure it return the expected result) and when >>> implementing I find that my IDE hints that „There is no default constructor >>> available in class ‚org.apache.ofbiz.service.testtools.OFBizTestCase‘“. >>> >>> >>> package org.apache.ofbiz.order >>> >>> import org.apache.ofbiz.service.ServiceUtil >>> import org.apache.ofbiz.service.testtools.OFBizTestCase >>> import org.junit.Test >>> import org.junit.runner.RunWith >>> import org.junit.runners.Parameterized >>> import org.junit.runners.Parameterized.Parameters >>> >>> @RunWith(Parameterized) >>> class CustRequestStatusTests extends OFBizTestCase { >>> private String status >>> private String expect >>> private String scenario >>> >>> @Parameters static scenarios() {[ >>> ['CRQ_DRAFT', 'PASS', 'CustRequest status Draft expected to >>> PASS'], >>> ['CRQ_SUBMITTED', 'PASS', 'CustRequest status Submitted expected >>> to PASS'], >>> ['CRQ_ACCEPTED', 'PASS', 'CustRequest status Accepted expected to >>> PASS'], >>> ['CRQ_REVIEWED', 'PASS', 'CustRequest status Reviewed expected to >>> PASS'], >>> ['CRQ_PENDING', 'PASS', 'CustRequest status Pending expected to >>> PASS'], >>> ['CRQ_COMPLETED', 'FAIL', 'CustRequest status Completed expected >>> to FAIL'], >>> ['CRQ_REJECTED', 'PASS', 'CustRequest status Rejected expected to >>> PASS'], >>> ['CRQ_CANCELLED', 'FAIL', 'CustRequest status Cancelled expected >>> to FAIL'], >>> ]*.toArray()} >>> >>> public CustRequestStatusTests(String name, String status, String >>> expect, String scenario) { >>> this.expect = expect >>> this.scenario = scenario >>> this.status = status >>> super(name) >>> } >>> >>> /* Testing custRequestStatusCheck Service Implementation >>> * >>> * available test data: >>> * (...) >>> * <CustRequest custRequestId="9000" custRequestDate="2008-07-28 >>> 09:45:31.928" custRequestTypeId="RF_QUOTE" statusId="CRQ_ACCEPTED" >>> fromPartyId="DemoCustomer" priority="9" custRequestName="Customer Request >>> Usage" description="Demo CustRequest" productStoreId="9000"/> >>> * <CustRequestItem custRequestId="9000" statusId="CRQ_ACCEPTED" >>> custRequestItemSeqId="00001" productId="GZ-1001" story="This can be the >>> longer story of an item on the customer request."/> >>> * >>> * */ >>> @Test void testCustRequestStatusCheckEmpty() { >>> Map input = [ >>> custRequestId: '9001', >>> ] >>> Map result = dispatcher.runSync('checkStatusCustRequest', input) >>> assert ServiceUtil.isError(result) >>> // assert error message refers to certain text element >>> } >>> >>> @Test void testCustRequestStatusCheckWrongStatus() { >>> Map input = [ >>> custRequestId: '9000', >>> statusId: this.status, >>> ] >>> Map result = dispatcher.runSync('checkStatusCustRequest', input) >>> if(this.expect == 'PASS') { >>> assert ServiceUtil.isSuccess(result) >>> } else { >>> assert ServiceUtil.isFailure(result) >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> >>> >>> >>> This hint certainly has to do with the implementation I need to do for >>> such test cases using annotations to mark the class as @Parameterized, >>> define the @Parameters and then mark the @Test that uses the parameters. >>> >>> Before I dive too much into web search: >>> - has anyone attempted this for OFBiz unit Testing? (And hence the reason >>> why no implementation is avail) >>> >>> Thanks for a hint :) >>> Warm regards >>> >>> >>> Carsten >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Daniel Watford >
