Hi Carsten, Yes, if parameterized testing were to be introduced then a low-priority jira should be raised for possibly introducing the same pattern in FlexibleStringExpanderTests.
It should be a low-priority improvement JIRA since what we currently have is working well enough for the moment, but someone might have a refactoring itch they want to scratch! Thanks, Dan. On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 16:48, Carsten Schinzer < cars...@dcs-verkaufssysteme.de> wrote: > 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 > > > > -- Daniel Watford
