[TIP] - acceptness test frame work?
peke at iki.fi
Fri Sep 11 01:13:24 PDT 2009
2009/9/11 Laurent Ploix <laurent.ploix at gmail.com>:
> 2009/9/11 Pekka Klärck <peke at iki.fi>
>> 2009/9/10 Laurent Ploix <laurent.ploix at gmail.com>:
>> > 2009/9/10 Pekka Klärck <peke at iki.fi>
>> >> 2009/7/29 Laurent Ploix <laurent.ploix at gmail.com>:
>> >> >
>> >> > As far as I understand:
>> >> > - Robot will take a number of scenarios, and for each of them, it
>> >> > will
>> >> > stop
>> >> > at the first error/failure.
>> >> It's true that the framework stops executing a single tests when a
>> >> keyword it executes fails. These keyword can, however, internally do
>> >> as many checks it wants and decide when to stop. We are also planning
>> >> to add support to continue execution after failures in the future .
>> > Well, for me, this looks like a very annoying thing. I prefer to see the
>> > fixture (library) being in charge of accessing the tested software
>> > (doing
>> > sg, extracting data from it), and the framework being in charge of
>> > checking
>> > the validity of the returned data.
>> How can any generic framework know what data is valid without someone
>> telling it?
> Because, in the scenario that you describe, you tell the framework which
> data you expect.
> fixture Add
> op1 | op2 | result?
> 1 | 2 | 3
Even here you tell to the framework that the correct result is 3.
Personally I don't see what's the benefit in the framework itself
verifying the result compared to it just calling a keyword in a
library/fixture that verifies it. The biggest benefit of the latter
approach is that the test data is always in the same format regardless
of the test style (workflow, data-driven, BDD), which makes it a lot
easier to create other tools that understand the data. I believe the
biggest reason there still is no generic test data editor for Fitnesse
is that the data can be in so many formats. Tool support is really
important when you start having more tests, and that's why we are
currently working actively to make RIDE  better.
>> > In other terms, I would like to do sg like:
>> > - Do something
>> > - Extract data x, y, z and check that x=1, y=2, z=3
>> > ... with the scenario describing the expected data, the fixture
>> > extracting
>> > data x, y, z, and the framework telling me if that's correct data or not
>> > (with a report).
>> You can do all this with Robot Framework but the actual verification
>> is always done on libraries. The framework has many built-in keywords
>> for verifications, but even when you use them the framework is still
>> just executing keywords and catching possible exceptions.
> Understood. But I don't find that convenient.
> Let me take an example.
> You test a software that calculates lots of data. You want to see what data
> is wrong.
> I find I much more convenient to have
> - a fixture that extracts calculated data (but does not verification),
> - a scenario that tells you what data you want to extract and what result
> you expect
> - a framework that matches both and create a report
> Then, you get many good things for free:
> - You don't have to code any verification logic in the fixture. Fixtures
> tend to be simpler (i.e. : get the input, do action, get outputs)
> - You can see how many failures you get; which ones, etc... (it's meaningful
> to see how many failures you have. Having one wrong data or all of them does
> not involve same type of debug)
We seen to have different preferences on what's important. I don't
care too much about adding the verification to the fixture as it's
normally enough to do something like "if result != expected: raise
Exception(error_message)". On the other hand I consider the fact that
the fixture is strongly coupled to the test data format a really big
problem. It's not just that creating editors for the data is harder
when there are many data formats, but it also means that you cannot
reuse fixtures as freely because they are compatible only with one
kind of tests.
I got a feeling that without a concrete examples this discussion is
not going to get too much further. I agree to disagree on what's
important on framework design, and also believe it's just a good thing
there are different frameworks with different approaches.
More information about the testing-in-python