<br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/9/10 Pekka Klärck <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:peke@iki.fi">peke@iki.fi</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
[ Replying to an old main because I didn't read TIP actively during summer. ]<br></blockquote><div>No worry ! </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
2009/7/29 Laurent Ploix <<a href="mailto:laurent.ploix@gmail.com">laurent.ploix@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div class="im">><br>
> I also have the impression that Robot and Fit differ in other areas. Robot<br>
> seems to be better at handling high-level<br>
> reports <a href="http://robotframework.googlecode.com/svn/tags/robotframework-2.0.4/doc/userguide/src/ExecutingTestCases/report_failed.png" target="_blank">http://robotframework.googlecode.com/svn/tags/robotframework-2.0.4/doc/userguide/src/ExecutingTestCases/report_failed.png</a>),<br>
> while Fit is more about testing that a certain of expected values are<br>
> correct (<a href="http://www.jamesshore.com/fit/introduction/progress.gif" target="_blank">http://www.jamesshore.com/fit/introduction/progress.gif</a>)<br>
<br>
</div>I don't think there's too much difference between testing capabilities<br>
of Robot Framework and Fit(nesse). With both of them the actual<br>
verification is done by test libraries (or fixtures, depending on<br>
terminology) and the framework is just handling reporting. I do agree<br>
that Robot's reports and log are really good.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> As far as I understand:<br>
> - Robot will take a number of scenarios, and for each of them, it will stop<br>
> at the first error/failure.<br>
<br>
</div>It's true that the framework stops executing a single tests when a<br>
keyword it executes fails. These keyword can, however, internally do<br>
as many checks it wants and decide when to stop. We are also planning<br>
to add support to continue execution after failures in the future [1].<br><br></blockquote><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In other terms, I would like to do sg like:</div><div>- Do something</div><div>- Extract data x, y, z and check that x=1, y=2, z=3</div><div>... with the <i>scenario</i> describing the expected data, the <i>fixture</i> extracting data x, y, z, and the <i>framework</i> telling me if that's correct data or not (with a report).</div>
<div>- Go on with something else</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
[1] <a href="http://code.google.com/p/robotframework/issues/detail?id=137" target="_blank">http://code.google.com/p/robotframework/issues/detail?id=137</a><br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
.peke<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
Agile Tester/Developer/Consultant :: <a href="http://eliga.fi" target="_blank">http://eliga.fi</a><br>
Lead Developer of Robot Framework :: <a href="http://robotframework.org" target="_blank">http://robotframework.org</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Laurent Ploix<br><br><a href="http://lauploix.blogspot.com/">http://lauploix.blogspot.com/</a><br>