I have configured codeceptjs and while writing the first test I am getting some errors which I could not figure out, the code is as below.
But the strange thing is it is executing perfectly. but i want to make sure why it is an error there. Am I missing anything in configuration or any other?
Config File:
Thanks in advance.
I'm think you are declined request of creating a custom actor when installation of codeceptjs:
? Where would you like to place custom steps? (./steps_file.js)
steps_file.js looks like this:
'use strict';
// in this file you can append custom step methods to 'I' object
module.exports = function() {
return actor({
// Define custom steps here, use 'this' to access default methods of I.
// It is recommended to place a general 'login' function here.
});
}
You can try create this file or remove "I": "./steps_file.js" from your configuration.
Related
I've recently setup Protractor testing for our angular apps at our company - and was looking for a simple way to capture pass/fail status of each scenario in the spec classes. Is there a simple way to do this? I've tried messing with the jasmine-spec-reporter, but maybe I was missing something there to extract the data I need. Any help would be appreciated.
I've tried things like this:
let currentSpec = jasmine.getEnv().currrentSpec, passed = currentSpec.results().passed();
but am always getting issues like
currentSpec not specified
Ideally I would like to capture pass or fail without jasmine reporting, if possible.
What you are looking for is actually specDone not afterEach. You either need to modify the specDone function of the reporter you are currently using or build a custom reporter that fits your needs.
https://jasmine.github.io/2.1/custom_reporter.html#section-specDone
Create your custom reporter:
// myReporter.js
module.exports = {
specDone: (result) => {
// do stuff...
}
}
Then in your protractor config you would have something like this:
const myReporter = require('myReporter');
// other config properties
onPrepare: function() {
jasmine.getEnv().addReporter(myReporter);
}
Are you using this as well?:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/protractor-html-reporter-2
To have a better error description of the error and adding them to the jasmine reporter:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/jasmine2-custom-message
So I'm working with an enterprise tool where we have javascript scripts embedded throughout. These scripts have access to certain built-in objects.
Unfortunately, the tool doesn't give any good way to unit test these scripts. So my thinking was to maintain the scripts in a repo, mock the built-in objects, and then set up unit tests that run on my system.
I'm pretty ignorant to how JavaScript works in terms of building, class loading, etc. but I've been just trying things and seeing what works. I started by trying out Mocha by making it a node project (even though it's just a directory full of scripts, not a real node project). The default test works, but when I try and test functions from my code, I get compiler errors.
Here's what a sample script from my project looks like. I'm hoping to test the functions, not the entire script:
var thing = builtInObject.foo();
doStuff(thing);
doMoreStuff(thing);
function doStuff(thing) {
// Code
}
function doMoreStuff(thing) {
// More Code
}
Here's what a test file looks like:
var assert = require('assert');
var sampleScript = require('../scripts/sampleScript.js');
describe('SampleScript', function() {
describe('#doStuff()', function() {
it('should do stuff', function() {
assert.equal(-1, sampleScript.doStuff("input"));
});
});
});
Problem happens when I import ("require") the script. I get compilation errors, because it doesn't builtInObject. Is there any way I can "inject" those built in objects with mocks? So I define variables and functions that those objects contain, and the compiler knows what they are?
I'm open to alternative frameworks or ideas. Sorry for my ignorance, I'm not really a javascript guy. And I know this is a bit hacky, but it seems like the best option since I'm not getting out of the enterprise tool.
So if I get it right you want to do the unit tests for the frontened file in the Node.js environment.
There are some complications.
First, in terms of Node.js each file has it's own scope so the variables defined inside of the file won't be accessible even if you required the file. So you need to export the vars to use them.
module.exports.doStuff = doStuff; //in the end of sample script
Second, you you start using things like require/module.exports on the frontend they'll be undefined so you'll get an error.
The easiest way to run your code would be. Inside the sample script:
var isNode = typeof module !== 'undefined' && module.exports;
if (isNode) {
//So we are exporting only when we are running in Node env.
//After this doStuff and doMoreStuff will be avail. in the test
module.exports.doStuff = doStuff;
module.exports.doMoreStuff = doMoreStuff;
}
What for the builtInObject. The easies way to mock it would be inside the test before the require do the following:
global.builtInObject = {
foo: function () { return 'thing'; }
};
The test just passed for me. See the sources.
Global variables are not good anyway. But in this case seems you cannot avoid using them.
Or you can avoid using Node.js by configuring something like Karma. It physically launches browser and runs the tests in it. :)
I have a SPA (in Aurelia / TypeScript but that should not matter) which uses SystemJS. Let's say it runs at http://spa:5000/app.
It sometimes loads JavaScript modules like waterservice/external.js on demand from an external URL like http://otherhost:5002/fetchmodule?moduleId=waterservice.external.js. I use SystemJS.import(url) to do this and it works fine.
But when this external module wants to import another module with a simple import { OtherClass } from './other-class'; this (comprehensiblely) does not work. When loaded by the SPA it looks at http://spa:5000/app/other-class.js. In this case I have to intercept the path/location to redirect it to http://otherhost:5002/fetchmodule?moduleId=other-class.js.
Note: The Typescript compilation for waterservice/external.ts works find because the typescript compiler can find ./other-class.ts easily. Obviously I cannot use an absolute URL for the import.
How can I intercept the module loading inside a module I am importing with SystemJS?
One approach I already tested is to add a mapping in the SystemJS configuration. If I import it like import { OtherClass } from 'other-class'; and add a mapping like "other-class": "http://otherhost:5002/fetchmodule?moduleId=other-class" it works. But if this approach is good, how can I add mapping dynamically at runtime?
Other approaches like a generic load url interception are welcome too.
Update
I tried to intercept SystemJS as suggest by artem like this
var systemLoader = SystemJS;
var defaultNormalize = systemLoader.normalize;
systemLoader.normalize = function(name, parentName) {
console.error("Intercepting", name, parentName);
return defaultNormalize(name, parentName);
}
This would normally not change anything but produce some console output to see what is going on. Unfortunately this seems to do change something as I get an error Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: this.has is not a function inside system.js.
Then I tried to add mappings with SystemJS.config({map: ...});. Surprisingly this function works incremental, so when I call it, it does not loose the already provided mappings. So I can do:
System.config({map: {
"other-class": `http://otherhost:5002/fetchModule?moduleId=other-class.js`
}});
This does not work with relative paths (those which start with . or ..) but if I put the shared ones in the root this works out.
I would still prefer to intercept the loading to be able to handle more scenarios but at the moment I have no idea which has function is missing in the above approach.
how can I add mapping dynamically at runtime?
AFAIK SystemJS can be configured at any time just by calling
SystemJS.config({ map: { additional-mappings-here ... }});
If it does not work for you, you can override loader.normalize and add your own mapping from module ids to URLs there. Something along these lines:
// assuming you have one global SystemJS instance
var loader = SystemJS;
var defaultNormalize = loader.normalize;
loader.normalize = function(name, parentName) {
if (parentName == 'your-external-module' && name == 'your-external-submodule') {
return Promise.resolve('your-submodule-url');
} else {
return defaultNormalize.call(loader, name, parentName);
}
}
I have no idea if this will work with typescript or not. Also, you will have to figure out what names exactly are passed to loader.normalize in your case.
Also, if you use systemjs builder to bundle your code, you will need to add that override to the loader used by builder (and that's whole another story).
When I try to use the autosuggestion in Webstorm(V 10.0.4/ Linux machine)
with the Revealing-Module-Pattern and the definition of the module is in one File like this:
var testModule = testModule || (function(){
function myPrivateTestFunction(){
console.log("test");
}
return{
test: myPrivateTestFunction
}
})();
in another File I try to call the the function by:
testModule.test();
it correctly finds the module-object, defined in the other file but doesn't find the function.
If I look at the settings: File->Settings->Javascript
There is an option called "Weaker type guess for completion".
If I enable this, it indeed shows my desired function testModule.test().
But it also shows all private members of the module and of all other modules, defined somewhere, so this doesn't make sense to me.
Logged as WEB-18186, please vote for it to be notified on updates
The feature was implemented by the Webstorm Team.
I tested it (in the Early Access Program Version 142.5255).
It works perfectly!
Thanks to the Webstorm-Team who implemented the feature that fast and to lena who created the ticket!
I would like to include a module/library in a protractor test case, however, as soon as I add the line
var lib = require('./loginactions.js');
All the references to protractor and related objects are lost. In other words, if I don't have the require line, the 'protractor' and 'browser' variables are found and test runs fine (using the functions within the file), but after adding that line the variables are not found any more.
Here is a minimal test case:
var lib = require('./loginactions.js'); //problematic line
describe('Login / Logout to Application',function(){
var ptor;
beforeEach(function(){
ptor = protractor.getInstance(); //protractor reference lost
browser.get('http://localhost:80'); //browser reference lost
});
it('should login and then logout successfully', function(){
//Do things here
lib.login(user, pass, ptor);
});
});
I export the functions in this way:
module.exports.Login = Login;
module.exports.Logout = Logout;
//Params: ptor - protractor instance
function Login(user, pass, ptor)
{
//stuff
}
function Logout(ptor)
{
//stuff
}
I also wonder, is this even the correct way of including the own libraries into the project. So my question is, how to properly include libraries into a protractor test case?
To answer my own question, using protractor as a library method worked, this way the references to protractor were restored. So adding these two requires solved my issue:
var protractor = require('/path/to/protractor');
require('/path/to/protractor/jasminewd');
So my test looked similar to the updated code in
'no method expect' when using Protractor as a library question.
However, I am not entirely sure about the global browser object. It is a wrapper around the WebDriver object according to http://www.ng-newsletter.com/posts/practical-protractor.html, but so is protractor instance. So I decided to replace all 'browser' variables with 'ptor' and so far no complaints. This may backfire, but as I said, I'm not entirely sure whether the global browser object that is created along with the global protractor object, when running protractor normally and not as library.