Re: [xwiki-devs] [xwiki-notifications] r28901 - enterprise/trunk/distribution-test/ui-tests/src/test/it/org/xwiki/it/ui
17 May
2010
17 May
'10
8:13 a.m.
On May 17, 2010, at 2:34 AM, sdumitriu (SVN) wrote:
Author: sdumitriu
Date: 2010-05-17 02:34:18 +0200 (Mon, 17 May 2010)
New Revision: 28901
Modified:
enterprise/trunk/distribution-test/ui-tests/src/test/it/org/xwiki/it/ui/EscapeTest.java
Log:
[misc] Added a test.
Modified:
enterprise/trunk/distribution-test/ui-tests/src/test/it/org/xwiki/it/ui/EscapeTest.java
[snip]
+ /**
+ * Go to a working page after each test run to prevent failures in {@link #setUp()}
+ */
+ @After
+ public void tearDown()
+ {
+ TestUtils.gotoPage("Main", "WebHome", getDriver());
+ }
It's a little bit better to do this in setUp rather than in tearDown, for performance
(Each test is responsible to set up a working state).
Thanks
-Vincent
17 May
17 May
11:13 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [xwiki-notifications] r28901 - enterprise/trunk/distribution-test/ui-tests/src/test/it/org/xwiki/it/ui
On 05/17/2010 08:13 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
On May 17, 2010, at 2:34 AM, sdumitriu (SVN) wrote:
It's not about setting up for the tests in this class, but leaving a
working page for the next (whatever, unknown) test. It's not a common
requirement, but this particular test might leave a broken page, like a
missing header, thus causing the is logged in check to fail.
Why do you say it's bad for performance?
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
Author: sdumitriu
Date: 2010-05-17 02:34:18 +0200 (Mon, 17 May 2010)
New Revision: 28901
Modified:
enterprise/trunk/distribution-test/ui-tests/src/test/it/org/xwiki/it/ui/EscapeTest.java
Log:
[misc] Added a test.
Modified:
enterprise/trunk/distribution-test/ui-tests/src/test/it/org/xwiki/it/ui/EscapeTest.java
[snip]
+ /**
+ * Go to a working page after each test run to prevent failures in {@link #setUp()}
+ */
+ @After
+ public void tearDown()
+ {
+ TestUtils.gotoPage("Main", "WebHome", getDriver());
+ }
It's a little bit better to do this in setUp rather than in tearDown, for performance
(Each test is responsible to set up a working state).
12:21 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [xwiki-notifications] r28901 - enterprise/trunk/distribution-test/ui-tests/src/test/it/org/xwiki/it/ui
On May 17, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 05/17/2010 08:13 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Yes, but it's better that the next test ensures that the environment is ok for its
tests IMO. This allows to run tests in any order and even to work if a test is stopped
midway.
On May 17, 2010, at 2:34 AM, sdumitriu (SVN) wrote:
It's not about setting up for the tests in this class, but leaving a
working page for the next (whatever, unknown) test. It's not a common
requirement, but this particular test might leave a broken page, like a
missing header, thus causing the is logged in check to fail. Author: sdumitriu
Date: 2010-05-17 02:34:18 +0200 (Mon, 17 May 2010)
New Revision: 28901
Modified:
enterprise/trunk/distribution-test/ui-tests/src/test/it/org/xwiki/it/ui/EscapeTest.java
Log:
[misc] Added a test.
Modified:
enterprise/trunk/distribution-test/ui-tests/src/test/it/org/xwiki/it/ui/EscapeTest.java
[snip]
+ /**
+ * Go to a working page after each test run to prevent failures in {@link #setUp()}
+ */
+ @After
+ public void tearDown()
+ {
+ TestUtils.gotoPage("Main", "WebHome", getDriver());
+ }
It's a little bit better to do this in setUp rather than in tearDown, for performance
(Each test is responsible to set up a working state). Why do you say it's bad for performance?
It's actually good in the sense that the next test doesn't necessarily have to do
a set up (but this means that the tests can only be executed in a given order).
The reason I was saying it's a bit less good re perf is because you're going to do
extra work (the last tearDown executed) even if the next tests doesn't care about what
you did in the tear down.
-Vincent
5236
days inactive
5236
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Vincent Massol