I have a pyparsing pattern that I'm applying to the same text string in two different environments (my local machine vs a Google Dataproc environment; both are using pyparsing 2.3.1), and I'm getting two slightly different outputs. Basically, when I run
MY_PATTERN.searchString(text)
on my local I get the expected result
[[['MY RESULT']]]
and when I run it on Dataproc (using the same exact pattern and text string input), I get
[[<pyparsing._NullToken object at 0x7ff663d20208>, ['MY RESULT']]]
Any explanation for the difference?
Related
This below piece of gremlin code runs perfectly well in the gremlin console (it finds the unique start and end points of an k-step ego network, along with the minimum distance to that endpoint):
g.V(42062000).as("from")
.repeat(both().as("to")).emit().times(3).path()
.count(local).as("pathlen")
.select("from", "to", "pathlen")
.dedup("from", "to").toList()
And gives an output similar to the following, which is as expected:
==>{from=v[42062000], to=v[83607800], plen=2}
==>{from=v[42062000], to=v[23683248], plen=3}
==>{from=v[42062000], to=v[41762840], plen=3}
==>{from=v[42062000], to=v[42062000], plen=3}
==>{from=v[42062000], to=v[83599456], plen=3}
However, when converting the code to conform to the gremlinpython wrapper
(i.e. after substituting as for as_), I'm given the error TypeError: Object of type GraphTraversal is not JSON serializable, even though it's the same query.
Has anyone faced similar issues?
I am using gremlinpython 3.4.2, but was originally using 3.3.3. My version of Python is 3.7.3.
import static classes using
from gremlin_python import statics
statics.load_statics(globals())
or
from gremlin_python.process.graph_traversal import elementMap, range_,
local, count
and common reserved words must end with _
Example:
as_, range_
I have below command in a .txt-file:
java -jar /path/to/something.jar --classpath="/path/to/something/other.jar" --url="something:#127.0.0.1:1234:TEST12" --driver=some.driver update
As can be seen multiple parameters with different syntax (with -, --, and/or with and without "") are used.
I tried the following code:
task test(type: Exec) {
workingDir '/path/to/working/dir'
String commandFromFile = new File('/path/to/file/with/command' + 'filewithcommand.txt').getText('UTF-8')
commandLine commandFromFile
}
On windows platforms this code is working but on unix it doesn't.
As you can see in the documentation of the Exec task, you should split up your command into its parts. So doing commandLine commandFromFile.split(' ') should work if you do not have spaces in your arguments. If you have, you need a more sophisticated way to split the command that takes quotes into account.
Or you change the format of your command file so that it has one argument per line and you use .readLines('UTF-8') instead of .getText('UTF-8').
I'm not 100% sure about the following, but it could be that you also have to remove the quoting around arguments even if they contain spaces, as you give the arguments as single entities to the commandLine call and thus need no quoting for escaping spaces here. Depending on OS and tool you call it could even break the command if there are quotes that it cannot handle.
Alternatively, but that is the worse method imho, you can also do something like
if (windows) {
commandLine 'cmd', '/c', commandFromFile
} else {
commandLine 'sh', '-c', commandFromFile
}
where then the command processor does the splitting and so on. There you need the quotes and stuff of course. The windows variable in this example of course needs to be determined, e. g. from system properties.
I am running the following test inside Robot Framework:
*** Settings ***
Documentation This initializes testrun.robot
Library Process
Library OperatingSystem
Library XML
Library Collections
Output Is A Valid XML File Against JATS format
Start Process xmllint --dtdvalid http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/1.1d3/JATS-archivearticle1.dtd ./output/nlm/out.xml shell=True
${result}= Wait For Process timeout=45 secs
Log ${result.stdout}
Log ${result.stderr}
Run Keyword Unless '${result.stderr} == ${EMPTY}' Should Contain ${result.stderr} element xref: validity error : IDREFS attribute rid references an unknown
The variable ${result.stderr} is a string that contains the substring 'element xref: validity error : IDREFS attribute rid references an unknown'. As far as I know, I'm not dealing with any whitespace errors or quotation problems, although I could be wrong. (I've been fiddling around with that for a while now.)
Thanks for the help!
Edit: The log that Robot Framework generates tells me that the process has finished (that's how I know what result.stderr contains.)
Consider this statement:
Run Keyword Unless '${result.stderr} == ${EMPTY}' ...
The keyword will never run because you aren't comparing two variables, you are simply checking whether the string literal string '${result.stderr} == ${EMPTY}' is not empty (and it's not, because it has 28 characters).
It is the same as if you did this in python:
if len('${result.stderr} == ${EMPTY}') > 0:
...
You need to put the single quotes around each variable separately so that you are passing a valid expression to the if statement, rather than a string that looks like a valid expression:
Run Keyword Unless '${result.stderr}' == '${EMPTY}' ...
I am new to robot framework and wanted to see if i can get any simple code for custom report. I am also fine with answer to my problem. I went through all questions related to report but could not find any specific answer to my problem. currently my report contains log and wanted to see if i can remove log information from reports and save report in specific location. I just want to get PASS/FAIL information in my report. Can any one give me example how i can overcome this problem? I also need to know how i can save my report in different location. Any example would be helpful. Thank you in advance.
There is a tool called Rebot which is part of Robot Framework.
By default, Robot Framework creates XML reports. The XML reports are automatically converted into HTML reports by Rebot.
You can set the location of the output files in the execution by specifying the parameter --outputdir (and thus set a different base directory for outputs).
From the documentaiton:
All output files can be set using an absolute path, in which case they are created to the specified place, but in other cases, the path is considered relative to the output directory. The default output directory is the directory where the execution is started from, but it can be altered with the --outputdir (-d) option. The path set with this option is, again, relative to the execution directory, but can naturally be given also as an absolute path. Regardless of how a path to an individual output file is obtained, its parent directory is created automatically, if it does not exist already.
You can call Rebot yourself to control this conversion.
You can also run Rebot after the test was run in order to create new output on a different location.
See documentation in:
http://robotframework.org/robotframework/latest/RobotFrameworkUserGuide.html#post-processing-outputs
The following example shows how to store the HTML reports in a different location and including only partial data:
rebot --include smoke --name Smoke_Tests c:\results\output.xml --outputdir c:\version1.0\reports
In the example above, we process the file c:\results\output.xml, create a new report called Smoke_Tests that includes only tests with the tag smoke and save it to the output folder c:\version1.0\reports
In addition you can also set the location of the log file (HTML) from the execution.
The command line option --log (-l) determines where log files are created.
The command line option --report (-r) determines where report files are created
Removing log lines can be done a bit differently. If you run rebot --help you'll get the following options:
--removekeywords all|passed|for|wuks|name: * Remove keyword data
from all generated outputs. Keywords containing
warnings are not removed except in `all` mode.
all: remove data from all keywords
passed: remove data only from keywords in passed
test cases and suites
for: remove passed iterations from for loops
wuks: remove all but the last failing keyword
inside `BuiltIn.Wait Until Keyword Succeeds`
name:: remove data from keywords that match
the given pattern. The pattern is matched
against the full name of the keyword (e.g.
'MyLib.Keyword', 'resource.Second Keyword'),
is case, space, and underscore insensitive,
and may contain `*` and `?` as wildcards.
Examples: --removekeywords name:Lib.HugeKw
--removekeywords name:myresource.*
--flattenkeywords for|foritem|name: * Flattens matching keywords
in all generated outputs. Matching keywords get all
log messages from their child keywords and children
are discarded otherwise.
for: flatten for loops fully
foritem: flatten individual for loop iterations
name:: flatten matched keywords using same
matching rules as with
`--removekeywords name:`
Is it possible to write Robot Framework tests in Python instead of the .txt format?
Behind the scenes it looks like the .txt test get converted into Python by pybot so I'm hoping that this is simply a matter of importing the right library and inheriting from the right class but I haven't been able to figure out how to do that.
(We already have a bunch of suites and have keywords written in both formats but sometimes the RF syntax makes it very difficult to do things that are simple in Python. I understand it would be possible to just write a Python keyword for each test plus 'wrap' setup and teardown functions the same way, but that seems cumbersome.)
Robot does not convert your test cases to python behind the scenes before running them. Instead, it parses the test cases, then iterates over each keyword, calling the code that implements the keyword. There isn't ever a stage where there's a completely pure python representation of a test case.
It is not possible to write tests in python, and have those tests run alongside traditional robot tests by the provided test runner. Like you said in your question, your only option is to put all of your logic for a single test case in a single keyword, and call that keyword from a test case.
It is possible to create and execute tests in python solely via the published API. This might not be what you're really asking for, because ultimately you're still creating keywords, you're just creating them via python.
from robot.api import TestSuite
suite = TestSuite('Activate Skynet')
suite.imports.library('OperatingSystem')
test = suite.tests.create('Should Activate Skynet', tags=['smoke'])
test.keywords.create('Set Environment Variable', args=['SKYNET', 'activated'], type='setup')
test.keywords.create('Environment Variable Should Be Set', args=['SKYNET'])
The above example was taken from here:
http://robot-framework.readthedocs.org/en/2.8.1/autodoc/robot.running.html
Well, you should not care if your python code represents tests or keywords as long as you code the logic of the tests in python.
The best you can do is to keep some html tables in robot format. Each line would be a call for a keyword. The keyword could be implemented in python, and, logically, represents a whole test (although in robot terminology it is still a "keyword").
This post shows how you can have access to the robot context from your python code.
robot variables
BuiltIn().get_variable_value("${USERNAME}")
java keywords
from com.mycompany.myproject.testtools import LoginRobotKeyword
LoginRobotKeywords().login(user, pwd)
robot keywords
BuiltIn().run_keyword("check user connected", user)
Robotframework does not support writting test cases in python directly. I've submitted an enhancement PR, check it here
https://github.com/robotframework/robotframework/issues/3128
But I've tried to do that by moving all the test cases logic to python code, and make RF test cases just a entry point to them.
Here is an example.
We could create a python file to include all testing logic and setup/teardown logic, like this
# *** case0001.py *****
from SchoolClass import SchoolClass
schCla = SchoolClass()
class case0001:
def steps(self):
print('''\n\n***** step 1 **** add school class \n''')
self.ret1 = schCla.add_school_class('grade#1', 'class#1', 60)
assert self.ret1['retcode'] == 0
print('''\n\n***** step 2 **** list school class to check\n''')
ret = schCla.list_school_class(1)
schCla.classlist_should_contain(ret['retlist'],
'grade#1',
'class#1',
60,
self.ret1['id'])
def setup(self):
pass
def teardown(self):
schCla.delete_school_class(self.ret1['id'])
And then we creat a Robot file. In which all RF test cases are in the same form and just work as entry points to python test cases above.
like this
*** Settings ***
Library cases/case0001.py WITH NAME C000001
Library cases/case0002.py WITH NAME C000002
*** Test Cases ***
add class - tc000001
[Setup] C000001.setup
C000001.steps
[Teardown] C000001.teardown
add class - tc000002
[Setup] C000002.setup
C000002.steps
[Teardown] C000002.teardown
You could see, in this way, the RF testcases are similar. We could even create a tool to auto generate them by scanning Python testcases.