Is there any web-based test runner; to run a web-site's unit tests from the web-site?
i know this is runs afoul of some people's dogma, but i want to be able to run unit tests from inside the product i'm testing. Whether this be from inside the native Win32 executable, or from within a .NET executable.
A guy has already written a web-based AJAX test runner for UnitTest++.
In the past i had to rip apart NUnit, so i could tests embedded in the executable without having to ship NUnit dlls. This required me to also write my own graphical test-runner for Windows/WinForms.
Has anyone already done the work of creating runnable unit-tests for ASP.net?
Note: The usual response by people: "Unit tests are not supposed to be in the final product, and definitely not accessible by testers, support, or developers, when on-site."
Note: You may disagree with my desire to run unit tests, but don't let that affect your answer. If there is no web-based nunit test runner for ASP.net then that's the answer. Don't be afraid to answer the question. i won't bite.
I think the reasons why you want to do this kind of thing is because of the lack of a Continuous Integration server, I cannot think another justification, so instead of trying to patch your design by doing this, it would be cleaner if you evaluate the implementation of a CI server (which it's not so difficult, for instance you could look at: NCastor)
So in my opinion what you need is to setup a continuous integration server in order to run unit tests and integration tests automatically as part of your automated build process.
You would be deploying your application to the next 'stage' only when the build process and the tests are valid, you can also configure the CI server to perform:
run tests
run static analysis
run non-static analysis
generate tests-reports
run tests with test coverage
calculate and set application version
create packages of your application
modify config files according to the target stage
minify your scripts
send emails when a build fails
Among others
And as you mentioned, you wouldn't need to deploy the tests to your production servers
I strongly recommend you to read the next article:
http://misko.hevery.com/2008/07/16/top-10-things-i-do-on-every-project/
And this is a list of some CI servers
Jenkins - Free & Easy configuration
Hudson - Free & Easy configuration
TeamCity - Free for Open Source projects
Cruise Control - Free (however, this has decreased in popularity because configuration is only available through XML files, it's annoying...)
Found NUnitWebRunner on github https://github.com/tonyx/NUnitWebRunner
Related
My organization is looking to implement CI/CD in our deployment process and I've been tasked to setup the test automation part in the pipeline. I did a lot of reading and I've got an idea on how the setup should look like. Can help to go through my idea and advice if it's indeed the correct setup and give some ideas on improvements if needed?
Here's how I have pictured the setup in my mind. My organization have 3 environments, Development, Testing and Production. Test automation scripts in the pipeline will be executed in the Testing environment.
Dev to check in the code in the Development environment.
This will then trigger the deployment to Testing environment
Once the deployment is complete, it will then trigger the test automation scripts in the repo via the test suites id
Each pipeline will point to specific test suite id
The automation scripts will be used to perform regression testing to ensure the new changes doesn't break existing functionalities.
At the same time, testers will be doing manual testing in the test environment to ensure the new changes works as it's intended.
If both the test automation scripts and the manual testing passes, we can then proceed to the next stage. (UAT Approval and then PROD deployment)
Would this be the correct process flow?
Many thanks in advance!
We have a complete Lab Management environment running Coded UI tests in nightly builds. What we are trying to achieve is to run our integration tests (regular TestMethod() with SQL connections) just before all the Coded UI tests to verify that our db scripts are executed correctly and that there are no new changes causing any problems.
So far I have found a way to execute tests remotely through .testrunconfig. The problem we have with that approach is that it's not possible to choose a testcontroller connected to a team project so I guess that would be only useful for running tests on physical machines outside of Lab Management?
One option seem to be to create a Test Case for each integration test and that should run it together with the UI tests but it feels like it will be to much maintenance managing hundreds of test cases just to run the integration tests. Also it would be better to completely separate the test runs for the different kinds of tests.
Is there any easy way to achieve this that I have totally missed? Or do I have to modify the lab build template to deploy and run the tests?
I guess that would be only useful for running tests on physical machines outside of Lab Management?
If you run your tests remotely through .testrunconfig you have to connect the Test Agent to another Test Controller which is NOT connected to the team project.
Unfortunately it is impossible for the environment which are running under the Lab Management, to my knowledge.
What about this approach:
Create an Ordered Test containing all you integration tests.
Create a new Test Case "Integration Tests" and automate it by the ordered test
So you do not have to maintain hundreds of Test Cases.
You could also create several Ordered Tests if you want to group the integration tests and then
create a "main" Ordered Test containing them.
This way it will be easier to analyze test results especially if you have a lot of tests.
Let the integration tests run as a part of your existing nightly build.
Create a new Build Definition which does not start a build but uses the last successful nightly build and let your CodedUI tests run using Lab Build Template.
This way you will have different test runs for the different kinds of tests.
The only drawback is that you have to "synchronize" these two builds...
You could just schedule the second build later so you could be sure the fist build is done.
It's not really perfect, I know... but this way you could easily achieve your goal.
I am not sure if there is an alternative solution, but on the project I am currently working on we have both our Unit and Integration Test Assemblies set under the Process options (Process>Basic>AutomatedTest>TestAssembly) in our Nightly Build. This was achieved through altering the Default Build Process Template (not the Lab Default) a bit, as you suggested (I thought this was standard, but it's been a while).
I am trying to do line coverage analysis of a java based application. Found many resources on the internet on how to use Sonar+JaCoCo plugin to get line coverage results, and it looks very promising. However, I couldn't get a full clarity on how to go about implementing this solution.
More about my project:
There is a service being called by a website. The service is java based, and is built using maven.
There is also a selenium based test suite that is run on website (which makes calls to the above mentioned service at several instances). The test suite is built & invoked by Ant.
The code base for the service and the code base for the tests are at different locations on the same host.
I need to generate coverage report for the service based on the integration test suite.
The resources I went through are:
http://www.sonarsource.org/measure-coverage-by-integration-tests-with-sonar-updated/
http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/trunk/doc/ant.html
Even after going through all of these, I am not sure where to put jacoco-agent.jar, whether to make jacoco a part of maven (service's build process) or ant (tests' build process), how to invoke jacoco agent, where to specify the source repository(service's code base) and test repository locations.
I have tried blind permutations of all of the above, but either the maven build or the ant build starts failing as soon as I add jacoco tasks to them.
Can someone please help me out in this? I need to understand the exact steps to follow to get it done.
When you execute your server process for the test mode, you need to ensure that jacoco agent is setup on the classpath. The jacoco agent will then effectively listen and record details of the code covered for the life time of the JVM.
You then execute your client side selenium tests which will invoke the server. The jacoco agent in this case will record details of the code executed as part of your tests. When the client test finishes, you need to shutdown your server process which should result in a jacoco coverage file.
The final step is to generate a jacoco html report based on your coverage report. I might suggest you look into moving your ANT based selenium tests into your maven pom, since then it will be easier to control the order of test execution.
I'm looking for suggestions to improve the process of automating functional testing of a website. Here's what I've tried in the past.
I used to have a test project using WATIN. You effectively write what look like "unit tests" and use WATIN to automate a browser to click around your site etc.
Of course, you need a site to be running. So I made the test actually copy the code from my web project to a local directory and started a web server pointing to that directory before any of the tests run.
That way, someone new could simply get latest from our source control and run our build script, and see all the tests run. They could also simply run all the tests from the IDE.
The problem I ran into was that I spent a lot of time maintaining the code to set up the test environment more than the tests. Not to mention that it took a long time to run because of all that copying. Also, I needed to test out various scenarios including installation, meaning I needed to be able to set the database to various initial states.
I was curious on what you've done to automate functional testing to solve some of these issues and still keep it simple.
MORE DETAILS
Since people asked for more details, here it is. I'm running ASP.NET using Visual Studio and Cassini (the built in web server). My unit tests run in MbUnit (but that's not so important. Could be NUnit or XUnit.NET). Typically, I have a separate unit test framework run all my WATIN tests. In the AssemblyLoad phase, I start the webserver and copy all my web application code locally.
I'm interested in solutions for any platform, but I may need more descriptions on what each thing means. :)
Phil,
Automation can just be hard to maintain, but the more you use your automation for deployment, the more you can leverage it for test setup (and vice versa).
Frankly, it's easier to evolve automation code, factoring it and refactoring it into specific, small units of functionality when using a build tool that isn't
just driving statically-compiled, pre-factored units of functionality, as is the case with NAnt and MSBuild. This is one of the reasons that many people who were relatively early users of toole like NAnt have moved off to Rake. The freedom to treat build code as any other code - to cotinually evolve its content and shape - is greater with Rake. You don't end up with the same stasis in automation artifacts as easily and as quickly with Rake, and it's a lot easier to script in Rake than NAnt or MSBuild.
So, some part of your struggle is inherently bound up in the tools. To keep your automation sensible and maintained, you should be wary of obstructions that static build tools like NAnt and MSBuild impose.
I would suggest that you not couple your test environment boot-strapping from assembly load. That's an inside-out coupling that only serves brief convenience. There's nothing wrong (and, likely everything right) with going to the command line and executing the build task that sets up the environment before running tests either from the IDE or from the command line, or from an interactive console, like the C# REPL from the Mono Project, or from IRB.
Test data setup is simply just a pain in the butt sometimes. It has to be done.
You're going to need a library that you can call to create and clean up database state. You can make those calls right from your test code, but I personally tend to avoid doing this because there is more than one good use of test data or sample data control code.
I drive all sample data control from HTTP. I write controllers with actions specifically for controlling sample data and issue GETs against those actions through Selenium. I use these to create and clean up data. I can compose GETs to these actions to create common scenarios of setup data, and I can pass specific values for data as request parameters (or form parameters if needs be).
I keep these controllers in an area that I usually call "test_support".
My automation for deploying the website does not deploy the test_support area or its routes and mapping. As part of my deployment verification automation, I make sure that the test_support code is not in the production app.
I also use the test_support code to automate control over the entire environment - replacing services with fakes, turning off subsystems to simulate failures and failovers, activating or deactivating authentication and access control for functional testing that isn't concerned with these facets, etc.
There's a great secondary value to controlling your web app's sample data or test data from the web: when demoing the app, or when doing exploratory testing, you can create the data scenarios you need just by issuing some gets against known (or guessable) urls in the test_support area. Really making a disciplined effort to stick to restful routes and resource-orientation here will really pay off.
There's a lot more to this functional automation (including test, deployment, demoing, etc) so the better designed these resources are, the better the time you'll have maintaining them over the long hall, and the more opportunities you'll find to leverage them in unforseen but beneficial ways.
For example, writing domain model code over the semantic model of your web pages will help create much more understandable test code and decrease the brittleness. If you do this well, you can use those same models with a variety of different drivers so that you can leverage them in stress tests and load tests as well as functional test as well as using them from the command line as exploratory tools. By the way, this kind of thing is easier to do when you're not bound to driver types as you are when you use a static language. There's a reason why many leading testing thinkers and doers work in Ruby, and why Watir is written in Ruby. Reuse, composition, and expressiveness is much easier to achieve in Ruby than C# test code. But that's another story.
Let's catch up sometime and talk more about the other 90% of this stuff :)
We used Plasma on one project. It emulates a web server in process - just point it at the root of your web application project.
It was surprisingly stable - no copying files or starting up an out of process server.
Here is how a test using Plasma looks for us...
[Test]
public void Can_log_in() {
AspNetResponse response = WebApp.ProcessRequest("/Login.aspx");
AspNetForm form = response.GetForm();
form["UserName"] = User.UserName;
form["Password"] = User.Password;
AspNetResponse loggedIn = WebApp.ProcessRequest(Button.Click(form, "LoginUser"));
Assert.IsTrue(loggedIn.IsRedirect());
AspNetResponse homePage = WebApp.ProcessRequest(loggedIn.GetRedirectUrl());
Assert.AreEqual(homePage.Status, 200);
}
All the "AspNetResponse" and "AspNetForm" classes are included with Plasma.
We are currently using an automated build process for our asp.net mvc application.
We use the following tools:
TeamCity
SVN
nUnit
Selenium
We use an msbuild script that runs on a build agent which can be any amount of machines.
The msbuild script gets the latest version of code from svn and builds it.
On success it then deploys the artifacts to a given machine/folder and creates the virtual site in IIS.
We then use MSBuild contrib tasks to run sql scripts to install the database and load data, you could also do a restore.
On success we kick off the nUnit tests. The test setup ensures that selenium is up and running and then drives the selenium tests much in the same way that Watin does. Selenium has a good recorder for tests which can be exported to c#.
The good thing about Selenium is that you can drive FF, Chorme and IE rather than being restricted to IE which was the case with Watin the last time i looked at it. You can also use Selenium to do load testing with the Selenium Grid therefore you can reuse the same tests.
On success msbuild then tags the build in svn. TeamCity has a job that runs overnight that will deploy the latest tag to a staging environment ready for the business users to check the project status the following morning.
In a previous life we had nant & msbuild scripts to fully manage the environment (installing java, selenium etc) however this does take a lot of time so as a pre req we assume each build agent has these installed. In time we will include these tasks.
Why do you need to copy code? Ditch Cassini and let Visual Studio create a virtual directory for you. Sure the devs must remember to build before running web tests if the web app has changed. We have found that this is not a big deal, especially if you run web tests in CI.
Data is a big challenge. As far as I can see, you must choose between imperfect alternatives. Here's how we handle it. First, I should explain that we are working with a large complex legacy WebForms app. Also I should mention that the domain code is not well-suited for creating test data from within the test project.
This left us with a couple of choices. We could: (a) run data setup scripts under the build, or (b) create all data via web tests using the actual web site. The problem with option (a) is that tests become coupled with scripts at a minute level. It makes my head throb to think about synchronizing web test code with T-SQL. So we went with (b).
One benefit of (b) is that your setup also validates application behavior. The problem is...time.
Ideally tests should be independent, without temporal coupling (can run in any order) and not sharing any context (e.g., common test data). The common way to handle this is to set up and tear down data with every test. After some careful thought, we decided to break this rule.
We use Gallio (MbUnit 3), which provides some nice features that support our strategy. First, it lets you specify execution order at the fixture and test level. We have four "setup" fixtures which are ordered -4, -3, -2, -1. These run in the specified order and before all "non setup" fixtures, which by default have an order of 0.
Our web test project depends on the build script for one thing only: a single well-known username/password. This is a coupling I can live with. As the setup tests run they build up a "data context" object that holds identifiers of data (companies, users, vendors, clients, etc.) that is later used (but never changed) throughout other all fixtures. (By identifiers, I don't necessarily mean keys. In most cases our web UI does not expose unique keys. We must navigate the app using names or other proxies for true identifiers. More on this below.)
Gallio also allows you to specify that a test or fixture depends on another test or fixture. When a precedent fails, the dependent is skipped. This reduces the evil of temporal coupling by preventing "cascading failures" which can reap much confusion.
Creating baseline test data once, instead of before each test, speeds things up a lot. However, the setup tests still might take 10 minutes to run. When I'm working on new tests I want to run and rerun them frequently. Enter another cool Gallio feature: Ambience. Ambience is a wrapper around DB4 that provides a very simple way to persist objects. We use it to persist the data context automatically. Thus setup tests must only be run once between rebuilds of the database. After that you can run any or all other fixtures repeatedly.
So what about cleaning up test data? Don't we need to start from a known state? This is a rule we have found it expedient to break. A strategy that is working for us is to use long random values for things like company name, username, etc. We have found that it is not very difficult to keep a test run inside a logical "data space" such that it does not bump into other data. Certainly I fear the day that I spend hours chasing down a phantom failing test only to find that it's some data collision. It's a trade off that is working for us currently.
We are using Watin. I quite like it. Another key to success is something Scott Bellware alluded to. As we create tests we are building up an abstract model of our UI. So instead of this:
browser.TextField("ctl0_tab2_newNote").TypeText("foo");
You will see this in our tests:
User.NotesTab.NewNote.TypeText("foo");
This approach provides three benefits. First, we never repeat a magic string. This greatly reduces brittleness. Second, tests are much easier to read and understand. Last, we hide most of the the Watin framework behind our own abstractions. In the second example, only TypeText is a Watin method. This will make it easier to change as the framework changes.
Hope this helps.
It was difficult, but not impossible, to build an integration test phase into the build process using maven. What happened was essentially this:
Ignore all JUNit tests in a specific directory unless the integration-test phase fires.
Add a maven profile to execute the integration tests.
For the pre-integration test phase -
Start Jetty running the application hitting a test database.
Start the selenium server
Run selenium integration tests in integration test phase
Stop selenium server
Stop selenium
The difficulty in this step was really setting up jetty - we couldn't get it to just launch from a war, so we actually have to have jetty unpack the war, then run the server - but it works, well, and is automated - all you have to do is type mvn -PintegrationTest (that was our integration test profile name) and off it went.
Do you mean automatically starting testing after build finished?
You could write automated scripts to copy the build files to a working IIS while the build complied successfully. And then start the automated BVT by call mstest.exe or other methods.
You could get a try with autoitx or some function language,such as Python,ruby.
Seems like there are so many different ways of automating one's build/deployment that it becomes difficult to parse through all the different scenarios that people support in tutorials on the web. So I wanted to present the question to the stackoverflow crowd ... what would be the best way to set up an automated build and deployment system using the following configuration:
Visual Studio 2008
Web Application Project
CruiseControl.NET
One of the first things I tried was to have CCnet automatically zip the output and copy it to the server, but then that requires manual work to unzip at the destination. However, if we try to copy all the files individually, then it could potentially take a long time if it's a large application (build server lives outside of the datacenter in our office ... I know).
Also of particular interest is how we would support multiple environments as we have dev, qa, uat, and then of course prod.
MSDeploy seems really interesting, but unless I'm interpreting the literature incorrectly, doesn't help in the scenario of deploying from the output of a build server. If anything, it seems like it'll be useful in deploying one build across a build farm ... but even for deploying from one environment to another, one would have to manually change config settings and web service URLs, etc.
I recently spent a few days working on automating deployments at my company.
We use a combination of CruiseControl, NAnt, MSBuild to generate a release version of the app. Then a separate script uses MSDeploy and XCopy to backup the live site and transfer the new files over.
Our solution is briefly described in an answer to this question Automate Deployment for Web Applications?
You might be interested in MSDeploy. Here's a Scott Hanselman post on this. It's only available as a technical preview at the moment (September 2008) but is worth evaluating against your requirements.
There is another new build tool (a very intelligent wrapper) called NUBuild. Its lightweight, open source and extremely easy to setup and provides almost no-touch maintenance. I really like this new tool and we have made it standard tool for our continuous build and integration process of our projects (we have about 400 projects across 75 developers). Try it out.
http://nubuild.codeplex.com/
Easy to use command line interface
Ability to target all .Net framework
version i.e. 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5
Supports XML based configuration
Supports both project and file
references
Automatically generates the “complete
ordered build list” for a given
project – No touch maintenance.
Ability to detect and display
circular dependencies
Perform parallel build -
automatically decides which of the
projects in the generated build list
can be built independently.
Ability to handle proxy assemblies
Provides visual clue to the build
process e.g. showing “% completed”,
“current status” etc.
Generates detailed execution log both
in XML and text format
Easily integrated with
Cruise-Control.Net continuous
integration system
Can use custom logger like XMLLogger
when targeting 2.0 + version
Ability to parse error logs
Ability to deploy built assemblies to
user specified location
Ability to synchronize source code
with source-control system
Version management capability
Do you have the ability to run commands remotely? The PsExec utility from Systinternals would let run a command line unzip program on the remote machine. If you have a script that copies the build as a .zip file to the remote site, you would just need one more line for the PsExec call to unzip the files.
I had a related question about getting a deployable set of files from an automated build. I found Web Deployment Projects (links and all in the old question) did what I needed - they're a VS and MSBuild add-on.
This is a common problem (and I wish I had read it sooner) for all development, not just ASP.NET. Being one of its developers, my team naturally uses BuildMaster internally for the entire release process, and for most scenarios it's free. Within the tool, we are able to perform all the standard CI builds to create artifacts and then set up an automation process to deploy these artifacts to any one of the 40+ servers we have internally or externally hosted, depending on the specific application or environment.
Since you specifically mentioned deployment to different testing environments, this is a fundamental aspect of the tool. The idea is to model the environment workflow (e.g. Integration -> QA -> Production) you already have in place and essentially promote a build all the way from source control to production. Most times, it's as simple as adding a deployment action that deploys an artifact to the environment, other times it can be much more complex.
You also casually mentioned configuration file changes are part of deployment, which is another built-in component to BuildMaster. The idea we had was to use the tool itself as the central hub for all configuration files and deployments, thus ensuring the latest changes are applied automatically with a simple "deploy configuration files" action in your deployment plan.
One thing you didn't mention with regard to this process is the database deployment aspect. Most ASP.NET applications require an associated database, otherwise they could just be static HTML files. It is crucial that the database schema gets updated to the appropriate database version with every deployment. There is, not surprisingly, a module within BuildMaster that handles this for you as well. The idea is to store DDL-DML scripts within the tool itself, and by executing scripts only once per environment, it ensures that all of your databases across each environment are up-to-date as your builds are deployed through them. Other scripts (e.g. stored procedures, views, triggers, etc.) are essentially code files and therefore belong in source control. These DROP-CREATE-CONFIGURE type scripts can be run each and every time in most cases with a simple deployment action.
Another piece of the deployment puzzle that most developers do not think about is process automation. Many developers need to perform sign-offs or fill out change request forms in order to manually perform these processes. Again, this is all available as part of the automated workflow setup within BuildMaster. You can setup blockers that do not allow promotion to say the QA environment unless all unit tests have passed, or block promotion to the Staging environment unless someone from the QA team approves the build and all issues in your issue tracking tool are resolved/closed for that particular release.
While I realize I left out CC.NET from the answer, our applications are all built and deployed through BuildMaster so we no longer need it, though we could however just as easily pickup the artifacts from a drop location and deploy them in later environments.
I see that many people use CC for their .NET projects, but why not use Jenkins, Sonarqube? They got all you need. I setup all this in 3 days. I have a Win 2008 server R2, MSSQL, Jenkins, VIsual SVN and Sonarqube.
It all works great and u get all metrics on your project. Sonarqube uses Gallio, Gendarme, FXcop, Stylecop, NDepths and PartCover to get your metrics and all this is pretty straight forward since SonarQube do this automatically without much configuration.
i post som pictures for u too get a feeling for it. Here is Jenkins witch builds and get Sonar metrics and a another job for deploying automatically to IIS
And Sonarqube, all metrics for my project. This is a simple MVC4 app, but it works great!:
If you want more information i can be more specific but i think you should at least consider jenkins. If CC suites you better, at least you looked at good alternative before you chose.
This whole setup uses MSBuild, too build and deploy the apps.