I am having a hard time having jemeter working with my if condition
As you see the above I am checking is status variable which I created in earlier car is true and it is true so I expect this if gets executed but it does not. However as soon as I change it to
It works fine.
I need these kind of check for sure(for a case like ${status} == false)
Am I missing anything?
** Update **
when I disable interpret regx I can see it works
This is expected behaviour.
In If Controller When you uncheck "Interpret condition as Variable Expression", Javascript is used to evaluate :
${status} == true
So it works, but it hurts badly performances.
So instead and as per reference documentation:
Option 2 : Use a function (${__jexl3()} is advised) to evaluate an expression that must return true or false
So keep "Interpret condition as Variable Expression" checked and use __jexl3 function:
${__jexl3(${status} == true,)}
This give you:
Related
I have an If statement that looks like this:
if (condition1 == "True" && condition2 == "True" && condition3 == "True" && condition4 == "True")
Instead of having to change every value during debugging, is it possible to automatically change the value of condition1 to condition4 to "True" when the breakpoint's hit?
I just want the debugger to enter the If statement even though the conditions aren't met. It's a pain in the butt to edit every value once the If statement's hit.
The simplest solution would most probably be to Change the execution flow while debugging.
With the debugger paused on a line of code, use the mouse to grab the yellow arrow pointer on the left. Move the yellow arrow pointer to a different point in the code execution path. Then you use F5 or a step command to continue running the app.
By changing the execution flow, you can do things like test different code execution paths or rerun code without restarting the debugger.
This enables you to set a breakpoint on the if-statement, and drag execution into the if whenever necessary. This way you don't even have to change variables, but you can simply decide to execute the statement(s) inside the if-statement whenever you want to test them.
Alternatively, look at how you can Observe a single variable or expression with QuickWatch and change the value for the variable(s) there.
This question already has answers here:
Difference between "and" and && in Ruby?
(8 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
What's the difference between the or and || operators in Ruby? Or is it just preference?
It's a matter of operator precedence.
|| has a higher precedence than or.
So, in between the two you have other operators including ternary (? :) and assignment (=) so which one you choose can affect the outcome of statements.
Here's a ruby operator precedence table.
See this question for another example using and/&&.
Also, be aware of some nasty things that could happen:
a = false || true #=> true
a #=> true
a = false or true #=> true
a #=> false
Both of the previous two statements evaluate to true, but the second sets a to false since = precedence is lower than || but higher than or.
As the others have already explained, the only difference is the precedence. However, I would like to point out that there are actually two differences between the two:
and, or and not have much lower precedence than &&, || and !
and and or have the same precedence, while && has higher precedence than ||
In general, it is good style to avoid the use of and, or and not and use &&, || and ! instead. (The Rails core developers, for example, reject patches which use the keyword forms instead of the operator forms.)
The reason why they exist at all, is not for boolean formulae but for control flow. They made their way into Ruby via Perl's well-known do_this or do_that idiom, where do_this returns false or nil if there is an error and only then is do_that executed instead. (Analogous, there is also the do_this and then_do_that idiom.)
Examples:
download_file_via_fast_connection or download_via_slow_connection
download_latest_currency_rates and store_them_in_the_cache
Sometimes, this can make control flow a little bit more fluent than using if or unless.
It's easy to see why in this case the operators have the "wrong" (i.e. identical) precedence: they never show up together in the same expression anyway. And when they do show up together, you generally want them to be evaluated simply left-to-right.
and/or are for control flow.
Ruby will not allow this as valid syntax:
false || raise "Error"
However this is valid:
false or raise "Error"
You can make the first work, with () but using or is the correct method.
false || (raise "Error")
puts false or true --> prints: false
puts false || true --> prints: true
The way I use these operators:
||, && are for boolean logic. or, and are for control flow. E.g.
do_smth if may_be || may_be -- we evaluate the condition here
do_smth or do_smth_else -- we define the workflow, which is equivalent to
do_smth_else unless do_smth
to give a simple example:
> puts "a" && "b"
b
> puts 'a' and 'b'
a
A well-known idiom in Rails is render and return. It's a shortcut for saying return if render, while render && return won't work. See "Avoiding Double Render Errors" in the Rails documentation for more information.
or is NOT the same as ||. Use only || operator instead of the or operator.
Here are some reasons. The:
or operator has a lower precedence than ||.
or has a lower precedence than the = assignment operator.
and and or have the same precedence, while && has a higher precedence than ||.
Both or and || evaluate to true if either operand is true. They evaluate their second operand only if the first is false.
As with and, the only difference between or and || is their precedence.
Just to make life interesting, and and or have the same precedence, while && has a higher precedence than ||.
Just to add to mopoke's answer, it's also a matter of semantics. or is considered to be a good practice because it reads much better than ||.
I'm trying to run a FOR loop on robot framework depending of the status of another variable.
${STATUS1}= Run Keyword And Return Status Should Be Equal As Strings ${CELLVALUE} ${EXPECTEDVALUE}
\ ${COUNT}= Set Variable If '${STATUS1}' == 'True' ${COUNT}+1
\ ... '${STATUS1}' == 'False' ${COUNT}+0
But all I get is '''0'+0'+0'+1 or similar, even if I use Run keyword If and Evaluate instead of set var, I tried to convert to integer but nothing happens and I cannot convert it to integer or number. Any suggestions? thanks in advance!
It looks like you're simply wanting to increment ${COUNT} if ${CELLVALUE} equals ${EXPECTEDVALUE}. That can be done pretty easily with Set Variable if
If you know that ${CELLVALUE} and ${EXPECTEDVALUE} are of the same internal type (eg: strings or ints), and you're using robot framework 2.9 or greater, you can write it like this:
${COUNT}= Set variable if $CELLVALUE == $EXPECTEDVALUE
... ${COUNT+1} ${COUNT}
This assumes that ${COUNT} is initialized to an integer value, which you can do by assigning it the value ${0}
If you don't know the type, can't guarantee the type, or are using an older version of robot, you can use triple-quoted strings to coerce the values to strings:
${COUNT}= Set variable if '''${CELLVALUE}''' == '''${EXPECTEDVALUE}'''
... ${COUNT+1} ${COUNT}
Of course, you could use Run Keyword and Return Status like in your example, and then compare the status. That seems like an unnecessary extra step, but it might make sense in your actual test.
The point being, you can use Set variable if and extended variable syntax to solve this problem.
Note 1: With Set variable if, two values are provided. The first value is assigned if the expression is true, the second one is assigned if the value is false. The second value is the original variable, meaning it won't be changed. If you don't provide the second value, the variable will be set to None.
Note 2: Putting an expression inside curly braces (eg: ${COUNT+1} is documented in rule 4 of extended variable syntax.
Note 3: Starting with robot framework 2.9, variables are available in the evaluation namespace with the simplified syntax $varname. So, the robot variable ${CELLVALUE} can be used in python expressions as $CELLVALUE. This is documented in the section Evaluating Expressions in the BuiltIn library documentation.
Why does the documentation use "iff" instead of "if"?
iff is used for if and only if statement.
Statement enclosed is going to executed if both condition must be true.
ie. either both are true or none.
Is the keyword unless the same as if?
When do you use ??
I've seen:
if someobject?
I know it checks against nil correct?
Is the keyword 'unless' the same as 'if' ?
No, it's the opposite.
unless foo is the same as if !foo
if someobject?
I know it checks against nil correct?
No it calls a method named someobject?. I.e. the ? is just part of the method name.
? can be used in methodnames, but only as the last character. Conventionally it is used to name methods which return a boolean value (i.e. either true or false).
? can also be used as part of the conditional operator condition ? then_part : else_part, but that's not how it is used in your example.
unless is actually the opposite of if. unless condition is equivalent to if !condition.
Which one you use depends on what feels more natural to the intention you're expressing in code.
e.g.
unless file_exists?
# create file
end
vs.
if !file_exists?
# create file
end
Regarding ?, there is a convention for boolean methods in Ruby to end with a ?.
This statement:
unless conditional expression
Is the equivalent to:
if not (conditional expression)
In Ruby you can end your method names with a question mark which is normally used to show that it is a boolean method.
With Rails a check against nil would look like this:
someobject.nil?
This calls the nil?() method of the object, which returns true for NilObject and false for anything else.
I think the convention for ?-suffix is to use it when naming a method that returns a boolean value. It is not a special character, but is used to make the name of the method easier to understand, or at least I think that's what the intention was. It's to make it clear that the method is like asking a question: it shouldn't change anything, only return some kind of status...
There's also !-suffix that I think by convention means that the method may have side-effects or may modify the object it is called on (rather than return a modified copy). Either way, the ! is to make you think carefully about calling such a method and to make sure you understand what that method does.
I don't think anything enforces these conventions (I've never tried to break them) so of course you could abuse them horribly, but your fellow developers would not be happy working with your code.
for unless see here: http://railstips.org/blog/archives/2008/12/01/unless-the-abused-ruby-conditional/
if someobject?
The appending of a '?' here only means that it returns a boolean.