In cucumber suppose my one than statement is failed then my all than statement is skipped by cucumber for that scenario and it started executing next scenario ... Do anyone have any way to assist cucumber to run next step without skipping all other than statement for that scenario.. do we have any provision for same?
I am using cucumber, maven with java
This is a bad practice. If you have the need for something like this, it only means that your Cucumber scenario is not written properly.
Having said that, if there is a step that is expected to fail but its failure does not imply a failure of the whole scenario, you will have to implement some sort of "failsafe" workaround within your glue code. For example try...catch clause that will acknowledge the failure, perhaps log it but will not fail the scenario due to thrown exception.
Cucumber steps should not be polluted with internal logic.
If a step in a scenario fails, then the entire scenario fails. To do anything else undermines several principles of testing. Once a failure has happened executing the subsequent steps make no sense as we don't have a consistent starting point ( something has already gone wrong)
If you want to run a single scenario and exclude a particular step, just remove it from the scenario.
In this case its up to you to use the tool properly. Cucumber is not going to help you do stupid things with it.
You can either handle it using try - - - catch block or you can use soft assertion
Soft Assertions are the type of assertions that do not throw an exception when an assertion fails and would continue with the next step after assert statement.This is usually used when our test requires multiple assertions to be executed and the user want all of the assertions/codes to be executed before failing/skipping the tests.AssertJ is library providing fluent assertions. It is very similar to Hamcrest which comes by default with JUnit. Along with all the asserts AssertJ provides soft assertions with its SoftAssertions class inside org.assertj.core.api package
Consider the below example:
public class Sample {
#Test
public void test1() {
SoftAssert sa = new SoftAssert();
sa.assertTrue(2 < 1);
System.out.println(“Assertion Failed”);
sa.assertFalse(1 < 2);
System.out.println(“Assertion Failed”);
sa.assertEquals(“Sample”, “Failed”);
System.out.println(“Assertion Failed”);
}
}
Output:
Assertion Failed Assertion Failed Assertion Failed
PASSED: test1
Even now the test PASSED instead of FAILED. The problem here is the test would not fail when an exception is not thrown. In order to achieve the desired result we need to call the assertAll() method at the end of the test which will collate all the exceptions thrown and fail the test if necessary.
Extending the SachinB answer.
We can use assertj to achive same.
We need to use it's lib/dependency as below
<dependency>
<groupId>org.assertj</groupId>
<artifactId>assertj-core</artifactId>
<version>3.9.0</version>
</dependency>
You need to create object of SoftAssertions() which is provide by assetj
package you need to import
import org.assertj.core.api.SoftAssertions;
Example code
public class myclass {
SoftAssertions sa = null;
#Then("^mycucucmberquote$")
public void testCase2() {
sa = new SoftAssertions();
sa.assertThat("a").contains("b");
}
#Then("^mycucucmberquoteLastThen of that scario$")
public void testCase3() {
try {
sa.assertAll();
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
}
sa.assertAll(); implemented function fails and it will provide the stack trace of failed steps.
I'm trying to get some data from Application.Current.Properties storage. Unfortunately, any time I want to use this Dictionary, I see this error:
An exception of type 'System.AggregateException' occurred in mscorlib.ni.dll but was not handled in user code
Additional information: One or more errors occurred.
And in details I found this:
{"Error in line 1 position 206. Element 'http://schemas.microsoft.com/2003/10/Serialization/Arrays:Value' contains data of the 'http://schemas.microsoft.com/2003/10/Serialization/Arrays:ArrayOfstring' data contract. The deserializer has no knowledge of any type that maps to this contract. Add the type corresponding to 'ArrayOfstring' to the list of known types - for example, by using the KnownTypeAttribute attribute or by adding it to the list of known types passed to DataContractSerializer."}
It seems like I tried to save some non-string data to Application.Current.Properties. Unfortunately I can't run .Clear() method to erease all data, bacause I receive this error any time I'm trying to access this property.
What should I do to make it work?
Well, as its name suggests AggregateException, is just a container for one or more exceptions which may be thrown when using PLINQ or TPL.
As such exceptions may be thrown on different threads and may also occur concurrently, the system automatically catches and rethrows them within an AggregateException wrapper to ensure that they all get reported in one place. The exceptions themselves are exposed via the InnerExceptions property.
You can catch an AggregateException and check which exceptions it actually contains with code such as the following:
try
{
// perform some parallel operation
}
catch (AggregateException aex)
{
string messages = "";
foreach(Exception ex in aex.InnerExceptions)
{
messages += ex.Message + "\r\n";
}
MessageBox.Show(messages);
}
So I suggest you do this to see what is causing the problem
Please, remove your app from your device, Settings - Applications- Uninstall, this works for me. The Auth Object was crash in debug mode.Clean and Rebuild can be Helpfull to.
Let us say I have a login method that's working swimmingly. It's used in quite a number of places and saves plenty of lines of retyped code. For all intents and purposes, it does not make sense to make this method any shorter.
Is it proper to write a negative test by using exception handling? For example, if I wanted to ensure that a disabled user is not able to log into the system, is it too awkward to write something like:
begin
login(username, password)
fail
rescue Exception
page.should have_text('Sorry, your account is disabled!')
end
If login actually succeeds, the test should fail. And if we reach the exception, we find our error message and the test passes.
I'm wondering if this is too "clever" and may cause confusion. What's the best way of handling a negative test case here?
You would be testing the expected behavior so there would be no rescuing within your specs. In this case, you would want to disable the account in a before caluse and then ensure the exception is raised when you attempt to perform an operation (login, etc.).
Testing anything for the generic Exception is also a bad idea - you want to be very specific about the expected exception as a different issue could cause your specs to pass.
The code would look something like
expect { login(username, password) }.to raise_error LoginException
I want to know about error handling in PL/SQL. Can anyone help me to find brief description on this topic?
Every block can have an exception handler. Example:
DECLARE
/* declare your variables */
BEGIN
/*Here is your code */
EXCEPTION
WHEN NO_DATA_FOUND THEN
/* HAndle an error that gets raised when a query returns nothing */
WHEN TOO_MANY_ROWS THEN
/* HAndle the situation when too much data is returned such as with a select-into */
WHEN OTHERS THEN
/* Handle everything else*/
END;
This link will tell you more: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B13789_01/appdev.101/b10807/07_errs.htm
That link will show you more detail than I did, as well as examples on how to create your own exception names.
One item that always trips me up is that if you have a function and you fail to return a value in the exception handler, an exception gets thrown in the calling function. Not a big deal but I always seem to forget that one.
The Oracle article referenced in the other answer is well worth reading.
A couple of extra things to throw in - catching a PL/SQL exception loses the error stack - i.e. the information about exactly which line raised the exception.
This can make it difficult to debug blocks of code that contain multiple places that could raise the same exception (i.e. if you have more than one SQL statement that could return NO_DATA_FOUND). One option here is to log the full error stack as part of your exception handler.
EXCEPTION
WHEN TOO_MANY_ROWS THEN
myLogger('Some useful information',DBMS_UTILITY.FORMAT_ERROR_STACK);
END;
If you do need to catch exceptions, keep your exception handling as local as possible to the point you want to catch, and only use WHEN OTHERS in the last resort.
You can also 'do something and re-raise the same exception'
EXCEPTION
WHEN TOO_MANY_ROWS THEN
closeSmtpConnection;
RAISE;
END;
One of the most useful features is the ability to name and catch Oracle SQL internal exceptions.
DECLARE
recompile_failed EXCEPTION;
PRAGMA EXCEPTION_INIT (recompile_failed,-24344);
BEGIN
. . . . . .
EXCEPTION
WHEN recompile_failed THEN
emailErrors(pObjectType,pObjectName);
END;
The flipside to this is the ability to raise user defined 'SQL' exceptions
RAISE_APPLICATION_ERROR(-20001,'my text')
This is the only way to propagate user defined text to a calling application, as user-defined pl/sql exceptions do not cross the 'scope' boundary.
Unfortunately, despite the documentation saying that the range -20000 to -20999 is available for user-defined exceptions, some of the Oracle extension packages use these serials, so you cannot depend on serial alone to identify an error in the calling language.
(Most people tend to wrap RAISE_APPLICATION_ERROR in other code to also log the error, and often to derive the error text from a table)
One trick I've found useful is to create a package with 'stateful' variables in the package body, and simple setter and getter functions. Unlike database updates, information in packages is NOT rolled back on error.
At the point of error, set information in your package, then retrieve it using getters in your calling language, to construct a 'native' exception.
As for user-defined pl/sql exceptions - these can be useful in local code, but in many cases they can be avoided by using a different control structure (i.e. avoid using them as an alternative GOTO).
Creating global exceptions on package headers, to specify the possible exceptions a package may return seems like a good idea, but the end result is that your calling code ends up with having to handle every potential exception that could be cast in any of the underlying packages.
Having gone down this route myself in the past, I would now recommend against it - make packages self-contained and either use RAISE_APPLICATION_ERROR or pass back errors as text.
When validating data, I've gotten into a habit of doing the following:
Note: I don't really have individual booleans for each check. This is just for the example.
Another Note: any error handling during the tests are done properly. The ONLY exceptions thrown in the try-catch are my own.
try {
if (validCheckOne = false) {
throw new Exception("Check one is bad");
}
if (validCheckTwo = false) {
throw new Exception("Failed because of check2");
}
if(validCheckTen = false) {
throw new Exception("Yet another failure on your part: check10.");
}
} catch(Exception e) {
MessageBox.Show("Your stupid data is wrong! See for yourself: " + e.Message);
}
Is this bad practice? Does throwing Exceptions slow the program's execution or is inadvisable?
Personally I like throwing Exceptions for business rule validation (not so much for user input validation) because it forces the problem to be handled upstream. If my business objects returned some kind of validation result, it could be ignored by the caller. Call me a cowboy if you wish :)
Everyone here is repeating the phrase "exceptions are for exceptional circumstances", but that really doesn't give any understanding of why its bad to use them for unexceptional circumstances. I need more than that. Is the performance hit of throwing exceptions really that bad? Are there any benchmarks available?
I'm going to repeat the mantra here: throwing exceptions should be done in exceptional circumstances. Invalid entered data is really not that exceptional.
I support MusiGenesis's answer.
Additionally...
The performance of throwing an exception is a thousand instructions. It's nothing compared to end-user time, but in inner code it is slow.
An additional problem is that, using Exceptions, your validation is limited to reporting the first failure (and you will have to do it all again next time to find the next failure).
In addition to the oft-repeated statement that "exceptions are for exceptional circumstances", here's an additionally clarifying rule I've come to like:
If the user caused it, it's not exceptional.
Exceptions are for system-side things (servers going down, resources being unavailable), not for the user doing odd things, because all users do odd things.
It depends - if you are expecting the data to be there and NOT having the data is unexpected, then throwing an exception is OK. Throwing an exception is very expensive (slow) but is the best way to handle unexpected circumstances.
In the title you call it "validating" data. That can happen on several levels. In (near) the GUI where you are checking user entered data, you should be expecting errors and have ways to report the errors back. Exceptions are inappropriate in this case.
But Data Validation can also happen at other boundaries, say between business-rule classes. There, errors in the data are uncommon and unexpected. You should throw when you detect one.
So maybe in some languages exception throwing and catching is "costly" but in other languages, throwing and catching exceptions is exactly what's called for.
In Smalltalk, for example, one could quickly build a multi-tiered exception catching solution. The validation pass could collect up any number of exceptions representing EVERYTHING that's wrong with a particular input data set. Then it would throw them ALL up to a higher-level catcher, responsible for formatting up a human-readable explanation of, again, EVERYTHING that was wrong with the input. In turn it would throw a single exception further up the chain, along with that formatted explanation.
So... I guess what I'm saying is, exceptions are only bad to throw if you've got no exception handling architecture supporting catching them and doing reasonable things with them, and all your catcher is going to do is EXIT or do something else equally inappropriate.
This is bad behavior. Exceptions are for Exceptional conditions. They take resources to generate the stack etc. Exceptions should not be used to dictate process flow.
In general it is inadvisable to use Exceptions to implement conditional flow. It would be better to do something like this
error = false;
while(true) {
if(validCheckOne == false) {
msg = "Check one is bad";
error = true;
break;
}
if(validCheckTwo == false) {
msg = "Check two is bad";
error = true;
break;
}
...
break;
}
if (error) {
..
}
You should throw an exception when there is a situation you can't do nothing about it. Higher layers of software would have a chance to catch the exception and do something about it - even if that is simply crashing the application.
I would suggest that using exceptions as described in the question (for flow control within a function) is wrong not usually the best idea. I'd go further and saying validation throwing exceptions isn't the best approach; instead return a Boolean and store a list of validation error messages that can be accessed. An accompanying save method could/should throw an exception if it is called on an invalid object.
Thus if validate fails validation error messages can be displayed to the user (logged, returned. whatever). If validation passes then you can call save.
If you call save on an invalid object then get get an appropriate exception.
Another potential problem with your example code (depending on requirements of course) is it only throws the first validation error that occurs. Imagine this from a users POV:
Click save
Get an error message
Correct error
Click save again
Get a different error message. Annoying.
As a user I'd prefer to get all validation errors returned at once so I can correct them all before trying again.
I generally agree with the "exceptions should be exceptional" rule, but I might make an exception (ha!) for Python, where it can be both efficient and considered good practice to use try ... except to control flow.
See Using Exceptions For Other Purposes, for example.
This question is still interesting, mainly because of the answers.
When it comes to exception, there is a lot of arguments involved. We can defend a point to any direction we want to, from performance to exception philosophy. And they all sounds right to me.
But sometimes we have to stick to a direction. In this case, I think it's the validation itself.
When we want to validate something we also want to know (to log, or to show the user) whats wrong when the parameter is invalid. Even thought there are layers of validation such as Business Validation mixed with User Input validations.
For instance, when dealing with user input, a lot of weird cases can happen. A pasted data from a website full of hidden char (\t \n etc), typos, and a really huge kinds of cases that a specific exception could allow further analysis or message to the uses much more precisely than a simple "false" return.
When you go to the grocery and ask the seller if he's got cheese, and the seller replies with no, would that be an unexpected or exceptional response?
What about if you do the same but the seller just looks at you and does not respond!
Another example, you are talking to your friend and ask if there is something wrong, you may get 2 responses:
They tell you that they are sad because of something.
Or they just look at you and say nothing, turn their back and walk away and you are sure that this means you're in deep trouble :)
Same way with exceptions, unexpected behavior is an exception, but an invalid but expected response should not - IMHO - throw exceptions.
I often write similar code for validation, especially in express.js, and similar request/response loop style applications. When something is invalid, I throw a ValidationError, it's caught by the top level error handler, which knows to send a 422 response with the additional information that's attached to the ValidationError.
It's a very convenient way to handle validation. You don't have to pass around an error object (potentially up through a dozen stack frames, in some cases). And it's a simple and consistent way to trigger an invalid input response. I haven't experienced any serious problems with this approach.
I've thought about the "don't use exceptions for flow control" maxim in relation to this practice, and decided the benefits outweigh any disadvantages. I would say if you understand the reasoning behind "don't use exceptions for flow control", but you determine that it's a good idea anyway in a certain case, then go ahead and do it. We don't need to be too dogmatic about these things.
Throwing exceptions is relatively slow, but that will only matter if you're doing it repeatedly in a loop.
It really only matters if your data validation is in a tight loop. For most cases, it doesn't matter what you choose as long as you are consistent in your code.
If you have a lot of code that looks like your sample above then you might want to clean it up by introducing a helper method to throw...
private void throwIf( bool condition, String message )
{
if( condition )
throw new ApplicationException( message );
}
(also, doing this will help zero in on errors such as "validCheckOne = false" versus "validCheckOne == false" :)
Well, i know it's an old question. But i'll let my opinion here for the googler's who falled here like me:
If you are using a language with a bad try/catch support AVOID
THROWING exceptions for data validation;
DO NOT THROW a exception that will not be handled by the caller or
alserwhere;
DO NOT THROW a exception if you need to validate the rest of the received data;
You can THROW a exception in cases where the code block cannot continue
without the invalid data; And if you do not interrupt the process you
can get a unhandled exception;
An example:
/*
* Here it's a common problem i have: Someone pass a list of products i need to
* retrieve from the database and update some information;
*/
//This is a class to represent the product
function Product(id, name, price) {
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
this.price = price;
}
//This is an example function to retrieve the product from the database
function findProductInDatabase(productId) {
//If the product exists on the database, the function will return it
if (productId == 12) {
var product = new Product(12, "Book", 20.5);
return product;
}
//If the product do not exists, it will return null
return null;
}
//This is a function that will receive the productID and will update the received parameters
function updateProduct(productId, newProductName, newProductPrice) {
var productFromDatabase = null;
var errorMessage = "";
//Retrieve the product
productFromDatabase = findProductInDatabase(productId);
//If the product do not exist, i need to interrupt de method imediatily and alert the caller
if (!productFromDatabase) {
throw "Product not found";
}
//Validate the other parameters, but in this case i can validate all the parameters
if (newProductPrice < 10) {
errorMessage += "the price is too low";
}
if (newProductName.includes("<")) {
//If already has a error message in the variable i append " and " to the message make sense
if (errorMessage) {
errorMessage += " and ";
}
errorMessage += "the new name has invalid characters";
}
if (errorMessage) {
//if theres any error, i will throw a exception with the messages
throw errorMessage;
}
}
//This parte is where the method id called;
try {
updateProduct(9, "Book", 10.5);
} catch (exception) {
console.log("Case 1: " + exception);
}
try {
updateProduct(12, "<Book", 9);
} catch (exception) {
console.log("Case 2: " + exception);
}
In test, sure, but in a live environment, you'd hope they're never raised.
You'd hope to refactor your code to the extent that all data into your system are validated at source, and either the user, or the system that generated the input to your system, is notified of the issue.
Exceptions should occur if you've missed something and should be a fallback that is handled gracefully.
You could store anything that's causing these exceptions separately, so that they don't make it into your system without being checked over first.
You don't want, e.g. an invalid value that falls outside a range of values to skew your results.