The factory_girl Cucumber helpers are cool. I love that this works:
Given the following users exist:
| Name | Email |
| Alan | alan#example.com |
| Bob | bob#example.com |
But I can't work out how to invoke them inside a step definition. For instance:
Given /the usual users exist/ do
step "the following users exist:
| Name | Email |
| Alan | alan#example.com |
| Bob | bob#example.com |"
end
... throws Your block takes 1 argument, but the Regexp matched 0 arguments. (Cucumber::ArityMismatchError).
What's the correct way to pass a multiline argument to another step using step inside a step definition?
Edit:
Source code's always handy. I found that the signature for step is def step(name, multiline_argument=nil). Suggestive. Sadly, however,
step "the following users exist", "
| Name | Email |
| Alan | alan#example.com |
| Bob | bob#example.com |"
also fails with undefined method 'hashes' for #<Cucumber::Ast::DocString:0xa9bf6f4> (NoMethodError). I'd still love to know how that's supposed to work.
However, there's a silver lining. I found another function steps, which is def steps(steps_text), and that works. See answer.
It's not quite what I was looking for, but reading the source code reveals that the following works:
Given /the usual users exist/ do
steps "Given the following users exist:
| Name | Email |
| Alan | alan#example.com |
| Bob | bob#example.com |"
end
Related
Lets say i have multiple columns coming from two different files like that :
USERNAME | AGE | GENDER | CHILDREN
Joe | 23 | male | 2
Annie | 45 | female | 5
| | |
And another one like this :
USERNAME | AGE |
Jonathan | 33 |
Mike | 41 |
And i want to merge the data of the columns that have the same name into one like this while keeping the data of the columns that are unique at each field:
USERNAME | AGE | GENDER | CHILDREN
Joe | 23 | male | 2
Annie | 45 | female | 5
Jonathan | 33 | |
Mike | 41 | |
Sorry if the answer is obvious, im new to talend, thanks.
What tool is available toy you?
The Append function in SAS for example can do this for you.
You can use the append approach in Python, R or other language you intend using.
For Talen:
Copy the complete subjob1 – copy me sub job and paste it to create a second sub job.
Link the two sub jobs using an onSubjobOK link.
Open tFixedFlowInput, and change Records from first subjob to Records from second subjob.
Open tFileOutputDelimited on the new sub job, and tick Append, as shown in the following screenshot:
use a tUnite component to accomplish that
here is the link of the documentation : https://help.talend.com/r/fr-FR/8.0/orchestration/tunite
your flow would be
tFileInput1(excel or csv ) ----------------------------------------------
|
| ->tUnite -> tLogRow
tFileInput2(excel or csv )->tMap (add to empty fields GENDER & Children )|
I am not sure it this is intended to be so, but I am confused by the behavior.
When I have the following Scenario Outline:
Scenario Outline: outline1
Given url
And query parameters <query_params>
When method
Then status is
Examples:
| method | endpoint | query_params | status |
| GET | /endpoint1 | ?a=1&b=1 | 200 |
| GET | /endpoint1 | ?a=1&b=1&c=3 | 200 |
I see the following snippet generated.
func FeatureContext(s *godog.Suite) {
s.Step(^method GET$, methodGET)
s.Step(^query parameters \?a=(\d+)&b=(\d+)$, queryParametersAB)
s.Step(^query parameters \?a=(\d+)&b=(\d+)&c=(\d+)$, queryParametersABC)
}
As you can see 2 lines of "query parameters" produces 2 different functions. Why is godog parsing this text? This is a little different from cucumber gherkin parsing.
One side effect of this is that if I have 100 lines in the data table, I am forced to implement all of them.
Is there a way I can ask godog to not do this parsing?
The solution to the problem is to use double quotes around as given below.
Scenario Outline: outline1
Given url
And query parameters "<query_params>"
When method
Then status is
Examples:
| method | endpoint | query_params | status |
| GET | /endpoint1 | ?a=1&b=1 | 200 |
| GET | /endpoint1 | ?a=1&b=1&c=3 | 200 |
Then the following will be generated:
s.Step(`^query parameters "([^"]*)"$`, queryParameters)
I have a cucumber feature that checks a website has processed payment files correctly (BACS,SEPA, FPS etc). The first stage of the process is to create the payment files which in-turn create expected result data in a database. This data is then used to validate against the payment processing website.
If I process one file, my feature works perfectly validating the expected results. Where I'm stuck is how I get the feature to run (n) number of times depending on the number of records/files that were originally processed.
I've tried an 'Around' hook using a record count iteration with no joy, can't see how I can fit it into an outline scenario and now think that perhaps a rake task to call the feature might work.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Here's a sample of the feature:
Feature: Processing SEPA Credit Transfer Files. Same Day Value Payments.
Background:
Given we want to test the "SEPA_Regression" scenario suite
And that we have processed a "SEPA" file from the "LDN" branch
And we plan to use the "ITA1" environment
Then we log in to "OPF" as a "SEPA Department" user
#feature #find_and_check_sepa_interchange #all_rows
Scenario: Receive SEPA Credit Transfer Files for branch
Given that we are on the "Payment Management > Interchanges" page
When I search for our Interchange with the following search parameters:
| Field Name |
| Transport Date From |
| Bank |
| Interchange Reference |
Then I can check the following fields for the given file in the "Interchanges" table:
| Field Name|
| Interchange Reference |
| Transport Date |
| File Name |
| File Format |
| Clearing Participant |
| Status |
| Direction |
| Bank |
When I select the associated "Interchange Id" link
Then the "Interchange Details" page is displayed
Update I've implemented nested steps for the feature so that I can call the database records first and feed each set of records (or at least the row id) into the main feature like so:
Feature
#trial_feature
Scenario: Validate multiple Files
Given we have one or more records in the database to process for the "SEPA_Regression" scenario
Then we can validate each file against the system
Feature steps:
Then(/^we can validate each file against the system$/) do
x = 0
while x <= $interchangeHash.count - 1
$db_row = x
# Get the other sets of data using the file name in the query
id = $interchangeHash[x]['id']
file_name = $interchangeHash[x]['CMS_Unique_Reference_Id']
Background.get_data_for_scenario(scenario, file_name)
steps %{
Given that we are on the "Payment Management > Interchanges" page
When I search for our Interchange with the following search parameters:
| Field Name |
| Transport Date From |
| Bank |
| Interchange Reference |
Then I can check the following fields for the given file in the "Interchanges" table:
| Field Name|
| Interchange Reference |
| Transport Date |
| File Name |
| File Format |
| Clearing Participant |
| Status |
| Direction |
| Bank |
When I select the associated "Interchange Id" link
Then the "Interchange Details" page is displayed
Seems a bit of a 'hack' but it works.
If you have batch processing software, then you should have several Given (setup) steps, 1 When (trigger) step, several Then (criteria) steps.
Given I have these SEPA bills
| sepa bill 1 |
| sepa bill 2 |
And I have these BAC bills
| bac bill 1 |
| bac bill 2 |
When the payments are processed
Then these sepa bills are completed
| sepa bill 1 |
| sepa bill 2 |
And I these bac bills are completed
| bac bill 1 |
| bac bill 2 |
It's simpler, easier to read what is supposed to be done, and can be expanded to more. The works should be done in the step definitions of setting up and verifying.
I'm writing scenarios for QA engineers, and now I face a problem such as step encapsulation.
This is my scenario:
When I open connection
And device are ready to receive files
I send to device file with params:
| name | ololo |
| type | txt |
| size | 123 |
All of each steps are important for people, who will use my steps.
And I need to automate this steps and repeat it 100 times.
So I decide create new step, which run it 100 times.
First variant was to create step with other steps inside like:
Then I open connection, check device are ready and send file with params 100 times:
| name | ololo |
| type | txt |
| size | 123 |
But this version is not appropriate, because:
people who will use it, will don't understand which steps executes inside
and some times name of steps like this are to long
Second variant was to create step with other steps in parameters table:
I execute following steps 100 times:
| When I open connection |
| And device are ready to receive files |
| I send to device file |
It will be easy to understand for people, who will use me steps and scenarios.
But also I have some steps with parameters,
and I need to create something like two tier table:
I execute following steps 100 times:
| When I open connection |
| And device are ready to receive files |
| I send to device file with params: |
| | name | ololo | |
| | type | txt | |
| | size | 123 | |
This is the best variant in my situation.
But of cause cucumber can't parse it without errors ( it's not correct as cucumber code ).
How can I fix last example of step? (mark with bold font)
Does cucumber have some instruments, which helps me?
Can you suggest some suggest your type of solution?
Does someone have similar problems?
I decide to change symbols "|" to "/" in parameters table, which are inside.
It's not perfect, but it works:
This is scenarios steps:
I execute following steps 100 times:
| I open connection |
| device are ready to receive files |
| I send to device file with params: |
| / name / ololo / |
| / type / txt / |
| / size / 123 / |
This is step definition:
And /^I execute following steps (.*) times:$/ do |number, table|
data = table.raw.map{ |raw| raw.last }
number.to_i.times do
params = []
step_name = ''
data.each_with_index do |line,index|
next_is_not_param = data[index+1].nil? || ( data[index+1] && !data[index+1].include?('/') )
if !line.include?('/')
step_name = line
#p step_name if next_is_not_param
step step_name if next_is_not_param
else
params += [line.gsub('/','|')]
if next_is_not_param
step_table = Cucumber::Ast::Table.parse( params.join("\n"), nil, nil )
#p step_name
#p step_table
step step_name, step_table
params = []
end
end
end
#p '---------------------------------------------------------'
end
end
How can I print a large variable nicely in an irb prompt? I have a variable that contains many variables which are long and the printout becomes a mess to wade through. What if I just want the variable names without their values? Or, can I print each one on a separate line, tabbed-in depending on depth?
Or, can I print each one on a separate line, tabbed-in depending on depth?
Use pp (pretty print):
require 'pp'
very_long_hash = Hash[(1..23).zip(20..42)]
pp very_long_hash
# Prints:
{1=>20,
2=>21,
3=>22,
4=>23,
5=>24,
6=>25,
7=>26,
8=>27,
9=>28,
10=>29,
11=>30,
12=>31,
13=>32,
14=>33,
15=>34,
16=>35,
17=>36,
18=>37,
19=>38,
20=>39,
21=>40,
22=>41,
23=>42}
If you want something that is even more awesome than "pretty" print, you can use "awesome" print. And for a truly spaced out experience, sprinkle some hirbal medicine on your IRb!
Hirb, for example, renders ActiveRecord objects (or pretty much any database access library) as actual ASCII tables:
+-----+-------------------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| id | created_at | description | name | namespace | predicate | value |
+-----+-------------------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| 907 | 2009-03-06 21:10:41 UTC | | gem:tags=yaml | gem | tags | yaml |
| 906 | 2009-03-06 08:47:04 UTC | | gem:tags=nomonkey | gem | tags | nomonkey |
| 905 | 2009-03-04 00:30:10 UTC | | article:tags=ruby | article | tags | ruby |
+-----+-------------------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+