cucumber/cucumber-ruby

Discuss Cucumber-Ruby

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

Why do you call <%@new_dir_setup.call%> in the html_report profile instead of up with the rest of the setup code?

I think that gets evaluated when the file is read in, not just when the html_report profile is used.

Frank Bravo

@lefty1975

Truth be told, I borrowed/copied this ERB code from a former colleague and never really thought twice about it. So, let me play around with that as well. The more I look like at that line, it seem unwarranted.

Anna Baik

@TesterAB_twitter

This is probably an obvious question: but are there actually any changes between the Ruby cucumber 2.4.0 gem and the 2.99.0 gem?

I can't see anything in the changelog: https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-ruby/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md

Anna Baik

@TesterAB_twitter

I'm basically looking at first steps to upgrade to 3.0.0 and wondering whether there's any point in going through 2.99.0

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

@TesterAB_twitter Because Cucumber is Semantically Versioned, there should not be any changes from 2.4 to 2.99 that would be a problem for you (i.e. breaking changes). You will quite possibly encounter them at 3.0 but if you plan on upgrading to that point anyway, then you might as well go straight there and deal with whatever comes up.

Here is a handy blog post about upgrading to Cucumber 3.0 https://cucumber.io/blog/2017/09/21/upgrading-to-cucumber-3

Frank Bravo

@lefty1975

@TesterAB_twitter I have encountered an issue upgrading to Cucumber 3.0 grosser/parallel_tests#586 when using the parallel_tests gem. Just an FYI if you're using this gem.

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

I use that where I work but we have not upgraded to Cucumber 3.x yet. At a glance, parallel_tests does not declare any particular gem dependencies, so there is nothing protecting it from upgrades.

Björn Rasmusson

@brasmusson

@enkessler The parallel_tests gem includes a formatter which instantiate/use internal Cucumber-Ruby formatters which have been rewritten to the new formatter API, so that parallel_tests formatter does not work with Cucumber-Ruby 3.x, see cucumber/cucumber#294

@TesterAB_twitter The only difference in 2.99.0 is that it issues a deprecation warning for Transforms, which are removed in v3.0.0, see cucumber/cucumber-ruby#1190

Anna Baik

@TesterAB_twitter

thanks all - that was helpful. We do need to change one place that we use Transform from the look of it - but we can upgrade to 2.99.0 and then it'll let us know if there's anywhere we missed before we go to 3.

greener

@greenr_twitter

Hi, I'm using cucumber-ruby 3.0 and want to generate json reports for consolidated multiple reports via the command below, but no luck. I always get empty report file. can anyone advise me how to generate json reports? thanks!
cucumber --tags @allfeatures -f json -o reports/results.json

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

Do you get no results with other formatters? Try using the pretty or html formatter as well and see if they agree with the json formatter.

greener

@greenr_twitter

Alright. I've get results. I found that I added exit tests if any errors in After hooks and I can't get any reports if any test failures.
Thanks for suggestions!

BhupenderAgarwal24

@BhupenderAgarwal24

Hi, can I pass a variable to scenario which should be pass to each step under that scenario?

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

What is your use case/context?

BhupenderAgarwal24

@BhupenderAgarwal24

I have a variable which gets used for each step and instead of passing along which each step I want to pass it to scenario which should pass it to all steps underneath it

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

So you've got something like

Scenario:
  * this step needs a "7"
  * this step also needs that "7"
  * don't forget the "7"

And you want something like

Scenario: Everyone loves "7"
  * I love that number
  * so do I
  * me too

Yes?

BhupenderAgarwal24

@BhupenderAgarwal24

yes

so as per your example, if I pass that parameter along with scenario, does it get pass on to all steps?

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

Nah. Things don't work like that.

You can do this, however.:

Scenario:
  Given we are working with the number "7"
  Then we can do stuff with it
  And even more stuff

Given /^we are working with the number "(\d+)"$/ do |number|
  @current_number = number
end

Then /^we can do stuff with it$/ do
  puts "Doing stuff with #{@current_number}"
end

Then /^even more stuff$/ do
  puts "Doing more stuff with #{@current_number}"
end

Cezar Cruz

@cezarcruz

Hello guys, i'm very new in cucumber and I have this doubt: How I deal with my client database? in some scenarios i need to get some id from database (executing a sql) and i not sure about the good way to do. There is some good pratice to deal with?

BhupenderAgarwal24

@BhupenderAgarwal24

Thank you @enkessler for the example. This perfectly would solve my problem.

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

@BhupenderAgarwal24 You're welcome.

BhupenderAgarwal24

@BhupenderAgarwal24

Hi, can we use same pattern for different statements while still maintaining the same definition?
For example, is it possible to have something like below:
Scenario: When I call my friend
Given He got his phone with him
When He's not in office
Then He'll attend my call
Given I call my father
And He's not in office
But Still couldn't attend my call

As you can see above I have When, And with same statement. Is it possible to have same definition for both statement instead of re-writing it

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

Yes, it is. Step definitions are matched to Gherkin statements using regular expressions. An example of a step definition that would match both When I call my friend and Given I call my father is

When /^I call my (friend|father)$/ do |person|
  call_person(person)
end

The keyword does not matter when matching step definitions. Given/When/And/etc. are ignored and only the freeform part of the statement is considered.

BhupenderAgarwal24

@BhupenderAgarwal24

thanks for the resolution :smile:

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

You're welcome.

Ryan

@rstellar

Hello!

The following appears to work when manually executed with binding.pry but fails when run as part of my Ruby step file. Any advice?

[10] pry(#<Cucumber::Rails::World>)> page.first('a', text: "edit")
=> #<Capybara::Node::Element tag="a" path="/html/body/div[2]/div/div/div/div[2]/form/div[4]/p[2]/div/div/div/div/div/table/tr[2]/td[3]/a">
[11] pry(#<Cucumber::Rails::World>)> page.first('a', text: "edit").click
=> Obsolete #<Capybara::Node::Element>
[12] pry(#<Cucumber::Rails::World>)>

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

In general, when code works in irb/pry but not in the 'end to end' test, the root cause is either timing or the way in which you have loaded up your code in those two different environments.

If you are using binding.pry then your code is presumably the same as when you run a test because you are running a test. So my guess is that it is a timing issue.

If you replace the binding.pry with a sleep 5, does it work? Is the page not done moving around and it is working in pry because it has extra time before you start typing things at it?

Ryan

@rstellar

Thank you @enkessler I didn't know about Sleep. I will try it. Thank you.

Eric Kessler

@enkessler

@rstellar Clarification: don't actually use sleep as a solution. If using sleep makes it work again, that just means that the problem is a timing issue.

That does not, however, make using sleep a good solution for timing issues.

Use some kind of dynamic waiting so that the test will sleep for only as long as it needs to instead of for a hard coded amount of time.

Ryan

@rstellar

That's how I interpreted it! Thank you for the clarification though.

Frank Bravo

@lefty1975

@here I know Backgrounds apply to all Scenarios in a Feature file, but I'm curious if there's a way to get around this so it doesn't apply to all the scenarios.

Example:
I have users with different permissions to access the application. Instead of creating 2 different feature files for the same feature to account for permissions, I'd rather have a background handle logging in for these 2 different users.

Feature: Ability to log into the application with users with different permissions.

Background_1: User with Admin Permissions

Scenario: As an admin user I log in and see the admin link

Background_2: User without Admin Permissions

Scenario: As a user I log in and do not see the admin link

Looks like this conversation has occurred in the past: cucumber-attic/gherkin#41 and I'm not sure if there was a resolution.

I am trying hard to reduce the number of feature files I need to create because I have to accommodate permissions.

I'm some would argue that 2 features files should be required because testing the Application and Features with different permissions does create the features to be in a different state.

Björn Rasmusson

@brasmusson

A Feature can only have one Background, and if a Background exists, it will apply to all Scenarios.

Frank Bravo

@lefty1975

@brasmusson thanks, I did mention I understood that. I was looking for alternatives to bypass that or utilize the same background with different users as laid out in my example above.

Björn Rasmusson

@brasmusson

alternatives to bypass that

Do not use a background at all?

Renato Marinho

@renatomarinho

This message was deleted

Where communities thrive

People

Repo info

Activity