Support [Setup] with user keywords
#4747
Comments
|
The reason we didn't add setup for user keywords back when user keyword teardowns were implemented in RF 2.6 (#711) was that there's only a semantic difference between a first keyword and a setup. With tests the I can see that in some cases the semantic difference can be meaningful and don't have anything against with user keyword setups being introduced. Another reason to add them is consistency. It's surprising that you can use I'll assign this to RF 6.2 scope, but cannot promise it will be implemented in that release If someone would like to see this already in RF 6.1, a pull request could be accepted. |
[Setup] with user keywords
As per the discussion in #4745, this is a separate issue to add a
[Setup]setting to user keywords.The reason for wanting it in our usecase is to indicate a semantic differance between regular steps in a keyword and the Setup/Teardown. This differance is used by our system to define if a fail is a Setup failure (to be handled by the Test Framework team) and a DUT failure (to be handled by the test team).
Specifically this helps us when using Templates in a test case, as the template keyword could then have a Setup and Teardown that's excecuted once per run of the template instead of once for the whole testcase.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: