Codestin Search App

Pazus · 2016-11-29T15:48:25Z

Implemented the runner to execute suites/tests by path

The path supports several formats:

"schema"
"schema":"suitepath"[."test_proc_name"]
"schema"."suite_package"[."test_proc_name"]

The user-freandly interface is located in ut package

Also made some refactoring with ut_test objects, put object_path property there to store fully qualified path to suite/test
object name now contains only the name of the object (package/procedure)

The path supports several formats: * <schema> * <schema>:<suitepath>[.<test_proc_name>] * <schema>.<suite_package>[.<test_proc_name>] The user-freandly interface is located in `ut` package Also made some refactoring with ut_test objects, put object_path property there to store fully qualified path to suite/test object name now contains only the name of the object (package/procedure)

jgebal · 2016-11-29T20:41:37Z

@@ -1,8 +1,23 @@
 create or replace type body ut_test_object is
+
+  member procedure init(self in out nocopy ut_test_object, a_desc_name varchar2, a_object_name varchar2, a_object_type integer, a_object_path varchar2 default null, a_rollback_type integer default null) is


Nice. Placing common code in common place.

jgebal · 2016-11-29T20:43:16Z

    self.rollback_type := a_rollback_type;
  end;
+
+  member procedure set_object_path(self in out nocopy ut_test_object, a_path varchar2) is


Is this code used? I do not see any calls to set_object_path.

not any more. removed

jgebal · 2016-11-29T20:47:02Z

                           lower(l_object_name);
-      else
-        l_suite_package := lower(l_object_name);
+      --else


What are the implications of this change (what will happen now on else)?
Do we need the commented code?

nope. fixed

jgebal · 2016-11-29T20:48:39Z

+                                          ut_utils.gc_rollback_manual
+                                         when 'auto' then
+                                          ut_utils.gc_rollback_auto
+                                       --when 'on-error' then


can we remove commented code?

not now. this remindes about the third type of transaction control. it might became possible to implement after your changes to ut_executable

jgebal · 2016-11-29T20:53:33Z

+    l_path varchar2(32767);
+  begin
+    if a_paths is null or a_paths.count = 0 then
+      raise_application_error(ut_utils.gc_path_list_is_empty, 'Path list is empty');


Maybe we should run all current schema tests, if NULL or empty?

though about it but for now decided not to do it as it get much more difficult to figure out what is really called. the path will always be in form suite1.suite2.test and we have to understant wether its a suitepath of current schema ot suite1 is the schema name. Guessing mechanism is not yet implemented

jgebal · 2016-11-29T20:56:17Z

+    else
+      for i in 1 .. a_paths.count loop
+        l_path := a_paths(i);
+        if regexp_like(l_path, '^\w+(\.\w+){0,2}$') or regexp_like(l_path, '^\w+:\w+(\.\w+)*$') then


how about:

if not( regexp_like(l_path, '^\w+(\.\w+){0,2}$') or regexp_like(l_path, '^\w+:\w+(\.\w+)*$') ) then raise_... end if;

jgebal · 2016-11-29T21:08:26Z

+            l_package_name   := regexp_substr(l_path, '^\w+\.(\w+)(\.(\w+))?$', subexpression => 1);
+            l_procedure_name := regexp_substr(l_path, '^\w+\.(\w+)(\.(\w+))?$', subexpression => 3);
+
+            l_temp_suite := config_package(l_schema, l_package_name);


Do we need to fetch/parse the package again? We already have whole schema suites in variable in line 438.

Then we will have to work through the whole hierarcy looking for object_name... but maybe you are right. i'll come back to it today a bit later.

jgebal · 2016-11-29T21:10:11Z

+          end;
+        end if;
+
+        if regexp_like(l_path, '^\w+:.+$') then


should this be elsif?

jgebal · 2016-11-29T21:15:00Z

+
+    validate_paths(l_paths);
+
+    -- current implementation operates only on a single path


Maybe it would be better to extract the find/filter logic into separate procedure?

i feel such separation won't work for multiple pathes provided as be each next path you won't simply add new object to the list, rather you will enable objects in current list to execute... I'd like to postepone this refactoring a bit until it became clear for multi-path approach. But I agree it is needed

jgebal · 2016-11-29T21:18:39Z

+    end loop;
+
+    if l_objects_to_run.count > 0 then
+      l_reporter.before_run(a_suites => l_objects_to_run);


Nice.
Now we pass the full list of objects to execute to the before/after calls.

jgebal · 2016-11-29T22:12:37Z

Resolves #86

jgebal

Could you add few basic unit tests for the runner?

with schema
with schema:suite
with schema:suite.test
with schema:suite.suite
with schema:suite.suite.test
with schema.package
with schema.package.test

Pazus · 2016-12-06T20:18:43Z

Added tests

…/runner

Problems are now resolved.

rlove

Everything looks good.

Pazus added the in progress label Nov 29, 2016

Pazus added 2 commits November 29, 2016 19:12

fixed example

9624fb7

fixed tests

8a6f642

Pazus added this to the version3 milestone Nov 29, 2016

Pazus added the enhancement label Nov 29, 2016

Pazus self-assigned this Nov 29, 2016

jgebal reviewed Nov 29, 2016

View reviewed changes

jgebal mentioned this pull request Nov 30, 2016

non ut3 user #112

Closed

addressed review comments

4ca671e

jgebal approved these changes Nov 30, 2016

View reviewed changes

jgebal previously requested changes Nov 30, 2016

View reviewed changes

Pazus added 4 commits December 1, 2016 15:24

actualized example packages to use ut.expect syntax

382d67c

bug fix.

2660ab1

step...

5a5ae8d

step

6860168

added tests for the runner

cebe94c

Pazus force-pushed the feature/runner branch from 913ed7b to cebe94c Compare December 7, 2016 05:08

Pazus added 3 commits December 7, 2016 08:08

Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/upstream/version3' into feature…

e04dba8

…/runner

Clear the error msg

40554c9

fix the RunAll.sql script

829833b

Pazus force-pushed the feature/runner branch from 214f9de to 829833b Compare December 7, 2016 19:18

rlove approved these changes Dec 7, 2016

View reviewed changes

rlove merged commit 1470e1e into utPLSQL:version3 Dec 7, 2016

rlove removed the in progress label Dec 7, 2016

Pazus mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2016

Create single entry procedure/function for running tests #86

Closed

Pazus deleted the feature/runner branch July 15, 2017 09:51

		@@ -1,8 +1,23 @@
		create or replace type body ut_test_object is

		member procedure init(self in out nocopy ut_test_object, a_desc_name varchar2, a_object_name varchar2, a_object_type integer, a_object_path varchar2 default null, a_rollback_type integer default null) is


		validate_paths(l_paths);

		-- current implementation operates only on a single path

Conversation

Pazus commented Nov 29, 2016 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jgebal commented Nov 29, 2016

Uh oh!

jgebal left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Pazus commented Dec 6, 2016

Uh oh!

rlove left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Pazus commented Nov 29, 2016 •

edited

Loading

jgebal left a comment •

edited

Loading