OnData(withContent("ray_charles")).inAdapterView(withId(R.id.library_list)).perform(click()) The try/catch means the test will continue regardless of whether the click works. Here’s an example of part of the DownloadTest at the time of writing. The author of the automated test can choose whether to write extra code to handle any rejection but it still doesn’t know the cause of the rejection. In popular opensource test automation frameworks, including junit and espresso (via hamcrest) the arbiter, or decision maker, is the assertion where the tests passes information to the assertion and it decides whether to allow the test to continue or halt and abort this test. Something akin to the Socratic Method? This isn’t intended to replace the current way of using Espresso and the Hamcrest Matchers. Perhaps we could experiment with a question or query interface where the automated test can ask questions and elicit responses from Espresso. ![]() I’m going to assume you either know how Espresso works or be willing to learn about it – perhaps by writing some automated tests using it? □ A good place to start is the Android Testing Codelab, freely available online. Possible approaches to interacting with Espresso Details of ZIM files available from the server, including the filename and size.How many files are already on the device, and details of these files.We can download any small ZIM file, not necessarily a predetermined ‘canned’ one.Įxamples of information I’d like to ascertain:.One or more of the ZIM files are already on the local device: we don’t need to assume the device doesn’t have these files locally.Situations I’d like the tests to cope with: I’ll use these two tests (DownloadTest and NetworkTest) as worked examples where I’ll try to find ways to make these tests more robust and also more informative about the state of the server, the device, and the app. However, perhaps we can encourage it to be more forthcoming and share information about what the GUI comprises and contains? It seems that the intended use is for it to keep information private where it checks on behalf of the running test whether an assertion holds true, or not. Meanwhile I’ve been exploring how Espresso is intended to be used and how much information it can provide about the state of the app via the app’s GUI. At best we know an expectation wasn’t met at run-time, (i.e. Furthermore, when a test fails the error message tells us which line of code the test failed on but don’t help us understand the situation which caused the test to fail. From reading the code we have a mix of silent continuations (where the test proceeds regardless of errors) and implicit expectations (of what’s on the server and the local device), these may well be major contributors to the failures of the tests. The most common failure is in DownloadTest, followed by NetworkTest. (Details are available in one of the issues being tracked by the project team. For now we can’t as these tests fail just over half the time. We need these tests to be trustworthy in order to run them in the CI environment across a wider range of devices. The tests that interact with the external environment are prone to problems and failures for various reasons. ![]() We have a moderate loose collection of automated tests written using Android’s Espresso framework. I’ve recently been evaluating some of the automated tests for one of the projects I help, the Kiwix Android app.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |