How to skip a Unit Test at runtime?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
Thanks in advance!
We have some Automation tests using the selenium web driver which are great and provide a really good regression pack.
The problem is now we have feature toggles in our code. So I need to say ignore these tests unless that feature toggle is turned On/ Off. I can't find anything really searching Google.
Ideally I don't want a 'if' statement at the top of the Feature tests but it looks like it's going to be the main way. My initial thoughts where to create a custom attribute
public class IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn : Attribute
{
public IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn(string featureToggleName)
{
FeatureToggleName = featureToggleName;
}
public string FeatureToggleName {get;}
}
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethod]
[IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn("MyFeature1")]
public void ItShould()
{
// only run if MyFeature1 is turned on
}
}
I some how need to hook into the MSTest pipeline and say if this attribute is present and the logic for MyFeature1 is turned off then don't run this test - Looked at dynamically adding the [Ignore] but with no luck.
This is running through VSTS and I could use [TestCategories] but I'd have to keep updating the pipeline to which feature is turned on/off which I don't want to do.
Any help or suggestions would be great!
c# unit-testing mstest featuretoggle
edited Nov 16 '18 at 13:52
Klors
2,39011636
asked Nov 16 '18 at 13:30
user1829226user1829226
205
add a comment |
Thanks in advance!
We have some Automation tests using the selenium web driver which are great and provide a really good regression pack.
The problem is now we have feature toggles in our code. So I need to say ignore these tests unless that feature toggle is turned On/ Off. I can't find anything really searching Google.
Ideally I don't want a 'if' statement at the top of the Feature tests but it looks like it's going to be the main way. My initial thoughts where to create a custom attribute
public class IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn : Attribute
{
public IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn(string featureToggleName)
{
FeatureToggleName = featureToggleName;
}
public string FeatureToggleName {get;}
}
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethod]
[IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn("MyFeature1")]
public void ItShould()
{
// only run if MyFeature1 is turned on
}
}
I some how need to hook into the MSTest pipeline and say if this attribute is present and the logic for MyFeature1 is turned off then don't run this test - Looked at dynamically adding the [Ignore] but with no luck.
This is running through VSTS and I could use [TestCategories] but I'd have to keep updating the pipeline to which feature is turned on/off which I don't want to do.
Any help or suggestions would be great!
c# unit-testing mstest featuretoggle
edited Nov 16 '18 at 13:52
Klors
2,39011636
asked Nov 16 '18 at 13:30
user1829226user1829226
205
add a comment |
Thanks in advance!
We have some Automation tests using the selenium web driver which are great and provide a really good regression pack.
The problem is now we have feature toggles in our code. So I need to say ignore these tests unless that feature toggle is turned On/ Off. I can't find anything really searching Google.
Ideally I don't want a 'if' statement at the top of the Feature tests but it looks like it's going to be the main way. My initial thoughts where to create a custom attribute
public class IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn : Attribute
{
public IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn(string featureToggleName)
{
FeatureToggleName = featureToggleName;
}
public string FeatureToggleName {get;}
}
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethod]
[IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn("MyFeature1")]
public void ItShould()
{
// only run if MyFeature1 is turned on
}
}
I some how need to hook into the MSTest pipeline and say if this attribute is present and the logic for MyFeature1 is turned off then don't run this test - Looked at dynamically adding the [Ignore] but with no luck.
This is running through VSTS and I could use [TestCategories] but I'd have to keep updating the pipeline to which feature is turned on/off which I don't want to do.
Any help or suggestions would be great!
c# unit-testing mstest featuretoggle
edited Nov 16 '18 at 13:52
Klors
2,39011636
asked Nov 16 '18 at 13:30
user1829226user1829226
205
Thanks in advance!
We have some Automation tests using the selenium web driver which are great and provide a really good regression pack.
The problem is now we have feature toggles in our code. So I need to say ignore these tests unless that feature toggle is turned On/ Off. I can't find anything really searching Google.
Ideally I don't want a 'if' statement at the top of the Feature tests but it looks like it's going to be the main way. My initial thoughts where to create a custom attribute
public class IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn : Attribute
{
public IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn(string featureToggleName)
{
FeatureToggleName = featureToggleName;
}
public string FeatureToggleName {get;}
}
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethod]
[IsFeatureFlagTurnedOn("MyFeature1")]
public void ItShould()
{
// only run if MyFeature1 is turned on
}
}
I some how need to hook into the MSTest pipeline and say if this attribute is present and the logic for MyFeature1 is turned off then don't run this test - Looked at dynamically adding the [Ignore] but with no luck.
This is running through VSTS and I could use [TestCategories] but I'd have to keep updating the pipeline to which feature is turned on/off which I don't want to do.
Any help or suggestions would be great!
c# unit-testing mstest featuretoggle
c# unit-testing mstest featuretoggle
edited Nov 16 '18 at 13:52
Klors
2,39011636
asked Nov 16 '18 at 13:30
user1829226user1829226
205
edited Nov 16 '18 at 13:52
Klors
2,39011636
asked Nov 16 '18 at 13:30
user1829226user1829226
205
edited Nov 16 '18 at 13:52
Klors
2,39011636
edited Nov 16 '18 at 13:52
Klors
2,39011636
edited Nov 16 '18 at 13:52
Klors
2,39011636
2,39011636
asked Nov 16 '18 at 13:30
user1829226user1829226
205
asked Nov 16 '18 at 13:30
user1829226user1829226
205
asked Nov 16 '18 at 13:30
user1829226user1829226
205
205
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
MSTest v2 now has a lot of extensibility points, and you can achieve this by extending the TestMethodAttribute. First we add two attribute arguments, a string for a property name and a Type that has the property. Then we override the Execute method and invoke the property via reflection. If the result is true, we'll execute the test as normal, otherwise we return an 'inconclusive` test result.
public class TestMethodWithConditionAttribute : TestMethodAttribute
{
public Type ConditionParentType { get; set; }
public string ConditionPropertyName { get; set; }
public TestMethodWithConditionAttribute(string conditionPropertyName, Type conditionParentType)
{
ConditionPropertyName = conditionPropertyName;
ConditionParentType = conditionParentType;
}
public override TestResult Execute(ITestMethod testMethod)
{
if (ConditionParentType.GetProperty(ConditionPropertyName, BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public)?.GetValue(null) is bool condiiton && condiiton)
{
return base.Execute(testMethod);
}
else
{
return new TestResult { new TestResult { Outcome = UnitTestOutcome.Inconclusive } };
}
}
}
Now we can use our new attribute like this:
[TestClass]
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethodWithCondition(nameof(Configuration.IsMyFeature1Enabled), typeof(Configuration))]
public void MyTest()
{
//...
}
}
public static class Configuration
{
public static bool IsMyFeature1Enabled => false;
}
The above is a very generic solution. You could also customize it a little more to your particular use case to perhaps avoid quite so much verbosity in the attribute declaration:
public class TestMethodForConfigAttribute : TestMethodAttribute
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public TestMethodForConfigAttribute(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public override TestResult Execute(ITestMethod testMethod)
{
if (IsConfigEnabled(Name))
{
return base.Execute(testMethod);
}
else
{
return new TestResult { new TestResult { Outcome = UnitTestOutcome.Inconclusive } };
}
}
public static bool IsConfigEnabled(string name)
{
//...
return false;
}
}
And use it like:
[TestClass]
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethodForConfig("MyFeature1")]
public void MyTest()
{
//...
}
}
answered Nov 17 '18 at 20:09
Dave MDave M
1,5661013
Great answer! #H5YR
– user1829226
Nov 19 '18 at 10:59
add a comment |
Based on my reading of this, you may need to use Assert.Inconclusive
answered Nov 16 '18 at 14:13
shahkalpeshshahkalpesh
29.5k24882
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53338872%2fhow-to-skip-a-unit-test-at-runtime%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
MSTest v2 now has a lot of extensibility points, and you can achieve this by extending the TestMethodAttribute. First we add two attribute arguments, a string for a property name and a Type that has the property. Then we override the Execute method and invoke the property via reflection. If the result is true, we'll execute the test as normal, otherwise we return an 'inconclusive` test result.
public class TestMethodWithConditionAttribute : TestMethodAttribute
{
public Type ConditionParentType { get; set; }
public string ConditionPropertyName { get; set; }
public TestMethodWithConditionAttribute(string conditionPropertyName, Type conditionParentType)
{
ConditionPropertyName = conditionPropertyName;
ConditionParentType = conditionParentType;
}
public override TestResult Execute(ITestMethod testMethod)
{
if (ConditionParentType.GetProperty(ConditionPropertyName, BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public)?.GetValue(null) is bool condiiton && condiiton)
{
return base.Execute(testMethod);
}
else
{
return new TestResult { new TestResult { Outcome = UnitTestOutcome.Inconclusive } };
}
}
}
Now we can use our new attribute like this:
[TestClass]
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethodWithCondition(nameof(Configuration.IsMyFeature1Enabled), typeof(Configuration))]
public void MyTest()
{
//...
}
}
public static class Configuration
{
public static bool IsMyFeature1Enabled => false;
}
The above is a very generic solution. You could also customize it a little more to your particular use case to perhaps avoid quite so much verbosity in the attribute declaration:
public class TestMethodForConfigAttribute : TestMethodAttribute
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public TestMethodForConfigAttribute(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public override TestResult Execute(ITestMethod testMethod)
{
if (IsConfigEnabled(Name))
{
return base.Execute(testMethod);
}
else
{
return new TestResult { new TestResult { Outcome = UnitTestOutcome.Inconclusive } };
}
}
public static bool IsConfigEnabled(string name)
{
//...
return false;
}
}
And use it like:
[TestClass]
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethodForConfig("MyFeature1")]
public void MyTest()
{
//...
}
}
answered Nov 17 '18 at 20:09
Dave MDave M
1,5661013
Great answer! #H5YR
– user1829226
Nov 19 '18 at 10:59
add a comment |
MSTest v2 now has a lot of extensibility points, and you can achieve this by extending the TestMethodAttribute. First we add two attribute arguments, a string for a property name and a Type that has the property. Then we override the Execute method and invoke the property via reflection. If the result is true, we'll execute the test as normal, otherwise we return an 'inconclusive` test result.
public class TestMethodWithConditionAttribute : TestMethodAttribute
{
public Type ConditionParentType { get; set; }
public string ConditionPropertyName { get; set; }
public TestMethodWithConditionAttribute(string conditionPropertyName, Type conditionParentType)
{
ConditionPropertyName = conditionPropertyName;
ConditionParentType = conditionParentType;
}
public override TestResult Execute(ITestMethod testMethod)
{
if (ConditionParentType.GetProperty(ConditionPropertyName, BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public)?.GetValue(null) is bool condiiton && condiiton)
{
return base.Execute(testMethod);
}
else
{
return new TestResult { new TestResult { Outcome = UnitTestOutcome.Inconclusive } };
}
}
}
Now we can use our new attribute like this:
[TestClass]
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethodWithCondition(nameof(Configuration.IsMyFeature1Enabled), typeof(Configuration))]
public void MyTest()
{
//...
}
}
public static class Configuration
{
public static bool IsMyFeature1Enabled => false;
}
The above is a very generic solution. You could also customize it a little more to your particular use case to perhaps avoid quite so much verbosity in the attribute declaration:
public class TestMethodForConfigAttribute : TestMethodAttribute
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public TestMethodForConfigAttribute(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public override TestResult Execute(ITestMethod testMethod)
{
if (IsConfigEnabled(Name))
{
return base.Execute(testMethod);
}
else
{
return new TestResult { new TestResult { Outcome = UnitTestOutcome.Inconclusive } };
}
}
public static bool IsConfigEnabled(string name)
{
//...
return false;
}
}
And use it like:
[TestClass]
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethodForConfig("MyFeature1")]
public void MyTest()
{
//...
}
}
answered Nov 17 '18 at 20:09
Dave MDave M
1,5661013
Great answer! #H5YR
– user1829226
Nov 19 '18 at 10:59
add a comment |
MSTest v2 now has a lot of extensibility points, and you can achieve this by extending the TestMethodAttribute. First we add two attribute arguments, a string for a property name and a Type that has the property. Then we override the Execute method and invoke the property via reflection. If the result is true, we'll execute the test as normal, otherwise we return an 'inconclusive` test result.
public class TestMethodWithConditionAttribute : TestMethodAttribute
{
public Type ConditionParentType { get; set; }
public string ConditionPropertyName { get; set; }
public TestMethodWithConditionAttribute(string conditionPropertyName, Type conditionParentType)
{
ConditionPropertyName = conditionPropertyName;
ConditionParentType = conditionParentType;
}
public override TestResult Execute(ITestMethod testMethod)
{
if (ConditionParentType.GetProperty(ConditionPropertyName, BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public)?.GetValue(null) is bool condiiton && condiiton)
{
return base.Execute(testMethod);
}
else
{
return new TestResult { new TestResult { Outcome = UnitTestOutcome.Inconclusive } };
}
}
}
Now we can use our new attribute like this:
[TestClass]
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethodWithCondition(nameof(Configuration.IsMyFeature1Enabled), typeof(Configuration))]
public void MyTest()
{
//...
}
}
public static class Configuration
{
public static bool IsMyFeature1Enabled => false;
}
The above is a very generic solution. You could also customize it a little more to your particular use case to perhaps avoid quite so much verbosity in the attribute declaration:
public class TestMethodForConfigAttribute : TestMethodAttribute
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public TestMethodForConfigAttribute(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public override TestResult Execute(ITestMethod testMethod)
{
if (IsConfigEnabled(Name))
{
return base.Execute(testMethod);
}
else
{
return new TestResult { new TestResult { Outcome = UnitTestOutcome.Inconclusive } };
}
}
public static bool IsConfigEnabled(string name)
{
//...
return false;
}
}
And use it like:
[TestClass]
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethodForConfig("MyFeature1")]
public void MyTest()
{
//...
}
}
answered Nov 17 '18 at 20:09
Dave MDave M
1,5661013
MSTest v2 now has a lot of extensibility points, and you can achieve this by extending the TestMethodAttribute. First we add two attribute arguments, a string for a property name and a Type that has the property. Then we override the Execute method and invoke the property via reflection. If the result is true, we'll execute the test as normal, otherwise we return an 'inconclusive` test result.
public class TestMethodWithConditionAttribute : TestMethodAttribute
{
public Type ConditionParentType { get; set; }
public string ConditionPropertyName { get; set; }
public TestMethodWithConditionAttribute(string conditionPropertyName, Type conditionParentType)
{
ConditionPropertyName = conditionPropertyName;
ConditionParentType = conditionParentType;
}
public override TestResult Execute(ITestMethod testMethod)
{
if (ConditionParentType.GetProperty(ConditionPropertyName, BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public)?.GetValue(null) is bool condiiton && condiiton)
{
return base.Execute(testMethod);
}
else
{
return new TestResult { new TestResult { Outcome = UnitTestOutcome.Inconclusive } };
}
}
}
Now we can use our new attribute like this:
[TestClass]
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethodWithCondition(nameof(Configuration.IsMyFeature1Enabled), typeof(Configuration))]
public void MyTest()
{
//...
}
}
public static class Configuration
{
public static bool IsMyFeature1Enabled => false;
}
The above is a very generic solution. You could also customize it a little more to your particular use case to perhaps avoid quite so much verbosity in the attribute declaration:
public class TestMethodForConfigAttribute : TestMethodAttribute
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public TestMethodForConfigAttribute(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public override TestResult Execute(ITestMethod testMethod)
{
if (IsConfigEnabled(Name))
{
return base.Execute(testMethod);
}
else
{
return new TestResult { new TestResult { Outcome = UnitTestOutcome.Inconclusive } };
}
}
public static bool IsConfigEnabled(string name)
{
//...
return false;
}
}
And use it like:
[TestClass]
public class MyTests
{
[TestMethodForConfig("MyFeature1")]
public void MyTest()
{
//...
}
}
answered Nov 17 '18 at 20:09
Dave MDave M
1,5661013
answered Nov 17 '18 at 20:09
Dave MDave M
1,5661013
answered Nov 17 '18 at 20:09
Dave MDave M
1,5661013
answered Nov 17 '18 at 20:09
Dave MDave M
1,5661013
1,5661013
Great answer! #H5YR
– user1829226
Nov 19 '18 at 10:59
add a comment |
Great answer! #H5YR
– user1829226
Nov 19 '18 at 10:59
Great answer! #H5YR
– user1829226
Nov 19 '18 at 10:59
Great answer! #H5YR
– user1829226
Nov 19 '18 at 10:59
add a comment |
Based on my reading of this, you may need to use Assert.Inconclusive
answered Nov 16 '18 at 14:13
shahkalpeshshahkalpesh
29.5k24882
add a comment |
Based on my reading of this, you may need to use Assert.Inconclusive
answered Nov 16 '18 at 14:13
shahkalpeshshahkalpesh
29.5k24882
add a comment |
Based on my reading of this, you may need to use Assert.Inconclusive
answered Nov 16 '18 at 14:13
shahkalpeshshahkalpesh
29.5k24882
Based on my reading of this, you may need to use Assert.Inconclusive
answered Nov 16 '18 at 14:13
shahkalpeshshahkalpesh
29.5k24882
answered Nov 16 '18 at 14:13
shahkalpeshshahkalpesh
29.5k24882
answered Nov 16 '18 at 14:13
shahkalpeshshahkalpesh
29.5k24882
answered Nov 16 '18 at 14:13
shahkalpeshshahkalpesh
29.5k24882
29.5k24882
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53338872%2fhow-to-skip-a-unit-test-at-runtime%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
