Difference between revisions of "FAIL GRACEFULLY"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Topic titles in capital letters) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
# <span style="font-size: 16px">One product I was testing could fail in a crash of the whole system. The information at the time of the crash should be preserved (logging, crashdumps) but I also wanted to continue the testing, otherwise there would only be 1 failure over the whole weekend. When the test framework detected such a failure it collected all the necessary information, stored it in a secure place, and then resetted the whole system. The system was a medical device (consisting of software but also electronics and mechanics), the reset was done by switching off and on the mains supply, triggered by the framework. This way we were able to collect several failure situations over the weekend.</span> | # <span style="font-size: 16px">One product I was testing could fail in a crash of the whole system. The information at the time of the crash should be preserved (logging, crashdumps) but I also wanted to continue the testing, otherwise there would only be 1 failure over the whole weekend. When the test framework detected such a failure it collected all the necessary information, stored it in a secure place, and then resetted the whole system. The system was a medical device (consisting of software but also electronics and mechanics), the reset was done by switching off and on the mains supply, triggered by the framework. This way we were able to collect several failure situations over the weekend.</span> | ||
# <span style="font-size: 16px">The same product consisted of a generator. This generator was used by several automated test cases. It could happen that this generator overheated, resulting in failing test cases. Of course the failing generator was intended functionality (otherwise it would be damaged). The framework detected whether the generator was too hot, and selected test cases to be executed which were not relying on the generator. In the meantime the generator could cool down. The framework also detected when the generator was operational again, and other test cases could be scheduled for execution. This way the failing situation could be dealt with, resulting in optimal system-under-test usage.</span> | # <span style="font-size: 16px">The same product consisted of a generator. This generator was used by several automated test cases. It could happen that this generator overheated, resulting in failing test cases. Of course the failing generator was intended functionality (otherwise it would be damaged). The framework detected whether the generator was too hot, and selected test cases to be executed which were not relying on the generator. In the meantime the generator could cool down. The framework also detected when the generator was operational again, and other test cases could be scheduled for execution. This way the failing situation could be dealt with, resulting in optimal system-under-test usage.</span> | ||
| − | <br /> <span style="font-size: 16px">If you have used this pattern, please | + | <br /> <br /> |
| + | |||
| + | <span style="font-size: 16px">If you have also used this pattern and would like to contribute your experience to the wiki, please go to [[Feedback]] to submit your experience or comment.</span><br /> <br /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <span style="font-size: 14px">.................................................................................................................[[Main Page]] / Back to [[Execution Patterns]] / Back to [[Test Automation Patterns]]</span></div> | ||
Latest revision as of 16:03, 21 August 2018
.................................................................................................................Main Page / Back to Execution Patterns / Back to Test Automation Patterns
Pattern summary
If a test fails it should restore the system and the environment so that the successive tests are not affected.
Category
Execution
Context
This pattern is applicable if you want your test automation to run unattended, and where the system being tested is mature and you are not expecting a lot of failures.
This pattern is not appropriate if you will need to do failure analysis after a test has completed (or failed), or for one-off scripts.
Description
See to it that when a test fails, you clean-up and exit, so that the next tests can be performed normally.
Implementation
Build in your scripts error-catching functionality that resets the system and the environment and exits the failed test.
Potential problems
This pattern is the opposite approach to FRESH SETUP, where the tests don't clean up after they have been run.
Issues addressed by this pattern
Experiences
Bryan Bakker says: I have two experiences for this pattern:
- One product I was testing could fail in a crash of the whole system. The information at the time of the crash should be preserved (logging, crashdumps) but I also wanted to continue the testing, otherwise there would only be 1 failure over the whole weekend. When the test framework detected such a failure it collected all the necessary information, stored it in a secure place, and then resetted the whole system. The system was a medical device (consisting of software but also electronics and mechanics), the reset was done by switching off and on the mains supply, triggered by the framework. This way we were able to collect several failure situations over the weekend.
- The same product consisted of a generator. This generator was used by several automated test cases. It could happen that this generator overheated, resulting in failing test cases. Of course the failing generator was intended functionality (otherwise it would be damaged). The framework detected whether the generator was too hot, and selected test cases to be executed which were not relying on the generator. In the meantime the generator could cool down. The framework also detected when the generator was operational again, and other test cases could be scheduled for execution. This way the failing situation could be dealt with, resulting in optimal system-under-test usage.
If you have also used this pattern and would like to contribute your experience to the wiki, please go to Feedback to submit your experience or comment.