Difference between revisions of "CHAINED TESTS"
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
''<span style="font-size: 16px">[[LONG SET-UP]]</span>'' | ''<span style="font-size: 16px">[[LONG SET-UP]]</span>'' | ||
=<span style="font-size: 16px">'''Experiences'''</span>= | =<span style="font-size: 16px">'''Experiences'''</span>= | ||
| − | <span style="font-size: 16px">If you have used this pattern, please | + | |
| + | <span style="font-size: 16px">If you have used this pattern and would like to contribute your experience to the wiki, please go to [[Experiences]] to submit your experience or comment.</span><br /> <br /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <span style="font-size: 14px">.................................................................................................................[[Main Page]] / Back to [[Design Patterns]] / Back to [[Test Automation Patterns]]</span></div> | ||
Revision as of 15:59, 3 July 2018
Pattern summary
Automate the tests so that they run in a predefined sequence.
Category
Design
Context
Use this pattern when tests need a very long setup. If possible avoid it
Description
You automate the tests so that they run in a predefined sequence. Each test generates the initial conditions for the following ones so that you have to do the set-up only once.
Implementation
You leave the Software Under Test (SUT) as is after each test, but before you start the next test you check that the expected initial conditions are really met (the preceding tests could have failed).
Another way to avoid a long set-up for every test case is to use a SHARED SETUP that is set-up before your tests run. Each test cleans up after it is run so that the next tests can start with a clean fixture.
Potential problems
Avoid this pattern if you don’t want to get the issue INTERDEPENDENT TEST CASES
Issues addressed by this pattern
Experiences
If you have used this pattern and would like to contribute your experience to the wiki, please go to Experiences to submit your experience or comment.