Suite descriptions are not aggregated

Consider the following test scenario:

create or replace package x is

   --%suite(suite x)
   --%suitepath(foo.bar)

   --%test(feature a)
   --%disabled
   procedure test_a;

   --%test(feature b)
   --%disabled
   procedure test_b;

end;
/

create or replace package y is

   --%suite(suite y)
   --%suitepath(foo.bar)

   --%test(feature c)
   --%disabled
   procedure test_c;

   --%test(feature d)
   --%disabled
   procedure test_d;

end;
/

Running the following code in the worksheet

set serveroutput on size unlimited 
execute ut.run('plscope:foo');

produces a result similar to:

foo
  bar
    suite y
      feature c [0 sec] (DISABLED)
      feature d [0 sec] (DISABLED)
    suite x
      feature a [0 sec] (DISABLED)
      feature b [0 sec] (DISABLED)
 
Finished in .008275 seconds
4 tests, 0 failed, 0 errored, 4 disabled, 0 warning(s)

In the realtime reporter the result looks like this:

I see the following problems:

The suite description is suite y for the nodes foo, bar, y. It's correct for x only. For the other nodes foo and bar the description should be aggregated. Either something like suite y; suite x (order according position in the tree).
The option Show description (if present) is not honored for the nodes x and y (see also output of the worksheet).
- suite x should be shown instead of x
- suite y should be shown instead of y

The pre-run event document in this case looks as follows:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<event type="pre-run">
  <items>
    <suite id="foo">
      <name>foo</name>
      <items>
        <suite id="foo.bar">
          <name>bar</name>
          <items>
            <suite id="foo.bar.y">
              <name>y</name>
              <description>suite y</description>
              <items>
                <test id="foo.bar.y.test_c">
                  <executableType>test</executableType>
                  <ownerName>SCOTT</ownerName>
                  <objectName>y</objectName>
                  <procedureName>test_c</procedureName>
                  <disabled>true</disabled>
                  <name>test_c</name>
                  <description>feature c</description>
                  <testNumber>1</testNumber>
                </test>
                <test id="foo.bar.y.test_d">
                  <executableType>test</executableType>
                  <ownerName>SCOTT</ownerName>
                  <objectName>y</objectName>
                  <procedureName>test_d</procedureName>
                  <disabled>true</disabled>
                  <name>test_d</name>
                  <description>feature d</description>
                  <testNumber>2</testNumber>
                </test>
              </items>
            </suite>
            <suite id="foo.bar.x">
              <name>x</name>
              <description>suite x</description>
              <items>
                <test id="foo.bar.x.test_a">
                  <executableType>test</executableType>
                  <ownerName>SCOTT</ownerName>
                  <objectName>x</objectName>
                  <procedureName>test_a</procedureName>
                  <disabled>true</disabled>
                  <name>test_a</name>
                  <description>feature a</description>
                  <testNumber>3</testNumber>
                </test>
                <test id="foo.bar.x.test_b">
                  <executableType>test</executableType>
                  <ownerName>SCOTT</ownerName>
                  <objectName>x</objectName>
                  <procedureName>test_b</procedureName>
                  <disabled>true</disabled>
                  <name>test_b</name>
                  <description>feature b</description>
                  <testNumber>4</testNumber>
                </test>
              </items>
            </suite>
          </items>
        </suite>
      </items>
    </suite>
  </items>
  <totalNumberOfTests>4</totalNumberOfTests>
</event>

It shows that the following nodes do not have a description:

foo
foo.bar

This means that instead of aggregating just an null value for description would be the better solution. It would reflect the utPLSQL model.

add test for to reproduce issue #126

exclude nested elements in XMLtools.getElementNode

add test to reproduce issue #126

exclude nested elements in XMLtools.getElementNode

Merge pull request #130 from utPLSQL/bugfix/issue-126-suite-descripti…

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Suite descriptions are not aggregated #126

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Suite descriptions are not aggregated #126

Description

Activity

PhilippSalvisberg commented on Jan 4, 2021

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions