Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "Lyo/LDPTestSuiteExploration"
< Lyo
(→Pros and cons) |
(→Pros and cons) |
||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
* Flexible and extensible reporting of results | * Flexible and extensible reporting of results | ||
* Jena provides a common API for dealing with various RDF media types (Turtle, JSON-LD, RDF/XML) | * Jena provides a common API for dealing with various RDF media types (Turtle, JSON-LD, RDF/XML) | ||
| − | * IDE | + | * IDE integration |
''Cons:'' | ''Cons:'' | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
* Debugging test | * Debugging test | ||
| − | * RDF libraries: alternatives to rdfstore-js or N3.js ? | + | * RDF libraries: alternatives to rdfstore-js or N3.js? |
| − | * Generating HTML reports with ant and jasmine-node | + | * Generating HTML reports with ant and jasmine-node --junitreport |
== References == | == References == | ||
* [https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/b3683634c29f/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html W3C LDP Test cases] | * [https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/b3683634c29f/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html W3C LDP Test cases] | ||
* [http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing W3C LDP Testing page] | * [http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing W3C LDP Testing page] | ||
Revision as of 11:27, 1 April 2014
Page will gather various notes about how a LDP test suite may be implemented, with looking not just at the general needs of LDP server implementations but also how it can be leveraged for OSLC needs.
Options being explored
Sample test:
@Test(groups = { MUST }, dataProvider = MediaTypeDataProvider.NAME, dataProviderClass = MediaTypeDataProvider.class)
public void testCreateResource(String mediaType) throws URISyntaxException {
Model model = ModelFactory.createDefaultModel();
Resource resource = model.createResource("", model.createResource("http://example.com/ns#Bug"));
resource.addProperty(model.createProperty("http://example.com/ns#severity"), "High");
resource.addProperty(DC.title, "A very serious bug.");
resource.addProperty(DC.description, "Server won't start.");
Response postResponse = RestAssured
.given().contentType(mediaType).body(model, new RdfObjectMapper())
.expect().statusCode(HttpStatus.SC_CREATED)
.when().post(new URI(containerUri));
String location = postResponse.getHeader(LOCATION);
assertNotNull(location);
// Test it's a valid URI. Throws a URISyntaxException if not.
new URI(location);
}
Sample test:
frisby.create('MUST: POST new resource in text/turtle')
.addHeader('Content-Type', 'text/turtle')
.post(containerURI, null, {body: bugTurtle})
.expectStatus(201)
.after(function(err, res, body) {
createdResourceURI = res.headers['location'];
expect(createdResourceURI).toBeDefined();
})
.toss();
Pros and cons
TestNG
Pros:
- Tests can be organized into groups (for instance, MUST/SHOULD/MAY or by capability like "Container Tests" or "Paging")
- Groups can be included or excluded for test runs
- Groups can be used in reporting
- Tests can easily be parameterized (for instance, by media type)
- Flexible and extensible reporting of results
- Jena provides a common API for dealing with various RDF media types (Turtle, JSON-LD, RDF/XML)
- IDE integration
Cons:
- Tests are pass/fail. No native support for "warnings," for instance if a SHOULD or MAY test fails.
Frisby.js + jasmine-node
Pros:
- Lighter weight
- Might be more interesting to community
Cons:
- Less flexible reporting
- Difficult to chain HTTP calls in a single test, for instance GET + PUT (Frisby.js limitation)
- Tests are pass/fail
Still to explore:
- Debugging test
- RDF libraries: alternatives to rdfstore-js or N3.js?
- Generating HTML reports with ant and jasmine-node --junitreport