Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow undefined and pending steps to not fail #862

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 13, 2019
Merged

Conversation

damianszczepanik
Copy link
Owner

Issue #692

@damianszczepanik
Copy link
Owner Author

With this change user can configure which statuses won't fail scenario and later feature. As presented, even not all steps are passed, scenario remains passed.
skipped

@damianszczepanik
Copy link
Owner Author

This change introduces most wanted feature that allows to treat undefined/skipped steps as passed and thus not fail scenario. Please review and let me know if this is what you expect!

@a1dutch @SteveDonie @laxersaz @ransom4real @silviatejera @sbpk516 @mpkorstanje @imtiazhossain @plank87 @kth13 @svsforsuccess @maultosar @LucasSq @jess8147 @KLBonn @kalyankp @UltimateGeek @ptrthomas @iragoubi @aamol

@imtiazhossain
Copy link

Thanks!

@mpkorstanje
Copy link
Contributor

In Cucumber this is called strict/no-strict. By default Cucumber run in no-strict mode. Perhaps rather then selecting which statuses are passed you can provide a single strict flag. That way the report andCucumberi use the same terminology.

@damianszczepanik
Copy link
Owner Author

I haven't use default mode I've been using strict. This is valuable comment and I will try to make it easy to use for everyone who know how strict mode works and for those who like to decide which statuses should fail scenario and which don't.

@iragoubi
Copy link

iragoubi commented Aug 6, 2019

Thanks, when will this configuration be available on maven-cucumber-reports ?

@damianszczepanik
Copy link
Owner Author

The plan stays as: test, write unit test, release this project and then upgrade Jenkins plugin and others.

@SteveDonie
Copy link

Excellent! Much excitement from me.

@a1dutch
Copy link

a1dutch commented Aug 9, 2019

@damianszczepanik agree about the strict flag, this is standard cucumber flag and should be the default behaviour.

Just supporting the strict mode might be a simpler option, cucumber hasn't seen the need to add any additional configuration for what status's are failed.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Aug 13, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #862 into master will decrease coverage by 0.47%.
The diff coverage is 68.75%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #862      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     97.32%   96.84%   -0.48%     
+ Complexity      486      485       -1     
============================================
  Files            48       48              
  Lines          1045     1046       +1     
  Branches         85       85              
============================================
- Hits           1017     1013       -4     
- Misses           17       21       +4     
- Partials         11       12       +1
Impacted Files Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
.../java/net/masterthought/cucumber/json/Element.java 100% <100%> (ø) 22 <0> (ø) ⬇️
.../java/net/masterthought/cucumber/json/Feature.java 100% <100%> (ø) 37 <0> (ø) ⬇️
...java/net/masterthought/cucumber/Configuration.java 94.64% <40%> (-5.36%) 33 <1> (+1)
...erthought/cucumber/json/support/StatusCounter.java 92% <77.77%> (-8%) 11 <1> (+1)
...mber/json/deserializers/EmbeddingDeserializer.java 88.88% <0%> (-2.42%) 5% <0%> (-1%)
...ava/net/masterthought/cucumber/json/Embedding.java 94.11% <0%> (-1.13%) 22% <0%> (-2%)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ed0713e...87f9082. Read the comment docs.

@kasunalwis
Copy link

kasunalwis commented Sep 17, 2019

In which version we have this fixed. I tried with 0.9.5.RC1 but didnt work

@damianszczepanik
Copy link
Owner Author

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants