I wanted to start looking at alternatives to our current set of cucumber feature tests. At the moment on the web team we're using using FireWatir and Capybara. So I though I'd take at look at what was available in Node.js. Many people think it's strange that a .Net shop would use a something written for testing Ruby or even consider something that isn't from the .Net community. Personally I think it's a benefit to truly look at something form the outside in.  Should it matter what you're using to drive your end product or what language your using to test it? Not really. So what are the motivations for moving away from Ruby, Capybara and FireWatir? In a word 'flaky', we've had heaps of issues getting our feature tests, AATs and smoke tests reliable. When it comes to testing, consistency should be king. They should be as solid as your unit tests.  If they fail you want to know that for definite you've broken something, rather than thinking it's a problem with the webdriver. It is with this aim in mind that I started looking at the following. Cucumber.js is definitely in it's infancy, there's lots of stuff missing but there's enough there to get going. Zombie.js is a headless browser, it claims to be insanely fast, no complaints here. First up we got something working with the current implementation of cucumber-js https://github.com/antonydenyer/zombiejsplayground. The progress formatter works fine and the usual "you can implement step definitions for undefined steps" are a real help. Interestingly rather than requiring zombie.js in our step definitions we ended up going down the route of implementing our own DSL inside world.js. We could have used another DSL like capybara to protect us from changing the browser/driver we use. This is currently done with our Ruby implementation, the problem is that we've ending up implementing our own hacks to get round the limitations/flakiness of selnium/webdriver and to date we have never 'just swapped out the driver' to see what happens when they run against chrome/ie. That said should you be using cucumber tests to test the browser? I don't think you should. With that in mind we ended up implementing directly against zombie.js from our own DSL. Extending cucmber-js https://github.com/antonydenyer/cucumber-js There are a lot things yet to be implemented in cucmber.js one that gives me great satisfaction is the pretty formatter. Look everything is green!  It's no where near ready for production but you do get a nice pretty formatter. Thanks to Raoul Millais for helping out with command line parsing and general hand holding around JavaScript first steps.

Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 16:14

Over the last month we've started using ServiceStack for a couple of our api endpoints. We're hosting these projects on a debian squeeze vm using nginx and mono. We ran into various problems along the way. Here's a breakdown of what we found and how we solved the issues we ran into. Hopefully you'll find this useful. (We'll cover deployment/infrastructure details in a second post.)

Overriding the defaults

Some of the defaults for ServiceStack are in my opinion not well suited to writing an api. This is probably down to the frameworks desire to be a complete web framework. Here's our current default implementation of AppHost:


For me, the biggest annoyance was trying to find the DefaultContentType setting. I found some of the settings unintuitive to find, but it's not like you have to do it very often!

Timing requests with StatsD

As you can see, we've added a StatsD feature which was very easy to add. It basically times how long each request took and logs it to statsD. Here's how we did it:


It would have been nicer if we could wrap the request handler but that kind of pipeline is foreign to the framework and as such you need to subscribe to the begin and end messages. There's probably a better way of recording the time spent but hey ho it works for us.

Sunday, September 16, 2012 - 11:31

At 7digital we use Ajax to update our basket without needing to refresh the page. This provides a smoother experience for the user, but makes it a little more effort to automate our acceptance tests with [Watir](http://wtr.rubyforge.org/). Using timeouts is one way to wait for the basket to render, but it has two issues. If the timeout is too high, it forces all your tests to run slowly even if the underlying callback responds quickly. However if the timeout is too low, you risk intermittent fails any time the callback responds slowly. To avoid this you can use the [Watir `wait_until` method](http://wtr.rubyforge.org/rdoc/classes/Watir/Waiter.html#M000343), to poll for a situation where you know the callback has succeeded. This is more inline with how a real user will behave. ### Example

Friday, September 14, 2012 - 13:21

At 7digital we use [Cucumber](http://cukes.info/) and [Watir](http://wtr.rubyforge.org/) for running acceptance tests on some of our websites. These tests can help greatly in spotting problems with configuration, databases, load balancing, etc that unit testing misses. But because the tests exercise the whole system, from the browser all the way through the the database, they can tend be flakier than unit tests. Then can fail one minute and work the next, which can make debugging them a nightmare. So, to make the task of spotting the cause of failing acceptance tests easier, how about we set up Cucumber to take a screenshot of the desktop (and therefore browser) any time a scenario fails. ## Install Screenshot Software The first thing we need to do is install something that can take screenshots. The simplest solution I found is a tiny little windows app called [SnapIt](http://90kts.com/blog/2008/capturing-screenshots-in-watir/). It takes a single screenshot of the primary screen and saves it to a location of your choice. No more, no less. * [Download SnapIt](http://90kts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/snapit.exe) and save it a known location (e.g.

Monday, September 3, 2012 - 11:51

[TeamCity](http://www.jetbrains.com/teamcity/) is a great continuous integration server, and has brilliant built in support for running [NUnit](http://www.nunit.org/) tests. The web interface updates automatically as each test is run, and gives immediate feedback on which tests have failed without waiting for the entire suite to finish. It also keeps track of tests over multiple builds, showing you exactly when each test first failed, how often they fail etc. If like me you are using [Cucumber](http://cukes.info/) to run your acceptance tests, wouldn't it be great to get the same level of TeamCity integration for every Cucumber test. Well now you can, using the `TeamCity::Cucumber::Formatter` from the TeamCity 5.0 EAP release. JetBrains, the makers of TeamCity, released a [blog post demostrating the Cucumber test integration](http://blogs.jetbrains.com/ruby/2009/08/testing-rubymine-with-cucumber/), but without any details in how to set it up yourself. So I'll take you through it here.