The checks Selenium performs usually come in two flavours: assertFoo and verifyFoo. I understand that assertFoo fails the whole testcase whereas verifyFoo just notes the failure of that check and lets the testcase carry on.
So with verifyFoo I can get test results for multiple conditions even if one of them fails. On the other hand, one failing check for me is enough to know, that my edits broke the code and I have to correct them anyway.
In which concrete situations do you prefer one of the two ways of checking over the other? What are your experiences that motivate your view?
Assert: If the assert condition is true then the program control will execute the next test step but if the condition is false, the execution will stop and further test step will not be executed. whereas, Verify: There won't be any halt in the test execution even though the verify condition is true or false.
In the case of the “Assert” command, as soon as the validation fails the execution of that particular test method is stopped. Following that the test method is marked as failed. Whereas, in the case of “Verify”, the test method continues execution even after the failure of an assertion statement.
Unlike hard asserts; soft asserts do not throw any exception on the failure of the assert and continue to the next step even after encountering an assert. Soft assert collects all the asserts encountered when running the @Test methods.
Mastering XPath and CSS Selector for SeleniumWe can verify the color of a webelement in Selenium webdriver using the getCssValue method and then pass color as a parameter to it. This returnsthe color in rgba() format.
I would use an assert()
as an entry point (a "gateway") into the test. Only if the assertion passes, will the verify()
checks be executed. For instance, if I'm checking the contents of a window resulting from a series of actions, I would assert()
the presence of the window, and then verify()
the contents.
An example I use often - checking the estimates in a jqgrid: assert()
the presence of the grid, and verify()
the estimates.
I've come across a few problems which were overcome by using
assert*()
instead of
verify*()
For example, in form validations if you want to check a form element, the use of
verifyTrue(...);
will just pass the test even if the string is not present in the form.
If you replace assert with verify, then it works as expected.
I strongly recommend to go with using assert*()
.
If you are running Selenium tests on a production system and want to make sure you are logged-in as a test user e.g., instead of your personal account, it is a good idea to first assert that the right user is logged in before triggering any actions that would have unintended effects, if used by accident.
Usually you should stick to one assertion per test case, and in this case the difference boils down to any tear-down code which must be run. But you should probably put this in an @After
method anyway.
I've had quite a few problems with the verify*()
methods in SeleneseTestBase (e.g. they use System.out.println()
, and com.thoughtworks.selenium.SeleneseTestBase.assertEquals(Object, Object)
just doesn't do what you expect) so I've stopped using them.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With