maybe when isntantiating testbox

Using Testbox is ok to use

expect()

without using

describe

and

it

? meaning just like an `assert()`:

function testExpectationExamples () {
		var message = "A custom message can be prepended to the error message!";

		// toBe( expected, [message] ) : Assert something is equal to each other, no case is required
		var value = "myValue";
		expect(value).toBe("myvalue", message);
		expect(value).toBe("myValue", message);
		expect(value).toBe("MYVALUE", message);
}

Anyone using testbox, you might like something I've been working on, a shareable bunch of tools, allows me to do things like this. New matchers, new helpers, easy to add into testbox, but saves lots of code, lots more readable, way more readable messages when tests do not pass. @Adam Cameron might have given me an idea or two 😉

var oResponse = deserializeJSON( event.getRenderedContent() );
expect( oResponse ).toBeStruct()
    .toHaveKeyWithCase( "error" )
    .toHaveKeyWithCase( "messages" );
expect( oResponse.error ).toBeFalse();                        
expect( oResponse.messages )
    .toBeArray()
    .toHaveLengthGTE( 1 );
    expect( oResponse.messages[1] ).toBe( "postPandaDocWebhookRecipientCompletedADocument Interception point announced" );

to

expect( event ).toHaveAPISuccessWithMessage(    "postPandaDocWebhookRecipientCompletedADocument Interception point announced" );

Yeah implementing one's own bespoke matchers is something ppl should always consider if it can give a name to a commonly-used expectation. The second version there is much clearer as to what the expectation is.

(https://testbox.ortusbooks.com/in-depth/expectations/custom-matchers)

I have to admit it's not something I have done. And I ought to have.

guess it's slightly OT, but which testing framework do people use for their javascript side of their cfml apps?

I believe I found a bug in cbplaywright v1.0.2 for ACF (I'm using ACF 2021.0.05). When I use the

route

helper function, I get an error message that states

Variable STRUCTVALUEARRAY is undefined

in

cbPlaywright\models\PlaywrightMixins.cfm

on line 73. That line is

var pathArray = structValueArray( arguments );

—

structValueArray

is not a function in ACF.

This looks like an interesting testing ide tool from JetBrains - seems like it's combining the browser, db and code ide all in one... https://www.jetbrains.com/aqua/

anyone know of a tool to compare junit test results, lucee's build outputs them, I'd like to be able to compare runs

qq for those of you using testbox in your ci/cd deployments and also using docker: do you use a non-finalized commandbox image so you can run commandbox with

testbox run

or do you launch your tests some other way?

I've been able to successfully write some integration and unit tests for an app that doesn't require authentication (hooray!). However, now I'm starting some tests on an app that does require authentication. Unit tests are still no problem, however, I'm struggling to figure out how to write an integration test when I need

cgi.remote_user

populated in

main.index

as I'm doing something like

userId = cgi.remote_user

and then passing

userID

into a function to retrieve data and then display it on the screen based on who is logged in. What is the best approach here?

@johnbarrett has left the channel

In Testbox, for integration testing, is it possible to mock objects that are called from a handler prior to the

execute

call of the handler?

Is it possible to mock out the response from an API call? I have a legacy method that I want to refactor and it has an API call within the body of that method. What I'd like to do is mock out the response from that

cfhttp

call so I can test the subsequent processing of the data returned. I've mocked the component with

createMock()

and mocked the result with

$property()

but when I run my test the API is called, which of course fails, because I'm not giving it all the info it needs to run. Is this type of thing impossible to test unless I wrap the API call in its own method, so I can mock that out completely? I'm cool with that if it's the only solution, I just wanted to have some tests in place before I did any refactoring. Opinions welcomed.

normal approach here would be to have an adapter around the

<cfhttp>

call, precisely for this; then you mock that out.

I'm running some testbox tests on CF as opposed to Lucee for the first time in ages. Does it surprise anyone that this works on Lucee but errors on CF?

expect(myQuery).toHaveKey("current_date")

Where

current_date

is a column of the query. Looking into it, it's here: https://github.com/Ortus-Solutions/TestBox/blob/v4.5.0/system/Assertion.cfc#L382

len( arguments.message ) ? arguments.message : "The key(s) [#arguments.key#] does not exist in the target object. Found keys are [#structKeyArray( arguments.target ).toString()#]"

It's barfing on

structKeyArray( arguments.target )

. The surprising thing to me is that this works on Lucee.

structKeyArray

should not accept a query 😕 The docs clearly say it takes a struct: https://docs.lucee.org/reference/functions/structkeyarray.html Why does Lucee do this shit? 😐

Hello guys, I'm new for testbox. I have a login cfc and has the login function. Inside of the login function I have checked the login attempts. If the login attempts more than 3 times with wrong password then In the code we have used cfthrow like

if( loginAttempt > 3) {

cfthrow message="your account may be locked."

}

So, In the testbox side how can I able to achieve the expectations? Could you please help me?

Is it possible to have testbox use the mintext reporter but also write junit XML to a file? I've tried

reporter=mintext outputFile=/path/to/file.xml outputFormats=junit

but it doesn't write the file. I'm using this in GitLab CI so I want to see the mintext results when viewing the pipeline, but GitLab also wants junit XML for one if its features to show when tests started failing.

New TestBox CLI has now been released: https://www.ortussolutions.com/blog/testbox-cli-1x-released

Is TestBox5 backwards compatible with MxUnit tests? I know (!), but there are sections in a project I am working on which still have MxUnit and are running in TestBox 4.x compat mode.

Found an issue with using

asyncAll

when doing given > when > then.

VSCode Extension for TestBox v2 Released today: https://www.ortussolutions.com/blog/testbox-vscode-extension-v200-released

Shouldn't the TESTBOX runner only load CFCs that extend testbox.system.BaseSpec? It seems to be loading all CFCs in the specified dir structure, and looking for tests in them. It's a trivial problem, but we have a a fixtures class adjacent to the test class that uses it for the sake of convenience, and that fixtures class is being listed in the test output as having no tests. Well... yes... but it's not a test spec class so it shouldn't even be looked at, should it? I had a look through Jira and didn't find anything touching on this.

Ok Testing Folks! We have had this feature in the books for many years and it's now in alpha in the

be.

Welcome to the world of TestBox Modules!! Hierarchical Modules for Testing Pleasures: https://ortussolutions.atlassian.net/browse/TESTBOX-377 Please try it out and let me know how we can improve it!

New TestBox Release: https://www.ortussolutions.com/blog/testbox-v53-release

Bit of a cross post from the box slack so I apologise for anyone seeing this twice... I use a beanfactory (originally DI1 now Wirebox) to wire up dependancies in my unit tests. This is not a ColdBox app. So I setup the beanfactory with mocks for each of the dependancies and then get the wired up subject under test from the beanfactory. This has worked great for years (I like it as it's also testing the syntax to wire in the dependancies is correct), however with Wirebox 7 it no longer works. So how do people wire up dependancies? Do you just manually call the setters (with mocks)?

For some strange reason, all my tests that existing in a subdirectory of

/tests

now respond with...