Are you sure that this test failure is this test function even? Why does it not compare this - and the assert error message actually shows a populated list with the names read - that should be the correct return of the function questao.You're using pytest, right? (Pytest modifies assert of Python to give error messages with the compared values - the assert alone would not show the two values being compared).In the complete exit you have in the terminal must have the name and the right point of the test function that is failing - it is possibly another. If not, please update your question with the module code of your test function -including with imports. And confirm if you are using pytest or another third library to run the tests.

Your search is incorrect, when capturing by the id dropdown-menu-profile you are taking the entire text of the div. To take only the text of the paragraph you would need to be more specific by taking the children elements of the div or then using the xpath. Example of xpath://div[@id='dropdown-menu-profile']//p

If you are using an older version of C+= you have to resort to some tricks to get the expected result. https://stackoverflow.com/a/37617906/221800 with one of them. It has https://baptiste-wicht.com/posts/2015/07/simulate-static_if-with-c11c14.html that indicate tricks. Or you can do this:static_assert(is_arithmetic_v<T>::value, "Must be arithmetic"); If you're already using C++ 17 and need to do more than one assert. has something in language that helps a lot that is https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/if . Example:template<class T> struct dependent_false : std::false_type {}; template<class T> T soma(const T& x, const T& y) { if constexpr (std::is_arithmetic_v<T>) return x + y; else // faz alguma coisa aqui static_assert(dependent_false<T>::value, "Must be arithmetic"); } https://github.com/maniero/SOpt/blob/master/CPP/Template/IsNumber.cpp . https://www.meetingcpp.com/blog/items/How-if-constexpr-simplifies-your-code-in-Cpp17.html http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2016/p0128r1.html https://hackernoon.com/a-tour-of-c-17-if-constexpr-3ea62f62ff65 https://tech.io/playgrounds/2205/7-features-of-c17-that-will-simplify-your-code/constexpr-if And finally if you can wait for C++ 20 you can make use of https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/constraints which is the ultimate solution. The above options are palliative because language cannot express in code restrictions on the use of the gabaritated variable directly.

The reason even has to do with performance yes.The function http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/error/assert can be switched on or off with a compilation policy. So while testing you let it on, so if a programming error occurs, i.e. in this case someone used as argument in the call of this function (or operator, which does not cease to be a function) a value that it could not be used.After the ready application one can turn off use and gain space and processing.Obviously you can only turn off if it was very well tested and there is sure that there will never be a call with wrong values. Although if this happens the maximum that will occur is the breaking application, which is what assert() would also, after all it always ends the application immediately if the condition is false.When the application can be link dynamically (DLL for example) and do not have control of what will call its function usually has to leave assert().The use of assert() it is interesting also because you can replace it with a more powerful version or do something specific you need.So when generating the execution for even production, it can replace the assert() by a code that makes something different from breaking, can log the error and show a nice message to the user, who knows until it starts again.It has more details despite being a little different because it's another language in https://pt.stackoverflow.com/q/166719/101 and https://pt.stackoverflow.com/q/128991/101 .

DefinitionIt's a function of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assertion_(software_development) . It exists in almost all languages. Some have more sophisticated and alternative mechanisms.Assertion - Proposition which is thought to be true http://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/asser%C3%A7%C3%A3o .So it's a resource to prove if something is true. It is not a decision mechanism (question) as it is a if. It's just a statement.When to useWe use it when we expect it to always be true. In one if We hope that both things will happen. No assert a false result indicates problems. It's a documentation mechanism, not the algorithm itself. His only goal is to say whether or not something matches the expectation that the programmer wrote there.In PHP I do not see people using. The type of application (doesn't need maximum robustness, after all are scripts, right?) and the kind of typical PHP programmer does not care much about it.We don't use it. if because this code is not part of the application, it is part of the "test" of the application. The goal is another. In production she "does not exist". In development helps identify situations where the code is not behaving as expected.This function should be used only for formal tests or for any debugging tests. So she can be turned off. Then in production it should not run, and it will not cost (in PHP technically it has because it will need to be interpreted, but not executed, but that cost is/should be negligible). Obviously some tools can be used to automate the verification process.Mechanism is different from resultThat's what I said in one https://pt.stackoverflow.com/a/165499/101 . Programmers need to dissociate the idea of a Boolean expression and if walk together. In this case the Boolean expression serves to say for the programmer if the code is ok, but it is the used mechanism that does it. The Boolean expression only generates a result, what will be done with it is the subject of the programmer. Can be used in:a calculation,in a flow control instruction that makes a decision,just print,or if you just want to know if that is correct,etc.Validity and quality of useThe quality of the help she gives to test is as good as the programmer's ability to identify what can go wrong. Naïve programmers tend to find themselves filled with assert() or other similar things the code will be bulletproof (as occurs with the exception). Relapso programmers don't care about tests of any kind. Pragmatic programmers know when to use every thing.This is obtained by studying each resource, seeing use in good third-party codes and using your own experience. It is normal to have difficulty using at first not only the assert()almost anything in programming. Therefore it is always interesting to have quality mentors to go showing in each case whether it is doing right or not.Tests and contractsNote that this has nothing to do with https://pt.stackoverflow.com/q/19177/101 and other existing tests outside the code. But asserts They are usually used within them.It can be seen as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_contract poor. Therefore it is very common to be used to evaluate function parameters, results that they return, or if the state of an object came out of a valid situation at some point. In some languages it is part of the language and helps the compiler produce better codes. In a dynamically typed language is more important yet and type verification is one of the greatest uses.An example would be to check if the received parameter is within a range of values that is expected. Remembering that differs from if because in this case if a number is out of the track means that there was a programming error, it was not an expected situation. If formal tests are done properly in every application, you may find a problem using that function before sending it to production.AbuseSome people use as code control in production. This can be considered an abuse, even though it works. In general the execution is interrupted, as an exception, after all if a assert is false, there is a programming error that needs to be fixed. It is possible even to throw an exception optionally.When you do this you cannot disable your use, then assert passed to be used in place of if, mixed mechanisms, used the test where it should be the logic of the algorithm.Reading supplement https://pt.stackoverflow.com/q/128991/101 https://pt.stackoverflow.com/q/127118/101 https://pt.stackoverflow.com/q/85323/101 https://pt.stackoverflow.com/q/94/101

The class https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.diagnostics.debug.aspx has several methods of Assert that you can use for this.In your case, for example:Debug.Assert(value, "Value is invalid") The calls to Debug.Assert They are only compiled if you're compiling with Debug's option; if you make the compilation on the Release option, the calls become a no-op, which makes them very interesting during development, but without impacting performance when you launch your product.

raise is intended to invoke a Exception at the right time. In the same way as other languages when we use throw new Exception, the exception is invoked at the time we call raise.Example: raise Exception('Invoquei') Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> Exception: Invoquei the assert in turn makes a statement and, if it fails (i.e., returns False), invokes an exception.This statement occurs as follows: If it is true, the next line continues to be executed normally. If it is False, the exception is released, with the message that you have passed as criticism of the statement failure.Example:a = 1 + 1 assert a == 2, 'Conta está errada' assert a == 3, 'Conta está errada' #Exceção é lançada aqui, pois é falso Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> AssertionError: Conta errada I believe that in your case, because it is a simple example, the logic used for the criticism of the argument passed to the function, makes no difference. Both are appropriate.In my view the most impactful difference between the two is the fact that the assert will always need a returning condition False to invoke an exception. O raise in turn, it is the mechanism responsible exactly for calling an exception, regardless of the condition.An example of what I'm talking about raise does not need condition is as follows: Imagine a class you created to be always derived and have a certain overwritten method. If it is not overwritten, I need to throw an exception warning that it is necessary to overwrite it. I would not use assert, but raise.See: class abstrata(object): def metodo(self): raise "Esse método precisa ser implementado na classe filha" class concreta(abstrata): def metodo(self): return "implementei com sucesso" Note that in this scenario raise has its purpose completely different from that assert, since I simply want to inform an independent error of conditions

Yes, at first it is quite correct, assertions should be standard in any method that is desired robustness. Of course, it may not be, it depends on the purpose of the person. It is not correct to use anything without properly understanding that and that is what you really want. You can't use things on the auto and think it's right because it works.For this specific case it would be better even if the language did not accept a null value by default and so the tip itself would take care of it, so whenever the typing resolves, a unit test is unnecessary, as if the typing does not solve perhaps a assertion can solve.If this is done well, it is possible only to take a cover test to ensure that the code has been tested in all situations and after you have everything in order you can turn off the assertion without incurring in processing cost, or if you prefer and it is necessary to leave the check during execution and throw an exception when something wrong is passed to the method.If you want the verification to be present in all situations there is no assertion and the most correct is a standard language verification.Because not working on Java day by day I don't know if you have better assertion methods than that used, I don't really know exactly what this method is since several libraries can have one with the same name, but assertion is a very valid and useful technique, I would like people to use more.You can understand more in https://pt.stackoverflow.com/q/166719/101 .I imagine I'm talking about unit test that's the correct term.

NO, don't litter tests with loads of asserts. Have one test that you have reached the correct page. Other tests should navigate to the page and then perform additional actions which are tested. If navigating to the page actually fails the tests that do that in order to reach their pages or elements will fail. Ideally whatever pre-conditions are required are set up in the test itself to avoid needing to navigate and perform other actions to set up the test. However this kind of setup ('grey box testing') is usually much harder than just navigating to the page and takes a much more mature testing model Another example is authentication. Hundreds of tests may require authentication, but if auth fails you don't want to have hundreds of failures. This is usualky the place when grey box testing starts, for example coming up witha method to provide an dummy auth token that can be used for the test.

assertEquals will give you more information for example if you compare a and b, it will show which one is bigger. But assertTrue will only show the result, like expected true, found false.

your text has a special character so you cannot convert to float see the error ValueError: could not convert string to float: Total Amount: $6.00 so the value of subtotalamt is Total Amount: $6.00 use float(subTotalAmt.split('$')[1]) this get only the number part Note: This will check only the amount

I found an solution for comparing larger objects (specific to my case, since it's actually part of FluentAssertions). https://fluentassertions.com/objectgraphs/ From the documentation, it compares with a recursion of 10 levels and it it's used like this: orderDto.Should().BeEquivalentTo(order); I submit that a best practice to compare large objects is to use such a library if the objects don't have an equality comparer. This way you don't alter business code (by adding methods for testing) and not need multiple asserts in a test.

I would consider the whole idea of verifying such logic from the UI perspective as a bad practice. See info on test pyramid. If you need to test the calculation logic of your service - you can do that on the unit and/or integration testing level, which would be much easier to do, since you will be free from external dependencies in that case. UI representation (the fact that some value passed from a backend is shown in your page) can be verified on the front-end side by unit test as well. With Selenium you can verify the basic e2e flow without digging into the details.

Yes, if you want to use nUnit the Assert.That is the future, no new features will be added to the old model according to the documentation on GitHub: In NUnit 3.0, assertions are written primarily using the Assert.That method, which takes constraint objects as an argument. We call this the Constraint Model of assertions. In earlier versions of NUnit, a separate method of the Assert class was used for each different assertion. This Classic Model is still supported but since no new features have been added to it for some time, the constraint-based model must be used in order to have full access to NUnit's capabilities. https://github.com/nunit/docs/wiki/Assertions What you call Evaluation methods is what NUnit calls the Constraint Model of assertions, a full list of constraints with code examples can be found here. You could consider to just keep using the Classic NUnit Assert Model, as it might make porting your code easier.

Hi size() returns integer and you are comparing with string You can use the size() method of java. util. ArrayList to find the length or size of ArrayList in Java. The size() method returns an integer equal to a number of elements present in the array list. https://www.java67.com/2016/07/how-to-find-length-size-of-arraylist-in-java.html So the fix would be to change "3" to 3: Assert.assertEquals(driver.findElements(By.xpath("//input[@class='radioButton']")).size(), 3);

How do users verify the data is saved? I would make the test take the same path. In your case placing an order might result into an item in the checkout shopping-basket. Find elements in the shopping basket and count them, get their text and validate that with an assert library (JUnit or TestNG). Simple example: WebDriver driver = new ChromeDriver(); // the actions Assert.assertEquals("new aam pizza order", driver.findElement(By.className("entity")).Text); Alternativly you could check the database with a query, depending on the data-store you can use a non-Selenium library to retrieve data from it. For accessing databases with SQL and Java research this documentation. (Note use database checks with caution. try to test behaviour not implementation. You dont want to update your tests when the storage model is refactored, but nothing changes from the user perspective. Tests should: "Respond to behavior changes. Not respond to structure changes." according to Kent Beck's Programmer Test Principles) This line is a clear anti-pattern, try to use explicit waits instead: driver.manage().timeouts().implicitlyWait(100, TimeUnit.SECONDS); Read: Is it a bad practice to use implicit wait in Selenium Webdriver? Should one use only explicit wait?

There are a few different ways to achieve that depending on how you prefer to do things: As another person has commented you don't appear to need those int declarations, so can just use the .size() call. //Assert false that one equals the other Assert.assertFalse(preRoutlList.size()==aftRoutlList.size()); //Assert True that one doesn't equal the other Assert.assertTrue(preRoutlList.size()!=aftRoutlList.size());

You may have two goals: 1 - Check the the message is displayed when the button is pressed: In this case, you would have to wait to the message to assert afterwards WebElement message = driver.findElement(...); new WebDriverWait(driver, timeout).until( ExpectedConditions.visibilityOf(message) ); assertEquals(message.getText(), "blablabla"); 2 - You simply want to check the text of the message, but don't care/want to validate the displaying behavior: In this case, you may either do it as a component check at your frontend or you can extract it by fetch the textContent attribute: WebElement message = driver.findElement(...); assertEquals(message.getAttribute("textContent"), "blablabla");

Assuming you define Result variable name as result1 for first JDBC Request sampler and define Result variable name as result2 for the second JDBC Request sampler you would be able to compare the result sets using JSR223 Assertion and the following code: def result1 = vars.getObject('result1') def result2 = vars.getObject('result2') def equal = (result1 == result2) if (!equal) { AssertionResult.setFailure(true) AssertionResult.setFailureMessage('result1' + (result1 as String) + System.getProperty('line.separator') + 'result2: ' + (result2 as String)) }

Without more information I can't be certain, but the HTML you've given suggests that instead of an actual HTML field, there's fancy javascript and CSS being used to give the appearance of a checkbox. You've said that when the checkbox is unmarked, the HTML code is <span class="control-indicator"></span> And when marked the HTML code is <span class="control-indicator">…</span> This means the only difference you're going to be able to use is the inner text of the <span> element. I'd suggest that you manually use browser tools to inspect the element when checked and unchecked to confirm that the recording method you've used is correctly identifying the element. Once you've done that, you can use your tool's method to get inner text (probably element.text() but without knowing the tool I couldn't be sure) and assert against that - something like element.text() == '…' should work for you.