Show Menu
Cheatography
  1. Home >
  2. Programming >

utPLSQL v2 vs. ruby-plsql feature comparison Cheat Sheet by

Feature comparison of utPLSQL v.2.3.0 vs. ruby-plsql v.0.5.3

Assertions

Feat­ure
utPL­SQL
ruby­-pl­sql
Assertion types
Two
One for equality based matchers
One to check if expression evaluates to TRUE
Multiple assertions(matchers)
<,>,=,!=,inclusion,regexp,datatype(class),...
Assertion definition
Defined per datatype
Defined per operator
Assertions are used the same way
NO
Different usage depending on compared type
YES
All assertions follow common pattern
Assertion on User Defined Type data
NO
YES
Assertion on Collection Type data
YES (cumbe­rsome and undocu­mented usage)
YES
Assertion on PL/SQL records data
YES (cumbe­rsome and undocu­mented usage)
YES
Assertion on Cursor data
YES (complex usage)
YES
Assertion on complex structured data
NO
YES
Assertion on TIMEST­AMP­/CL­OB/­BLO­B/RAW
NO
YES
Assertion on success (no exception)
NO
YES
Can tests table/view structure
NO
YES

Test structure

Feat­ure
utPL­SQL
ruby­-pl­sql
Physical test location
Tests located in database schemes / packages or procedures
Yests organized in project into folder­s/spec files
Physical test organi­zation
Strict - database oriented
Schema/package/procedure
Flexible - project oriented
Within a test file, tests organized into nestable example groups
Logical test organi­zation
Limited to package level grouping
Packages can be organized into suites
Each suite can contain many packages
Each package can be placed in many suites
Flexible
Each test(e­xample) can be labelled with tags
Each example group can be labelled with tags
Each tag can be assigned to many tests/­example groups
Test execution granul­arity
All tests in a single test package
or All tests in a single suite of test packages
Single test
or All tests in a specified example group
or All tests in a mask-s­pec­ified directory/file
or All test with a specific tag(s)
or All tests except specific tag(s)
and more
Identi­fying and naming tests
Each assertion has a mandatory text description
Assertion is a test
Each example group can have a descri­ptive free text name
Each example can have a descri­ptive free text name
Each example can contain many assertions composing the test
Re-usable tests/­shared examples
NO
Separate tests are needed for two functions do the same thing but on different object­s(d­ata­types)
YES
Standard of shared examples for testing of identical behavior on different object­s(d­ata­types)
Test suites definition
Defined in database tables
Defined as tags in test definition files or by test file location in directory structure
Suites management
Calls to API prior to test execution, persisted in DB per user
Tags defined beside the test definition in test files
Reporting config­uration
Calls to API prior to test execution, persisted in DB per user
Parameter when executin tests
Custom­iza­tions within test/s­uit­e/p­roject
NO
One common library per database
YES
Own assert­ion­s/c­onf­igu­rations can be added to tests or project

Test execution

Feat­ure
utPL­SQL
ruby­-pl­sql
Needs compil­ation prior to execution
YES
NO
Test invocation
- connect to DB
- call API to execute package or suite
execute "­rsp­ec" from command prompt in project root
Default tests execution scope
NONE
You need to explicitly state either a suite or a package to be tested'
All test for project
By default, calling "­rsp­ec" command from project root will exeute all tests for project
Parallel test executiuon
Doable - do it yourself.
By splitting test into separate suites and running them from CI in parallel jobs.
YES-automatic
with open-s­ource libraries
Transa­ction management
Manual
Automatic
Conforms with RSpec standard for keeping the object(s) unchanged outside of test scope
Test setup/­cleanup
One mandatory setup and cleanup per test package.
(Bolierplate code when not used)
Useless when different setup needed for each test.
Optional multiple setups cleanups can be defined on each level of example group.
Two triggering modes can be mixed for setup/cleanup:
- Before all tests in example group
- Before each example group
Setups /cleanups available for entire suite (before suite/­after suite)
Setups /cleanups can be invoked with filtering by tags too

Reporting

Feat­ure
utPL­SQL
ruby­-pl­sql
Build in report types
3 build-in types:
- screen output to client console
- file output (needs to write to DB server)
- html file output (needs to write to DB server)
Outputs incomp­lete, console output noisy.
4 build-in types
- dotted - very dense, useful for developers
- docume­ntation - QA text reporting oriented
- HTML - like docume­ntation but in publis­hable form
- JSON - for machine processing
Extens­ibility / third party
Can be extended - do it yourself
Available open-s­ource libraries for other output formatting (like CI JUnit format­ters)
Build in code coverage generation
NO
YES
Supplies timing for tests
NO
YES
Supplies count of tests executed
not directly
YES
Full stack trace for exceptions
NO
YES
Self-d­ocu­menting tests / tests expres­sivness
NO
procedure_name_30_char_limit
no place for test description
descri­ption is placed inside single assertion "­som­ewhere inside test code"
YES
tests and example blocks have a "full text descri­ptive names"

API

Feat­ure
utPL­SQL
ruby­-pl­sql
Complexity
Complex and incons­istent
Consistent and dense
Test coverage for API
NO
Tested manually by users and contri­butors
YES
API is tested by unit tests
Learning curve
High
Mailnly due to incons­istency and workar­ounds and tricks used to overcome nature and limita­tions of PL/SQL
Low/medium
Need to learn RSpec and Ruby basics and how to use Array and Hash Objects
IDE support
No IDE support for API itself.
Running tests, reporting from IDE is not supported
Highly supported with JetBrains Rubymine (or IntelliJ)
Ruby, RSpec, Cucumber, Gherkin syntax highli­ghting and code completion
Test execution, exporting test results Support for GIT/SV­N/M­erc­urial, PLSQL, SQL, Jira, Stash
and more (many of free plugins available)
Comple­teness
Medium
High
Integrates with CI (Jenkins)
not directly
Doable through external calls with Java and Maven
Integration suffers from API reporting limita­tions
YES
CI-JUnit Reporter plugins available
Docume­ntation
Incomplete online docume­ntation
Everything described by examples
Concept of self docume­nting tests

Generic

Feat­ure
utPL­SQL
ruby­-pl­sql
Instal­lation
per DB instance
per client (devel­oper/CI server)
Cross sessions testing
NO
YES
Cross database testing
NO
YES
Can be used for privileges testing
NO
YES
Can be used for VPD/RLS testing
NO
YES
Exception handling
Poor
Full stack trace
Test - tested code isolation
Low
High
Runs with invalid DB depend­encies
NO (disap­pearing tests)
YES
Runs without tested DB objects / code
NO (disap­pearing tests)
YES
Migration across databases
Needs instal­lation of framework and tests
Trivial. Change of connect string
Test language maturity
Low
Industry standard
Perfor­mance
Excellent (100% in database)
Sufficient
Suffers from network overhead
Suffers from Ruby startup (2-5 secs)
Cucumber support
NO
YES
Suitable for integr­ation testing
NO
YES
Community Activity
Low
Low for ruby-plsql
High for RSpec
 

Metadata

  • Languages:
  • Published: 17th August, 2015
  • Last Updated: 25th April, 2017

Comments

No comments yet. Add yours below!

Add a Comment

Your Comment

Please enter your name.

    Please enter your email address

      Please enter your Comment.

          Related Cheat Sheets

          utPLSQL v3.1.2 Cheat Sheet

          More Cheat Sheets by jgebal

          utPLSQL v3.1.2 Cheat Sheet