-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 521
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow multiple scripts to be given to "artillery run" #167
Comments
Letting the |
Have you considered allowing glob patterns instead of having to list out scenarios? Seems like part of the goal with this enhancement would be to allow for easier integration with a full team and not really have to think about what tests your testing pipeline is running. This would align with common practices with other testing frameworks. Ex.
|
Is anyone having a working example? For me, only the first scenario got executed successfully. |
Hi, I have many yaml test files, each including its own config and scenarios. I would like to run all tests at the same time, and using artillery run test1.yml test2.yml test3.yaml... (each file contains both config and scenarios, there is no separate config file); however, it is only picking up the last file in my case. Is there a command to run all files at one go? |
@sultanzarif and anyone else looking for a solution - I have created an example you can run here: https://github.com/artilleryio/artillery/tree/master/examples/multiple-scenario-specs This lets you run each scenario individually, or run all scenarios one after another. I will create a separate issue for adding the ability to combine multiple scenarios into one, and run those in a single Artillery command. The feature that the original post talks about here is already supported by Artillery. |
Tracking in #1582 |
Hello Hassy, hope you're doing well. That's a nice approach but how can we get it all in the same report? |
Hi Team, |
Use case: when testing a complex application (an ecommerce website backend in my case), it would be nice to keep scenario definitions in separate files for readability.
It's already possible to extract parts of a flow (e.g. checking out) into their own "subflows" using YAML anchors/references to reduce repetition. The ability to separate scenarios into different files would be another step towards making large test definitions easier to read and maintain.
Mechanism:
The
run
command can accept a list of files:Where
scenario1.yaml
etc have the following structure:All paths are to be resolved relative to the path to the scenario file.
Any fields other than defined above will be ignored (e.g.
config.environments
- those should be set inmain.yaml
).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: