Skip to main content

assertTrue vs assertEquals for text verification

  

We all do text validation in our automation tests to validate whether the returned value is the same as the expected one or not. I see that many folks use the assertTrue command instead of assertEquals to validate the returned text while using assertions from TestNG or JUnit. Let's see why using assertTrue is bad practice for text comparison.

 

assertEquals

public static void assertEquals(String actual, String expected)

Asserts that two Strings are equal. If they are not, an AssertionError is thrown.

Parameters:

  • actual - the actual value
  • expected - the expected value


assertTrue

public static void assertTrue(boolean condition)

Asserts that a condition is true. If it isn't, an AssertionError is thrown.

Parameters:

  • condition - the condition to evaluate

 

Let’s say that I have an automated test script where I would like to verify the Title of the home page -  we are doing the check using assertTrue as well as assertEquals methods.

 

String ExpectedTitle = "My All Testing Stories";


@Test

              public void verifyTitleUsingTrue() {

                             assertTrue(driver.getTitle().equals(ExpectedTitle));

              }

 

@Test

              public void verifyTitleUsingEquals() {

                             assertEquals(driver.getTitle(), ExpectedTitle);

}

             

Note* The actual result of driver.getTitle() will be "My Testing Stories" but the expected one is "My All Testing Stories".

 

When you execute this, it will fail as expected and you will see an error message like this for assertTrue:

FAILED: verifyTitleUsingTrue

java.lang.AssertionError: expected [true] but found [false]

 

Were you able to understand the problem through the error message? I doubt that.

 

And this is the error message you will see for assertEquals:

FAILED: verifyTitleUsingEquals

java.lang.AssertionError: expected [My All Testing Stories] but found [My Testing Stories]

 

As you can see that the use of assertEquals makes it much easier to understand what the actual difference between the expected and actual results is. Also, we can catch the failure without opening the code and trying to search for the text differences. So, use the proper method as per the context :)

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The use of Verbose attribute in testNG or POM.xml (maven-surefire-plugin)

At times, we see some weird behavior in your testNG execution and feel that the information displayed is insufficient and would like to see more details. At other times, the output on the console is too verbose and we may want to only see the errors. This is where a verbose attribute can help you- it is used to define the amount of logging to be performed on the console. The verbosity level is 0 to 10, where 10 is most detailed. Once you set it to 10, you'll see that console output will contain information regarding the tests, methods, and listeners, etc. <suite name="Suite" thread-count="5" verbose="10"> Note* You can specify -1 and this will put TestNG in debug mode. The default level is 0. Alternatively, you can set the verbose level through attribute in "maven-surefire-plugin" in pom.xml, as shown in the image. #testNG #automationTesting #verbose # #testAutomation

How to Unzip files in Selenium (Java)?

1) Using Java (Lengthy way) : Create a utility and use it:>> import java.io.BufferedOutputStream; import org.openqa.selenium.io.Zip; import java.io.File; import java.io.FileInputStream; import java.io.FileOutputStream; import java.io.IOException; import java.util.zip.ZipEntry; import java.util.zip.ZipInputStream;   public class UnzipUtil {     private static final int BUFFER_SIZE = 4096;     public void unzip (String zipFilePath, String destDirectory) throws IOException {         File destDir = new File(destDirectory);         if (!destDir.exists()) {             destDir.mkdir();         }         ZipInputStream zipIn = new ZipInputStream(new FileInputStream(zipFilePath));         ZipEntry entry = zipIn.getNextEntry();         // to iterates over entries in the zip folder         while (en...

Bruno vs Postman: Which API Client Should You Choose?

  As API testing becomes more central to modern software development, the tools we use to test, automate, and debug APIs can make a big difference. For years, Postman has been the go-to API client for developers and testers alike. But now, Bruno , a relatively new open-source API client, is making waves in the community. Let’s break down how Bruno compares to Postman and why you might consider switching or using both depending on your use case. ✨ What is Bruno? Bruno is an open-source, Git-friendly API client built for developers and testers who prefer simplicity, speed, and local-first development. It stores your API collections as plain text in your repo, making it easy to version, review, and collaborate on API definitions. 🌟 What is Postman? Postman is a full-fledged API platform that offers everything from API testing, documentation, and automation to mock servers and monitoring. It comes with a polished UI, robust integration, and support for collaborati...