Write Feature File/s for Project issues(your_issues.feature)

Added the patch for this feature.

4 scenarios (4 failed)
50 steps (30 passed, 16 skipped, 4 failed)

Steps fail when searching for issues ("No issues match your criteria."):

    And I fill in "Search for" with "create issue"     # FeatureContext::fillField()
    When I press user issue "search" to filter         # FeatureContext::iPressUserIssueToFilter()
    Then I should see at least "2" records             # FeatureContext::iShouldSeeAtLeastRecords()
      The page (http://git6site.devdrupal.org/project/issues/user?text=create+issue&projects=&status=Open&priorities=All&categories=All) has less than 2 records

Code style:

     foreach ($table as $key => $value) {
-      $element->selectFieldOption($table[$key]['fields'], $table[$key]['values']);
+    // find the select element
+    // To check the field whether it is multiple/single within selectbox
+    // If multiple is always true, the select box which doesnot support mulitple
+    // will throw "value cannot be an array" error message
+      $select = $page->find('named', array('select', $table[$key]['fields']));
+      $multiple = $select->getAttribute('multiple') ? true : false;
+      $page->selectFieldOption($table[$key]['fields'], $table[$key]['values']);
     }

Comments should be at the same level of indentation as their code and should try to be full sentences with punctuation.

Steps fail when searching for issues ("No issues match your criteria."):

[Suresh]: When I logged in as site user and i follow the link
http://git6site.devdrupal.org/project/issues/user

When I enter any text in "Search for" and I press enter then I could not find any results.I guess the search based on "Search for" is not working in git6site and when I run the same in durpal.org its working fine
Earlier I tested the same in git6site as well as in drupal.org and I could see the passed cases.

Is the contents of git6site same as drupal.org?

I have fixed the remaining corrections except the above issue.
Please check the updated patch.

We might need to refresh the git6site with a new copy of the production database. How painful is this, and what customized stuff do we need to save or write down before we delete the existing git6site database?

Word on the street is that we can perform a restore of the git6site's database from the upstream production site using Jenkins. Please provide a list of the test users we'll need after the restore is done, their expected passwords, and their roles + perms, and we will make sure they are re-created as part of the restore script.

Incidentally, this will also be useful on the git7site. :)

The username/password and permissions for the test users are as below

admin test/AdminTest100 - has complete admin access
site user/SiteUser100 (has not agreed to terms of service)
git user/GitUser100 (has agreed to terms of services; is not vetted and so cannot create full projects)
git vetted/GitVettedUser100 user (can promote sandboxes and create new projects)
docs manager/DocsManager100 - can manage documents on the site (/documentation/manage)

Please create this ASAP as these affect our feature files while running on git6site.

High Priority

An issue has been created for this here #1720134: Script the re-creation of all needed test user accounts and passwords for git6site

This issue is now un-blocked again because the needed users and passwords have been manually re-created by @eliza411. Issue #1720134: Script the re-creation of all needed test user accounts and passwords for git6site will track the both the Jenkins scripting job for re-creating the users|passes after each git6site restore, and the discussion and documentation of what those test user accounts should be and what they are allowed to do and where they are published.

Patch #5 above still needs review.

Please review the .feature file for the appropriate Given/When/Then structure. A few specific comments follow below ... there are many ways you can isolate the tests to follow that structure so it's hard to fix line-by-line. Let's talk about this one on the next scrum.

+++ b/features/drupalorg/project_issues_user.feature
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+    Then I should see "Your Dashboard"

Background statements are executed before every scenario and intended to put the system in a known state; they should not contain Then statements.

+++ b/features/drupalorg/project_issues_user.feature
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+    And I should see "Your Issues"

Again, this is a "Then" style statement. You don't need to look for the link, then follow it. You should just follow it. If it's not present, an exception will be thrown.

I've closed an earlier duplicate issue, #1570012: Views - Your Issues tab on user page. Would you please review it and ensure any good ideas for test coverage are included here.

Modified the scenario with appropriate Given/When/Then structure.

Uploading the patch for this feature.

This test needs data set up in the Given statement to be reliable. I've added this issue to the meta issue: #1742962: [meta] Create data for tests

In the meantime, please review this for all of the items on the checklist. There's a draft of it at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wPwWj8aTKmQtDwinZXlgpAdQQUiaEVYNseuP...

It's fine to commit it to the dev branch now that we have one, too.

Postponing for now ,will resume with changes if any required for #1742962: [meta] Create data for tests

Tagging

Since we're going to be setting up data in the Given statements, let's revist this and see what can be done.

Tagging

As more steps are required to create test data, adding them in Given will make it bulky, I think. So I have Added a separate scenario to achieve it.

Uploading to the dev branch.
c7e4214

Please review it.

The problem with creating the data in a scenario is that we can't guarantee that scenarios will run in order, so all the subsequent scenarios will fail.

Try running bin/behat features/drupalorg/project_issues_user.feature:35 for example.

To remove bulk, a master step definition that chains each of the smaller steps is a possible solution.

This also needs review for formatting standards ... did this get internal review?

I tagged the dependent scenarios.

Setting to needs work.

Updated to dev branch with fixes.

Please check the commit log: d9916f3

Ready for code review ...

merged to master

Renamed the files from project_issues_user.feature to your_issues.feature

Please check the commit log for reference.2205a14