I am interested in how many people actually use Test Conductor.
Do you use it in your testing process?

If not, do you even use the UML Testing profile (presumably via "Create Test Architecture")?

I have problems using Test Conductor and wondered whether anyone else might have solved similar issues.

1) Test Conductor doesn't autogenerate compilable driver code if you are using namespaces (DefineNamespace)
2) Test Conductor doesn't autogenerate compilable driver code if you are using static member functions
3) Test Conductor doesn't autogenerate compilable driver code if you are using functions templates

You can obviously manually edit the driver code via the Tag properties but it is a pain.

Hi Shanz,

we are using Rhapsody + TestConductor quite a while. Concerning your questions:

1) We had some problems with namespaces in older Rhapsody versions, but with 7.5 we don't have any problems
any more. What exactly is not working for you?

For 2) and 3), we simply added an operation to the TestContext that performs the actual call, and added a message to this
operation to the SD specification in order to call this operation at the right place.

Kalle,

That sounds interesting. You make it sound simple but could you please attach an example or screenshot?
Where exactly do you create the helper operation?
If I create an ordinary primitive operation under the TestContext then it isn't selectable using Intellivisor from a message on a Test Scenario.
I would have to create a global function in the class-under-test's package like I do with the serialize and unserialize functions.

Hi Shanz,

atttached a simple model that shows how how we use static ops & template functions.

Does this help you?

Kalle,
Oh I see - it's the use of the System Environment (ENV) that I didn't try/think of.
Thanks very much.

I agree that this allows you to call the static ops or function templates (and an animated SD shows the call) but you still can't test them. You couldn't test the argument values or the return value from these operations.

Sure you can. Just add some assertions to your test cases. I added some assertions that check return values to the operations. I attached the modified sample.

BTW., when just checking return values of operations, why don't you simply add a code testcase to your testcontext (as I did in the sample)?

Kalle,

I had experimented with the <<RTC_MsgInfo>> without success.
I was assuming I would need to use code test cases instead but your example seems a nice middle ground.
I might even be able to get some work done!