How to use setScript method of org.testng.xml.XmlMethodSelector class

This is a guess, but based on the Javadoc for PersistenceCapable it looks like the class is woven with additional code by the JDO enhancer to implement the interface. If this is the case it is quite possible the additional code is not covered by your tests. If you remove the annotation and run the tests again do you see the expected coverage?

From the Javadoc:

In the Reference Implementation, the JDO Enhancer modifies the class to implement PersistenceCapable prior to loading the class into the runtime environment. The Reference Enhancer also adds code to implement the methods defined by PersistenceCapable.

You could also try using a decompiler like JAD to inspect the compiled class to verify if the class is indeed woven with additional methods at compile time (or as a pre process). Again from the Javadoc:

The extra methods in the PersistenceCapable interface might be generated by pre-processing a .java file, or might be generated from a tool directly. The exact technique for generating the extra methods is not specified by JDO.

If you want to avoid having to annotate each and every method with the data provider, you can use a Factory instead.

public class SearchTest1 {
    private final SearchType searchType;

    public SearchTest1( SearchType searchType ) {
       this.searchType = searchType;
    }

    @Test
    public void test2() {
        //Do the test2 logic
    }
    ...
}

And your factory class will be:

public class SearchTestFactory {
   @Factory
   public Object [] createInstances() {
      return new Object[] { new SeartchTest1( SearchType.ONE ), new SearchTest1( SearchType.TWO ) };
   }
}

See more on this here.

Then you can either have one factory that enumerates every test class or a separate factory for each, the first one is obviously less flexible, the second one means slightly more code.

From what you wrote it seems that you are creating browser (instantiating WebDriver) before entire test suite and then execute all the tests using the same browser instance. Although it results with faster execution time it also introduces problems like the one you are having right now.

I would suggest creating a new instance of the browser before executing each test class (or even test method). In such case you can safely use driver.quit() in your @AfterClass method. Restarting browser every test will make your tests much more stable.

EDIT comments on your newly added code

• the way you are instantiating WebDriver is not correct. If you have several test classes you will end up with multiple browser windows opened before any test is executed
• you annotated one method with both @Test and @BeforeClass - this will cause the method to be executed twice in a row

The way it should (more or less) looks like is

public class MyTest {
   protected WebDriver driver;

   @BeforeClass   //I would even suggest to use @BeforeMethod but that's up to you
   public void setUp() {
      driver = new FirefoxDriver();
      //other instantiations and assignments if necessary
   }

   @Test
   public void login() {
      driver.get("http://watever.com");
      //do whatever
   }

   @Test
   public void someOtherTest() {
      //do something else
   }

   @AfterClass   //or @AfterMethod
   public void tearDown() {
      driver.quit();
   }
}

If you are using default authentication from JIRA, then preemptive authentication is what you need. Below are the sample code.

RestAssured.baseURI = System.getProperty("baseurl");
PreemptiveBasicAuthScheme authScheme = new PreemptiveBasicAuthScheme();
authScheme.setUserName("admin");
authScheme.setPassword("admin");
RestAssured.authentication = authScheme;

The sample code will help you do the authentication before every request you send.

The basic answer is "Yes - it's fine to check for annotations in unit tests"

Always ask yourself "what am I testing". Unit tests test that the "code is correct" at a class/method level.

You are not really "testing" the code, but you are asserting that coders have correctly annotated certain fields, which in your case is part of asserting that "code is correct", so "yes" - I think it's acceptable to "test" this.

Another option is to make this assertion part of the code style checking phase of your build (if you're doing that) - you would have to write a custom code style to do it, but I feel that would be a more appropriate place to check this. However, that's probably a bit painful to set up, so just do it as a unit test.

If the code you are testing throws an exception, you must handle it in some way. Either by declaring a "throws Exception" in the method signature, or by using try-catch.

If the code you are calling in the method does not throw any exceptions, then you dont need either of those. The compiler will let you know if you need to catch an exception in some way.

Also note that you can do tests that makes sure an exception is thrown, see this answer

I had the same problem, and found that it helps to set the field storing test case name in the method annotated with @BeforeMethod, using native injection of TestNG to provide method name and test parameters. The test name is taken from test parameters supplied by the DataProvider. If your test method does not have parameters, just report the method name.

//oversimplified for demontration purposes
public class TestParameters {
    private String testName = null;
    private String testDescription = null;

    public TestParameters(String name,
                          String description) {
        this.testName = name;
        this.testDescription = description;
    }

    public String getTestName() {
        return testName;
    }
    public String getTestDescription() {
        return testDescription;
    }
}

public class SampleTest implements ITest {
    // Has to be set to prevent NullPointerException from reporters
    protected String mTestCaseName = "";

    @DataProvider(name="BasicDataProvider")
    public Object[][] getTestData() {
        Object[][] data = new Object[][] {
                { new TestParameters("TestCase1", "Sample test 1")},
                { new TestParameters("TestCase2", "Sample test 2")},
                { new TestParameters("TestCase3", "Sample test 3")},
                { new TestParameters("TestCase4", "Sample test 4")},
                { new TestParameters("TestCase5", "Sample test 5") }
        };
        return data;
    }

    @BeforeMethod(alwaysRun = true)
    public void testData(Method method, Object[] testData) {
        String testCase = "";
        if (testData != null && testData.length > 0) {
            TestParameters testParams = null;
            //Check if test method has actually received required parameters
            for (Object testParameter : testData) {
                if (testParameter instanceof TestParameters) {
                    testParams = (TestParameters)testParameter;
                    break;
                }
            }
            if (testParams != null) {
                testCase = testParams.getTestName();
            }
        }
        this.mTestCaseName = String.format("%s(%s)", method.getName(), testCase);
    }

    @Override
    public String getTestName() {
        return this.mTestCaseName;
    }

    @Test(dataProvider="BasicDataProvider")
    public void testSample1(TestParameters testParams){
        //test code here
    }

    @Test(dataProvider="BasicDataProvider")
    public void testSample2(TestParameters testParams){
        //test code here
    }

    @Test
    public void testSample3(){
        //test code here
    }
}

EDIT: Based on the comments below, I realized a sample from report will be useful.

Extract from the report from running code above:

<testng-results skipped="0" failed="0" total="5" passed="5">
  <suite name="SampleTests" duration-ms="2818" started-at="<some-time>" finished-at="<some-time>">
    <test name="Test1" duration-ms="2818" started-at="<some-time>" finished-at="<some-time>">
        <test-method 
            status="PASS" 
            signature="testSample1(org.example.test.TestParameters)[pri:0, instance:org.example.test.TimeTest@c9d92c]"
            test-instance-name="testSample1(TestCase5)"
            name="testSample1" 
            duration-ms="1014"
            started-at="<some-time-before>" 
            data-provider="BasicDataProvider" 
            finished-at="<some-time-later>" >
            <!-- excluded for demonstration purposes -->
        </test-method>
        <!-- the rest of test results excluded for brevity -->
    </test>
  </suite>
</testng-result>

Note, that the value returned from getTestName() method is in the test-instance-name attribute, and not in the name attribute.

I could notice that you haven't closed your InputStream. If you do not close the stream, file will be locked until inputstream has been closed or JVM is shutdown.

So probably, the easiest thing in your context above is to auto-close by using a try-with-resources construct as,

try (FileInputStream inp = new FileInputStream(workbookPath)) {
    tempWB = (org.apache.poi.ss.usermodel.Workbook) new HSSFWorkbook(new POIFSFileSystem(inp)); 
} catch (Exception e) {
    Log.error("Class Utils | Method setExcelFile | Exception desc : "+ e.getMessage());
}

Hope it helps you. :)

I had the same problem using IntelliJ and that's how I fixed it:

Select Use default reporters under the Listeners tab on the Run/Debug Configurations

PS: Remember to add the path for the testng xml file under the Suite field