Feature request: Option to display skipped user interactions in the Serenity Report

[githubble01]

Hi!

Current behaviour
When a test fails, the skipped low level user interaction steps are omitted in the Serenity Report.

Problem
Omitting the skipped low level user interactions steps makes the Living Documentation incomplete. To get around this issue our team provides all the steps as java doc to ensure a complete documentation even though tests are failing. The drawback of this is off course extra maintenance.

Suggested behaviour
To fully leverage the concept of the Living Documentation, we would like to have the option of displaying all skipped steps, including the low level user interactions. Below is a suggestion on how to this option could be managed from the serenity.conf.

serenity.reports.show.step.interactions.skipped = "true".

References

• Chat https://serenity-bdd.rocket.chat/channel/general?msg=tsmiqMpjqeEiFqGie

Any thoughts?

[wakaleo]

Could you give an example of what you mean? Any @step interaction will be reported, as will any Screenplay task or interaction. Low level WebDriver interactions are intentionally skipped after a failure because it would slow down the tests and not be meaningful, but WebDriver interactions aren’t normally reported except in Screenplay. So I’m not sure what you are after.

[githubble01]

It's indeed the Low Level WebDriver interactions of the Screenplay reporting I'm after. Thanks for sorting the terminology out :).

So if there would be a way to have the Screenplay reporting show skipped Low Level WebDriver interactions as well, the report would be more usable as (living) documentation to us.

Perhaps a more suitable name for the option would be:
serenity.screenplay.reports.show.lowlevelwebdriverinteractions.skipped = "true".

[githubble01]

@wakaleo: Thanks for considering this as an enhancement! Hope some more people are interested.. :)

[dianacarmen-art]

I am also missing this feature.
Especially because the reports are listing some of the Skipped tests after a test failure, it's very confusing and I didn't realize that there should have been additional steps.
Is there a workaround until the enhancement is implemented?
Thanks

[globalworming]

I would definitely be interested, but that's a very hard problem to solve, so i don't have high hopes of this being a thing.