Search Results

Search found 10010 results on 401 pages for 'a b testing'.

Page 105/401 | < Previous Page | 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112  | Next Page >

  • How do I make this ASP.NET MVC controller more testable?

    - by Ragesh
    I have a controller that overrides OnActionExecuting and does something like this: protected override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext) { base.OnActionExecuting(filterContext); string tenantDomain = filterContext.RouteData.Values["tenantDomain"] as string; if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(tenantDomain)) { using (var tx = BeginTransaction()) { this.Tenant = repo.FindOne(t => t.Domain == tenantDomain); } } } Tenant is a protected property with a private setter. The class itself is an abstract base controller that my real controllers derive from. I have code in other controllers that looks a lot like this: if (Tenant == null) { // Do something } else { // Do something else } How do I test this code? What I need to do is to somehow set the Tenant property, but I can't because: It's a protected property, and It has a private setter Changing the visibility of Tenant doesn't "feel" right. What are my alternatives to unit test my derived controllers?

    Read the article

  • Reflection in unit tests for checking code coverage

    - by Gary
    Here's the scenario. I have VO (Value Objects) or DTO objects that are just containers for data. When I take those and split them apart for saving into a DB that (for lots of reasons) doesn't map to the VO's elegantly, I want to test to see if each field is successfully being created in the database and successfully read back in to rebuild the VO. Is there a way I can test that my tests cover every field in the VO? I had an idea about using reflection to iterate through the fields of the VO's as part of the solution, but maybe you guys have solved the problem before? I want this test to fail when I add fields in the VO, and don't remember to add checks for it in my tests.

    Read the article

  • Git: Run through a filter before commiting/pushing?

    - by martiert
    Hi. Is there a way to run the changed files through a filter before doing the commit? I wish to make sure the files follows the coding standards for the project. I would also like to compile and run some test before the commit/push actually takes place, so I know everything in the repo actually works.

    Read the article

  • Error using MVCContrib TestHelper

    - by Brian McCord
    While trying to implement the second answer to a previous question, I am receiving an error. I have implemented the methods just as the post shows, and the first three work properly. The fourth one (HomeController_Delete_Action_Handler_Should_Redirect_If_Model_Successfully_Delete) gives this error: Could not find a parameter named 'controller' in the result's Values collection. If I change the code to: actual .AssertActionRedirect() .ToAction("Index"); it works properly, but I don't like the "magic string" in there and prefer to use the lambda method that the other poster used. My controller method looks like this: [HttpPost] public ActionResult Delete(State model) { try { if( model == null ) { return View( model ); } _stateService.Delete( model ); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } catch { return View( model ); } } What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Any special assertion to test if the resulting integer lies within a range

    - by barerd
    I would like to test if an instance variable lies in a range of numbers. I solved the problem by using assert_in_delta but would like to know if there is a formal assertion for this. #part of the tested class def initialize(value = 70 + rand(30)) @value = value end #test_value.rb class ValueTestCase < Test::Unit::TestCase def test_if_value_in_range assert_in_delta(85, p.value, 15) end end

    Read the article

  • Rhino Mocks - Do we really need stubs?

    - by Marcelo Oliveira
    If it's possible to change mock behaviour in Rhino Mocks using mock.Stub().Return(), why do we need Stubs anyway? What do we lose by always using MockRepository.GenerateMock()? One big benefit of using Mocks instead of Stubs is that we will be able to reuse the same instance among all the tests keeping them cleaner and straightforward. The moq framework works in a similar way... we don't have different objects for mocks and stubs. (please, don't answer with a link to Fowler's "Mocks aren't stubs" article)

    Read the article

  • Is there a free code coverage tool suitable for use with .NET 4 and NUnit?

    - by Damian Powell
    Is there a free code coverage tool suitable for use with .NET 4 and NUnit that runs from the command line (and is thus suitable for use on a build server)? Please note that any tools that require editions of Visual Studio higher than Professional are not appropriate in this case. I am asking this question because I can't get NCover 1.5.8 to work with NUnit 2.5.5 on a .NET 4 C# app. I can run the unit tests, and I can generate a Coverage.Xml file, but it is empty - it contains no sequence points. After a lot of research, I have concluded that this is because NCover 1.5.8 simply doesn't work with .NET 4. However, if you know better, please feel free to answer this question from another user.

    Read the article

  • Run PHPUnit Tests in Certain Order

    - by dragonmantank
    Is there a way to get the tests inside of a TestCase to run in a certain order? For example, I want to seperate the lifecycle of an object from creation to use to destruction but need to make sure that the object is set up first before I run the other tests.

    Read the article

  • Mock a void method which change the input value

    - by Kar
    Hi, How could I mock a void method with parameters and change the value parameters? My void method looks like this: public interface IFoo { void GetValue(int x, object y) // takes x and do something then access another class to get the value of y } I prepared a delegate class: private delegate void GetValueDelegate(int x, object y); private void GetValue(int x, object y) { // process x // prepare a new object obj if (y == null) y = new Object(); if (//some checks) y = obj; } I wrote something like this: Expect.Call(delegate {x.GetValue(5, null);}).Do (new GetValueDelegate(GetValue)).IgnoreArguments().Repeat.Any(); But seems like it's not working. Any clue on what could be wrong?

    Read the article

  • Running single test class or group with Surefire and TestNG

    - by Slartibartfast
    I want to run single test class from command line using Maven and TestNG Things that doesn't work: mvn -Dtest=ClassName test I have defined groups in pom.xml, and this class isn't in one of those groups. So it got excluded on those grounds. mvn -Dgroups=skipped-group test mvn -Dsurefire.groups=skipped-group test when config is <plugin> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId> <version>2.7.1</version> <configuration> <groups>functest</groups> </configuration> </plugin> Parameters work fine in there are no groups defined in pom.xml. Similarly, when surefire is configured with <configuration> <includes> <include>**/*UnitTest.java</include> </includes> </configuration> I can add another test with -Dtest parameter, but cannot add group. In any combination, I can narrow down tests to be executed with groups, but not expand them. What's wrong with my configuration? Is there a way to run a single test or group outside of those defined in pom.xml? Tried on Ubuntu 10.04 with Maven 2.2.1, TestNG 5.14.6 and Surefire 2.7.1

    Read the article

  • Spring MVC with several configurations

    - by Michael Bulla
    Hello, for my spring-mvc application I created several types of configuration (unittest, integration, qa, production). All the configs are in one war-file, so there is only one type of application I create. Which configuration to take should be decided by the server, where the application is running. To decide what kind of configuration should be used, I have to look into a file. After that I can decide which configuration should be used by spring mvc. For now by convention there is always the -servlet.xml used. Is there a way how to decide dynamically which config to take? Regards, Michael

    Read the article

  • defining a simple implicit Arbitary

    - by FredOverflow
    I have a type Foo with a constructor that takes an Int. How do I define an implicit Arbitrary for Foo to be used with scalacheck? implicit def arbFoo: Arbitrary[Foo] = ??? I came up with the following solution, but it's a bit too "manual" and low-level for my taste: val fooGen = for (i <- Gen.choose(Int.MinValue, Int.MaxValue)) yield new Foo(i) implicit def arbFoo: Arbitrary[Foo] = Arbitrary(fooGen) Ideally, I would want a higher-order function where I just have to plug in an Int => Foo function. I managed to cut it down to: implicit def arbFoo = Arbitrary(Gen.resultOf((i: Int) => new Foo(i))) But I still feel like there has got to be a slightly simpler way.

    Read the article

  • what kind of credentials/prerequisites do you need to be a professional penetration tester ?

    - by dfafa
    does it take more than knowing Bt4 ? are there any one that just runs a scanner and no real labor involved ? would you be expected to be able to code your own exploits without having to dl from milw0rm and discover entry into a system by yourself, in other words, do you have to think outside the box even when there's so many tools that makes the job a lot easier ? would you ever be expected to be able to write your own scanners, exploits and etc ? i am also curious how people are able to write long pages of hex address, that magically causes some type of memory overflow...how are people guessing at the hex values for game hacks for instance ? are certification important ? what about formal school education ? I am a CS major.

    Read the article

  • Is Assert.Fail() considered bad practice?

    - by Mendelt
    I use Assert.Fail a lot when doing TDD. I'm usually working on one test at a time but when I get ideas for things I want to implement later I quickly write an empty test where the name of the test method indicates what I want to implement as sort of a todo-list. To make sure I don't forget I put an Assert.Fail() in the body. When trying out xUnit.Net I found they hadn't implemented Assert.Fail. Of course you can always Assert.IsTrue(false) but this doesn't communicate my intention as well. I got the impression Assert.Fail wasn't implemented on purpose. Is this considered bad practice? If so why? @Martin Meredith That's not exactly what I do. I do write a test first and then implement code to make it work. Usually I think of several tests at once. Or I think about a test to write when I'm working on something else. That's when I write an empty failing test to remember. By the time I get to writing the test I neatly work test-first. @Jimmeh That looks like a good idea. Ignored tests don't fail but they still show up in a separate list. Have to try that out. @Matt Howells Great Idea. NotImplementedException communicates intention better than assert.Fail() in this case @Mitch Wheat That's what I was looking for. It seems it was left out to prevent it being abused in another way I abuse it.

    Read the article

  • Caching result of setUp() using Python unittest

    - by dbr
    I currently have a unittest.TestCase that looks like.. class test_appletrailer(unittest.TestCase): def setup(self): self.all_trailers = Trailers(res = "720", verbose = True) def test_has_trailers(self): self.failUnless(len(self.all_trailers) > 1) # ..more tests.. This works fine, but the Trailers() call takes about 2 seconds to run.. Given that setUp() is called before each test is run, the tests now take almost 10 seconds to run (with only 3 test functions) What is the correct way of caching the self.all_trailers variable between tests? Removing the setUp function, and doing.. class test_appletrailer(unittest.TestCase): all_trailers = Trailers(res = "720", verbose = True) ..works, but then it claims "Ran 3 tests in 0.000s" which is incorrect.. The only other way I could think of is to have a cache_trailers global variable (which works correctly, but is rather horrible): cache_trailers = None class test_appletrailer(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): global cache_trailers if cache_trailers is None: cache_trailers = self.all_trailers = all_trailers = Trailers(res = "720", verbose = True) else: self.all_trailers = cache_trailers

    Read the article

  • Given a typical Rails 3 environment, why am I unable to execute any tests?

    - by Tom
    I'm working on writing simple unit tests for a Rails 3 project, but I'm unable to actually execute any tests. Case in point, attempting to run the test auto-generated by Rails fails: require 'test_helper' class UserTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase # Replace this with your real tests. test "the truth" do assert true end end Results in the following error: <internal:lib/rubygems/custom_require>:29:in `require': no such file to load -- test_helper (LoadError) from <internal:lib/rubygems/custom_require>:29:in `require' from user_test.rb:1:in `<main>' Commenting out the require 'test_helper' line and attempting to run the test results in this error: user_test.rb:3:in `<main>': uninitialized constant Object::ActiveSupport (NameError) The action pack gems appear to be properly installed and up to date: actionmailer (3.0.3, 2.3.5) actionpack (3.0.3, 2.3.5) activemodel (3.0.3) activerecord (3.0.3, 2.3.5) activeresource (3.0.3, 2.3.5) activesupport (3.0.3, 2.3.5) Ruby is at 1.9.2p0 and Rails is at 3.0.3. The sample dump of my test directory is as follows: /fixtures /functional /integration /performance /unit -- /helpers -- user_helper_test.rb -- user_test.rb test_helper.rb I've never seen this problem before - I've run the typical rake tasks for preparing the test environment. I have nothing out of the ordinary in my application or environment configuration files, nor have I installed any unusual gems that would interfere with the test environment. Edit Xavier Holt's suggestion, explicitly specifying the path to the test_helper worked; however, this revealed an issue with ActiveSupport. Now when I attempt to run the test, I receive the following error message (as also listed above): user_test.rb:3:in `<main>': uninitialized constant Object::ActiveSupport (NameError) But as you can see above, Action Pack is all installed and update to date.

    Read the article

  • ReSharper no longer runs unit tests

    - by Ed Woodcock
    Hey folks I'm trying to write some unit tests for an app I work on at work (In the vague hope that others might follow suit), and I was originally running these tests using NUnit and the ReSharper plugin. However, ReSharper will no longer run tests for me for some reason: It simply crosses them out with a red strikeout. There's no error code I'm afraid, and there's no mention of such behaviour on the JetBrains site. Has anyone else experienced similar benhaviour? Cheers, Ed

    Read the article

  • How to unit-test a Wicket component with AbstractAjaxTimerBehavior?

    - by Juha Syrjälä
    I have a Wicket panel that has AbstractAjaxTimeBehavior, that I'd like to unit test. How can I trigger a ajax event during the unit test that end up calling AbstractAjaxTimeBehavior's .onTimer(AjaxRequestTarget target) method? behavior = new AbstractAjaxTimerBehavior(Duration.seconds(pollingPeriodInSeconds)) { protected void onTimer(AjaxRequestTarget target) { // how to unit test this? } } add(behavior);

    Read the article

  • Multiple asserts in single test?

    - by Gern Blandston
    Let's say I want to write a function that validates an email address with a regex. I write a little test to check my function and write the actual function. Make it pass. However, I can come up with a bunch of different ways to test the same function ([email protected]; [email protected]; test.test.com, etc). Do I put all the incantations that I need to check in the same, single test with several ASSERTS or do I write a new test for every single thing I can think of? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • how to access objects in run-time in qtp?

    - by Onnesh
    We have a function which accesses two types of controls like button and list box in standard windows app. The function uses only the control name as arguments, so there is no way qtp could understand what type of control it is. how to resolve this? Write 2 separate functions- 1 for button & another for list box?

    Read the article

  • JUnit terminates child threads

    - by Marco
    Hi to all, When i test the execution of a method that creates a child thread, the JUnit test ends before the child thread and kills it. How do i force JUnit to wait for the child thread to complete its execution? Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112  | Next Page >