Search Results

Search found 25520 results on 1021 pages for 'boost test'.

Page 108/1021 | < Previous Page | 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115  | Next Page >

• How do I test ActionFilterAttributes that work with ModelState?

  - by Tomas Lycken

  As suggested by (among others) Kazi Manzur Rashid in this blog post, I am using ActionFilterAttributes to transfer model state from one request to another when redirecting. However, I find myself unable to write a unit test that test the behavior of these attributes. As an example, this what I want the test for the ImportModelStateAttribute to do: Setup the filterContext so that TempData[myKey] contains some fake "exported" ModelState (that is, a ModelStateDictionary I create myself, and add one error to) Make ModelState contain one model error. Call OnActionExecuting. Verify the two dictionaries are merged, and ModelState now contains both errors. I'm at a loss already on the second step.

  Read the article

• Any open source back test engine using bloomberg tick-by-tick data?

  - by Ian Xu

  I have a back test on index futures to do. I've finished the test on 1-minute OHLC data and the result is OK. Further I want to opt our tick-by-tick data downloaded from Bloomberg. I have browsed the internet and found that several trading platforms are available for such function but Bloomberg is not in the data source providers list. So I think these are not suitable for my case. I'm wondering whether there is any open-source engine that I may embed to finish the test?

  Read the article

• How doe we name test methods where we are checking for more than one condition?

  - by Sandbox

  I follow the technique specified in Roy Osherove's The Art Of Unit Testing book while naming test methods - MethodName_Scenario_Expectation. It suits perfectly well for my 'unit' tests. But,for tests that I write in 'controller' or 'coordinator' class, there isn't necessarily a method which I want to test. For these tests, I generate multiple conditions which make up one scenario and then I verify the expectation. For example, I may set some properties on different instances, generate an event and then verify that my expectations from controller/coordinator is being met. Now, my controller handles events using a private event handler. Here my scenario is that, I set some properties, say 3 condition1,condition2 and condition3 Also, my scenario includes an event is raised I don't have a method name as my event handler is private. How do I name such a test method?

  Read the article

• Is a class that is hard to unit test badly designed?

  - by Extrakun

  I am now doing unit testing on an application which was written over the year, before I started to do unit-testing diligently. I realized that the classes I wrote are hard to unit test, for the following reasons: Relies on loading data from database. Which means I have to setup a row in the table just to run the unit test (and I am not testing database capabilities). Requires a lot of other external classes just to get the class I am testing to its initial state. On the whole, there don't seem to be anything wrong with the design except that it is too tightly coupled (which by itself is a bad thing). I figure that if I have written automated test cases with each of the class, hence ensuring that I don't heap extra dependencies or coupling for the class to work, the class might be better designed. Does this reason holds water? What are your experiences?

  Read the article

• JPA DAO integration test not throwing exception when duplicate object saved?

  - by HDave

  I am in the process of unit testing a DAO built with Spring/JPA and Hibernate as the provider. Prior to running the test, DBUnit inserted a User record with username "poweruser" -- username is the primary key in the users table. Here is the integration test method: @Test @ExpectedException(EntityExistsException.class) public void save_UserTestDataSaveUserWithPreExistingId_EntityExistsException() { User newUser = new UserImpl("poweruser"); newUser.setEmail("[email protected]"); newUser.setFirstName("New"); newUser.setLastName("User"); newUser.setPassword("secret"); dao.persist(newUser); } I have verified that the record is in the database at the start of this method. Not sure if this is relevant, but if I do a dao.flush() at the end of this method I get the following exception: javax.persistence.PersistenceException: org.hibernate.exception.ConstraintViolationException: Could not execute JDBC batch update

  Read the article

• How to test reliability of my own (small) embedded operating system ?

  - by TridenT

  I've written a small operating system for embedded project running on small to medium target. I added some automated unit test with a high test code coverage (95%), but the scope is only the static part. I got some code metrics as complexity and readability. I'm testing my code with a rule checker with MiSRA support, and of course fixed all warnings. I'm testing the code with a static analyzer and again fixed all warnings. What can I do now to test - and improve - the reliability of my OS ? How about the dynamic part ?

  Read the article

• How to write a jUnit test for this class?

  - by flash

  Hi, I would like to know what's the best approach to test the method "pushEvent()" in the following class with a jUnit test. My problem is, that the private method "callWebsite()" always requires a connection to the network. How can I avoid this requirement or refactor my class that I can test it without a connection to the network? class MyClass { public String pushEvent (Event event) { //do something here String url = constructURL (event); //construct the website url String response = callWebsite (url); return response; } private String callWebsite (String url) { try { URL requestURL = new URL (url); HttpURLConnection connection = null; connection = (HttpURLConnection) requestURL.openConnection (); String responseMessage = responseParser.getResponseMessage (connection); return responseMessage; } catch (MalformedURLException e) { e.printStackTrace (); return e.getMessage (); } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace (); return e.getMessage (); } } }

  Read the article

• What is Test Driven Development? Does it require to have initial designs?

  - by Nirajan Singh

  Hello Everybody, I am very new to TDD, not yet started using it. But i know that we have to write test first and then actual code to pass the test and refactor it till good design. My concern over TDD is that where does it fit in our SDLC. Suppose i get a requirement of making order processing system. Now, without having any model & design of this system, how can i start writing test. Shouldn't we require to define the entities & its attribute to proceed. If not, is it possible to develop big system without any design. I am really very confused over it. Can anyone help me to start TDD. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• How do we name test methods where we are checking for more than one condition?

  - by Sandbox

  I follow the technique specified in Roy Osherove's The Art Of Unit Testing book while naming test methods - MethodName_Scenario_Expectation. It suits perfectly well for my 'unit' tests. But,for tests that I write in 'controller' or 'coordinator' class, there isn't necessarily a method which I want to test. For these tests, I generate multiple conditions which make up one scenario and then I verify the expectation. For example, I may set some properties on different instances, generate an event and then verify that my expectation from controller/coordinator is being met. Now, my controller handles events using a private event handler. Here my scenario is that, I set some properties, say 3 condition1,condition2 and condition3 Also, my scenario includes an event is raised I don't have a method name as my event handler is private. How do I name such a test method?

  Read the article

• Is there a Java unit-test framework that auto-tests getters and setters?

  - by Michael Easter

  There is a well-known debate in Java (and other communities, I'm sure) whether or not trivial getter/setter methods should be tested. Usually, this is with respect to code coverage. Let's agree that this is an open debate, and not try to answer it here. There have been several blog posts on using Java reflection to auto-test such methods. Does any framework (e.g. jUnit) provide such a feature? e.g. An annotation that says "this test T should auto-test all the getters/setters on class C, because I assert that they are standard". It seems to me that it would add value, and if it were configurable, the 'debate' would be left as an option to the user.

  Read the article

• How to configure .NET test assembly to use website web.config?

  - by Morten Christiansen

  I've run into a problem setting up Selenium tests for an ASP.NET MVC project in cases where I need the settings provided in the web.config of the site under test. The problem is that I want to create a dummy user before running the test and this causes an error saying that the password-answer supplied is invalid. This is due to the test assembly not using the web.config, instead using default values for membership configuration. I've tried to copy the relevant section (membership configuration) into the app.config of the assembly without luck, but I admit I'm just grasping at straws here.

  Read the article

• Java Instance of: Supertypes and Subtypes seem to be equal? How to test exactly for Type?

  - by jens

  I need to test, if an instance is exactly of a given type. But it seems that instanceof returns true also if the subtype is tested for the supertype (case 3). I never knew this before and I am quite surprised. Am I doing something wrong here? How do I exactly test for a given type? //.. class DataSourceEmailAttachment extends EmailAttachment //... EmailAttachment emailAttachment = new EmailAttachment(); DataSourceEmailAttachment emailAttachmentDS = new DataSourceEmailAttachment(); if (emailAttachment instanceof EmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 1"); } if (emailAttachment instanceof DataSourceEmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 2"); } if (emailAttachmentDS instanceof EmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 3 "); } if (emailAttachmentDS instanceof DataSourceEmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 4"); } RESULT: 1 3 4 I want to avoid case 3, I only want "exact matches" (case 1 and 4) how do I test for them?

  Read the article

• Is it a bad idea to create tests that rely on each other within a test fixture?

  - by nbolton

  For example: // NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture) Ctor() { m_globalVar = getFoo(); } [Test] Create() { a(m_globalVar) } [Test] Delete() { // depends on Create being run b(m_globalVar) } … or… // NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture) [Test] CreateAndDelete() { Foo foo = getFoo(); a(foo); // depends on Create being run b(foo); } … I’m going with the later, and assuming that the answer to my question is: No, at least not with NUnit, because according to the NUnit manual: The constructor should not have any side effects, since NUnit may construct the class multiple times in the course of a session. ... also, can I assume it's bad practice in general? Since tests can usually be run separately. So the result of Create may never be cleaned up by Delete.

  Read the article

• StructureMap: How can i unit test the registry class?

  - by Marius

  I have a registry class like this: public class StructureMapRegistry : Registry { public StructureMapRegistry() { For<IDateTimeProvider>().Singleton().Use<DateTimeProviderReturningDateTimeNow>(); } I want to test that the configuration is according to my intent, so i start writing a test: public class WhenConfiguringIOCContainer : Scenario { private TfsTimeMachine.Domain.StructureMapRegistry registry; private Container container; protected override void Given() { registry = new TfsTimeMachine.Domain.StructureMapRegistry(); container = new Container(); } protected override void When() { container.Configure(i => i.AddRegistry(registry)); } [Then] public void DateTimeProviderIsRegisteredAsSingleton() { // I want to say "verify that the container contains the expected type and that the expected type // is registered as a singleton } } How can verify that the registry is accoring to my expectations? Note: I introduced the container because I didn't see any sort of verification methods available on the Registry class. Idealy, I want to test on the registry class directly.

  Read the article

• Is there a way to test my nonce validation fails when it should?

  - by MrsLannister

  I'm using nonce validation in a wordpress plugin. When I submit the form from the admin menu it processes correctly, so I believe the nonce validation is working. What I'm not sure is if the validation will fail when it is supposed to and I don't know what the best way to test this is. I tried putting the url for the php file in directly, but all it does it take me to a wordpress not found page. Is there some recommended way to test this? Here is my code. Again, the test passes when it is supposed to, I just don't know if it fails when it is supposed to. if ( !wp_verify_nonce( $ecbs_post_data['_wpnonce'], 'ecbs-edit-templates' ) ) { wp_die( __( 'You do not have permission to update this page.' ) ); }

  Read the article

• link nasm program for mac os x

  - by Fry Constantine

  i have some problems with linking nasm program for macos: GLOBAL _start SEGMENT .text _start: mov ax, 5 mov bx, ax mov [a], ebx SEGMENT .data a DW 0 t2 DW 0 fry$ nasm -f elf test.asm fry$ ld -o test test.o -arch i386 ld: warning: in test.o, file was built for unsupported file format which is not the architecture being linked (i386) ld: could not find entry point "start" (perhaps missing crt1. fry$ nasm -f macho test.asm fry$ ld -o test test.o -arch i386 ld: could not find entry point "start" (perhaps missing crt1.o) can anyone help me?

  Read the article

• How to get a html elements with python lxml

  - by Damiano

  Hello! I have this html code: <table> <tr> <td class="test"><b><a href="">aaa</a></b></td> <td class="test">bbb</td> <td class="test">ccc</td> <td class="test"><small>ddd</small></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="test"><b><a href="">eee</a></b></td> <td class="test">fff</td> <td class="test">ggg</td> <td class="test"><small>hhh</small></td> </tr> </table> I use this Python code to extract all <td class="test"> with lxml module. import urllib2 import lxml.html code = urllib.urlopen("http://www.example.com/page.html").read() html = lxml.html.fromstring(code) result = html.xpath('//td[@class="test"][position() = 1 or position() = 4]') It works good! The result is: <td class="test"><b><a href="">aaa</a></b></td> <td class="test"><small>ddd</small></td> <td class="test"><b><a href="">eee</a></b></td> <td class="test"><small>hhh</small></td> (so the first and the fourth column of each <tr>) Now, I have to extract: aaa (the title of the link) ddd (text between <small> tag) eee (the title of the link) hhh (text between <small> tag) How could I extract these values? (the problem is that I have to remove <b> tag and get the title of the anchor on the first column and remove <small> tag on the forth column) Thank you!

  Read the article

• Why Does Path.Combine not properly concatenate filenames that start with Path.DirectorySeparatorChar

  - by Kris Erickson

  In the Immediate Window ? System.IO.Path.Combine(@"C:\test",@"test") "C:\\test\\test" ? System.IO.Path.Combine(@"C:\test",@"\test") "\\test" It seems that they should both be the same. The old FileSystemObject.BuildPath() didn't work this way...

  Read the article

• ignoring folders in mercurial

  - by damian

  Caveat: I try all the posibilities listed here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/254002/how-can-i-ignore-everything-under-a-folder-in-mercurial. None works as I hope. I want to ignore every thing under the folder test. But not ignore srcProject\test\TestManager I try syntax: glob test/** And it ignores test and srcProject\test\TestManager With: syntax: regexp ^/test/ It's the same thing. Also with: syntax: regexp test\\* I have install TortoiseHG 0.4rc2 with Mercurial-626cb86a6523+tortoisehg, Python-2.5.1, PyGTK-2.10.6, GTK-2.10.11 in Windows

  Read the article

• Django url tag multiple parameters

  - by Overdose

  I have two similar codes. The first one works as expected. urlpatterns = patterns('', (r'^(?P<n1>\d)/test/', test), (r'', test2), {% url testapp.views.test n1=5 %} But adding the second parameter makes the result return empty string. urlpatterns = patterns('', (r'^(?P<n1>\d)/test(?P<n2>\d)/', test), (r'', test2),) {% url testapp.views.test n1=5, n2=2 %} Views signature: def test(request, n1, n2=1):

  Read the article

• How to do a case sensitive GROUP BY?

  - by Abe Miessler

  If I execute the code below: with temp as ( select 'Test' as name UNION ALL select 'TEST' UNION ALL select 'test' UNION ALL select 'tester' UNION ALL select 'tester' ) SELECT name, COUNT(name) FROM temp group by name It returns the results: TEST 3 tester 2 Is there a way to have the group by be case sensitive so that the results would be: Test 1 TEST 1 test 1 tester 2

  Read the article

• Find all occurrences of a substring in Python

  - by cru3l

  Python has string.find() and string.rfind() to get the index of a substring in string. I wonder, maybe there is something like string.find_all() which can return all founded indexes (not only first from beginning or first from end)? For example: string = "test test test test" print string.find('test') # 0 print string.rfind('test') # 15 #that's the goal print string.find_all('test') # [0,5,10,15]

  Read the article

• Generate data in Excel using Macros?

  - by RD

  I need to create a table with the following structure: Applicant | Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | Test 4 | Test 5 | Test 6 | 1 | A | C | D | E | F | B | 2 | C | B | A | E | D | F | 3 | C | A | F | G | B | D | .... | | | | | | | Basically, test 1 - 6 can be any letter between A and F. I want a Macro (or some other method) by which I can generate this table, with 200 applicants, where the tests are completely randomised. Anyone know how to do this?

  Read the article

• Measuring Usability with Common Industry Format (CIF) Usability Tests

  - by Applications User Experience

  Sean Rice, Manager, Applications User Experience A User-centered Research and Design Process The Oracle Fusion Applications user experience was five years in the making. The development of this suite included an extensive and comprehensive user experience design process: ethnographic research, low-fidelity workflow prototyping, high fidelity user interface (UI) prototyping, iterative formative usability testing, development feedback and iteration, and sales and customer evaluation throughout the design cycle. However, this process does not stop when our products are released. We conduct summative usability testing using the ISO 25062 Common Industry Format (CIF) for usability test reports as an organizational framework. CIF tests allow us to measure the overall usability of our released products.  These studies provide benchmarks that allow for comparisons of a specific product release against previous versions of our product and against other products in the marketplace. What Is a CIF Usability Test? CIF refers to the internationally standardized method for reporting usability test findings used by the software industry. The CIF is based on a formal, lab-based test that is used to benchmark the usability of a product in terms of human performance and subjective data. The CIF was developed and is endorsed by more than 375 software customer and vendor organizations led by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), a US government entity. NIST sponsored the CIF through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards-making processes. Oracle played a key role in developing the CIF. The CIF report format and metrics are consistent with the ISO 9241-11 definition of usability: “The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.” Our goal in conducting CIF tests is to measure performance and satisfaction of a representative sample of users on a set of core tasks and to help predict how usable a product will be with the larger population of customers. Why Do We Perform CIF Testing? The overarching purpose of the CIF for usability test reports is to promote incorporation of usability as part of the procurement decision-making process for interactive products. CIF provides a common format for vendors to report the methods and results of usability tests to customer organizations, and enables customers to compare the usability of our software to that of other suppliers. CIF also enables us to compare our current software with previous versions of our software. CIF Testing for Fusion Applications Oracle Fusion Applications comprises more than 100 modules in seven different product families. These modules encompass more than 400 task flows and 400 user roles. Due to resource constraints, we cannot perform comprehensive CIF testing across the entire product suite. Therefore, we had to develop meaningful inclusion criteria and work with other stakeholders across the applications development organization to prioritize product areas for testing. Ultimately, we want to test the product areas for which customers might be most interested in seeing CIF data. We also want to build credibility with customers; we need to be able to make the case to current and prospective customers that the product areas tested are representative of the product suite as a whole. Our goal is to test the top use cases for each product. The primary activity in the scoping process was to work with the individual product teams to identify the key products and business process task flows in each product to test. We prioritized these products and flows through a series of negotiations among the user experience managers, product strategy, and product management directors for each of the primary product families within the Oracle Fusion Applications suite (Human Capital Management, Supply Chain Management, Customer Relationship Management, Financials, Projects, and Procurement). The end result of the scoping exercise was a list of 47 proposed CIF tests for the Fusion Applications product suite.  Figure 1. A participant completes tasks during a usability test in Oracle’s Usability Labs Fusion Supplier Portal CIF Test The first Fusion CIF test was completed on the Supplier Portal application in July of 2011.  Fusion Supplier Portal is part of an integrated suite of Procurement applications that helps supplier companies manage orders, schedules, shipments, invoices, negotiations and payments. The user roles targeted for the usability study were Supplier Account Receivables Specialists and Supplier Sales Representatives, including both experienced and inexperienced users across a wide demographic range.  The test specifically focused on the following functionality and features: Manage payments – view payments Manage invoices – view invoice status and create invoices Manage account information – create new contact, review bank account information Manage agreements – find and view agreement, upload agreement lines, confirm status of agreement lines upload Manage purchase orders (PO) – view history of PO, request change to PO, find orders Manage negotiations – respond to request for a quote, check the status of a negotiation response These product areas were selected to represent the most important subset of features and functionality of the flow, in terms of frequency and criticality of use by customers. A total of 20 users participated in the usability study. The results of the Supplier Portal evaluation were favorable and exceeded our expectations. Figure 2. Fusion Supplier Portal Next Studies We plan to conduct two Fusion CIF usability studies per product family over the next nine months. The next product to be tested will be Self-service Procurement. End users are currently being recruited to participate in this usability study, and the test sessions are scheduled to begin during the last week of November.

  Read the article

• Business Case for investing time developing Stubs and BizUnit Tests

  - by charlie.mott

  I was recently in a position where I had to justify why effort should be spent developing Stubbed Integration Tests for BizTalk solutions. These tests are usually developed using the BizUnit framework. I assumed that most seasoned BizTalk developers would consider this best practice. Even though Microsoft suggest use of BizUnit on MSDN, I've not found a single site listing the justifications for investing time writing stubs and BizUnit tests. Stubs Stubs should be developed to isolate your development team from external dependencies. This is described by Michael Stephenson here. Failing to do this can result in the following problems: In contract-first scenarios, the external system interface will have been defined.  But the interface may not have been setup or even developed yet for the BizTalk developers to work with. By the time you open the target location to see the data BizTalk has sent, it may have been swept away. If you are relying on the UI of the target system to see the data BizTalk has sent, what do you do if it fails to arrive? It may take time for the data to be processed or it may be scheduled to be processed later. Learning how to use the source\target systems and investigations into where things go wrong in these systems will slow down the BizTalk development effort. By the time the data is visible in a UI it may have undergone further transformations. In larger development teams working together, do you all use the same source and target instances. How do you know which data was created by whose tests? How do you know which event log error message are whose?  Another developer may have “cleaned up” your data. It is harder to write BizUnit tests that clean up the data\logs after each test run. What if your B2B partners' source or target system cannot support the sort of testing you want to do. They may not even have a development or test instance that you can work with. Their single test instance may be used by the SIT\UAT teams. There may be licencing costs of setting up an instances of the external system. The stubs I like to use are generic stubs that can accept\return any message type.  Usually I need to create one per protocol. They should be driven by BizUnit steps to: validates the data received; and select a response messages (or error response). Once built, they can be re-used for many integration tests and from project to project. I’m not saying that developers should never test against a real instance.  Every so often, you still need to connect to real developer or test instances of the source and target endpoints\services. The interface developers may ask you to send them some data to see if everything still works.  Or you might want some messages sent to BizTalk to get confidence that everything still works beyond BizTalk. Tests Automated “Stubbed Integration Tests” are usually built using the BizUnit framework. These facilitate testing of the entire integration process from source stub to target stub. It will ensure that all of the BizTalk components are configured together correctly to meet all the requirements. More fine grained unit testing of individual BizTalk components is still encouraged.  But BizUnit provides much the easiest way to test some components types (e.g. Orchestrations). Using BizUnit with the Behaviour Driven Development approach described by Mike Stephenson delivers the following benefits: source: http://biztalkbddsample.codeplex.com – Video 1. Requirements can be easily defined using Given/When/Then Requirements are close to the code so easier to manage as features and scenarios Requirements are defined in domain language The feature files can be used as part of the documentation The documentation is accurate to the build of code and can be published with a release The scenarios are effective to document the scenarios and are not over excessive The scenarios are maintained with the code There’s an abstraction between the intention and implementation of tests making them easier to understand The requirements drive the testing These same tests can also be used to drive load testing as described here. If you don't do this ... If you don't follow the above “Stubbed Integration Tests” approach, the developer will need to manually trigger the tests. This has the following risks: Developers are unlikely to check all the scenarios each time and all the expected conditions each time. After the developer leaves, these manual test steps may be lost. What test scenarios are there?  What test messages did they use for each scenario? There is no mechanism to prove adequate test coverage. A test team may attempt to automate integration test scenarios in a test environment through the triggering of tests from a source system UI. If this is a replacement for BizUnit tests, then this carries the following risks: It moves the tests downstream, so problems will be found later in the process. Testers may not check all the expected conditions within the BizTalk infrastructure such as: event logs, suspended messages, etc. These automated tests may also get in the way of manual tests run on these environments.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115  | Next Page >