Search Results

Search found 10170 results on 407 pages for 'regression testing'.

Page 108/407 | < Previous Page | 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115  | Next Page >

  • How can I unit test my custom validation attribute

    - by MightyAtom
    I have a custom asp.net mvc class validation attribute. My question is how can I unit test it? It would be one thing to test that the class has the attribute but this would not actually test that the logic inside it. This is what I want to test. [Serializable] [EligabilityStudentDebtsAttribute(ErrorMessage = "You must answer yes or no to all questions")] public class Eligability { [BooleanRequiredToBeTrue(ErrorMessage = "You must agree to the statements listed")] public bool StatementAgree { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "Please choose an option")] public bool? Income { get; set; } .....removed for brevity } [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class)] public class EligabilityStudentDebtsAttribute : ValidationAttribute { // If AnyDebts is true then // StudentDebts must be true or false public override bool IsValid(object value) { Eligability elig = (Eligability)value; bool ok = true; if (elig.AnyDebts == true) { if (elig.StudentDebts == null) { ok = false; } } return ok; } } I have tried to write a test as follows but this does not work: [TestMethod] public void Eligability_model_StudentDebts_is_required_if_AnyDebts_is_true() { // Arrange var eligability = new Eligability(); var controller = new ApplicationController(); // Act controller.ModelState.Clear(); controller.ValidateModel(eligability); var actionResult = controller.Section2(eligability,null,string.Empty); // Assert Assert.IsInstanceOfType(actionResult, typeof(ViewResult)); Assert.AreEqual(string.Empty, ((ViewResult)actionResult).ViewName); Assert.AreEqual(eligability, ((ViewResult)actionResult).ViewData.Model); Assert.IsFalse(((ViewResult)actionResult).ViewData.ModelState.IsValid); } The ModelStateDictionary does not contain the key for this custom attribute. It only contains the attributes for the standard validation attributes. Why is this? What is the best way to test these custom attributes? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Does anyone know what causes this error? VC++ with VisualAssert

    - by TerryJohnson
    Hi does anyone know what causes this error? In Visual Studio 2008 with Visual Assert Thanks 1>------ Build started: Project: ChessRound1, Configuration: Debug Win32 ------ 1>Compiling... 1>stdafx.cpp 1>C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC\include\xlocnum(135) : error C2857: '#include' statement specified with the /Ycstdafx.h command-line option was not found in the source file 1>Build log was saved at "file://c:\Users\Admin1\Documents\Visual Studio 2008\Projects\ChessRound1\ChessRound1\Debug\BuildLog.htm" 1>ChessRound1 - 1 error(s), 0 warning(s) ========== Build: 0 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped ==========

    Read the article

  • Why does this asp.net mvc unit test fail?

    - by Brian McCord
    I have this unit test: [TestMethod] public void Delete_Post_Passes_With_State_4() { //Arrange ViewResult result = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var model = (State)result.ViewData.Model; //Act RedirectToRouteResult redirectResult = stateController.Delete( model ) as RedirectToRouteResult; var newresult = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var newmodel = (State)newresult.ViewData.Model; //Assert Assert.AreEqual( redirectResult.RouteValues["action"], "Index" ); Assert.IsNull( newmodel ); } Here are the two controller actions that handle deleting: // // GET: /State/Delete/5 public ActionResult Delete(int id) { var x = _stateService.GetById( id ); return View(x); } // // POST: /State/Delete/5 [HttpPost] public ActionResult Delete(State model) { try { if( model == null ) { return View( model ); } _stateService.Delete( model ); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } catch { return View( model ); } } What I can't figure out is why this test fails. I have verified that the record actually gets deleted from the list. If I set a break point in the Delete method on the line: var x = _stateService.GetById( id ); The GetById does indeed return a null just as it should, but when it gets back to the newresult variable in the test, the ViewData.Model is the deleted model. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Passing a paramter/object to a ruby unit/test before running it using TestRunner

    - by Nahir Khan
    I'm building a tool that automates a process then runs some tests on it's own results then goes to do some other stuff. In trying to clean up my code I have created a separate file that just has the test cases class. Now before I can run these tests, I have to pass the class a couple of parameters/objects before they can be run. Now the problem is that I can't seem to find a way to pass a parameter/object to the test class. Right now I am thinking to generate a Yaml file and read it in the test class but it feels "wrong" to use a temporary file for this. If anyone has a nicer solution that would be great! *********Edit******* Example Code of what I am doing right now: #!/usr/bin/ruby require 'test/unit/ui/console/testrunner' require 'yaml' require 'TS_SampleTestSuite' automatingSomething() importantInfo = getImportantInfo() File.open('filename.yml', 'w') do |f| f.puts importantInfo.to_yaml end Test::Unit::UI::Console::TestRunner.run(TS_SampleTestSuite) Now in the example above TS_SampleTestSuite needs importantInfo, so the first "test case" is a method that just reads in the information from the Yaml file filname.yml. I hope that clears up some confusion.

    Read the article

  • How to configure a OCUnit test bundle for a framework?

    - by GuidoMB
    I've been developing a Mac OS X framework and I want to use OCUnit in my XCode 3.2.1 project. I've followed several tutorials on how to configure a OCUnit test bundle. The problem is that when I create a test case that uses a function that is defined in one of the framework's sources, I get a building error telling me that the symbol is not found. I made the test bundle dependent of my project's target as the tutorial said, but that doesn't seem to be problem. First I thought that I could solve this problem by dragging the framework's source files into the compile sources section within the Test bundle target, but then all the symbols referenced from that source file started to show up in the build errors, so that seems to not be a good solution/idea. How can I configure my unit test bundle so it builds properly?

    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

  • 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

  • Test assertions for tuples with floats

    - by Space_C0wb0y
    I have a function that returns a tuple that, among others, contains a float value. Usually I use assertAlmostEquals to compare those, but this does not work with tuples. Also, the tuple contains other data-types as well. Currently I am asserting every element of the tuple individually, but that gets too much for a list of such tuples. Is there any good way to write assertions for such cases?

    Read the article

  • Using Rails and Rspec, how do you test that the database is not touched by a method

    - by Will Tomlins
    So I'm writing a test for a method which for performance reasons should achieve what it needs to achieve without using SQL queries. I'm thinking all I need to know is what to stub: describe SomeModel do describe 'a_getter_method' do it 'should not touch the database' do thing = SomeModel.create something_inside_rails.should_not_receive(:a_method_querying_the_database) thing.a_getter_method end end end EDIT: to provide a more specific example: class Publication << ActiveRecord::Base end class Book << Publication end class Magazine << Publication end class Student << ActiveRecord::Base has_many :publications def publications_of_type(type) #this is the method I am trying to test. #The test should show that when I do the following, the database is queried. self.publications.find_all_by_type(type) end end describe Student do describe "publications_of_type" do it 'should not touch the database' do Student.create() student = Student.first(:include => :publications) #the publications relationship is already loaded, so no need to touch the DB lambda { student.publications_of_type(:magazine) }.should_not touch_the_database end end end So the test should fail in this example, because the rails 'find_all_by' method relies on SQL.

    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

  • Log information inside a JUnit Suite

    - by Alex Marinescu
    I'm currently trying to write inside a log file the total number of failed tests from a JUnite Suite. My testsuite is defined as follows: @RunWith(Suite.class) @SuiteClasses({Class1.class, Class2.class etc.}) public class SimpleTestSuite {} I tried to define a rule which would increase the total number of errors when a test fails, but apparently my rule is never called. @Rule public MethodRule logWatchRule = new TestWatchman() { public void failed(Throwable e, FrameworkMethod method) { errors += 1; } public void succeeded(FrameworkMethod method) { } }; Any ideas on what I should to do to achieve this behaviour?

    Read the article

  • Difference in techniques for setting a stubbed method's return value with Rhino Mocks

    - by CRice
    What is the main difference between these following two ways to give a method some fake implementation? I was using the second way fine in one test but in another test the behaviour can not be achieved unless I go with the first way. These are set up via: IMembershipService service = test.Stub<IMembershipService>(); so (the first), using (test.Record()) //test is MockRepository instance { service.GetUser("dummyName"); LastCall.Return(new LoginUser()); } vs (the second). service.Stub(r => r.GetUser("dummyName")).Return(new LoginUser()); Edit The problem is that the second technique returns null in the test, when I expect it to return a new LoginUser. The first technique behaves as expected by returning a new LoginUser. All other test code used in both cases is identical.

    Read the article

  • How can I unit test an Android Activity that acts on Accelerometer?

    - by Corey Sunwold
    I am starting with an Activity based off of this ShakeActivity and I want to write some unit tests for it. I have written some small unit tests for Android activities before but I'm not sure where to start here. I want to feed the accelerometer some different values and test how the activity responds to it. For now I'm keeping it simple and just updating a private int counter variable and a TextView when a "shake" event happens. So my question largely boils down to this: How can I send fake data to the accelerometer from a unit test?

    Read the article

  • Embedded MongoDB when running integration tests

    - by seanhodges
    My question is a variation of this one. Since my Java Web-app project requires a lot of read filters/queries and interfaces with tools like GridFS, I'm struggling to think of a sensible way to simulate MongoDB in the way the above solution suggests. Therefore, I'm considering running an embedded instance of MongoDB alongside my integration tests. I'd like it to start up automatically (either for each test or the whole suite), flush the database for every test, and shut down at the end. These tests might be run on development machines as well as the CI server, so my solution will also need to be portable. Can anyone with more knowledge on MongoDB help me get idea of the feasibility of this approach, and/or perhaps suggest any reading material that might help me get started? I'm also open to other suggestions people might have on how I could approach this problem...

    Read the article

  • Rewarding iOS app beta testers with in app purchase?

    - by Partridge
    My iOS app is going to be free, but with additional functionality enabled via in app purchase. Currently beta testers are doing a great job finding bugs and I want to reward them for their hard work. I think the least I can do is give them a full version of the app so that they don't have to buy the functionality themselves. However, I'm not sure what the best way to do this is. There do not appear to be promo codes for in app purchase so I can't just email out promo codes. I have all the tester device UDIDs so when the app launches I could grab the device UDID and compare it to an internal list of 'approved' UDIDs. Is this what other developers do? My concerns: The in app purchase content would not be tied to their iTunes account, so if beta testers move to a new device they would not be able to enable the content unless I released a new build in the app store with their new UDID. So they may have to buy it eventually anyway. Having an internal list leaves a hole for hackers to modify the list and add themselves to it. What would you do?

    Read the article

  • Access inner function variables in Javascript

    - by Elazar Leibovich
    In many frameworks, internal function variables are used as private variables, for example Raphael = (function(){ var private = function(a,b) {return a+b;}; var public = function(a) {return private(a,a);} var object = {mult2:public}; return object; })(); here, we cannot access from the global namespace the variable named private, as it is an inner variable of the anonymous function in the first line. Sometimes this function is contains a big Javascript framework, so that it wouldn't pollute the global namespace. I need to unit tests some object Raphael uses internally (in the above example, I wish to run unit tests on the object private). How can I test them?

    Read the article

  • Test param value using EasyMock

    - by fmpdmb
    I'm attempting to write some unit tests using EasyMock and TestNG and have run into a question. Given the following: void execute(Foo f) { Bar b = new Bar() b.setId(123); f.setBar(b); } I'm trying to test that the Id of the Bar gets set accordingly in the following fashion: @Test void test_execute() { Foo f = EasyMock.createMock(Foo.class); execute(f); Bar b = ?; // not sure what to do here f.setBar(b); f.expectLastCall(); } In my test, I can't just call f.getBar() and inspect it's Id because f is a mock object. Any thoughts? Is this where I'd want to look at the EasyMock v2.5 additions andDelegateTo() and andStubDelegateTo()?

    Read the article

  • How do I unit test the methods in a method object?

    - by Sancho
    I've performed the "Replace Method with Method Object" refactoring described by Beck. Now, I have a class with a "run()" method and a bunch of member functions that decompose the computation into smaller units. How do I test those member functions? My first idea is that my unit tests be basically copies of the "run()" method (with different initializations), but with assertions between each call to the member functions to check the state of the computation. (I'm using Python and the unittest module.)

    Read the article

  • Code promotion: Enforcing the rules

    - by jbarker7
    So here is our problem: We have a small team of developers with their own ways of doing things-- I am trying to formalize a process in which we are required to promote our code in the following order: Local sandbox Dev UAT Staging Live Developers develop/test as they go on their own sandbox, Dev is its own box that we would use for continuous integration, UAT is another site in IIS on the dev box, which uses our dev database. We then promote to staging, which is a site in IIS on the Live box and using live data (just like the live, hence staging). Then, finally, we promote to live. Here are a few of my questions: 1.) Does this seem to be best practice? If not, what needs to be done differently? 2.) How do I enforce the rules to the developers? Often developers skip steps in order to save time... this should not be tolerated and would be great if it could be physically enforced. 3.) How do I enforce these rules to the business group? The business group just wants to get features out FAST. Do we promote only on certain days? Thanks! Josh

    Read the article

  • Where is the help.py for Android's monkeyrunner

    - by Keyboardsurfer
    Hi, I just can't find the help.py file in order to create the API reference for the monkeyrunner. The command described at the Android references monkeyrunner <format> help.py <outfile> does not work when i call monkeyrunner html help.py /path/to/place/the/doc.html. It's quite obvious that the help.py file is not found and the monkeyrunner also tells me "Can't open specified script file". But a locate on my system doesn't bring me a help.py file that has anything to do with monkeyrunner or Android. So my question is: Where did they hide the help.py file for creating the API reference?

    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 can I include utility functions from another file into a Sproutcore unit test file?

    - by Lauri
    Lets say I have a few utility functions in file tests/utils/functions.js. I would like to use these functions from several unit test files. However, I'm not able to use them as the Sproutcore build system does not include any external files into the html page used to run the unit tests. Only application code and the code from the unit tests to be run are included. So is it possible to somehow include Javascript files to be used in unit test files in Sproutcore? I could add the functions.js file into some other directory inside my application to be able to use them. However, this is not what I want to do as the utility functions are useless in final production build and would only make my application larger.

    Read the article

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