Search Results

Search found 299 results on 12 pages for 'rhino mocks 3 5'.

Page 11/12 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• How can I effectively test against the Windows API?

  - by Billy ONeal

  I'm still having issues justifying TDD to myself. As I have mentioned in other questions, 90% of the code I write does absolutely nothing but Call some Windows API functions and Print out the data returned from said functions. The time spent coming up with the fake data that the code needs to process under TDD is incredible -- I literally spend 5 times as much time coming up with the example data as I would spend just writing application code. Part of this problem is that often I'm programming against APIs with which I have little experience, which forces me to write small applications that show me how the real API behaves so that I can write effective fakes/mocks on top of that API. Writing implementation first is the opposite of TDD, but in this case it is unavoidable: I do not know how the real API behaves, so how on earth am I going to be able to create a fake implementation of the API without playing with it? I have read several books on the subject, including Kent Beck's Test Driven Development, By Example, and Michael Feathers' Working Effectively with Legacy Code, which seem to be gospel for TDD fanatics. Feathers' book comes close in the way it describes breaking out dependencies, but even then, the examples provided have one thing in common: The program under test obtains input from other parts of the program under test. My programs do not follow that pattern. Instead, the only input to the program itself is the system upon which it runs. How can one effectively employ TDD on such a project?

  Read the article

• In Seam what's the difference between injected EntityManager and getEntityManager from EntityHome

  - by Navi

  I am testing a Seam application using the needle test API. In my code I am using the getEntityManager() method from EntityHome. When I run the unit tests against an in memory database I get the following exception: java.lang.IllegalStateException: No application context active at org.jboss.seam.Component.forName(Component.java:1945) at org.jboss.seam.Component.getInstance(Component.java:2005) at org.jboss.seam.Component.getInstance(Component.java:1983) at org.jboss.seam.Component.getInstance(Component.java:1977) at org.jboss.seam.Component.getInstance(Component.java:1972) at org.jboss.seam.framework.Controller.getComponentInstance(Controller.java:272) at org.jboss.seam.framework.PersistenceController.getPersistenceContext(PersistenceController.java:20) at org.jboss.seam.framework.EntityHome.getEntityManager(EntityHome.java:177) etc .. I can resolve some of these errors by injecting the EntityManager with @In EntityManager entityManager; Unfortunately the persist method of EntityHome also calls the getEntityManager. This means a lot of mocks or rewriting the code somehow. Is there any workaround and why is this exception thrown anyway? I am using Seam 2.2.0 GA by the way. There is nothing special about the components. They are generated by seam-gen. The test is performed with in memory database - I followed the examples in http://jbosscc-needle.sourceforge.net/jbosscc-needle/1.0/db-util.html.

  Read the article

• asp.net mvc - How to create fake test objects quickly and efficiently

  - by Simon G

  Hi, I'm currently testing the controller in my mvc app and I'm creating a fake repository for testing. However I seem to be writing more code and spending more time for the fakes than I do on the actual repositories. Is this right? The code I have is as follows: Controller public partial class SomeController : Controller { IRepository repository; public SomeController(IRepository rep) { repository = rep; } public virtaul ActionResult Index() { // Some logic var model = repository.GetSomething(); return View(model); } } IRepository public interface IRepository { Something GetSomething(); } Fake Repository public class FakeRepository : IRepository { private List<Something> somethingList; public FakeRepository(List<Something> somethings) { somthingList = somthings; } public Something GetSomething() { return somethingList; } } Fake Data class FakeSomethingData { public static List<Something> CreateSomethingData() { var somethings = new List<Something>(); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { somethings.Add(new Something { value1 = String.Format("value{0}", i), value2 = String.Format("value{0}", i), value3 = String.Format("value{0}", i) }); } return somethings; } } Actual Test [TestClass] public class SomethingControllerTest { SomethingController CreateSomethingController() { var testData = FakeSomethingData.CreateSomethingData(); var repository = new FakeSomethingRepository(testData); SomethingController controller = new SomethingController(repository); return controller; } [TestMethod] public void SomeTest() { // Arrange var controller = CreateSomethingController(); // Act // Some test here // Arrange } } All this seems to be a lot of extra code, especially as I have more than one repository. Is there a more efficient way of doing this? Maybe using mocks? Thanks

  Read the article

• Mocking inter-method dependencies

  - by Zecrates

  I've recently started using mock objects in my tests, but I'm still very inexperienced with them and unsure of how to use them in some cases. At the moment I'm struggling with how to mock inter-method dependencies (calling method A has an effect on the results of method B), and whether it should even be mocked (in the sense of using a mocking framework) at all? Take for example a Java Iterator? It is easy enough to mock the next() call to return the correct values, but how do I mock hasNext(), which depends on how many times next() has been called? Currently I'm using a List.Iterator as I could find no way to properly mock one. Does Martin Fowler's distinction between mocks and stubs come into play here? Should I rather write my own IteratorMock? Also consider the following example. The method to be tested calls mockObject.setX() and later on mockObject.getX(). Is there any way that I can create such a mock (without writing my own) which will allow the returned value of getX to depend on what was passed to setX?

  Read the article

• NMock2.0 - how to stub a non interface call?

  - by dferraro

  Hello, I have a class API which has full code coverage and uses DI to mock out all the logic in the main class function (Job.Run) which does all the work. I found a bug in production where we werent doing some validation on one of the data input fields. So, I added a stub function called ValidateFoo()... Wrote a unit test against this function to Expect a JobFailedException, ran the test - it failed obviously because that function was empty. I added the validation logic, and now the test passes. Great, now we know the validation works. Problem is - how do I write the test to make sure that ValidateFoo() is actually called inside Job.Run()? ValidateFoo() is a private method of the Job class - so it's not an interface... Is there anyway to do this with NMock2.0? I know TypeMock supports fakes of non interface types. But changing mock libs right now is not an option. At this point if NMock can't support it, I will simply just add the ValidateFoo() call to the Run() method and test things manually - which obviously I'd prefer not to do considering my Job.Run() method has 100% coverage right now. Any Advice? Thanks very much it is appreciated. EDIT: the other option I have in mind is to just create an integration test for my Job.Run functionality (injecting to it true implementations of the composite objects instead of mocks). I will give it a bad input value for that field and then validate that the job failed. This works and covers my test - but it's not really a unit test but instead an integration test that tests one unit of functionality.... hmm.. EDIT2: IS there any way to do tihs? Anyone have ideas? Maybe TypeMock - or a better design?

  Read the article

• Where do you take mocking - immediate dependencies, or do you grow the boundaries...?

  - by Peter Mounce

  So, I'm reasonably new to both unit testing and mocking in C# and .NET; I'm using xUnit.net and Rhino Mocks respectively. I'm a convert, and I'm focussing on writing behaviour specifications, I guess, instead of being purely TDD. Bah, semantics; I want an automated safety net to work above, essentially. A thought struck me though. I get programming against interfaces, and the benefits as far as breaking apart dependencies goes there. Sold. However, in my behaviour verification suite (aka unit tests ;-) ), I'm asserting behaviour one interface at a time. As in, one implementation of an interface at a time, with all of its dependencies mocked out and expectations set up. The approach seems to be that if we verify that a class behaves as it should against its collaborating dependencies, and in turn relies on each of those collaborating dependencies to have signed that same quality contract, we're golden. Seems reasonable enough. Back to the thought, though. Is there any value in semi-integration tests, where a test-fixture is asserting against a unit of concrete implementations that are wired together, and we're testing its internal behaviour against mocked dependencies? I just re-read that and I think I could probably have worded it better. Obviously, there's going to be a certain amount of "well, if it adds value for you, keep doing it", I suppose - but has anyone else thought about doing that, and reaped benefits from it outweighing the costs?

  Read the article

• Django Testing: Faking User Creation

  - by Ygam

  I want to better write this test: def test_profile_created(self): self.client.post(reverse('registration_register'), data={ 'username':'ygam', 'email':'[email protected]', 'password1':'ygam', 'password2':'ygam' }) """ Test if a profile is created on save """ user = User.objects.get(username='ygam') self.assertTrue(UserProfile.objects.filter(user=user).exists()) and I just came upon this code on django-registration tests that does not actually "create" the user: def test_registration_signal(self): def receiver(sender, **kwargs): self.failUnless('user' in kwargs) self.assertEqual(kwargs['user'].username, 'bob') self.failUnless('request' in kwargs) self.failUnless(isinstance(kwargs['request'], WSGIRequest)) received_signals.append(kwargs.get('signal')) received_signals = [] signals.user_registered.connect(receiver, sender=self.backend.__class__) self.backend.register(_mock_request(), username='bob', email='[email protected]', password1='secret') self.assertEqual(len(received_signals), 1) self.assertEqual(received_signals, [signals.user_registered]) However he used a custom function for this "_mock_request": class _MockRequestClient(Client): def request(self, **request): environ = { 'HTTP_COOKIE': self.cookies, 'PATH_INFO': '/', 'QUERY_STRING': '', 'REMOTE_ADDR': '127.0.0.1', 'REQUEST_METHOD': 'GET', 'SCRIPT_NAME': '', 'SERVER_NAME': 'testserver', 'SERVER_PORT': '80', 'SERVER_PROTOCOL': 'HTTP/1.1', 'wsgi.version': (1,0), 'wsgi.url_scheme': 'http', 'wsgi.errors': self.errors, 'wsgi.multiprocess':True, 'wsgi.multithread': False, 'wsgi.run_once': False, 'wsgi.input': None, } environ.update(self.defaults) environ.update(request) request = WSGIRequest(environ) # We have to manually add a session since we'll be bypassing # the middleware chain. session_middleware = SessionMiddleware() session_middleware.process_request(request) return request def _mock_request(): return _MockRequestClient().request() However, it may be too long of a function for my needs. I want to be able to somehow "fake" the account creation. I have not much experience on mocks and stubs so any help would do. Thanks!

  Read the article

• What is the best way to use Guice and JMock together?

  - by Yishai

  I have started using Guice to do some dependency injection on a project, primarily because I need to inject mocks (using JMock currently) a layer away from the unit test, which makes manual injection very awkward. My question is what is the best approach for introducing a mock? What I currently have is to make a new module in the unit test that satisfies the dependencies and bind them with a provider that looks like this: public class JMockProvider<T> implements Provider<T> { private T mock; public JMockProvider(T mock) { this.mock = mock; } public T get() { return mock; } } Passing the mock in the constructor, so a JMock setup might look like this: final CommunicationQueue queue = context.mock(CommunicationQueue.class); final TransactionRollBack trans = context.mock(TransactionRollBack.class); Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new AbstractModule() { @Override protected void configure() { bind(CommunicationQueue.class).toProvider(new JMockProvider<QuickBooksCommunicationQueue>(queue)); bind(TransactionRollBack.class).toProvider(new JMockProvider<TransactionRollBack>(trans)); } }); context.checking(new Expectations() {{ oneOf(queue).retrieve(with(any(int.class))); will(returnValue(null)); never(trans); }}); injector.getInstance(RunResponse.class).processResponseImpl(-1); Is there a better way? I know that AtUnit attempts to address this problem, although I'm missing how it auto-magically injects a mock that was created locally like the above, but I'm looking for either a compelling reason why AtUnit is the right answer here (other than its ability to change DI and mocking frameworks around without changing tests) or if there is a better solution to doing it by hand.

  Read the article

• How to keep your unit test Arrange step simple and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

  - by ian31

  DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

  Read the article

• How to keep your unit tests simple and isolated and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

  - by ian31

  DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

  Read the article

• C++ & proper TDD

  - by Kotti

  Hi! I recently tried developing a small-sized project in C# and during the whole project our team used the Test-Driven-Development (TDD) technique (xunit, moq). I really think this was awesome, because (when paired with C#) this approach allowed to relax when coding, relax when projecting and relax when refactoring. I suspect that all this TDD-stuff actually simplifies the coding process and, well, it allowed (eventually, for me) to get the same result with fewer brain cells working. Right after that I tried using TDD paired with C++ (I used Google Test and Google Mock libraries), and, I don't know why but I actually think that TDD here was a step back in terms of rapid application development. I had some moments when I had to spend huge amounts of time thinking of my tests, building proper mocks, rebuilding them and swearing at my monitor. And, well, I obviously can't ask something like "what I did wrong?" or "what was wrong in my approach?", because I don't know what to describe. But if there are any people who are used to TDD in C++ (and, probably C#) too, could you please advise me how to do this properly. Framework recommendations, architecture approaches, plain coding advices - if you are experienced in TDD & C++, please respond.

  Read the article

• mmap only needed pages of kernel buffer to user space

  - by axeoth

  See also this answer: http://stackoverflow.com/a/10770582/1284631 I need something similar, but without having to allocate a buffer: the buffer is large, in theory, but the user space program only needs to access some parts of it (it mocks some registers of a hardware). As I cannot allocate with vmalloc_user() such a large buffer (kernel 32 bit, in embedded environment, no swap...), I followed the same approach as in the quoted answer, trying to allocate only those pages that are really requested by the user space. So: I use a my_mmap() function for the device file (actually, is the .mmap field of a struct uio_info) to set up the fields of the vma, then, in the vm_area_struct's .fault field (also named my_fault()), I should return a page. except that: In the my_fault() method of vm_area_struct, I cannot obtain a page through: vmf->page=vmalloc_to_page(my_buf + (vmf->pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT)); since there is no allocated buffer: my_buf = vmalloc_user(MY_BUF_SIZE); fails with "allocation failed: out of vmalloc space - use vmalloc= to increase size." (and there is no room or swap to increase that vmalloc= parameter). So, I would need to get a page from the kernel and fill the vmf->page field. How to allocate a page (I assume that the offset of the page is known, as it is vm->pgoff). What base memory should I use instead of my_buf? PS: I also did set up the vma->flags |= VM_NORESERVE; (in the my_mmap()), but not sure if it helps. Is there any vmalloc_user_unreserved()-like function? (let's say, lazy allocation) Also, writing 1 to /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory and large values (eg 500) to /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_ratio before trying to my_buf=vmalloc_user(<large_size>) didn't work.

  Read the article

• Seeking suggestions on redesigning the interface

  - by ratkok

  As a part of maintaining large piece of legacy code, we need to change part of the design mainly to make it more testable (unit testing). One of the issues we need to resolve is the existing interface between components. The interface between two components is a class that contains static methods only. Simplified example: class ABInterface { static methodA(); static methodB(); ... static methodZ(); }; The interface is used by component A so that different methods can use ABInterface::methodA() in order to prepare some input data and then invoke appropriate functions within component B. Now we are trying to redesign this interface for various reasons: Extending our unit test coverage - we need to resolve this dependency between the components and stubs/mocks are to be introduced The interface between these components diverged from the original design (ie. a lots of newer functions, used for the inter-component i/f are created outside this interface class). The code is old, changed a lot over the time and needs to be refactored. The change should not be disruptive for the rest of the system. We try to limit leaving many test-required artifacts in the production code. Performance is very important and should be no (or very minimal) degradation after the redesign. Code is OO in C++. I am looking for some ideas what approach to take. Any suggestions on how to do this efficiently?

  Read the article

• Nested Resource testing RSpec

  - by Joseph DelCioppio

  I have two models: class Solution < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :owner, :class_name => "User", :foreign_key => :user_id end class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :solutions end with the following routing: map.resources :users, :has_many => :solutions and here is the SolutionsController: class SolutionsController < ApplicationController before_filter :load_user def index @solutions = @user.solutions end private def load_user @user = User.find(params[:user_id]) unless params[:user_id].nil? end end Can anybody help me with writing a test for the index action? So far I have tried the following but it doesn't work: describe SolutionsController do before(:each) do @user = Factory.create(:user) @solutions = 7.times{Factory.build(:solution, :owner => @user)} @user.stub!(:solutions).and_return(@solutions) end it "should find all of the solutions owned by a user" do @user.should_receive(:solutions) get :index, :user_id => @user.id end end And I get the following error: Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'SolutionsController GET index, when the user owns the software he is viewing should find all of the solutions owned by a user' #<User:0x000000041c53e0> expected :solutions with (any args) once, but received it 0 times Thanks in advance for all the help. Joe

  Read the article

• How can I spec out an authlogic sessions controller using using a stub?

  - by Dave

  I want to test my User Session Controller testing that a user session is first built then saved. My UserSession class looks like this: class UserSession < Authlogic::Session::Base end The create method of my UserSessionsController looks like this: def create @user_session = UserSession.new(params[:user_session]) if @user_session.save flash[:notice] = "Successfully logged in." redirect_back_or_default administer_home_page_url else render :new end end and my controller spec looks like this: describe UserSessionsController do it "should build a new user session" do UserSession.stub!(:new).with(:email, :password) UserSession.should_receive(:new).with(:email => "[email protected]", :password => "foobar") post :create, :user_session => { :email => "[email protected]", :password => "foobar" } end end I stub out the new method but I still get the following error when I run the test: Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'UserSessionsController should build a new user session' <UserSession (class)> received :new with unexpected arguments expected: ({:password=>"foobar", :email=>"[email protected]"}) got: ({:priority_record=>nil}, nil) It's although the new method is being called on UserSession before my controller code is getting called. Calling activate_authlogic makes no difference.

  Read the article

• Framework or tool for "distributed unit testing"?

  - by user262646

  Is there any tool or framework able to make it easier to test distributed software written in Java? My system under test is a peer-to-peer software, and I'd like to perform testing using something like PNUnit, but with Java instead of .Net. The system under test is a framework I'm developing to build P2P applications. It uses JXTA as a lower subsystem, trying to hide some complexities of it. It's currently an academic project, so I'm pursuing simplicity at this moment. In my test, I want to demonstrate that a peer (running in its own process, possibly with multiple threads) can discover another one (running in another process or even another machine) and that they can exchange a few messages. I'm not using mocks nor stubs because I need to see both sides working simultaneously. I realize that some kind of coordination mechanism is needed, and PNUnit seems to be able to do that. I've bumped into some initiatives like Pisces, which "aims to provide a distributed testing environment that extends JUnit, giving the developer/tester an ability to run remote JUnits and create complex test suites that are composed of several remote JUnit tests running in parallel or serially", but this project and a few others I have found seem to be long dead.

  Read the article

• Mocking non-virtual methods in C++ without editing production code?

  - by wk1989

  Hello, I am a fairly new software developer currently working adding unit tests to an existing C++ project that started years ago. Due to a non-technical reason, I'm not allowed to modify any existing code. The base class of all my modules has a bunch of methods for Setting/Getting data and communicating with other modules. Since I just want to unit testing each individual module, I want to be able to use canned values for all my inter-module communication methods. I.e. for a method Ping() which checks if another module is active, I want to have it return true or false based on what kind of test I'm doing. I've been looking into Google Test and Google Mock, and it does support mocking non-virtual methods. However the approach described (http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods) requires me to "templatize" the original methods to take in either real or mock objects. I can't go and templatize my methods in the base class due to the requirement mentioned earlier, so I need some other way of mocking these virtual methods Basically, the methods I want to mock are in some base class, the modules I want to unit test and create mocks of are derived classes of that base class. There are intermediate modules in between my base Module class and the modules that I want to test. I would appreciate any advise! Thanks, JW EDIT: A more concrete examples My base class is lets say rootModule, the module I want to test is leafModule. There is an intermediate module which inherits from rootModule, leafModule inherits from this intermediate module. In my leafModule, I want to test the doStuff() method, which calls the non virtual GetStatus(moduleName) defined in the rootModule class. I need to somehow make GetStatus() to return a chosen canned value. Mocking is new to me, so is using mock objects even the right approach?

  Read the article

• Angular JS pagination after data loaded

  - by Federico Bucchi

  do you have any example of Angular JS elements pagination loaded from I file? I found this example: http://jsfiddle.net/SAWsA/11/ Now, instead of having this: $scope.items = [ {"id":"1","name":"name 1","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 1","field4":"field4 1","field5 ":"field5 1"}, {"id":"2","name":"name 2","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 2","field4":"field4 2","field5 ":"field5 2"}, {"id":"3","name":"name 3","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 3","field4":"field4 3","field5 ":"field5 3"}, {"id":"4","name":"name 4","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 4","field4":"field4 4","field5 ":"field5 4"}, {"id":"5","name":"name 5","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 5","field4":"field4 5","field5 ":"field5 5"}, {"id":"6","name":"name 6","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 6","field4":"field4 6","field5 ":"field5 6"}, {"id":"7","name":"name 7","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 7","field4":"field4 7","field5 ":"field5 7"}, {"id":"8","name":"name 8","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 8","field4":"field4 8","field5 ":"field5 8"}, {"id":"9","name":"name 9","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 9","field4":"field4 9","field5 ":"field5 9"}, {"id":"10","name":"name 10","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 10","field4":"field4 10","field5 ":"field5 10"}, {"id":"11","name":"name 11","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 11","field4":"field4 11","field5 ":"field5 11"}, {"id":"12","name":"name 12","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 12","field4":"field4 12","field5 ":"field5 12"}, {"id":"13","name":"name 13","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 13","field4":"field4 13","field5 ":"field5 13"}, {"id":"14","name":"name 14","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 14","field4":"field4 14","field5 ":"field5 14"}, {"id":"15","name":"name 15","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 15","field4":"field4 15","field5 ":"field5 15"}, {"id":"16","name":"name 16","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 16","field4":"field4 16","field5 ":"field5 16"}, {"id":"17","name":"name 17","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 17","field4":"field4 17","field5 ":"field5 17"}, {"id":"18","name":"name 18","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 18","field4":"field4 18","field5 ":"field5 18"}, {"id":"19","name":"name 19","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 19","field4":"field4 19","field5 ":"field5 19"}, {"id":"20","name":"name 20","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 20","field4":"field4 20","field5 ":"field5 20"} ]; I have to use something generated by: $http.get('/json/mocks/apps/applications.json') .then(function (result) { $scope.items = result.data.applications; }); How would you create the pagination waiting for the data loaded from $http.get?

  Read the article

• Repository Pattern Standardization of methods

  - by Nix

  All I am trying to find out the correct definition of the repository pattern. My original understanding was this (extremely dubmed down) Separate your Business Objects from your Data Objects Standardize access methods in data access layer. I have really seen 2 different implementations. Implementation 1 : public Interface IRepository<T>{ List<T> GetAll(); void Create(T p); void Update(T p); } public interface IProductRepository: IRepository<Product> { //Extension methods if needed List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Implementation 2 : public interface IProductRepository { List<Product> GetAllProducts(); void CreateProduct(Product p); void UpdateProduct(Product p); List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Notice the first is generic Get/Update/GetAll, etc, the second is more of what I would define "DAO" like. Both share an extraction from your data entities. Which I like, but i can do the same with a simple DAO. However the second piece standardize access operations I see value in, if you implement this enterprise wide people would easily know the set of access methods for your repository. Am I wrong to assume that the standardization of access to data is an integral piece of this pattern ? Rhino has a good article on implementation 1, and of course MS has a vague definition and an example of implementation 2 is here.

  Read the article

• How do I setup model associations in an RSpec test?

  - by Eric M.

  I've pastied the specs I've written for the posts/show.html.erb view in an application I'm writing as a means to learn RSpec. I am still learning about mocks and stubbing. This question is specific to the "should list all related comments" spec. What I want is to test that the show view displays a post's comments. But what I'm not sure about is how to setup this test and then have the test iterate through with should contain('xyz') statements. Any hints? Other suggestions are also appreciated! Thanks. ---Edit Some more information. I have a named_scope applied to comments in my view (I know, I did this a bit backwards in this case), so @post.comments.approved_is(true). The code pastied responds with the error "undefined method `approved_is' for #", which makes sense since I told it stub comments and return a comment. I'm still not sure, however, how to chain the stubs so that @post.comments.approved_is(true) will return an array of comments.

  Read the article

• Integration testing - can it be done right?

  - by Max

  I used TDD as a development style on some projects in the past two years, but I always get stuck on the same point: how can I test the integration of the various parts of my program? What I am currently doing is writing a testcase per class (this is my rule of thumb: a "unit" is a class, and each class has one or more testcases). I try to resolve dependencies by using mocks and stubs and this works really well as each class can be tested independently. After some coding, all important classes are tested. I then "wire" them together using an IoC container. And here I am stuck: How to test if the wiring was successfull and the objects interact the way I want? An example: Think of a web application. There is a controller class which takes an array of ids, uses a repository to fetch the records based on these ids and then iterates over the records and writes them as a string to an outfile. To make it simple, there would be three classes: Controller, Repository, OutfileWriter. Each of them is tested in isolation. What I would do in order to test the "real" application: making the http request (either manually or automated) with some ids from the database and then look in the filesystem if the file was written. Of course this process could be automated, but still: doesn´t that duplicate the test-logic? Is this what is called an "integration test"? In a book i recently read about Unit Testing it seemed to me that integration testing was more of an anti-pattern?

  Read the article

• Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC Review

  - by Ben Griswold

  A few years back I started dallying with test-driven development, but I never fully committed to the practice. This wasn’t because I didn’t believe in the value of TDD; it was more a matter of not completely understanding how to incorporate “test first” into my everyday development. Back in my web forms days, I could point fingers at the framework for my ignorance and laziness. After all, web forms weren’t exactly designed for testability so who could blame me for not embracing TDD in those conditions, right? But when I switched to ASP.NET MVC and quickly found myself fresh out of excuses and it became instantly clear that it was time to get my head around red-green-refactor once and for all or I would regretfully miss out on one of the biggest selling points the new framework had to offer. I have previously written about how I learned ASP.NET MVC. It was primarily hands on learning but I did read a couple of ASP.NET MVC books along the way. The books I read dedicated a chapter or two to TDD and they certainly addressed the benefits of TDD and how MVC was designed with testability in mind, but TDD was merely an afterthought compared to, well, teaching one how to code the model, view and controller. This approach made some sense, and I learned a bunch about MVC from those books, but when it came to TDD the books were just a teaser and an opportunity missed.  But then I got lucky – Jonathan McCracken contacted me and asked if I’d review his book, Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC, and it was just what I needed to get over the TDD hump. As the title suggests, Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC takes a different approach to learning MVC as it focuses on testing right from the very start. McCracken wastes no time and swiftly familiarizes us with the framework by building out a trivial Quote-O-Matic application and then dedicates the better part of his book to testing first – first by explaining TDD and then coding a full-featured Getting Organized application inspired by David Allen’s popular book, Getting Things Done. If you are a learn-by-example kind of coder (like me), you will instantly appreciate and enjoy McCracken’s style – its fast-moving, pragmatic and focused on only the most relevant information required to get you going with ASP.NET MVC and TDD. The book continues with the test-first theme but McCracken moves away from the sample application and incorporates other practical skills like persisting models with NHibernate, leveraging Inversion of Control with the IControllerFactory and building a RESTful web service. What I most appreciated about this section was McCracken’s use of and praise for open source libraries like Rhino Mocks, SQLite and StructureMap (to name just a few) and productivity tools like ReSharper, Web Platform Installer and ASP.NET SQL Server Setup Wizard.  McCracken’s emphasis on real world, pragmatic development was clearly demonstrated in every tool choice, straight-forward code block and developer tip. Whether one is already familiar with the tools/tips or not, McCracken’s thought process is easily understood and appreciated. The final section of the book walks the reader through security and deployment – everything from error handling and logging with ELMAH, to ASP.NET Health Monitoring, to using MSBuild with automated builds, to the deployment  of ASP.NET MVC to various web environments. These chapters, like those prior, offer enough information and explanation to simply help you get the job done.  Do I believe Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC will turn you into an expert MVC developer overnight?  Well, no.  I don’t think any book can make that claim.  If that were possible, I think book list prices would skyrocket!  That said, Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC provides a solid foundation and a unique (and dare I say necessary) approach to learning ASP.NET MVC.  Along the way McCracken shares loads of very practical software development tips and references numerous tools and libraries. The bottom line is it’s a great ASP.NET MVC primer – if you’re new to ASP.NET MVC it’s just what you need to get started.  Do I believe Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC will give you everything you need to start employing TDD in your everyday development?  Well, I used to think that learning TDD required a lot of practice and, if you’re lucky enough, the guidance of a mentor or coach.  I used to think that one couldn’t learn TDD from a book alone. Well, I’m still no pro, but I’m testing first now and Jonathan McCracken and his book, Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC, played a big part in making this happen.  If you are an MVC developer and a TDD newb, Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC is just the book for you.

  Read the article

• TDD and WCF behavior

  - by Frederic Hautecoeur

  Some weeks ago I wanted to develop a WCF behavior using TDD. I have lost some time trying to use mocks. After a while i decided to just use a host and a client. I don’t like this approach but so far I haven’t found a good and fast solution to use Unit Test for testing a WCF behavior. To Implement my solution I had to : Create a Dummy Service Definition; Create the Dummy Service Implementation; Create a host; Create a client in my test; Create and Add the behavior; Dummy Service Definition This is just a simple service, composed of an Interface and a simple implementation. The structure is aimed to be easily customizable for my future needs.   Using Clauses : 1: using System.Runtime.Serialization; 2: using System.ServiceModel; 3: using System.ServiceModel.Channels; The DataContract: 1: [DataContract()] 2: public class MyMessage 3: { 4: [DataMember()] 5: public string MessageString; 6: } The request MessageContract: 1: [MessageContract()] 2: public class RequestMessage 3: { 4: [MessageHeader(Name = "MyHeader", Namespace = "http://dummyservice/header", Relay = true)] 5: public string myHeader; 6:  7: [MessageBodyMember()] 8: public MyMessage myRequest; 9: } The response MessageContract: 1: [MessageContract()] 2: public class ResponseMessage 3: { 4: [MessageHeader(Name = "MyHeader", Namespace = "http://dummyservice/header", Relay = true)] 5: public string myHeader; 6:  7: [MessageBodyMember()] 8: public MyMessage myResponse; 9: } The ServiceContract: 1: [ServiceContract(Name="DummyService", Namespace="http://dummyservice",SessionMode=SessionMode.Allowed )] 2: interface IDummyService 3: { 4: [OperationContract(Action="Perform", IsOneWay=false, ProtectionLevel=System.Net.Security.ProtectionLevel.None )] 5: ResponseMessage DoThis(RequestMessage request); 6: } Dummy Service Implementation 1: public class DummyService:IDummyService 2: { 3: #region IDummyService Members 4: public ResponseMessage DoThis(RequestMessage request) 5: { 6: ResponseMessage response = new ResponseMessage(); 7: response.myHeader = "Response"; 8: response.myResponse = new MyMessage(); 9: response.myResponse.MessageString = 10: string.Format("Header:<{0}> and Request was <{1}>", 11: request.myHeader, request.myRequest.MessageString); 12: return response; 13: } 14: #endregion 15: } Host Creation The most simple host implementation using a Named Pipe binding. The GetBinding method will create a binding for the host and can be used to create the same binding for the client. 1: public static class TestHost 2: { 3: 4: internal static string hostUri = "net.pipe://localhost/dummy"; 5:  6: // Create Host method. 7: internal static ServiceHost CreateHost() 8: { 9: ServiceHost host = new ServiceHost(typeof(DummyService)); 10:  11: // Creating Endpoint 12: Uri namedPipeAddress = new Uri(hostUri); 13: host.AddServiceEndpoint(typeof(IDummyService), GetBinding(), namedPipeAddress); 14:  15: return host; 16: } 17:  18: // Binding Creation method. 19: internal static Binding GetBinding() 20: { 21: NamedPipeTransportBindingElement namedPipeTransport = new NamedPipeTransportBindingElement(); 22: TextMessageEncodingBindingElement textEncoding = new TextMessageEncodingBindingElement(); 23:  24: return new CustomBinding(textEncoding, namedPipeTransport); 25: } 26:  27: // Close Method. 28: internal static void Close(ServiceHost host) 29: { 30: if (null != host) 31: { 32: host.Close(); 33: host = null; 34: } 35: } 36: } Checking the service A simple test tool check the plumbing. 1: [TestMethod] 2: public void TestService() 3: { 4: using (ServiceHost host = TestHost.CreateHost()) 5: { 6: host.Open(); 7:  8: using (ChannelFactory<IDummyService> channel = 9: new ChannelFactory<IDummyService>(TestHost.GetBinding() 10: , new EndpointAddress(TestHost.hostUri))) 11: { 12: IDummyService svc = channel.CreateChannel(); 13: try 14: { 15: RequestMessage request = new RequestMessage(); 16: request.myHeader = Guid.NewGuid().ToString(); 17: request.myRequest = new MyMessage(); 18: request.myRequest.MessageString = "I want some beer."; 19:  20: ResponseMessage response = svc.DoThis(request); 21: } 22: catch (Exception ex) 23: { 24: Assert.Fail(ex.Message); 25: } 26: } 27: host.Close(); 28: } 29: } Running the service should show that the client and the host are running fine. So far so good. Adding the Behavior Add a reference to the Behavior project and add the using entry in the test class. We just need to add the behavior to the service host : 1: [TestMethod] 2: public void TestService() 3: { 4: using (ServiceHost host = TestHost.CreateHost()) 5: { 6: host.Description.Behaviors.Add(new MyBehavior()); 7: host.Open();¨ 8: …  If you set a breakpoint in your behavior and run the test in debug mode, you will hit the breakpoint. In this case I used a ServiceBehavior. To add an Endpoint behavior you have to add it to the endpoints. 1: host.Description.Endpoints[0].Behaviors.Add(new MyEndpointBehavior()) To add a contract or an operation behavior a custom attribute should work on the service contract definition. I haven’t tried that yet.   All the code provided in this blog and in the following files are for sample use. Improvements I don’t like to instantiate a client and a service to test my behaviors. But so far I have' not found an easy way to do it. Today I am passing a type of endpoint to the host creator and it creates the right binding type. This allows me to easily switch between bindings at will. I have used the same approach to test Mex Endpoints, another post should come later for this. Enjoy !

  Read the article

• Liskov Substitution Principle and the Oft Forgot Third Wheel

  - by Stacy Vicknair

  Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP) is a principle of object oriented programming that many might be familiar with from the SOLID principles mnemonic from Uncle Bob Martin. The principle highlights the relationship between a type and its subtypes, and, according to Wikipedia, is defined by Barbara Liskov and Jeanette Wing as the following principle:   Let be a property provable about objects of type . Then should be provable for objects of type where is a subtype of .   Rectangles gonna rectangulate The iconic example of this principle is illustrated with the relationship between a rectangle and a square. Let’s say we have a class named Rectangle that had a property to set width and a property to set its height. 1: Public Class Rectangle 2: Overridable Property Width As Integer 3: Overridable Property Height As Integer 4: End Class   We all at some point here that inheritance mocks an “IS A” relationship, and by gosh we all know square IS A rectangle. So let’s make a square class that inherits from rectangle. However, squares do maintain the same length on every side, so let’s override and add that behavior. 1: Public Class Square 2: Inherits Rectangle 3:  4: Private _sideLength As Integer 5:  6: Public Overrides Property Width As Integer 7: Get 8: Return _sideLength 9: End Get 10: Set(value As Integer) 11: _sideLength = value 12: End Set 13: End Property 14:  15: Public Overrides Property Height As Integer 16: Get 17: Return _sideLength 18: End Get 19: Set(value As Integer) 20: _sideLength = value 21: End Set 22: End Property 23: End Class   Now, say we had the following test: 1: Public Sub SetHeight_DoesNotAffectWidth(rectangle As Rectangle) 2: 'arrange 3: Dim expectedWidth = 4 4: rectangle.Width = 4 5:  6: 'act 7: rectangle.Height = 7 8:  9: 'assert 10: Assert.AreEqual(expectedWidth, rectangle.Width) 11: End Sub   If we pass in a rectangle, this test passes just fine. What if we pass in a square?   This is where we see the violation of Liskov’s Principle! A square might "IS A” to a rectangle, but we have differing expectations on how a rectangle should function than how a square should! Great expectations Here’s where we pat ourselves on the back and take a victory lap around the office and tell everyone about how we understand LSP like a boss. And all is good… until we start trying to apply it to our work. If I can’t even change functionality on a simple setter without breaking the expectations on a parent class, what can I do with subtyping? Did Liskov just tell me to never touch subtyping again? The short answer: NO, SHE DIDN’T. When I first learned LSP, and from those I’ve talked with as well, I overlooked a very important but not appropriately stressed quality of the principle: our expectations. Our inclination is to want a logical catch-all, where we can easily apply this principle and wipe our hands, drop the mic and exit stage left. That’s not the case because in every different programming scenario, our expectations of the parent class or type will be different. We have to set reasonable expectations on the behaviors that we expect out of the parent, then make sure that those expectations are met by the child. Any expectations not explicitly expected of the parent aren’t expected of the child either, and don’t register as a violation of LSP that prevents implementation. You can see the flexibility mentioned in the Wikipedia article itself: A typical example that violates LSP is a Square class that derives from a Rectangle class, assuming getter and setter methods exist for both width and height. The Square class always assumes that the width is equal with the height. If a Square object is used in a context where a Rectangle is expected, unexpected behavior may occur because the dimensions of a Square cannot (or rather should not) be modified independently. This problem cannot be easily fixed: if we can modify the setter methods in the Square class so that they preserve the Square invariant (i.e., keep the dimensions equal), then these methods will weaken (violate) the postconditions for the Rectangle setters, which state that dimensions can be modified independently. Violations of LSP, like this one, may or may not be a problem in practice, depending on the postconditions or invariants that are actually expected by the code that uses classes violating LSP. Mutability is a key issue here. If Square and Rectangle had only getter methods (i.e., they were immutable objects), then no violation of LSP could occur. What this means is that the above situation with a rectangle and a square can be acceptable if we do not have the expectation for width to leave height unaffected, or vice-versa, in our application. Conclusion – the oft forgot third wheel Liskov Substitution Principle is meant to act as a guidance and warn us against unexpected behaviors. Objects can be stateful and as a result we can end up with unexpected situations if we don’t code carefully. Specifically when subclassing, make sure that the subclass meets the expectations held to its parent. Don’t let LSP think you cannot deviate from the behaviors of the parent, but understand that LSP is meant to highlight the importance of not only the parent and the child class, but also of the expectations WE set for the parent class and the necessity of meeting those expectations in order to help prevent sticky situations.   Code examples, in both VB and C# Technorati Tags: LSV,Liskov Substitution Principle,Uncle Bob,Robert Martin,Barbara Liskov,Liskov

  Read the article

• Mocking property sets

  - by mehfuzh

  In this post, i will be showing how you can mock property sets with your expected values or even action using JustMock. To begin, we have a sample interface: public interface IFoo {     int Value { get; set; } } Now,  we can create a mock that will throw on any call other than the one expected, generally its a strict mock and we can do it like: bool expected = false;  var foo = Mock.Create<IFoo>(BehaviorMode.Strict);  Mock.ArrangeSet(() => { foo.Value = 1; }).DoInstead(() => expected  = true);    foo.Value = 1;    Assert.True(expected); Here , the method for running though our expectation for set is Mock.ArrangeSet , where we can directly set our expectations or can even set matchers into it like: var foo = Mock.Create<IFoo>(BehaviorMode.Strict);   Mock.ArrangeSet(() => foo.Value = Arg.Matches<int>(x => x > 3));   foo.Value = 4; foo.Value = 5;   Assert.Throws<MockException>(() => foo.Value = 3);   In the example, any set for value not satisfying matcher expression will throw an MockException as this is a strict mock but what will be the case for loose mocks, where we also have to assert it. Here, let’s take an interface with an indexed property. Indexers are treated in the same way as properties, as with basic indexers let you access your class if it were an array. public interface IFooIndexed {     string this[int key] { get; set; } } We want to  setup a value for a particular index,  we then will pass that mock to some implementer where it will be actually called. Once done, we want to assert that if it has been invoked properly. var foo = Mock.Create<IFooIndexed>();   Mock.ArrangeSet(() => foo[0] = "ping");   foo[0] = "ping";   Mock.AssertSet(() => foo[0] = "ping"); In the above example, both the values are user defined, it might happen that we want to make it more dynamic, In this example, i set it up for set with any value and finally checked if it is set with the one i am looking for. var foo = Mock.Create<IFooIndexed>();   Mock.ArrangeSet(() => foo[0] = Arg.Any<string>());   foo[0] = "ping";   Mock.AssertSet(() => foo[0] = Arg.Matches<string>(x => string.Compare("ping", x) == 0)); This is more or less of mocking user sets , but we can further have it to throw exception or even do our own task for a particular set , like : Mock.ArrangeSet(() => foo.MyProperty = 10).Throws(new ArgumentException()); Or  bool expected = false;  var foo = Mock.Create<IFoo>(BehaviorMode.Strict);  Mock.ArrangeSet(() => { foo.Value = 1; }).DoInstead(() => expected  = true);    foo.Value = 1;    Assert.True(expected); Or call the original setter , in this example it will throw an NotImplementedExpectation var foo = Mock.Create<FooAbstract>(BehaviorMode.Strict); Mock.ArrangeSet(() => { foo.Value = 1; }).CallOriginal(); Assert.Throws<NotImplementedException>(() => { foo.Value = 1; });   Finally, try all these, find issues, post them to forum and make it work for you :-). Hope that helps,

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >