Search Results

Search found 26297 results on 1052 pages for 'unit test'.

Page 11/1052 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • C# why unit test has this strange behaviour?

    - by 5YrsLaterDBA
    I have a class to encrypt the connectionString. public class SKM { private string connStrName = "AndeDBEntities"; internal void encryptConnStr() { if(isConnStrEncrypted()) return; ... } private bool isConnStrEncrypted() { bool status = false; // Open app.config of executable. System.Configuration.Configuration config = ConfigurationManager.OpenExeConfiguration(ConfigurationUserLevel.None); // Get the connection string from the app.config file. string connStr = config.ConnectionStrings.ConnectionStrings[connStrName].ConnectionString; status = !(connStr.Contains("provider")); Log.logItem(LogType.DebugDevelopment, "isConnStrEncrypted", "SKM::isConnStrEncrypted()", "isConnStrEncrypted=" + status); return status; } } Above code works fine in my application. But not in my unit test project. In my unit test project, I test the encryptConnStr() method. it will call isConnStrEncrypted() method. Then exception (null pointer) will be thrown at this line: string connStr = config.ConnectionStrings.ConnectionStrings[connStrName].ConnectionString; I have to use index like this to pass the unit test: string connStr = config.ConnectionStrings.ConnectionStrings[0].ConnectionString; I remember it worked several days ago at the time I added above unit test. But now it give me an error. The unit test is not integrated with our daily auto build yet. We only have ONE connectionStr. It works with product but not in unit test. Don't know why. Anybody can explain to me?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for debug Asserts during Unit testing

    - by Steve Steiner
    Does heavy use of unit tests discourage the use of debug asserts? It seems like a debug assert firing in the code under test implies the unit test shouldn't exist or the debug assert shouldn't exist. "There can be only one" seems like a reasonable principle. Is this the common practice? Or do you disable your debug asserts when unit testing, so they can be around for integration testing? Edit: I updated 'Assert' to debug assert to distinguish an assert in the code under test from the lines in the unit test that check state after the test has run. Also here is an example that I believe shows the dilema: A unit test passes invalid inputs for a protected function that asserts it's inputs are valid. Should the unit test not exist? It's not a public function. Perhaps checking the inputs would kill perf? Or should the assert not exist? The function is protected not private so it should be checking it's inputs for safety.

    Read the article

  • Finding patterns of failure in a Unit Test

    - by Pekka
    I'm new to Unit Testing, and I'm only getting into the routine of building test suites. I have what is going to be a rather large project that I want to build tests for from the start. I'm trying to figure out general strategies and patterns for building test suites. When you look at a class, many tests come to you obviously due to the nature of the class. Say for a "user account" class with basic CRUD operations, being related to a database table, we will want to test - well, the CRUD. creating an object and seeing whether it exists query its properties change some properties change some properties to incorrect values and delete it again. As for how to break things, there are "fail" tests common to most CRUD classes like: Invalid input data types A number as the ID key that exceeds the range of the chosen data type Input in an incorrect character encoding Input that is too long And so on and so on. For a unit test concerned with file operations, the list of "breaking things" could be Invalid characters in file name File name too long File name uses incorrect protocol or path I'm pretty sure similar patterns - applicable beyond the unit test one is currently working on - can be found for most units that are being tested. Now my question is: Am I correct in seeing such "breaking patterns"? Or am I getting something completely wrong about Unit testing, and if I did it right, this wouldn't be an issue at all? Is Unit Testing as a process of finding as many ways to break the unit as possible the right way to go? If I am correct: Are there existing definitions, lists, cheat sheets for such patterns? Are there any provisions (mainly in PHPUnit, as that's the framework I'm working in) to automate such patterns? Is there any assistance - in the form of check lists, or software - to aid in writing complete tests?

    Read the article

  • Writing a Makefile.am to invoke googletest unit tests

    - by jmglov
    I am trying to add my first unit test to an existing Open Source project. Specifically, I added a new class, called audio_manager: src/audio/audio_manager.h src/audio/audio_manager.cc I created a src/test directory structure that mirrors the structure of the implementation files, and wrote my googletest unit tests: src/test/audio/audio_manager.cc Now, I am trying to set up my Makefile.am to compile and run the unit test: src/test/audio/Makefile.am I copied Makefile.am from: src/audio/Makefile.am Does anyone have a simple recipe for me, or is it to the cryptic automake documentation for me? :)

    Read the article

  • How can you unit test a DelegateCommand

    - by Damian
    I am trying to unit test my ViewModel and my SaveItem(save, CanSave) delegate command. I want to ensure that CanSave is called and returns the correct value given certain conditions. Basically, how can I invoke the delegate command from my unit test, actually it's more of an integration test. Obviously I could just test the return value of the CanSave method but I am trying to use BDD to the letter, ie. no code without a test first.

    Read the article

  • Writing Acceptance test cases

    - by HH_
    We are integrating a testing process in our SCRUM process. My new role is to write acceptance tests of our web applications in order to automate them later. I have read a lot about how tests cases should be written, but none gave me practical advices to write test cases for complex web applications, and instead they threw conflicting principles that I found hard to apply: Test cases should be short: Take the example of a CMS. Short test cases are easy to maintain and to identify the inputs and outputs. But what if I want to test a long series of operations (eg. adding a document, sending a notification to another user, the other user replies, the document changes state, the user gets a notice). It rather seems to me that test cases should represent complete scenarios. But I can see how this will produce overtly complex test documents. Tests should identify inputs and outputs:: What if I have a long form with many interacting fields, with different behaviors. Do I write one test for everything, or one for each? Test cases should be independent: But how can I apply that if testing the upload operation requires that the connect operation is successful? And how does it apply to writing test cases? Should I write a test for each operation, but each test declares its dependencies, or should I rewrite the whole scenario for each test? Test cases should be lightly-documented: This principles is specific to Agile projects. So do you have any advice on how to implement this principle? Although I thought that writing acceptance test cases was going to be simple, I found myself overwhelmed by every decision I had to make (FYI: I am a developer and not a professional tester). So my main question is: What steps or advices do you have in order to write maintainable acceptance test cases for complex applications. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How to populate a private container for unit test?

    - by Sardathrion
    I have a class that defines a private (well, __container to be exact since it is python) container. I am using the information within said container as part of the logic of what the class does and have the ability to add/delete the elements of said container. For unit tests, I need to populate this container with some data. That date depends on the test done and thus putting it all in setUp() would be impractical and bloated -- plus it could add unwanted side effects. Since the data is private, I can only add things via the public interface of the object. This run codes that need not be run during a unit test and in some case is just a copy and paste from another test. Currently, I am mocking the whole container but somehow it does not feel that elegant a solution. Due to Python mocking frame work (mock), this requires the container to be public -- so I can use patch.dict(). I would rather keep that data private. What pattern can one use to still populate the containers without excising the public method so I have data to test with? Is there a way to do this with mock' patch.dict() that I missed?

    Read the article

  • Is the test, which touches the filenames under directory, a kind of unittest? [on hold]

    - by Chen OT
    I was told that unittest is fast and the tests which touches DB, across network, and touches FileSystem are not unittest. In one of my testcases, its input are the file names (amount about 300~400) under a specific folder. Although these input are part of file system, the execution time of this test is very fast. Should I moved this test, which is fast but touches file system, to higher level test?

    Read the article

  • How and what should I be (unit) testing for in this method?

    - by user460667
    I am relatively new to unit testing and have a query about what/how I should be testing a certain method. For the following (psudo-c#) method I have created (not a real-life example) what would you test for? Initially, my thoughts would be to test the output with variations on the dictionary of form fields, e.g. valid, invalid, missing values. However I also wonder how you would test to make sure the object values have been changed to the correct value and that the correct email message was attempted to be sent (obviously both services could/would be mocked). I hope what I am asking makes sense, I appreciate this is a subjective question and the answers may be 'it depends' ;) public bool ProcessInput(Dictionary<string, string> formFields, ObjService objService, EmailService emailService) { try { // Get my object id int objId; if(!int.TryParse(formField["objId"], out objId) { return false; } // Update my object - would you validate the save against a DB or a mocked inmemory db? var myObj = objService.Find(objId); myObj.Name = formField["objName"]; objService.Save(myObj); // Send an email - how would you test to make sure content, recipient, etc was correct? emailService.SendEmail(formField("email"), "Hello World"); return true; } catch(Exception ex) { return false; } }

    Read the article

  • .NET unit test runner outputting FaultException.Detail

    - by Adam
    Hello, I am running some unit tests on a WCF service. The service is configured to include exception details in the fault response (with the following in my service configuration file). <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="true" /> If a test causes an unhandled exception on the server the fault is received by the client with a fully populated server stack trace. I can see this by calling the exception's ToString() method. The problem is that this doesn't seem to be output by any of the test runners that I have tried (xUnit, Gallio, MSTest). They appear to just output the Message and the StackTrace properties of the exception. To illustrate what I mean, the following unit test run by MSTest would output three sections: Error Message Error Stack Trace Standard Console Output (contains the information I would like, e.g. "Fault Detail is equal to An ExceptionDetail, likely created by IncludeExceptionDetailInFaults=true, whose value is: ..." try { service.CallMethodWhichCausesException(); } catch (Exception ex) { Console.WriteLine(ex); // this outputs the information I would like throw; } Having this information will make the initial phase of testing and deployment a lot less painful. I know I can just wrap each unit test in a generic exception handler and write the exception to the console and rethrow (as above) within all my unit tests but that seems a very long-winded way of achieving this (and would look pretty awful). Does anyone know if there's any way to get this information included for free whenever an unhandled exception occurs? Is there a setting that I am missing? Is my service configuration lacking in proper fault handling? Perhaps I could write some kind of plug-in / adapter for some unit testing framework? Perhaps theres a different unit testing framework which I should be using instead! My actual set-up is xUnit unit tests executed via Gallio for the development environment, but I do have a separate suite of "smoke tests" written which I would like to be able to have our engineers run via the xUnit GUI test runner (or Gallio or whatever) to simplify the final deployment. Thanks. Adam

    Read the article

  • PHP unit tests for controller returns no errors and no success message.

    - by Mallika Iyer
    I'm using the zend modular director structure, i.e. application modules users controllers . . lessons reports blog I have a unit test for a controller in 'blog' that goes something like the below section of code: I'm definitely doing something very wrong, or missing something - as when i run the test, i get no error, no success message (that goes usually like ...OK (2 tests, 2 assertions)). I get all the text from layout.phtml, where i have the global site layout. This is my first endeavor writing a unittest for zend-M-V-C structure so probably I'm missing something important? Here goes.... require_once '../../../../public/index.php'; require_once '../../../../application/Bootstrap.php'; require_once '../../../../application/modules/blog/controllers/BrowseController.php'; require_once '../../../TestConfiguration.php'; class Blog_BrowseControllerTest extends Zend_Test_PHPUnit_ControllerTestCase { public function setUp() { $this->bootstrap = array($this, 'appBootstrap'); Blog_BrowseController::setUp(); } public function appBootstrap() { require_once dirname(__FILE__) . '/../../bootstrap.php'; } public function testAction() { $this->dispatch('/'); $this->assertController('browse'); $this->assertAction('index'); } public function tearDown() { $this->resetRequest(); $this->resetResponse(); Blog_BrowseController::tearDown(); } }

    Read the article

  • simpletest - Why does setReturnValue() seem to change behaviour depending whether test is run in iso

    - by JW
    I am using SimpleTest version 1.0.1 for a unit test. I create a new mock object within a test method and on it i do: $MockDbAdaptor->setReturnValue('query',1); Now, when i run this in a standalone unit test my tested object is happy to see 1 returned when query() is called on the mock db adaptor. However, when this exact same test is run as part of my 'all_tests' TestSuite, the test is failing. This happens because a call to the mock's query() method does not appear to return any value - thus causing my test subject to complain and trigger an unexpected exception that fails the test. So, the behaviour of setReturnValue() seems to change depending on whether the test is run in isolation or not. I can get it to work in both a standalone and TestSuite contexts by using this instead: $MockDbAdaptor->setReturnValueAt(0,'query',1); So my immediate problem can be fixed ...but it feels like a hack. I thought if i create a new mock within a test method then why is the setReturnValue() behaviour getting affected by the context in which the test class instance is run? It feel like a bug.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing a rails 2.3.5 plugin

    - by brad
    I'm writing a new plugin for a rails 2.3.5 app. I've included an app directory (which makes it an engine) so i can easily load some extra routes. Not sure if that affects anything. Anyway, in the test directory i have two files: test_helper.rb and my_plugin_test.rb These files were generated automatically using script/generate plugin my_plugin When I go to vendor/plugins/my_plugin directory and run rake test they don't seem to run. I get the following console output: (in /Users/me/Repos/my_app/source/trunk/vendor/plugins/my_plugin) /Users/me/.rvm/rubies/jruby-1.4.0/bin/jruby -I"lib:lib:test" "/Users/me/.rvm/gems/jruby-1.4.0/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/my_plugin_test.rb" So it obviously sees my test file, but none of the tests inside get run, I just get back to my console prompt. What am I missing here? I figured the generated code would work out of the box Here are the two files test_helper.rb require 'rubygems' require 'active_support' require 'active_support/test_case' my_plugin_test.rb require 'test_helper' class MyPluginTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase # Replace this with your real tests. test "the truth" do assert true end test "Factories are supported" do assert_not_nil Factory end end File structure vendor - plugins - my_plugin - app - config - routes.rb - generators - my_plugin - some generator files.rb - lib - my_plugin.rb - my_plugin - my_plugin_lib_file.rb - rails - init.rb - Rakefile - tasks - my_plugin_tasks.rake - test - test_helper.rb - my_plugin_test.rb

    Read the article

  • maven and unit testing - combining maven surefire plugin AND testNG eclipse plugin

    - by lisak
    Hey, could you please share your way of unit testing in eclipse ? Are you using surefire plugin, m2eclipse & maven, or only testNG eclipse plugin ? Do you combine these alternatives ? I'm using testNG + maven surefire-plugin and I had been using the testNG eclipse plugin a year ago so that I could see the results in testNG view. Then I started using Maven, but when I do "maven test phase" using m2eclipse, there is only console output and surefire reports that I can check in browser and to choose what test suite, test, or test method can be set up only via testng.xml. On the other hand, if you use only surefire plugin and you have some specific settings regarding classpath etc., that you rely on, then running tests via testNG eclipse plugin doesn't have to be compatible with your code. Using surefire plugin, the classpath is different - target/test-classes and target/classes - than using testNG plugin, that is using the project classpath. How do you go about what I was just talking about? Is it possible to synchronize "maven test" using m2eclipse and surefire plugin WITH testNG eclipse plugin and view ? EDITED: I'm also wondering, why the Maven project ("Java build path") output folder is target/classes for src/main and src/test whereas surefire plugin makes two locations target/test-classes and target/classes Thank you very much for your your opinions.

    Read the article

  • What Are Some Tips For Writing A Large Number of Unit Tests?

    - by joshin4colours
    I've recently been tasked with testing some COM objects of the desktop app I work on. What this means in practice is writing a large number (100) unit tests to test different but related methods and objects. While the unit tests themselves are fairly straight forward (usually one or two Assert()-type checks per test), I'm struggling to figure out the best way to write these tests in a coherent, organized manner. What I have found is that copy and Paste coding should be avoided. It creates more problems than it's worth, and it's even worse than copy-and-paste code in production code because test code has to be more frequently updated and modified. I'm leaning toward trying an OO-approach using but again, the sheer number makes even this approach daunting from an organizational standpoint due to concern with maintenance. It also doesn't help that the tests are currently written in C++, which adds some complexity with memory management issues. Any thoughts or suggestions?

    Read the article

  • XSD: how to use 'unique' & 'key'/'keyref' with element values?

    - by Koohoolinn
    I trying to use and / with element values but I just can't get it to work. If I do it with attrubute values it works like a charm. Test.xml <test:config xmlns:test="http://www.example.org/Test" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.example.org/Test Test.xsd "> <test:location id="id1" path="/path2"> <test:roles> <test:role>role1</test:role> <test:role>role2</test:role> <test:role>role2</test:role> <!-- DUPLICATE: FAIL VALIDATION --> </test:roles> <test:action name="action1"> <test:roles> <test:role>role1</test:role> <test:role>role1</test:role> <!-- DUPLICATE: FAIL VALIDATION --> <test:role>role3</test:role> <!-- NOT DEFINED: FAIL VALIDATION --> </test:roles> </test:action> </test:location> </test:config> I want ensure that roles are only defined once and that the roles defined under the action element are only those defined at the upper level. Test.xsd <xs:element name="config"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="test:location" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="location" type="test:LocationType"> <xs:key name="keyRole"> <xs:selector xpath="test:roles" /> <xs:field xpath="test:role" /> </xs:key> <xs:keyref name="keyrefRole" refer="test:keyRole"> <xs:selector xpath="test:action/test:roles" /> <xs:field xpath="test:role" /> </xs:keyref> </xs:element> <xs:complexType name="LocationType"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="test:roles" minOccurs="0" /> <xs:element name="action" type="test:ActionType" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:string" use="required"/> <xs:attribute name="path" type="xs:string" use="required"/> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="roles" type="test:RolesType"> <xs:unique name="uniqueRole"> <xs:selector xpath="." /> <xs:field xpath="test:role" /> </xs:unique> </xs:element> <xs:complexType name="RolesType"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="role" type="xs:string" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="ActionType"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="test:roles" /> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" use="required" /> </xs:complexType> The validation fails with these messages: Description Resource Path Location Type cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "keyrefRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 15 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "keyrefRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 16 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "keyRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 9 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "keyRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 10 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "uniqueRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 9 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "uniqueRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 10 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "uniqueRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 15 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "uniqueRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 16 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.4.1: Duplicate unique value [role1] declared for identity constraint "uniqueRole" of element "roles". Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 9 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.4.1: Duplicate unique value [role1] declared for identity constraint "uniqueRole" of element "roles". Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 15 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.4.2.2: Duplicate key value [role1] declared for identity constraint "keyRole" of element "location". Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 9 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.4.3: Key 'keyrefRole' with value 'role3' not found for identity constraint of element 'location'. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 19 XML Problem If I comment out the lines that should fail, validation still fails now with these messages: Description Resource Path Location Type cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "keyRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 10 XML Problem cvc-identity-constraint.3: Field "./test:role" of identity constraint "uniqueRole" matches more than one value within the scope of its selector; fields must match unique values. Test.xml /filebrowser-ejb/src/test/resources line 10 XML Problem What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Writing Unit Tests for ASP.NET Web API Controller

    - by shiju
    In this blog post, I will write unit tests for a ASP.NET Web API controller in the EFMVC reference application. Let me introduce the EFMVC app, If you haven't heard about EFMVC. EFMVC is a simple app, developed as a reference implementation for demonstrating ASP.NET MVC, EF Code First, ASP.NET Web API, Domain-Driven Design (DDD), Test-Driven Development (DDD). The current version is built with ASP.NET MVC 4, EF Code First 5, ASP.NET Web API, Autofac, AutoMapper, Nunit and Moq. All unit tests were written with Nunit and Moq. You can download the latest version of the reference app from http://efmvc.codeplex.com/ Unit Test for HTTP Get Let’s write a unit test class for verifying the behaviour of a ASP.NET Web API controller named CategoryController. Let’s define mock implementation for Repository class, and a Command Bus that is used for executing write operations.  [TestFixture] public class CategoryApiControllerTest { private Mock<ICategoryRepository> categoryRepository; private Mock<ICommandBus> commandBus; [SetUp] public void SetUp() {     categoryRepository = new Mock<ICategoryRepository>();     commandBus = new Mock<ICommandBus>(); } The code block below provides the unit test for a HTTP Get operation. [Test] public void Get_All_Returns_AllCategory() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()                 {                     Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }                 }     };     // Act     var categories = controller.Get();     // Assert     Assert.IsNotNull(categories, "Result is null");     Assert.IsInstanceOf(typeof(IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense>),categories, "Wrong Model");             Assert.AreEqual(3, categories.Count(), "Got wrong number of Categories"); }        The GetCategories method is provided below: private static IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> GetCategories() {     IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = new List<CategoryWithExpense> {     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=1, CategoryName = "Test1", Description="Test1Desc", TotalExpenses=1000},     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=2, CategoryName = "Test2", Description="Test2Desc",TotalExpenses=2000},     new CategoryWithExpense { CategoryId=3, CategoryName = "Test3", Description="Test3Desc",TotalExpenses=3000}       }.AsEnumerable();     return fakeCategories; } In the unit test method Get_All_Returns_AllCategory, we specify setup on the mocked type ICategoryrepository, for a call to GetCategoryWithExpenses method returns dummy data. We create an instance of the ApiController, where we have specified the Request property of the ApiController since the Request property is used to create a new HttpResponseMessage that will provide the appropriate HTTP status code along with response content data. Unit Tests are using for specifying the behaviour of components so that we have specified that Get operation will use the model type IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> for sending the Content data. The implementation of HTTP Get in the CategoryController is provided below: public IQueryable<CategoryWithExpense> Get() {     var categories = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().AsQueryable();     return categories; } Unit Test for HTTP Post The following are the behaviours we are going to implement for the HTTP Post: A successful HTTP Post  operation should return HTTP status code Created An empty Category should return HTTP status code BadRequest A successful HTTP Post operation should provide correct Location header information in the response for the newly created resource. Writing unit test for HTTP Post is required more information than we write for HTTP Get. In the HTTP Post implementation, we will call to Url.Link for specifying the header Location of Response as shown in below code block. var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category); string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId }); response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri); return response; While we are executing Url.Link from unit tests, we have to specify HttpRouteData information from the unit test method. Otherwise, Url.Link will get a null value. The code block below shows the unit tests for specifying the behaviours for the HTTP Post operation. [Test] public void Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();          var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Post(category);               // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.Created, response.StatusCode);     var newCategory = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryModel>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(string.Format("http://localhost/api/category/{0}", newCategory.CategoryId), response.Headers.Location.ToString()); } [Test] public void Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 0;     category.CategoryName = "";     // The ASP.NET pipeline doesn't run, so validation don't run.     controller.ModelState.AddModelError("", "mock error message");     var response = controller.Post(category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, response.StatusCode);   } In the above code block, we have written two unit methods, Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode and Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode. The unit test method Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode  verifies the behaviour 1 and 3, that we have defined in the beginning of the section “Unit Test for HTTP Post”. The unit test method Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode verifies the behaviour 2. For extracting the data from response, we call Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result of HttpResponseMessage object and deserializeit it with Json Convertor. The implementation of HTTP Post in the CategoryController is provided below: // POST /api/category public HttpResponseMessage Post(CategoryModel category) {       if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {                               var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category);             string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId });             response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri);             return response;         }     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); } The unit test implementation for HTTP Put and HTTP Delete are very similar to the unit test we have written for  HTTP Get. The complete unit tests for the CategoryController is given below: [TestFixture] public class CategoryApiControllerTest { private Mock<ICategoryRepository> categoryRepository; private Mock<ICommandBus> commandBus; [SetUp] public void SetUp() {     categoryRepository = new Mock<ICategoryRepository>();     commandBus = new Mock<ICommandBus>(); } [Test] public void Get_All_Returns_AllCategory() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()                 {                     Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }                 }     };     // Act     var categories = controller.Get();     // Assert     Assert.IsNotNull(categories, "Result is null");     Assert.IsInstanceOf(typeof(IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense>),categories, "Wrong Model");             Assert.AreEqual(3, categories.Count(), "Got wrong number of Categories"); }        [Test] public void Get_CorrectCategoryId_Returns_Category() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     var response = controller.Get(1);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);     var category = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryWithExpense>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(1, category.CategoryId, "Got wrong number of Categories"); } [Test] public void Get_InValidCategoryId_Returns_NotFound() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     var response = controller.Get(5);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.NotFound, response.StatusCode);            } [Test] public void Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();          var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Post(category);               // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.Created, response.StatusCode);     var newCategory = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryModel>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(string.Format("http://localhost/api/category/{0}", newCategory.CategoryId), response.Headers.Location.ToString()); } [Test] public void Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 0;     category.CategoryName = "";     // The ASP.NET pipeline doesn't run, so validation don't run.     controller.ModelState.AddModelError("", "mock error message");     var response = controller.Post(category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, response.StatusCode);   } [Test] public void Put_Category_Returns_OKStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Put(category.CategoryId,category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);    } [Test] public void Delete_Category_Returns_NoContentStatusCode() {     // Arrange              commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<DeleteCategoryCommand >())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act               var response = controller.Delete(1);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.NoContent, response.StatusCode);   } private static IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> GetCategories() {     IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = new List<CategoryWithExpense> {     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=1, CategoryName = "Test1", Description="Test1Desc", TotalExpenses=1000},     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=2, CategoryName = "Test2", Description="Test2Desc",TotalExpenses=2000},     new CategoryWithExpense { CategoryId=3, CategoryName = "Test3", Description="Test3Desc",TotalExpenses=3000}       }.AsEnumerable();     return fakeCategories; } }  The complete implementation for the Api Controller, CategoryController is given below: public class CategoryController : ApiController {       private readonly ICommandBus commandBus;     private readonly ICategoryRepository categoryRepository;     public CategoryController(ICommandBus commandBus, ICategoryRepository categoryRepository)     {         this.commandBus = commandBus;         this.categoryRepository = categoryRepository;     } public IQueryable<CategoryWithExpense> Get() {     var categories = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().AsQueryable();     return categories; }   // GET /api/category/5 public HttpResponseMessage Get(int id) {     var category = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().Where(c => c.CategoryId == id).SingleOrDefault();     if (category == null)     {         return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.NotFound);     }     return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, category); }   // POST /api/category public HttpResponseMessage Post(CategoryModel category) {       if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {                               var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category);             string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId });             response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri);             return response;         }     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); }   // PUT /api/category/5 public HttpResponseMessage Put(int id, CategoryModel category) {     if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, category);     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); }       // DELETE /api/category/5     public HttpResponseMessage Delete(int id)     {         var command = new DeleteCategoryCommand { CategoryId = id };         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {             return new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.NoContent);         }             throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);     } } Source Code The EFMVC app can download from http://efmvc.codeplex.com/ . The unit test project can be found from the project EFMVC.Tests and Web API project can be found from EFMVC.Web.API.

    Read the article

  • Implementing Unit Testing on the iPhone

    - by james.ingham
    Hi, So I've followed this tutorial to setup unit testing on my app when I got a little stuck. At bullet point 8 in that tutorial it shows this image, which is what I should be expecting when I build: However this isn't what I get when I build. I get this error message: Command /bin/sh failed with exit code 1 as well as the error message the unit test has created. Then, when I expand on the first error I get this: PhaseScriptExecution "Run Script" "build/3D Pool.build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.build/Script-1A6BA6AE10F28F40008AC2A8.sh" cd "/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool" setenv ACTION build setenv ALTERNATE_GROUP staff ... setenv XCODE_VERSION_MAJOR 0300 setenv XCODE_VERSION_MINOR 0320 setenv YACC /Developer/usr/bin/yacc /bin/sh -c "\"/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/3D Pool.build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.build/Script-1A6BA6AE10F28F40008AC2A8.sh\"" /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:412: note: Started tests for architectures 'i386' /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:419: note: Running tests for architecture 'i386' (GC OFF) objc[12589]: GC: forcing GC OFF because OBJC_DISABLE_GC is set Test Suite '/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.octest(Tests)' started at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000 Test Suite 'LogicTests' started at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000 Test Case '-[LogicTests testFail]' started. /Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/LogicTests.m:17: error: -[LogicTests testFail] : Must fail to succeed. Test Case '-[LogicTests testFail]' failed (0.000 seconds). Test Suite 'LogicTests' finished at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000. Executed 1 test, with 1 failure (0 unexpected) in 0.000 (0.000) seconds Test Suite '/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.octest(Tests)' finished at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000. Executed 1 test, with 1 failure (0 unexpected) in 0.000 (0.002) seconds /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:448: error: Failed tests for architecture 'i386' (GC OFF) /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:462: note: Completed tests for architectures 'i386' Command /bin/sh failed with exit code 1 Now this is very odd as it is running the tests (and succeeding as you can see my STFail firing) because if I add a different test which passes I get no errors, so the tests are working fine. But why am I getting this extra build fail? It may also be of note that when downloading solutions/templates which should work out the box, I get the same error. I'm guessing I've set something up wrong here but I've just followed a tutorial 100% correctly!! If anyone could help I'd be very grateful! Thanks EDIT: According to this blog, this post and a few other websites, I'm not the only one getting this problem. It has been like this since the release of xCode 3.2, assuming the apple dev center documents and tutorials etc are pre-3.2 as well. However some say its a known issue whereas others seem to think this was intentional. I for one would like both the extended console and in code messages, and I certainly do not like the "Command /bin/sh..." error and really think they would have documented such an update. Hopefully it will be fixed soon anyway. UPDATE: Here's confirmation it's something changed since the release of xCode 3.2.1. This image: is from my test build using 3.2.1. This one is from an older version (3.1.4): . (The project for both was unchanged).

    Read the article

  • Implementing Unit Testing with the iPhone SDK

    - by ing0
    Hi, So I've followed this tutorial to setup unit testing on my app when I got a little stuck. At bullet point 8 in that tutorial it shows this image, which is what I should be expecting when I build: However this isn't what I get when I build. I get this error message: Command /bin/sh failed with exit code 1 as well as the error message the unit test has created. Then, when I expand on the first error I get this: PhaseScriptExecution "Run Script" "build/3D Pool.build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.build/Script-1A6BA6AE10F28F40008AC2A8.sh" cd "/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool" setenv ACTION build setenv ALTERNATE_GROUP staff ... setenv XCODE_VERSION_MAJOR 0300 setenv XCODE_VERSION_MINOR 0320 setenv YACC /Developer/usr/bin/yacc /bin/sh -c "\"/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/3D Pool.build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.build/Script-1A6BA6AE10F28F40008AC2A8.sh\"" /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:412: note: Started tests for architectures 'i386' /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:419: note: Running tests for architecture 'i386' (GC OFF) objc[12589]: GC: forcing GC OFF because OBJC_DISABLE_GC is set Test Suite '/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.octest(Tests)' started at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000 Test Suite 'LogicTests' started at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000 Test Case '-[LogicTests testFail]' started. /Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/LogicTests.m:17: error: -[LogicTests testFail] : Must fail to succeed. Test Case '-[LogicTests testFail]' failed (0.000 seconds). Test Suite 'LogicTests' finished at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000. Executed 1 test, with 1 failure (0 unexpected) in 0.000 (0.000) seconds Test Suite '/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.octest(Tests)' finished at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000. Executed 1 test, with 1 failure (0 unexpected) in 0.000 (0.002) seconds /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:448: error: Failed tests for architecture 'i386' (GC OFF) /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:462: note: Completed tests for architectures 'i386' Command /bin/sh failed with exit code 1 Now this is very odd as it is running the tests (and succeeding as you can see my STFail firing) because if I add a different test which passes I get no errors, so the tests are working fine. But why am I getting this extra build fail? It may also be of note that when downloading solutions/templates which should work out the box, I get the same error. I'm guessing I've set something up wrong here but I've just followed a tutorial 100% correctly!! If anyone could help I'd be very grateful! Thanks EDIT: According to this blog, this post and a few other websites, I'm not the only one getting this problem. It has been like this since the release of xCode 3.2, assuming the apple dev center documents and tutorials etc are pre-3.2 as well. However some say its a known issue whereas others seem to think this was intentional. I for one would like both the extended console and in code messages, and I certainly do not like the "Command /bin/sh..." error and really think they would have documented such an update. Hopefully it will be fixed soon anyway. UPDATE: Here's confirmation it's something changed since the release of xCode 3.2.1. This image: is from my test build using 3.2.1. This one is from an older version (3.1.4): . (The project for both was unchanged). Edit: Image URLS updated.

    Read the article

  • How important is the unit test in the software development?

    - by Lo Wai Lun
    We are doing software testing by testing a lot if I/O cases, so developers and system analysts can open reviews and test for their committed code within a given time period (e.g. 1 week). But when it come across with extracting information from a database, how to consider the cases and the corresponding methodology to start with? Although that is more likely to be a case studies because the unit-testing depends on the project we have involved which is too specific and particular most of the time. What is the general overview of the steps and precautions for unit-testing?

    Read the article

  • Best practice Unit testing abstract classes?

    - by Paul Whelan
    Hello I was wondering what the best practice is for unit testing abstract classes and classes that extend abstract classes. Should I test the abstract class by extending it and stubbing out the abstract methods and then test all the concrete methods? Then only test the methods I override and the abstract methods in the unit tests for objects that extend my abstract class. Should I have an abstract test case that can be used to test the methods of the abstract class and extend this class in my test case for objects that extend the abstract class? EDIT: My abstract class has some concrete methods. I would be interested to see what people are using. Thanks Paul

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing functions within repository interfaces - ASP.net MVC3 & Moq

    - by RawryLions
    I'm getting into writing unit testing and have implemented a nice repository pattern/moq to allow me to test my functions without using "real" data. So far so good.. However.. In my repository interface for "Posts" IPostRepository I have a function: Post getPostByID(int id); I want to be able to test this from my Test class but cannot work out how. So far I am using this pattern for my tests: [SetUp] public void Setup() { mock = new Mock<IPostRepository>(); } [Test] public void someTest() { populate(10); //This populates the mock with 10 fake entries //do test here } In my function "someTest" I want to be able to call/test the function GetPostById. I can find the function with mock.object.getpostbyid but the "object" is null. Any help would be appreciated :) iPostRepository: public interface IPostRepository { IQueryable<Post> Posts {get;} void SavePost(Post post); Post getPostByID(int id); }

    Read the article

  • Ruby on Rails: Unit Testing non activerecord models and still load fixtures

    - by Vaibhav Gumashta
    I may be missing something but I am stuck in this scenario: I have a non activerecord model, which I want to test. I have derived its test case class from: Test::Unit::TestCase. However, the test case class for the model, uses within itself, other activerecord model classes and I want to load fixtures for them. My problem is that the fixtures class method is available only when I subclass the test case class from ActiveSupport::TestCase (it is defined within ActiveRecord::TestFixtures which gets included in ActiveSupport::TestCase). Any help, coz running the tests gives me the error: undefined method "fixtures" (which is understandable) and in case I derive my test case class from ActiveSupport::TestCase it complains that there is no corresponding DB table. Also, I don't want to create a dummy table for backing my model class. Thanks a ton!

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2010 Not Recognizing Unit Test

    - by jmease
    In an existing solution I added a new Test Project. In my Test Project .cs file I have a class decorated with the [TestClass] attribute and a method decorated with the [TestMethod] attribute. I have verified that in Configuration Manager the build check box is checked for the Test Project (as my google search has revealed was the problem for others with this issue). I have set Test Project as my start up project for the solution. When I try to start the test I get "Can not start test project because the project does not contain any tests". I am really new to unit testing. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • “It’s only test code…”

    - by Chris George
    “Let me hack this in, it’s only test code”, “Don’t worry about getting it reviewed, it’s only test code”, “It doesn’t have to be elegant or efficient, it’s only test code”… do these phrases sound familiar? Chances are if you’ve working with test automation, at one point or other you will have heard these phrases, you have probably even used them yourself! What is certain is that code written under this “it’s only test code” mantra will come back and bite you in the arse! I’ve recently encountered a case where a test was giving a false positive, therefore hiding a real product bug because that test code was very badly written. Firstly it was very difficult to understand what the test was actually trying to achieve let alone how it was doing it, and this complexity masked a simple logic error. These issues are real and they do happen. Let’s take a step back from this and look at what we are trying to do. We are writing test code that tests product code, and we do this to create a suite of tests that will help protect our software against regressions. This test code is making sure that the product behaves as it should by employing some sort of expected result verification. The simple cases of these are generally not a problem. However, automation allows us to explore more complex scenarios in many more permutations. As this complexity increases then so does the complexity of the test code. It is at this point that code which has not been architected properly will cause problems.   Keep your friends close… So, how do we make sure we are doing it right? The development teams I have worked on have always had Test Engineers working very closely with their Software Engineers. This is something that I have always tried to take full advantage of. They are coding experts! So run your ideas past them, ask for advice on how to structure your code, help you design your data structures. This may require a shift in your teams viewpoint, as contrary to this section title and folklore, Software Engineers are not actually the mortal enemy of Test Engineers. As time progresses, and test automation becomes more and more ingrained in what we do, the two roles are converging more than ever. Over the 16 years I have spent as a Test Engineer, I have seen the grey area between the two roles grow significantly larger. This serves to strengthen the relationship and common bond between the two roles which helps to make test code activities so much easier!   Pair for the win Possibly the best thing you could do to write good test code is to pair program on the task. This will serve a few purposes. you will get the benefit of the Software Engineers knowledge and experience the Software Engineer will gain knowledge on the testing process. Sharing the love is a wonderful thing! two pairs of eyes are always better than one… And so are two brains. Between the two of you, I will guarantee you will derive more useful test cases than if it was just one of you.   Code reviews Another policy which certainly pays dividends is the practice of code reviews. By having one of your peers review your code before you commit it serves two purposes. Firstly, it forces you to explain your code. Just the act of doing this will often pick up errors in your code. Secondly, it gets yet another pair of eyes on your code! I cannot stress enough how important code reviews are. The benefits they offer apply as much to product code as test code. In short, Software and Test Engineers should all be doing them! It can be extended even further by getting test code reviewed by a Software Engineer and a Test Engineer, and likewise product code. This serves to keep both functions in the loop with changes going on within your code base.   Learn from your devs I briefly touched on this earlier but I’d like to go into more detail here. Pairing with your Software Engineers when writing your test code is such an amazing opportunity to improve your coding skills. As I sit here writing this article waiting to be called into court for jury service, it reminds me that it takes a lot of patience to be a Test Engineer, almost as much as it takes to be a juror! However tempting it is to go rushing in and start writing your automated tests, resist that urge. Discuss what you want to achieve then talk through the approach you’re going to take. Then code it up together. I find it really enlightening to ask questions like ‘is there a better way to do this?’ Or ‘is this how you would code it?’ The latter question, especially, is where I learn the most. I’ve found that most Software Engineers will be reluctant to show you the ‘right way’ to code something when writing tests because they perceive the ‘right way’ to be too complicated for the Test Engineer (e.g. not mentioning LINQ and instead doing something verbose). So by asking how THEY would code it, it unleashes their true dev-ness and advanced code usually ensues! I would like to point out, however, that you don’t have to accept their method as the final answer. On numerous occasions I have opted for the more simple/verbose solution because I found the code written by the Software Engineer too advanced and therefore I would find it unreadable when I return to the code in a months’ time! Always keep the target audience in mind when writing clever code, and in my case that is mostly Test Engineers.  

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >