Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 111/401 | < Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >

  • Where should I put common utility functions for Perl .t tests?

    - by zedoo
    I am getting started with Test::More, already have a few .t test scripts. Now I'd like to define a function that will only be used for the tests, but across different .t files. Where's the best place to put such a function? Define another .t without any tests and require it where needed? (As a sidenote I use the module structure created by Module::Starter)

    Read the article

  • 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

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

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

    Read the article

  • python mock patch : a method of instance is called?

    - by JuanPablo
    In python 2.7, I have this function from slacker import Slacker def post_message(token, channel, message): channel = '#{}'.format(channel) slack = Slacker(token) slack.chat.post_message(channel, message) with mock and patch, I can check that the token is used in Slacker class import unittest from mock import patch from slacker_cli import post_message class TestMessage(unittest.TestCase): @patch('slacker_cli.Slacker') def test_post_message_use_token(self, mock_slacker): token = 'aaa' channel = 'channel_name' message = 'message string' post_message(token, channel, message) mock_slacker.assert_called_with(token) how I can check the string use in post_message ? I try with mock_slacker.chat.post_message.assert_called_with('#channel') but I get AssertionError: Expected call: post_message('#channel') Not called

    Read the article

  • When mocking a class with Moq, how can I CallBase for just specific methods?

    - by Daryn
    I really appreciate Moq's Loose mocking behaviour that returns default values when no expectations are set. It's convenient and saves me code, and it also acts as a safety measure: dependencies won't get unintentionally called during the unit test (as long as they are virtual). However, I'm confused about how to keep these benefits when the method under test happens to be virtual. In this case I do want to call the real code for that one method, while still having the rest of the class loosely mocked. All I have found in my searching is that I could set mock.CallBase = true to ensure that the method gets called. However, that affects the whole class. I don't want to do that because it puts me in a dilemma about all the other properties and methods in the class that hide call dependencies: if CallBase is true then I have to either Setup stubs for all of the properties and methods that hide dependencies -- Even though my test doesn't think it needs to care about those dependencies, or Hope that I don't forget to Setup any stubs (and that no new dependencies get added to the code in the future) -- Risk unit tests hitting a real dependency. Q: With Moq, is there any way to test a virtual method, when I mocked the class to stub just a few dependencies? I.e. Without resorting to CallBase=true and having to stub all of the dependencies? Example code to illustrate (uses MSTest, InternalsVisibleTo DynamicProxyGenAssembly2) In the following example, TestNonVirtualMethod passes, but TestVirtualMethod fails - returns null. public class Foo { public string NonVirtualMethod() { return GetDependencyA(); } public virtual string VirtualMethod() { return GetDependencyA();} internal virtual string GetDependencyA() { return "! Hit REAL Dependency A !"; } // [... Possibly many other dependencies ...] internal virtual string GetDependencyN() { return "! Hit REAL Dependency N !"; } } [TestClass] public class UnitTest1 { [TestMethod] public void TestNonVirtualMethod() { var mockFoo = new Mock<Foo>(); mockFoo.Setup(m => m.GetDependencyA()).Returns(expectedResultString); string result = mockFoo.Object.NonVirtualMethod(); Assert.AreEqual(expectedResultString, result); } [TestMethod] public void TestVirtualMethod() // Fails { var mockFoo = new Mock<Foo>(); mockFoo.Setup(m => m.GetDependencyA()).Returns(expectedResultString); // (I don't want to setup GetDependencyB ... GetDependencyN here) string result = mockFoo.Object.VirtualMethod(); Assert.AreEqual(expectedResultString, result); } string expectedResultString = "Hit mock dependency A - OK"; }

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection in C++

    - by Yorgos Pagles
    This is also a question that I asked in a comment in one of Miško Hevery's google talks that was dealing with dependency injection but it got buried in the comments. I wonder how can the factory / builder step of wiring the dependencies together can work in C++. I.e. we have a class A that depends on B. The builder will allocate B in the heap, pass a pointer to B in A's constructor while also allocating in the heap and return a pointer to A. Who cleans up afterwards? Is it good to let the builder clean up after it's done? It seems to be the correct method since in the talk it says that the builder should setup objects that are expected to have the same lifetime or at least the dependencies have longer lifetime (I also have a question on that). What I mean in code: class builder { public: builder() : m_ClassA(NULL),m_ClassB(NULL) { } ~builder() { if (m_ClassB) { delete m_ClassB; } if (m_ClassA) { delete m_ClassA; } } ClassA *build() { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB); return m_ClassA; } }; Now if there is a dependency that is expected to last longer than the lifetime of the object we are injecting it into (say ClassC is that dependency) I understand that we should change the build method to something like: ClassA *builder::build(ClassC *classC) { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB, classC); return m_ClassA; } What is your preferred approach?

    Read the article

  • where is "create instance" menu in visual studio 2010?

    - by austin powers
    Hi, in visual studio 2008 there is a sub-menu called "create instance" which is resides in class designer. Today I've opened VS.net 2010 and then opened class designer and create my class over there and when I wanted to test my class with the help of "create instance" option there was no such option available in vs.net 2010. and I've googled about it a little bit but no answer at all so I decided to mention about it here. where can I find this menu in vs.net 2010? regards.

    Read the article

  • JSunit usability

    - by stevebot
    Is JSunit really a direct port of Junit to Javascript? So I have heard, but I am wondering why my company is not using it. My company has lots of smart minds, so If we are not using it I wonder if there are any major issues with Jsunit as a javascript test harness. Input would be much appreciated. thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to extract the message from a JavaScript dialog in Chrome?

    - by Samuel
    I’ve been working on an extension for automating tests in Chrome, and I came across an obscure issue with JavaScript dialogs. The message shown in the dialog can’t be readily retrieved/copied. I’ve used the GetWindowText and InternalGetWindowText functions, but they only return the title of the dialog and the text from the buttons, not the actual message itself. I even looked at programs that extract text from forms, but no luck. So does anyone know of a way to retrieve the text from these JavaScript dialogs in Chrome?

    Read the article

  • Element not found blocks execution in Selenium

    - by Mariano
    In my test, I try to verify if certain text exists (after an action) using find_element_by_xpath. If I use the right expression and my test pass, the routine ends correctly in no time. However if I try a wrong text (meaning that the test will fail) it hangs forever and I have to kill the script otherwise it does not end. Here is my test (the expression Thx user, client or password you entered is incorrect does not exist in the system, no matter what the user does): # -*- coding: utf-8 -*- import gettext import unittest from selenium import webdriver class TestWrongLogin(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.driver = webdriver.Firefox() self.driver.get("http://10.23.1.104:8888/") # let's check the language try: self.lang = self.driver.execute_script("return navigator.language;") self.lang = self.lang("-")[0] except: self.lang = "en" language = gettext.translation('app', '/app/locale', [self.lang], fallback=True) language.install() self._ = gettext.gettext def tearDown(self): self.driver.quit() def test_wrong_client(self): # test wrong client inputElement = self.driver.find_element_by_name("login") inputElement.send_keys("root") inputElement = self.driver.find_element_by_name("client") inputElement.send_keys("Unleash") inputElement = self.driver.find_element_by_name("password") inputElement.send_keys("qwerty") self.driver.find_element_by_name("form.submitted").click() # wait for the db answer self.driver.implicitly_wait(10) ret = self.driver.find_element_by_xpath( "//*[contains(.,'{0}')]".\ format(self._(u"Thx user, client or password you entered is incorrect"))) self.assertTrue(isinstance(ret, webdriver.remote.webelement.WebElement)) if __name__ == '__main__': unittest.main() Why does it do that and how can I prevent it?

    Read the article

  • Preconfigure Android Emulator with location?

    - by Janusz
    I want to run automated tests with location on the android emulator. I can setup coordinates via Telnet, but that means starting up a console and manually configuring the emulator before running my junit tests. Is there a possibility to preconfigure the emulator with a KML file or something like that to ensure that there are always coordinates available?

    Read the article

  • How do I connect StaticListableBeanFactory with ClassPathXmlApplicationContext?

    - by Aaron Digulla
    In the setup of my test cases, I have this code: ApplicationContext context = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext( "spring/common.xml" ); StaticListableBeanFactory testBeanFactory = new StaticListableBeanFactory(); How do I connect the two in such a way that tests can register beans in the testBeanFactory during setup and the rest of the application uses them instead of the ones defined in common.xml? Note: I need to mix a static (common.xml) and a dynamic configuration. I can't use XML for the latter because that would mean to write 1000 XML files.

    Read the article

  • How to prevent swallowing exceptions caused by unset expectations for a mocked object?

    - by Schultz9999
    I am looking for a way to modify catch block depending on if it's executed during the unit test run or not. The purpose is basically to detect/setup mock expectations which are swallowed because catch doesn't rethrow. I am using MSTest. One obvious thing is using preprocessor but I don't think it works. Especially if to use DEBUG define. There should be an easy way to detect that, shouldn't it? I must have been looking for something wrong because I couldn't find much info on that. try {...} catch(Exception) { Log(...); #if DEBUG throw; #endif }

    Read the article

  • Rails test across multiple environments

    - by DSimon
    Is there some way to change Rails environments mid-way through a test? Or, alternately, what would be the right way to set up a test suite that can start up Rails in one environment, run the first half of my test in it, then restart Rails in another environment to finish the test? The two environments have separate databases. Some necessary context: I'm writing a Rails plugin that allows multiple installations of a Rails app to communicate with each other with user assistance, so that a user without Internet access can still use the app. They'll run a local version of an app, and upload their work to the online app by saving a file to a thumbdrive and taking it to an Internet cafe. The plugin adds two special environments to Rails: "offline-production" and "offline-test". I want to write functional tests that involve both the "test" and "offline-test" environments, to represent the main online version of the app and the local offline version of the app respectively.

    Read the article

  • Unit Test Sessions Window Closes when debugging

    - by Daniel Dyson
    When I select an NUnit test in the Unit Test Sessions window and click debug, the window disappears. My breakpoints are hit, but if I hit F5, the Unit Test Sessions window does not return until the test returns a result or I stop the debugging session. This is preventing me from viewing any console output during tests. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How do I get the name of the test method that was ran in a testng tear down method?

    - by Zachary Spencer
    Basically I have a tear down method that I want to log to the console which test was just ran. How would I go about getting that string? I can get the class name, but I want the actual method that was just executed. Class testSomething() { @AfterMethod public void tearDown() { system.out.println('The test that just ran was....' + getTestThatJustRanMethodName()'); } @Test public void testCase() { assertTrue(1==1); } } should output to the screen: "The test that just ran was.... testCase" However I don't know the magic that getTestThatJustRanMethodName should actually be.

    Read the article

  • What is the most idiomatic way to emulating Perl's Test::More::done_testing?

    - by DVK
    I have to build unit tests for in environment with a very old version of Test::More (perl5.8 with $Test::More::VERSION being '0.80') which predates the addition of done_testing(). Upgrading to newer Test::More is out of the question for practical reasons. And I am trying to avoid using no_tests - it's generally a bad idea not catching when your unit test exits prematurely - say due to some logic not executing when you expected it to. What is the most idiomatic way of running a configurable amount of tests, assuming no no_tests or done_testing() is used? Details: My unit tests usually take the form of: use Test::More; my @test_set = ( [ "Test #1", $param1, $param2, ... ] ,[ "Test #1", $param1, $param2, ... ] # ,... ); foreach my $test (@test_set) { run_test($test); } sub run_test { # $expected_tests += count_tests($test); ok(test1($test)) || diag("Test1 failed"); # ... } The standard approach of use Test::More tests => 23; or BEGIN {plan tests => 23} does not work since both are obviously executed before @tests is known. My current approach involves making @tests global and defining it in the BEGIN {} block as follows: use Test::More; BEGIN { our @test_set = (); # Same set of tests as above my $expected_tests = 0; foreach my $test (@tests) { my $expected_tests += count_tests($test); } plan tests = $expected_tests; } our @test_set; # Must do!!! Since first "our" was in BEGIN's scope :( foreach my $test (@test_set) { run_test($test); } # Same sub run_test {} # Same I feel this can be done more idiomatically but not certain how to improve. Chief among the smells is the duplicate our @test_test declarations - in BEGIN{} and after it. Another approach is to emulate done_testing() by calling Test::More->builder->plan(tests=>$total_tests_calculated). I'm not sure if it's any better idiomatically-wise.

    Read the article

  • How to know if your Unit Test is "right-sized"?

    - by leeand00
    One thing that I've always noticed with my unit tests is that they get to be kind of verbose; seeing as they could also be not verbose enough, how do you get a sense of when your unit tests are the right size? I know of a good quote for this and it's: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to remove." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

    Read the article

  • How to test soft deletion event listner without setting up NHibernate Sessions

    - by isuruceanu
    I have overridden the default NHibernate DefaultDeleteEventListener according to this source: http://nhforge.org/blogs/nhibernate/archive/2008/09/06/soft-deletes.aspx so I have protected override void DeleteEntity( IEventSource session, object entity, EntityEntry entityEntry, bool isCascadeDeleteEnabled, IEntityPersister persister, ISet transientEntities) { if (entity is ISoftDeletable) { var e = (ISoftDeletable)entity; e.DateDeleted = DateTime.Now; CascadeBeforeDelete(session, persister, entity, entityEntry, transientEntities); CascadeAfterDelete(session, persister, entity, transientEntities); } else { base.DeleteEntity(session, entity, entityEntry, isCascadeDeleteEnabled, persister, transientEntities); } } How can I test only this piece of code, without configuring an NHIbernate Session?

    Read the article

  • How to test Gem Extensions in Rails

    - by rube_noob
    I have written an extension to an existing gem (that is stored in lib) and a corresponding test for my extension. How could I go about running the gem's tests as well as my own automatically. What is the best practice for this case?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >