Search Results

Search found 22139 results on 886 pages for 'security testing'.

Page 112/886 | < Previous Page | 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119  | Next Page >

  • Do you write common pre-conditions for a large number of unit test cases ?

    - by Vinoth Kumar
    I have heard/read writing common pre-conditions for a large number of test cases is a bad thing, since this dependency may cause large number of test cases to fail if something changes . What are your thoughts on it ? If this is so , then what exactly is the purpose of setUp() method in Junit that runs before each test case ? If the same code inside setUp() runs before each test case , why cant it run only once before running all the test cases together ?

    Read the article

  • Performing user authentication in a CodeIgniter controller constructor?

    - by msanford
    In "The Clean Code Talks -- Unit Testing" (http://youtu.be/wEhu57pih5w), Miško Hevery mentions that "as little work as possible should be done in constructors [to make classes more easily testable]'. It got me thinking about the way I have implemented my user authentication mechanism. Having delved into MVC development through CodeIgniter, I designed my first web application to perform user authentication for protected resources in controllers' constructors in cases where every public function in that controller requires the user to be authenticated. For controllers with public methods having mixed authentication requirements, I would naturally move the authentication from the constructor to each method requiring authentication (though I don't currently have a need for this). I made this choice primarily to keep the controller tight, and to ensure that all resources in the controller are always covered. As for code longevity and maintainability: given the application structure, I can't foresee a situation in which one of the affected controllers would need a public method that didn't require user authentication, but I can see this as a potential drawback in general with this implementation (i.e., requiring future refactoring). Is this a good idea?

    Read the article

  • Is there any way to test how will the site perform under load

    - by Pankaj Upadhyay
    I have made an Asp.net MVC website and hosted it on a shared hosting provider. Since my website surrounds a very generic idea, it might have number of concurrent users sometime in future. So, I was thinking of a way to test my website for on-load performance. Like how will the site perform when 100 or 1000 users are online at the same time and surfing the website. This will also make me understand whether my LINQ queries are well written or not.

    Read the article

  • How do I inject test objects when the real objects are created dynamically?

    - by JW01
    I want to make a class testable using dependency injection. But the class creates multiple objects at runtime, and passes different values to their constructor. Here's a simplified example: public abstract class Validator { private ErrorList errors; public abstract void validate(); public void addError(String text) { errors.add( new ValidationError(text)); } public int getNumErrors() { return errors.count() } } public class AgeValidator extends Validator { public void validate() { addError("first name invalid"); addError("last name invalid"); } } (There are many other subclasses of Validator.) What's the best way to change this, so I can inject a fake object instead of ValidationError? I can create an AbstractValidationErrorFactory, and inject the factory instead. This would work, but it seems like I'll end up creating tons of little factories and factory interfaces, for every dependency of this sort. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Why not expose a primary key

    - by Angelo Neuschitzer
    In my education I have been told that it is a flawed idea to expose actual primary keys (not only DB keys, but all primary accessors) to the user. I always thought it to be a security problem (because an attacker could attempt to read stuff not their own). Now I have to check if the user is allowed to access anyway, so is there a different reason behind it? Also, as my users have to access the data anyway I will need to have a public key for the outside world somewhere in between. Now that public key has the same problems as the primary key, doesn't it?

    Read the article

  • Hello, can you just send me all your data please?

    - by fatherjack
    LiveJournal Tags: Security,SQL Server Our house phone rang on Saturday night and Mrs Fatherjack answered. I was in the other room but I heard her trying to explain to the caller that they were in some way mistaken. Eventually, as she got more irate with the caller, I went out and started to catch up with the events so far. The caller was trying to convince my wife that our computer was infected with a virus. She was confident that it wasn't. Her patience expired after almost 10 minutes...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Types of semantic bugs, logic errors [closed]

    - by C-Otto
    I am a PhD student and currently focus on automatically finding instances of new types of bugs in (Java) programs that cannot be found by existing tools like FindBugs. The existing tool currently is used to prove/disprove termination of (Java) programs. I have some ideas (see below), but I could need more input from you (experienced programmers, potential users of my tool). What kind of bugs do you wish to find? What types of bugs exist and might be suitable for my analysis? One strength of the approach I use is detailled information about the heap. So in contrast to FindBugs, I can work with knowledge of the form "variable x and variable y are disjoint on the heap" or "variable z is not cyclic". It is also possible to see if a method might have side effects (and if so, which variables may/may not be affected by it). Example 1: Vacuous call: Graph graphOne = createGraph(); Graph graphTwo = createGraph(); Node source = graphTwo.getRootNode(); for (Node n : graphOne.getNodes()) { if (areConnected(source, n)) { graphTwo.addNode(n); } } Imagine createGraph() creates a fresh graph, so that graphOne and graphTwo are disjoint on the heap. Then, because source is taken from graphTwo instead of graphOne, the call to areConnected always returns false. In this situation I could find out that the call areConnected is useless (because it does not have any side effect and the return value always is false) which helps finding the real bug (taking source from the wrong graph). For this the information that x and y are disjoint (because graphOne and graphTwo are disjoint) is crucial. This bug is related to calling x.equals(y) where x and y are objects of different classes. In this scenario, most implementations of equals() always return false, which most likely is not the intended result. FindBugs already finds this bug (hardcoded to equals(), semantics of implementation is not checked). Example 2: Useless code: someCode(); while (something()) { yetMoreSomething(); } moreCode(); In the case that the loop (so the code in something() and yetMoreSomething()) does not modify anything visible outside the loop, it does not make sense to run this code - the program has the same behaviour as someCode(); moreCode() (i.e., without the loop). To find this out, one needs detailled information about the side effects of the (possibly useless) code. If I can prove that the code does not have any side effect that can be observed afterwards (in the example: in moreCode() or later), then the code indeed is useless. Of course, here Input/Output of any form must be seen as a side effect, so that a System.out.println(...) is not considered useless. Example 3: Ignored return value: Instead of x = foo(); and making use of x, the method is called without storing the result: foo();. If the method does not have any side effect, its invocation is useless and can be dropped. Most likely, the bug here is that the returned value should have been used. Here, too, detailled information about side effects are needed. Can you think of similar types of bugs that might be detected (only) with detailled information about the heap, side effects, semantics of called methods, ...? Did you encounter bugs related to the ones shown below in "real life"? By the way, the tool is AProVE and Java related publications can be found on my homepage. Thanks a lot, Carsten

    Read the article

  • Onsite Interview : QA Engineer with more Emphasis on Java Skills

    - by coolrockers2007
    Hello I'm having a onsite interview for QA engineer with Startup. While phone interview the person said he would want to test my JAVA, JUnit and SQL skills on white board with more importance on Object-oriented skills, So what all can i questions can i expect ? One more important issue : How do i overcome the fear of White board interview ?. I'm very bad at White board sessions, i get fully tensed. Please suggest me tips to overcome my jinx

    Read the article

  • bug: deviation from requirements vs deviation from expectations

    - by user970696
    I am not clear on this one. No matter the terminology, in the end the software fault/bug causes (according to a lot of sources): Deviation from requirements Devation from expectations But if the expectations are not in requirements, then stakeholder could see a bug everywhere as he expected it to be like this or that..So how can I really know? I did read that specification can miss things and then of course its expected but not specified (by mistake).

    Read the article

  • Warning about SSL ceritificate, am I under attack ?

    - by Bunny Rabbit
    Lately I've been getting a lot of warnings about SSL certifications on my pc, Empathy keeps telling me that Facebook's certificate is self-signed and can't be trusted, and also, there are occasional warnings in Google-Chrome about security. I remember the last one saying that that the page is secured but some of the resources that the page is using are not from a secure connection, something like that. Is my pc hacked / under attack? How can I check that, and if so, how can I safeguard myself? PS: One thing that comes to my mind is that I might be under an arp poisoning / spoofing attack.

    Read the article

  • Suggest-a-Session for Oracle Develop 2010: Last chance to get your paper submitted.

    - by olaf.heimburger
    While working with Oracle Technologies at customer projects we all come across solutions and ideas that are worth to share with a greater audience. When you missed the Call For Paper for Oracle OpenWorld and Oracle Develop you have the chance to get in. The Oracle Mix Community provides a tool called Suggest-a-Session for submitting and voting the sessions you would like to attend. My Suggestions When you pass by, do not forget to vote for my sessions. These are: Real-World Single Sign-On and ADF Security The Personal Newsletter Generator: Implement Cool Applications with ADF Faces Thank you for your support.

    Read the article

  • Should mock objects for tests be created at a high or low level

    - by Danack
    When creating unit tests for those other objects, what is the best way to create mock objects that provide data to other objects. Should they be created at a 'high level' and intercept the calls as soon as possible, or should they be done at a 'low level' and so make as much as the real code still be called? e.g. I'm writing a test for some code that requires a NoteMapper object that allows Notes to be loaded from the DB. class NoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { // Create an SQL query from $sqlQueryFactory // Run that SQL // if null // return null // else // return new Note($dataFromSQLQuery) } } I could either mock this object at a high level by creating a mock NoteMapper object, so that there are no calls to the SQL at all e.g. class MockNoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { //$mockData = {'Test Note title', "Test note text" } // return new Note($mockData); } } Or I could do it at a very low level, by creating a MockSQLQueryFactory that instead of actually querying the database just provides mock data back, and passing that to the current NoteMapper object. It seems that creating mocks at a high level would be easier in the short term, but that in the long term doing it at a low level would be more powerful and possibly allow more automation of tests e.g. by recording data in an out of a DB and then replaying that data for tests. Is there a recommended way of creating mocks? Are there any hard and fast rules about which are better, or should they both be used where appropriate?

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection: what belongs in the constructor?

    - by Adam Backstrom
    I'm evaluating my current PHP practices in an effort to write more testable code. Generally speaking, I'm fishing for opinions on what types of actions belong in the constructor. Should I limit things to dependency injection? If I do have some data to populate, should that happen via a factory rather than as constructor arguments? (Here, I'm thinking about my User class that takes a user ID and populates user data from the database during construction, which obviously needs to change in some way.) I've heard it said that "initialization" methods are bad, but I'm sure that depends on what exactly is being done during initialization. At the risk of getting too specific, I'll also piggyback a more detailed example onto my question. For a previous project, I built a FormField class (which handled field value setting, validation, and output as HTML) and a Model class to contain these fields and do a bit of magic to ease working with fields. FormField had some prebuilt subclasses, e.g. FormText (<input type="text">) and FormSelect (<select>). Model would be subclassed so that a specific implementation (say, a Widget) had its own fields, such as a name and date of manufacture: class Widget extends Model { public function __construct( $data = null ) { $this->name = new FormField('length=20&label=Name:'); $this->manufactured = new FormDate; parent::__construct( $data ); // set above fields using incoming array } } Now, this does violate some rules that I have read, such as "avoid new in the constructor," but to my eyes this does not seem untestable. These are properties of the object, not some black box data generator reading from an external source. Unit tests would progressively build up to any test of Widget-specific functionality, so I could be confident that the underlying FormFields were working correctly during the Widget test. In theory I could provide the Model with a FieldFactory() which could supply custom field objects, but I don't believe I would gain anything from this approach. Is this a poor assumption?

    Read the article

  • How to implement a safe password history

    - by Lorenzo
    Passwords shouldn't be stored in plain text for obvious security reasons: you have to store hashes, and you should also generate the hash carefully to avoid rainbow table attacks. However, usually you have the requirement to store the last n passwords and to enforce minimal complexity and minimal change between the different passwords (to prevent the user from using a sequence like Password_1, Password_2, ..., Password_n). This would be trivial with plain text passwords, but how can you do that by storing only hashes? In other words: how it is possible to implement a safe password history mechanism?

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – ?Finding Out What Changed in a Deleted Database – Notes from the Field #041

    - by Pinal Dave
    [Note from Pinal]: This is a 41th episode of Notes from the Field series. The real world is full of challenges. When we are reading theory or book, we sometimes do not realize how real world reacts works and that is why we have the series notes from the field, which is extremely popular with developers and DBA. Let us talk about interesting problem of how to figure out what has changed in the DELETED database. Well, you think I am just throwing the words but in reality this kind of problems are making our DBA’s life interesting and in this blog post we have amazing story from Brian Kelley about the same subject. In this episode of the Notes from the Field series database expert Brian Kelley explains a how to find out what has changed in deleted database. Read the experience of Brian in his own words. Sometimes, one of the hardest questions to answer is, “What changed?” A similar question is, “Did anything change other than what we expected to change?” The First Place to Check – Schema Changes History Report: Pinal has recently written on the Schema Changes History report and its requirement for the Default Trace to be enabled. This is always the first place I look when I am trying to answer these questions. There are a couple of obvious limitations with the Schema Changes History report. First, while it reports what changed, when it changed, and who changed it, other than the base DDL operation (CREATE, ALTER, DELETE), it does not present what the changes actually were. This is not something covered by the default trace. Second, the default trace has a fixed size. When it hits that size, the changes begin to overwrite. As a result, if you wait too long, especially on a busy database server, you may find your changes rolled off. But the Database Has Been Deleted! Pinal cited another issue, and that’s the inability to run the Schema Changes History report if the database has been dropped. Thankfully, all is not lost. One thing to remember is that the Schema Changes History report is ultimately driven by the Default Trace. As you may have guess, it’s a trace, like any other database trace. And the Default Trace does write to disk. The trace files are written to the defined LOG directory for that SQL Server instance and have a prefix of log_: Therefore, you can read the trace files like any other. Tip: Copy the files to a working directory. Otherwise, you may occasionally receive a file in use error. With the Default Trace files, if you ask the question early enough, you can see the information for a deleted database just the same as any other database. Testing with a Deleted Database: Here’s a short script that will create a database, create a schema, create an object, and then drop the database. Without the database, you can’t do a standard Schema Changes History report. CREATE DATABASE DeleteMe; GO USE DeleteMe; GO CREATE SCHEMA Test AUTHORIZATION dbo; GO CREATE TABLE Test.Foo (FooID INT); GO USE MASTER; GO DROP DATABASE DeleteMe; GO This sets up the perfect situation where we can’t retrieve the information using the Schema Changes History report but where it’s still available. Finding the Information: I’ve sorted the columns so I can see the Event Subclass, the Start Time, the Database Name, the Object Name, and the Object Type at the front, but otherwise, I’m just looking at the trace files using SQL Profiler. As you can see, the information is definitely there: Therefore, even in the case of a dropped/deleted database, you can still determine who did what and when. You can even determine who dropped the database (loginame is captured). The key is to get the default trace files in a timely manner in order to extract the information. If you want to get started with performance tuning and database security with the help of experts, read more over at Fix Your SQL Server. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com)Filed under: Notes from the Field, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Security, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL

    Read the article

  • Should tests be in the same ruby file or in separeted ruby files?

    - by Junior Mayhé
    While using Selenium and Ruby to do some functional tests, I am worried with the performance. So is it better to add all test methods in the same ruby file, or I should put each one in separated code files? Below a sample with all tests in the same file: # encoding: utf-8 require "selenium-webdriver" require "test/unit" class Tests < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @driver = Selenium::WebDriver.for :firefox @base_url = "http://mysite" @driver.manage.timeouts.implicit_wait = 30 @verification_errors = [] @wait = Selenium::WebDriver::Wait.new :timeout => 10 end def teardown @driver.quit assert_equal [], @verification_errors end def element_present?(how, what) @driver.find_element(how, what) true rescue Selenium::WebDriver::Error::NoSuchElementError false end def verify(&blk) yield rescue Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError => ex @verification_errors << ex end def test_1 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_2 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_3 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_4 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_5 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end end

    Read the article

  • Quality of Code in unit tests?

    - by m3th0dman
    Is it worth to spend time when writing unit tests in order that the code written there has good quality and is very easy to read? When writing this kinds of tests I break very often the Law of Demeter, for faster writing and not using so many variables. Technically, unit tests are not reused directly - are strictly bound to the code so I do not see any reason for spending much time on them; they only need to be functionaly.

    Read the article

  • How to handle bugs that I think I fixed, but I'm not entirely sure

    - by vsz
    There are some types of bugs which are very hard to reproduce, happen very rarely and seemingly by random. It can happen, that I find a possible cause, fix it, test the program, and can't reproduce the bug. However, as it was impossible to reliably reproduce the bug and it happened so rarely, how can I indicate this in a bugtracker? What is the common way of doing it? If I set the status to fixed, and the solution to fixed, it would mean something completely fixed, wouldn't it? Is it common practice to set the status to fixed and the solution to open, to indicate to the testers, that "it's probably fixed, but needs more attention to make sure" ? Edit: most (if not all) bugtrackers have two properties for the status of a bug, maybe the names are not the same. By status I mean new, assigned, fixed, closed, etc., and by solution I mean open (new), fixed, unsolvable, not reproducible, duplicate, not a bug, etc.

    Read the article

  • Mock RequireJS define dependencies with config.map

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2014/08/18/mock-requirejs-define-dependencies-with-config.map.aspxI had a module dependency, that I’m pulling down with RequireJS that I needed to use and write tests against. In this case, I don’t care about the actual implementation of the module (it’s simple enough that I’m just avoiding some AJAX calls). EDIT: make sure you look at the bottom example after the edit before using the config.map approach. I found that there is an easier way. I did not want to change the constructor of the consumer as I had a chain of changes that would have to be made and that would have been to invasive for this task. I found a question on StackOverflow with a short, but helpful answer from “Artem Oboturov”. We can use the config.map from RequireJs to achieve this. Here is some code: A module example (“usefulModule” in Common/Modules/usefulModule.js): define([], function() { "use strict"; var testMethod = function() { ... }; // add more functionality of the module return { testMethod; } }); A consumer of usefulModule example: define([ "Commmon/Modules/usefulModule" ], function(usefulModule) { "use strict"; var consumerModule = function(){ var self = this; // add functionality of the module } }); Using config.map in the html of the test runner page (and in your Karma config –> I’m still trying to figure this out): map: {'*': { // replace usefulModule with a mock 'Common/Modules/usefulModule': '/Tests/Specs/Common/usefulModuleMock.js' } } With the new mapping, Require will load usefulModuleMock.js from Tests/Specs/Common instead of the real implementation. Some of the answers on StackOverflow mentioned Squire.js, which looked interesting, but I wasn’t ready to introduce a new library at this time. That’s all you need to be able to mock a depency in RequireJS. However, there are many good cases when you should pass it in through the constructor instead of this approach.   EDIT: After all that, here’s another, probably better way: The consumer class, updated: define([ "Commmon/Modules/usefulModule" ], function(UsefulModule) { "use strict"; var consumerModule = function(){ var self = this; self.usefulModule = new UsefulModule(); // add functionality of the module } }); Jasmine test: define([ "consumerModule", "/UnitTests/Specs/Common/Mocks/usefulModuleMock.js" ], function(consumerModule, UsefulModuleMock){ describe("when mocking out the module", function(){ it("should probably just override the property", function(){ var consumer = new consumerModule(); consumer.usefulModule = new UsefulModuleMock(); }); }); });   Thanks for letting me think out loud :-).

    Read the article

  • Using automated bdd-gui-tests to keep user-documentation-screenshots up do date?

    - by k3b
    Are there developpers out there, who (ab)use the CaptureScreenshot() function of their automated gui-tests to also create uptodate-screenshots for the userdocumentation? Background: Whithin the lifetime of an application, its gui-elements are constantly changing. It makes a lot of work to keep the userdocumentation uptodate, especially if the example data in the pictures should match the textual description. If you already have automated bdd-gui-tests why not let them take screenshots at certain points? I am currently playing with webapps in dotnet+specflow+selenium, but this topic also applies to other bdd-engines (JRuby-Cucumber, mspec, rspec, ...) and gui-test-Frameworks (WaitN, WaitR, MsWhite, ....) Any experience, thoughts or url-links to this topic would be helpfull. How is the cost/benefit relation? Is it worth the efford? What are the Drawbacks? See also: Is it practical to retroactively write specifications documenting a system via automated acceptance tests?

    Read the article

  • Isolated Unit Tests and Fine Grained Failures

    - by Winston Ewert
    One of the reasons often given to write unit tests which mock out all dependencies and are thus completely isolated is to ensure that when a bug exists, only the unit tests for that bug will fail. (Obviously, an integration tests may fail as well). That way you can readily determine where the bug is. But I don't understand why this is a useful property. If my code were undergoing spontaneous failures, I could see why its useful to readily identify the failure point. But if I have a failing test its either because I just wrote the test or because I just modified the code under test. In either case, I already know which unit contains a bug. What is the useful in ensuring that a test only fails due to bugs in the unit under test? I don't see how it gives me any more precision in identifying the bug than I already had.

    Read the article

  • Testcase runner for parametrized testcases

    - by Razer
    Let me explain my situation. I'm planning a kind of test case runner for doing testcases on external devices, which are microcontroller based. Lets consider the devices: Device 1 Device 2 There exist a lot of test cases which can be run with one of the devices above. For example: Testcase 1 Testcase 2 The main reason that all the testcases can be run with any device is, that the testcases validates some standard and this software should be extensible for future devices. The testcases itself must be runnable with changing parameters. For example Testcase 1 does some Timing Verification the testcase needs as input parameter the datarate: 4800, 9600, 19200. Now hoping you understand the situation, let me explain my design questions. For implementing the test cases I thought about an Attribute based approach, like nunit does it. The more complicated problem is, how to define the parametrized testcases? Like this: Device 1: Testcase 1: datarate: 4800, 9600, 19200 Testcase 2: supply: 1, 2, 3 Device 2: Testcase 1: datarate: 9600, 19200, 38400 Testcase 2: supply: 3, 4, 5 How would you design such a framework? I've done a similar desin in python where I had for every device a XML containing the testcase definitions like: <Testcase="Testcase 1" datarate=4800/> <Testcase="Testcase 1" datarate=9600/> <Testcase="Testcase 1" datarate=19200/>

    Read the article

  • MODX based site has been compromised, and tagged by Google as malware

    - by JAG2007
    I'm the webmaster (inherited the site from the developer) for a site called kenbrook.org. The site is currently being tagged as malware infected by Google, and gives the following details: http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=kenbrook.org Sadly, this is the second time it has occurred. I posted the issue when it happened last year originally on Stackoverflow on this post, shortly after I inherited the site. At the time the fix was a simple removal of a few lines of code from a .js file, but I never did discover or resolve the vulnerability. The site is built on MODX, which neither I, nor the original builder, have any familiarity with. I've tried to check for security updates from MODX, but updating that software has been a real pain also. Sooo...what's my next step to getting this whole issue resolved? Or steps?

    Read the article

  • Ask the Readers: How Do You Browse Securely Away From Home?

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    When you’re browsing away from home, be it on your smartphone, tablet, or laptop, how do you keep your browsing sessions secure? This week we’re interested in hearing all about your mobile security tips and tricks. When you’re out and about you often, out of necessity or convenience, need to connect to open Wi-Fi hotspots and otherwise put your data out there in ways that you don’t when you’re at home. This week we want to hear about your tips, tricks, and applications for keeping your data secure and private when you’re away from your home network. Sound off in the comments with your tips and then check back on Friday for the What You Said roundup. HTG Explains: Why Linux Doesn’t Need Defragmenting How to Convert News Feeds to Ebooks with Calibre How To Customize Your Wallpaper with Google Image Searches, RSS Feeds, and More

    Read the article

  • What if I can't make my unit test fail in "Red, Green, Refactor" of TDD?

    - by Joshua Harris
    So let's say that I have a test: @Test public void MoveY_MoveZero_DoesNotMove() { Point p = new Point(50.0, 50.0); p.MoveY(0.0); Assert.assertAreEqual(50.0, p.Y); } This test then causes me to create the class Point: public class Point { double X; double Y; public void MoveY(double yDisplace) { throw new NotYetImplementedException(); } } Ok. It fails. Good. Then I remove the exception and I get green. Great, but of course I need to test if it changes value. So I write a test that calls p.MoveY(10.0) and checks if p.Y is equal to 60.0. It fails, so then I change the function to look like so: public void MoveY(double yDisplace) { Y += yDisplace; } Great, now I have green again and I can move on. I've tested not moving and moving in the positive direction, so naturally I should test a negative value. The only problem with this test is that if I wrote the test correctly, then it doesn't fail at first. That means that I didn't fit the principle of "Red, Green, Refactor." Of course, This is a first-world problem of TDD, but getting a fail at first is helpful in that it shows that your test can fail. Otherwise this seemingly innocent test that is just passing for incorrect reasons could fail later because it was written wrong. That might not be a problem if it happened 5 minutes later, but what if it happens to the poor-sap that inheirited your code two years later. What he knows is that MoveY does not work with negative values because that is what the test is telling him. But, it really could work and just be a bug in the test. I don't think that would happen in this particular case because the code sample is so simple, but if it were a large complicated system that might not be the case. It seems crazy to say that I want to fail my tests, but that is an important step in TDD, for good reasons.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119  | Next Page >