Search Results

Search found 10178 results on 408 pages for 'testing metaprogramming'.

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 116/408 | < Previous Page | 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123  | Next Page >

  • Junit 4 test suite and individual test classes

    - by Hypnus
    I have a JUnit 4 test suite with BeforeClass and AfterClass methods that make a setup/teardown for the following test classes. What I need is to run the test classes also by them selves, but for that I need a setup/teardown scenario (BeforeClass and AfterClass or something like that) for each test class. The thing is that when I run the suite I do not want to execute the setup/teardown before and after each test class, I only want to execute the setup/teardown from the test suite (once). Is it possible ? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Detecting use after free() on windows. (dangling pointers)

    - by The Rook
    I'm trying to detect "Use after free()" bugs, otherwise known as "Dangling pointers". I know Valgrind can be used to detect "Use after free" bugs on the *nix platform, but what about windows? What if I don't have the source? Is there a better program than Valgrind for detecting all dangling pointers in a program? A free and open source would be preferred , but I'll use a commercial solution if it will get the job done.

    Read the article

  • FRIEND_TEST in Google Test - possible circular dependency?

    - by Mihaela
    I am trying to figure out how FRIEND_TEST works in Google Tests. http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/AdvancedGuide#Private_Class_Members I am looking at the following item, trying to implement it in my code: // foo.h #include "gtest/gtest_prod.h" // Defines FRIEND_TEST. class Foo { ... private: FRIEND_TEST(FooTest, BarReturnsZeroOnNull); int Bar(void* x); }; // foo_test.cc ... TEST(FooTest, BarReturnsZeroOnNull) { Foo foo; EXPECT_EQ(0, foo.Bar(NULL)); // Uses Foo's private member Bar(). } In the code above, the piece that I can't see, is that foo_test.cc must include foo.h, in order to have access to Foo and Bar(). [Perhaps it works differently for Google ? in my code, I must include it] That will result in circular dependency... Am I missing something ?

    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

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

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

    Read the article

  • Given a short (2-week) sprint, is it ever acceptable to forgo TDD to "get things done"?

    - by Ben Aston
    Given a short sprint, is it ever acceptable to forgo TDD to "get things done" within the sprint. For example a given piece of work might need say 1/3 of the sprint to design the object model around an existing implementation. Under this scenario you might well end up with implemented code, say half way through the sprint, without any tests (implementing unit tests during this "design" stage would add significant effort and the tests would likely be thrown away a few times until the final "design" is settled upon). You might then spend a day or two in the second week adding in unit / integration tests after the fact. Is this acceptable?

    Read the article

  • Is there a Java unit-test framework that auto-tests getters and setters?

    - by Michael Easter
    There is a well-known debate in Java (and other communities, I'm sure) whether or not trivial getter/setter methods should be tested. Usually, this is with respect to code coverage. Let's agree that this is an open debate, and not try to answer it here. There have been several blog posts on using Java reflection to auto-test such methods. Does any framework (e.g. jUnit) provide such a feature? e.g. An annotation that says "this test T should auto-test all the getters/setters on class C, because I assert that they are standard". It seems to me that it would add value, and if it were configurable, the 'debate' would be left as an option to the user.

    Read the article

  • Second Unit Test Not Running

    - by TomJ
    I am having trouble getting my Method B test to run. The logic is fine, but when the unit tests are run, only Method A will run. If Method A and B are switched in terms of spots, only Method B will run. So clearly the code is wrong at some point. Do I need to call method B's test from inside method A in order to get both unit tests to run? I'm pretty new to C#, so forgive my basic question. using redacted; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using System; namespace UnitTests { [TestClass()] public class ClassTest { public TestContext TestContext{get;set;} [TestMethod()] public void MethodATest() { the unit test } [TestMethod()] public void MethodBTest() { the unit test } } }

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Execute JavaScript from within a C# assembly

    - by ScottKoon
    I'd like to execute JavaScript code from within a C# assembly and have the results of the JavaScript code returned to the calling C# code. It's easier to define things that I'm not trying to do: I'm not trying to call a JavaScript function on a web page from my code behind. I'm not trying to load a WebBrowser control. I don't want to have the JavaScript perform an AJAX call to a server. What I want to do is write unit tests in JavaScript and have then unit tests output JSON, even plain text would be fine. Then I want to have a generic C# class/executible that can load the file containing the JS, run the JS unit tests, scrap/load the results, and return a pass/fail with details during a post-build task. I think it's possible using the old ActiveX ScriptControl, but it seems like there ought to be a .NET way to do this without using SilverLight, the DLR, or anything else that hasn't shipped yet. Anyone have any ideas? update: From Brad Abrams blog namespace Microsoft.JScript.Vsa { [Obsolete("There is no replacement for this feature. Please see the ICodeCompiler documentation for additional help. http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=14202")] Clarification: We have unit tests for our JavaScript functions that are written in JavaScript using the JSUnit framework. Right now during our build process, we have to manually load a web page and click a button to ensure that all of the JavaScript unit tests pass. I'd like to be able to execute the tests during the post-build process when our automated C# unit tests are run and report the success/failure alongside of out C# unit tests and use them as an indicator as to whether or not the build is broken.

    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

  • Test-driven Development: Writing tests for private / protected variables

    - by Chetan
    I'm learning TDD, and I have a question about private / protected variables. My question is: If a function I want to test is operating on a private variable, how should I test it? Here is the example I'm working with: I have a class called Table that contains an instance variable called internalRepresentation that is a 2D array. I want to create a function called multiplyValuesByN that multiplies all the values in the 2D array by the argument n. So I write the test for it (in Python): def test_multiplyValuesByN (self): t = Table(3, 3) # 3x3 table, filled with 0's t.set(0, 0, 4) # Set value at position (0,0) to 4 t.multiplyValuesByN(3) assertEqual(t.internalRepresentation, [[12, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0]]) Now, if I make internalRepresentation private or protected, this test will not work. How am I supposed to write the test so it doesn't depend on internalRepresentation but still tests that it looks correct after calling multiplyValuesByN?

    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

  • Can I write a test without any assert in it ?

    - by stratwine
    Hi, I'd like to know if it is "ok" to write a test without any "assert" in it. So the test would fail only when an exception / error has occured. Eg: like a test which has a simple select query, to ensure that the database configuration is right. So when I change some db-configuration, I re-run this test and check if the configuration is right. ? Thanks!

    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

  • 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

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 | 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123  | Next Page >