Search Results

Search found 10978 results on 440 pages for 'collision testing'.

Page 12/440 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • Software or testing pipeline for testing multiple hard drives

    - by lions_leash
    I have a whole bunch of hard drives (maybe 10 or so) from a variety of sources that I'd like to test. If they work, I will put them in use and/or give them away. I was going to simply open up one of my machines and plug each one in, one at a time, and troubleshoot from there. Is there a way (or set of tools) that I can use to make this process easier and/or faster?

    Read the article

  • Meaning of offset in pygame Mask.overlap methods

    - by Alan
    I have a situation in which two rectangles collide, and I have to detect how much did they collide so so I can redraw the objects in a way that they are only touching each others edges. It's a situation in which a moving ball should hit a completely unmovable wall and instantly stop moving. Since the ball sometimes moves multiple pixels per screen refresh, it it possible that it enters the wall with more that half its surface when the collision is detected, in which case i want to shift it position back to the point where it only touches the edges of the wall. Here is the conceptual image it: I decided to implement this with masks, and thought that i could supply the masks of both objects (wall and ball) and get the surface (as a square) of their intersection. However, there is also the offset parameter which i don't understand. Here are the docs for the method: Mask.overlap Returns the point of intersection if the masks overlap with the given offset - or None if it does not overlap. Mask.overlap(othermask, offset) -> x,y The overlap tests uses the following offsets (which may be negative): +----+----------.. |A | yoffset | +-+----------.. +--|B |xoffset | | : :

    Read the article

  • How to make it so units don't stack up in one location?

    - by Daggio
    So I'm making a game in AS3, it's a strategy DotA-like game (for flash game equivalent, there's UDE) so far so good, I have the A* pathfinding algorithm all sorted out and the minion units move to the desired location as I want them to be. The problem a rise when a unit stops in a node that has already occupied by another friendly unit. Both (or more than two) of them stacks up in one location, it looks like they're one unit. I want to add collision detection so when they collide they don't stack up together. But now they stop when they collide on they way to a node. This isn't good because they won't move at all midway (they won't respond to enemy attacks like that). I've added a deltatime so they only stopped for 2 seconds before they move again to their designated designation. This moves them again but they flicker. Not how I want it. So, like the title said. How to make more than one units don't stack up in a node? And if possible, how to make them not flicker while moving (it's good if they can tell other friendly units on the way and avoid them accordingly)?

    Read the article

  • Testing tools for Django Project

    - by Bharath
    Can anyone please suggest me some good testing tools for a django project? I need to test the different use case scenarios, unit testing, as well as load testing for my project. Is there any good standard testing suite available?? Any other suggestion(s) for the testing process is greatly appreciated. I use Django, postgresql on Ubuntu server if this information is necessary.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing newbie team needs to unit test

    - by Walter
    I'm working with a new team that has historically not done ANY unit testing. My goal is for the team to eventually employ TDD (Test Driven Development) as their natural process. But since TDD is such a radical mind shift for a non-unit testing team I thought I would just start off with writing unit tests after coding. Has anyone been in a similar situation? What's an effective way to get a team to be comfortable with TDD when they've not done any unit testing? Does it make sense to do this in a couple of steps? Or should we dive right in and face all the growing pains at once?? EDIT Just for clarification, there is no one on the team (other than myself) who has ANY unit testing exposure/experience. And we are planning on using the unit testing functionality built into Visual Studio.

    Read the article

  • Should I demand unit-testing from programmers?

    - by Morten
    I work at a place, where we buy a lot of IT-projects. We are currently producing a standard for systems-requirements for the requisition of future projects. In that process, We are discussing whether or not we can demand automated unit testing from our suppliers. I firmly believe, that proper automated unit-testing is the only way to document the quality and stability of the code. Everyone else seems to think that unit-testing is an optional method that concerns the supplier alone. Thus, we will make no demands of automated unit-testing, continous testing, coverage-reports, inspections of unit-tests or any of the kind. I find this policy extremely frustrating. Am I totally out of line here? Please provide me with arguments for any of the oppinions.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing - getting started

    - by higgenkreuz
    I am just getting started with unit testing but I am not sure if I really understand the point of it all. I read tutorials and books on it all, but I just have two quick questions: I thought the purpose of unit testing is to test code we actually wrote. However, to me it seems that in order to just be able to run the test, we have to alter the original code, at which point we are not really testing the code we wrote but rather the code we wrote for testing. Most of our codes rely on external sources. Upon refactoring our code however, even it would break the original code, our tests still would run just fine, since the external sources are just muck-ups inside our test cases. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of unit testing? Sorry if I sound dumb here, but I thought someone could enlighten me a bit. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Do you enjoy 'Unit testing' ? [closed]

    - by jibin
    Possible Duplicate: How have you made unit testing more enjoyable ? i mean we all are developers & we love coding.I love learning new stuff(languages, frameworks, even new domains like mobile/Tablet development). But Testing ? As a newbie to the corporate environment,I just can't digest it.(We follow 'write-then-manually-test pattern').is it unit testing ?.Usually a single developer handles a module(From design to code & unit testing).So is it practical ? Somebody tell me how to make unit testing fun ? Or just How to do it properly?Do we try all possibilities manually.Say unit test for a webpage with lot of 'javascript validations'. PS:projects are all web applications.

    Read the article

  • unit level testing, agile, and refactoring

    - by dsollen
    I'm working on a very agile development system, a small number of people with my doing the vast majority of progaming myself. I've gotten to the testing phase and find myself writing mostly functional level testing, which I should in theory be leavning for our tester (in practice I don't entirely...trust our tester to detect and identify defects enough to leave him the sole writter of functional tests). In theory what I should be writing is Unit level tests. However, I'm not sure it's worth the expense. Unit testing takes some time to do, more then functional testing since I have to set up mocks and plugs into smaller units that weren't design to run in issolation. More importantly, I find I refactor and redesign heavily-part of this is due to my inherriting code that needed heavy redesign and is still being cleaned up, but even once I've finished removing parts that need work I'm sure in the act of expanding the code I'll still do a decent amount of refactoring and redesign. It feels as if I will break my unit tests, forcing wasted time to refactor them as well, often due to unit test, by definition, having to be coupled so closely to the code structure. So.is it worth all the wasted time when functional tests, that will never break when I refactor/redesign, should find most defects? Do unit tests really provide that much extra defect detetection over through functional? and how does one create good unit tests that work with very quick and agile code that is modified rapidly? ps, I would be fine/happy with links to anything one considers an excellent resource for how to 'do' unit testing in a highly changing enviroment. edit: to clarify I am doing a bit of very unoffical TDD, I just seem to be writing tests on what would be considered a functional level rather then unit level. I think part of this is becaus I own nearly all of the project I don't feel I need to limit the scope as much; and part of it is that it's daunting to think of trying to go back and retroactively add the unit tests needed to cover enough code that I can feel comfortable testing only a unit without the full functionality and trust that unit still works with the rest of the units.

    Read the article

  • What kind of code would Kent Beck avoid unit testing?

    - by tieTYT
    I've been watching a few of the Is TDD Dead? talks on youtube, and one of the things that surprised me is Kent Beck seems to acknowledge that there are just some kinds of programs that aren't worth unit testing. For example, right here DHH says that Kent Beck is ... very happy to say "Well, TDD doesn't fit in this case, I'm just going to bail" It's frustrating to me that Kent Beck seems to acknowledge this, but nobody asks him to elaborate on it or give concrete examples. I'd like to know the situations where Kent Beck thinks TDD is a bad fit. Nobody can read his mind or speak for him, but I'm hoping he's been transparent enough through his books/tweets/whatever for someone to be able to answer. I'm not necessarily going to take what he says as gospel, but it would be useful to know that the times I've tried TDD and it just felt impossible/useless are situations that he would have bailed on it himself. Or, if it turned out he would have tested that code it'd suggest to me that I was approaching the process very wrong. I also think it would be enlightening to understand why he would bail on such projects. My opinion on why this is not a duplicate of "When is it appropriate to not unit test?" After skimming those answers I'm not satisfied. For example, look at UncleBob's answer. He doesn't even acknowledge that such a situation exists. I really think there's value in understanding Kent Beck's position, not just a general, "What's your opinion?" type of question. After all, he's the father of TDD.

    Read the article

  • ISO 12207 - testing being only validation activity? [closed]

    - by user970696
    Possible Duplicate: How come verification does not include actual testing? ISO norm 12207 states that testing is only validation activity, while all static inspections are verification (that requirement, code.. is complete, correct..). I did found some articles saying its not correct but you know, it is not "official". I would like to understand because there are two different concepts (in books & articles): 1) Verification is all testing except for UAT (because only user can really validate the use). E.g. here OR 2) Verification is everything but testing. All testing is validation. E.g. here Definitions are mostly the same, as Sommerville's: The aim of verification is to check that the software meets its stated functional and non-functional requirements. Validation, however, is a more general process. The aim of validation is to ensure that the software meets the customer’s expectations. It goes beyond simply checking conformance with the specification to demonstrating that the software does what the customer expects it to do It is really bugging me because I tend to agree that functional testing done on a product (SIT) is still verification because I just follow the requirements. But ISO does not agree..

    Read the article

  • Penetration testing - common examples?

    - by Mirek
    Hi, I was charged to do some basic penetration testing on our system. I tried to find some favoured practices but I was not successful. I guess SYN attack is retired (no NT here). Could anyone advice some basic steps of what to test in order to proceed at least very basic penetration test? Thanks

    Read the article

  • About unit testing a function in the zend framework and unit testing in general

    - by sanders
    Hello people, I am diving into the world of unit testing. And i am sort of lost. I learned today that unit testing is testing if a function works. I wanted to test the following function: public function getEventById($id) { return $this->getResource('Event')->getEventById($id); } So i wanted to test this function as follows: public function test_Event_Get_Event_By_Id_Returns_Event_Item() { $p = $this->_model->getEventById(42); $this->assertEquals(42, EventManager_Resource_Event_Item_Interface); $this->assertType('EventManager_Resource_Event_Item_Interface', $p); } But then I got the error: 1) EventTest::test_Event_Get_Event_By_Id_Returns_Event_Item Zend_Db_Table_Exception: No adapter found for EventManager_Resource_Event /home/user/Public/ZendFramework-1.10.1/library/SF/Model/Abstract.php:101 /var/www/nrka2/application/modules/eventManager/models/Event.php:25 But then someone told me that i am currently unit testing and not doing an integration test. So i figured that i have to test the function getEventById on a different way. But I don't understand how. What this function does it just cals a resource and returns the event by id.

    Read the article

  • Simulating smooth movement along a line after calculating a collision containing a restitution of zero in 2D

    - by Casey
    [for tl;dr see after listing] //...Code to determine shapes types involved in collision here... //...Rectangle-Line collision detected. if(_rbTest->GetCollisionShape()->Intersects(*_ground->GetCollisionShape())) { //Convert incoming shape to a line. a2de::Line l(*dynamic_cast<a2de::Line*>(_ground->GetCollisionShape())); //Get line's normal. a2de::Vector2D normal_vector(l.GetSlope().GetY(), -l.GetSlope().GetX()); a2de::Vector2D::Normalize(normal_vector); //Accumulate forces involved. a2de::Vector2D intermediate_forces; a2de::Vector2D normal_force = normal_vector * _rbTest->GetMass() * _world->GetGravityHandler()->GetGravityValue(); intermediate_forces += normal_force; //Calculate final velocity: See [1] double Ma = _rbTest->GetMass(); a2de::Vector2D Ua = _rbTest->GetVelocity(); double Mb = _ground->GetMass(); a2de::Vector2D Ub = _ground->GetVelocity(); double mCr = Mb * _ground->GetRestitution(); a2de::Vector2D collision_velocity( ((Ma * Ua) + (Mb * Ub) + ((mCr * Ub) - (mCr * Ua))) / (Ma + Mb)); //Calculate reflection vector: See [2] a2de::Vector2D reflect_velocity( -collision_velocity + 2 * (a2de::Vector2D::DotProduct(collision_velocity, normal_vector)) * normal_vector ); //Affect velocity to account for restitution of colliding bodies. reflect_velocity *= (_ground->GetRestitution() * _rbTest->GetRestitution()); _rbTest->SetVelocity(reflect_velocity); //THE ULTIMATE ISSUE STEMS FROM THE FOLLOWING LINE: //Move object away from collision one pixel to prevent constant collision. _rbTest->SetPosition(_rbTest->GetPosition() + normal_vector); _rbTest->ApplyImpulse(intermediate_forces); } Sources: (1) Wikipedia: Coefficient of Restitution: Speeds after impact (2) Wikipedia: Specular Reflection: Direction of reflection First, I have a system in place to account for friction (that is, a coefficient of friction) but is not used right now (in addition, it is zero, which should not affect the math anyway). I'll deal with that after I get this working. Anyway, when the restitution of either object involved in the collision is zero the object stops as required, but if movement along the same direction (again, irrespective of the friction value that isn't used) as the line is attempted the object moves as if slogging through knee deep snow. If I remove the line of code in question and the object is not push away one pixel the object barely moves at all. All because the object collides, is stopped, is pushed up, collides, is stopped...etc. OR collides, is stopped, collides, is stopped, etc... TL;DR How do I only account for a collision ONCE for restitution purposes (BONUS: but CONTINUALLY for frictional purposes, to be implemented later)

    Read the article

  • How to avoid tons of `instanceof` in collision detection?

    - by Prog
    Consider a simple game with 4 kinds of entities: Robots, Dogs, Missiles, Walls. Here's a simple collision-detection mechanism in psuedocode: (I know, O(n^2). Irrelevant for this question). for(Entity entityA in entities){ for(Entity entityB in entities){ if(collision(entityA, entityB)){ if(entityA instanceof Robot && entityB instanceof Dog) entityB.die(); if(entityA instanceof Robot && entityB instanceof Missile){ entityA.die(); entityB.die(); } if(entityA instanceof Missile && entityB instanceof Wall) entityB.die(); // .. and so on } } } Obviously this is very ugly, and will get bigger and harder to maintain the more entities there are, and the more conditions there are. One option to make this better is to have separate lists for each kind of entity. For example a Robots list, a Dogs list etc. And than check for collisions of all Robots with Dogs, and all Dogs with Walls, etc. This is better, but I still don't think it's good. So my question is: The collision detection system spotted a collision. Now what? What is the common way to react to the collision? Should the system notify the entity itself that it collided with something, and have it decide for itself how to react? E.g. entityA.reactToCollision(entityB). Or is there some other solution?

    Read the article

  • Mass Ball-to-Ball Collision Handling (as in, lots of balls)

    - by BlueThen
    Update: Found out that I was using the radius as the diameter, which was why the mtd was overcompensating. Hi, StackOverflow. I've written a Processing program awhile back simulating ball physics. Basically, I have a large number of balls (1000), with gravity turned on. Detection works great, but my issue is that they start acting weird when they're bouncing against other balls in all directions. I'm pretty confident this involves the handling. For the most part, I'm using Jay Conrod's code. One part that's different is if (distance > 1.0) return; which I've changed to if (distance < 1.0) return; because the collision wasn't even being performed with the first bit of code, I'm guessing that's a typo. The balls overlap when I use his code, which isn't what I was looking for. My attempt to fix it was to move the balls to the edge of each other: float angle = atan2(y - collider.y, x - collider.x); float distance = dist(x,y, balls[ID2].x,balls[ID2].y); x = collider.x + radius * cos(angle); y = collider.y + radius * sin(angle); This isn't correct, I'm pretty sure of that. I tried the correction algorithm in the previous ball-to-ball topic: // get the mtd Vector2d delta = (position.subtract(ball.position)); float d = delta.getLength(); // minimum translation distance to push balls apart after intersecting Vector2d mtd = delta.multiply(((getRadius() + ball.getRadius())-d)/d); // resolve intersection -- // inverse mass quantities float im1 = 1 / getMass(); float im2 = 1 / ball.getMass(); // push-pull them apart based off their mass position = position.add(mtd.multiply(im1 / (im1 + im2))); ball.position = ball.position.subtract(mtd.multiply(im2 / (im1 + im2))); except my version doesn't use vectors, and every ball's weight is 1. The resulting code I get is this: PVector delta = new PVector(collider.x - x, collider.y - y); float d = delta.mag(); PVector mtd = new PVector(delta.x * ((radius + collider.radius - d) / d), delta.y * ((radius + collider.radius - d) / d)); // push-pull apart based on mass x -= mtd.x * 0.5; y -= mtd.y * 0.5; collider.x += mtd.x * 0.5; collider.y += mtd.y * 0.5; This code seems to over-correct collisions. Which doesn't make sense to me because in no other way do I modify the x and y values of each ball, other than this. Some other part of my code could be wrong, but I don't know. Here's the snippet of the entire ball-to-ball collision handling I'm using: if (alreadyCollided.contains(new Integer(ID2))) // if the ball has already collided with this, then we don't need to reperform the collision algorithm return; Ball collider = (Ball) objects.get(ID2); PVector collision = new PVector(x - collider.x, y - collider.y); float distance = collision.mag(); if (distance == 0) { collision = new PVector(1,0); distance = 1; } if (distance < 1) return; PVector velocity = new PVector(vx,vy); PVector velocity2 = new PVector(collider.vx, collider.vy); collision.div(distance); // normalize the distance float aci = velocity.dot(collision); float bci = velocity2.dot(collision); float acf = bci; float bcf = aci; vx += (acf - aci) * collision.x; vy += (acf - aci) * collision.y; collider.vx += (bcf - bci) * collision.x; collider.vy += (bcf - bci) * collision.y; alreadyCollided.add(new Integer(ID2)); collider.alreadyCollided.add(new Integer(ID)); PVector delta = new PVector(collider.x - x, collider.y - y); float d = delta.mag(); PVector mtd = new PVector(delta.x * ((radius + collider.radius - d) / d), delta.y * ((radius + collider.radius - d) / d)); // push-pull apart based on mass x -= mtd.x * 0.2; y -= mtd.y * 0.2; collider.x += mtd.x * 0.2; collider.y += mtd.y * 0.2; Thanks. (Apologies for lack of sources, stackoverflow thinks I'm a spammer)

    Read the article

  • Mock Objects for Unit Testing

    - by user9009
    Hello How often QA engineers are responsible for developing Mock Objects for Unit Testing. So dealing with Mock Objects is just developer job ?. The reason i ask is i'm interested in QA as my career and am learning tools like JUnit , TestNG and couple of frameworks. I just want to know until what level of unit testing is done by developer and from what point QA engineer takes over testing for better test coverage ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Development processes, the use of version control, and unit-testing

    - by ct01
    Preface I've worked at quite a few "flat" organizations in my time. Most of the version control policy/process has been "only commit after it's been tested". We were constantly committing at each place to "trunk" (cvs/svn). The same was true with unit-testing - it's always been a "we need to do this" mentality but it never really materializes in a substantive form b/c there is no institutional knowledge base to do it - no mentorship. Version Control The emphasis for version control management at one place was a very strict protocol for commit messages (format & content). The other places let employees just do "whatever". The branching, tagging, committing, rolling back, and merging aspect of things was always ill defined and almost never used. This sort of seems to leave the version control system in the position of being a fancy file-storage mechanism with a meta-data component that never really gets accessed/utilized. (The same was true for unit testing and committing code to the source tree) Unit tests It seems there's a prevailing "we must/should do this" mentality in most places I've worked. As a policy or standard operating procedure it never gets implemented because there seems to be a very ill-defined understanding about what that means, what is going to be tested, and how to do it. Summary It seems most places I've been to think version control and unit testing is "important" b/c the trendy trade journals say it is but, if there's very little mentorship to use these tools or any real business policies, then the full power of version control/unit testing is never really expressed. So grunts, like myself, never really have a complete understanding of the point beyond that "it's a good thing" and "we should do it". Question I was wondering if there are blogs, books, white-papers, or online journals about what one could call the business process or "standard operating procedures" or uses cases for version control and unit testing? I want to know more than the trade journals tell me and get serious about doing these things. PS: @Henrik Hansen had a great comment about the lack of definition for the question. I'm not interested in a specific unit-testing/versioning product or methodology (like, XP) - my interest is more about work-flow at the individual team/developer level than evangelism. This is more-or-less a by product of the management situation I've operated under more than a lack of reading software engineering books or magazines about development processes. A lot of what I've seen/read is more marketing oriented material than any specifically enumerated description of "well, this is how our shop operates".

    Read the article

  • Advancing Code Review and Unit Testing Practice

    - by Graviton
    As a team lead managing a group of developers with no experience ( and see no need) in code review and unit testing, how can you advance code review and unit testing practice? How are you going to create a way so that code review and unit testing to naturally fit into the developer's flow? One of the resistance of these two areas is that "we are always tight on dateline, so no time for code review and unit testing". Another resistance for code review is that we currently don't know how to do it. Should we review the code upon every check-in, or review the code at a specified date?

    Read the article

  • unit testing variable state explicit tests in dynamically typed languages

    - by kris welsh
    I have heard that a desirable quality of unit tests is that they test for each scenario independently. I realised whilst writing tests today that when you compare a variable with another value in a statement like: assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); You are really testing three things: The variable you are testing exists and is within scope. The variable you are testing is the expected type. The variable you are testing's value is what you expect it to be. Which to me raises the question of whether you should test for each of these implicitly so that a test fail would occur on the specific line that tests for that problem: assertTrue(stringFoo); assertTrue(stringFoo.typeOf() == "String"); assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); For example if the variable was an integer instead of a string the test case failure would be on line 2 which would give you more feedback on what went wrong. Should you test for this kind of thing explicitly or am i overthinking this?

    Read the article

  • Testing loses its effectiveness if all programmers don't use them

    - by Jeff O
    Let's assume you are convinced that the extra time spent unit testing has merit and improves production. Does that still hold up when everyone working on the same code doesn't use them? This question makes me wonder if fixing tests that everyone doesn't use is a waste of time. If you correct a test so the new code will pass, you're assuming the new code is correct. The person updating the test better have a firm understanding of the reasoning behind the code change and decide if the test or the new code needs to be fixed. This much inconsistency in a team when it comes to testing is probably an indication of other problems as well. There is a certain amount of risk involved that someone else on the team will alter code that is covered by testing. Is this the point where testing becomes counter-productive?

    Read the article

  • Is verification and validation part of testing process?

    - by user970696
    Based on many sources I do not believe the simple definition that aim of testing is to find as many bugs as possible - we test to ensure that it works or that it does not. E.g. followint are goals of testing form ISTQB: Determine that (software products) satisfy specified requirements ( I think its verificication) Demonstrate that (software products) are fit for purpose (I think that is validation) Detect defects I would agree that testing is verification, validation and defect detection. Is that correct?

    Read the article

  • JUnit Testing in Multithread Application

    - by e2bady
    This is a problem me and my team faces in almost all of the projects. Testing certain parts of the application with JUnit is not easy and you need to start early and to stick to it, but that's not the question I'm asking. The actual problem is that with n-Threads, locking, possible exceptions within the threads and shared objects the task of testing is not as simple as testing the class, but testing them under endless possible situations within threading. To be more precise, let me tell you about the design of one of our applications: When a user makes a request several threads are started that each analyse a part of the data to complete the analysis, these threads run a certain time depending on the size of the chunk of data (which are endless and of uncertain quality) to analyse, or they may fail if the data was insufficient/lacking quality. After each completed its analysis they call upon a handler which decides after each thread terminates if the collected analysis-data is sufficient to deliver an answer to the request. All of these analysers share certain parts of the applications (some parts because the instances are very big and only a certain number can be loaded into memory and those instances are reusable, some parts because they have a standing connection, where connecting takes time, ex.gr. sql connections) so locking is very common (done with reentrant-locks). While the applications runs very efficient and fast, it's not very easy to test it under real-world conditions. What we do right now is test each class and it's predefined conditions, but there are no automated tests for interlocking and synchronization, which in my opionion is not very good for quality insurances. Given this example how would you handle testing the threading, interlocking and synchronization?

    Read the article

  • Database unit testing is now available for SSDT

    - by jamiet
    Good news was announced yesterday for those that are using SSDT and want to write unit tests, unit testing functionality is now available. The announcement was made on the SSDT team blog in post Available Today: SSDT—December 2012. Here are a few thoughts about this news. Firstly, there seems to be a general impression that database unit testing was not previously available for SSDT – that’s not entirely true. Database unit testing was most recently delivered in Visual Studio 2010 and any database unit tests written therein work perfectly well against SQL Server databases created using SSDT (why wouldn’t they – its just a database after all). In other words, if you’re running SSDT inside Visual Studio 2010 then you could carry on freely writing database unit tests; some of the tight integration between the two (e.g. right-click on an object in SQL Server Object Explorer and choose to create a unit test) was not there – but I’ve never found that to be a problem. I am currently working on a project that uses SSDT for database development and have been happily running VS2010 database unit tests for a few months now. All that being said, delivery of database unit testing for SSDT is now with us and that is good news, not least because we now have the ability to create unit tests in VS2012. We also get tight integration with SSDT itself, the like of which I mentioned above. Having now had a look at the new features I was delighted to find that one of my big complaints about database unit testing has been solved. As I reported here on Connect a refactor operation would cause unit test code to get completely mangled. See here the before and after from such an operation: SELECT    * FROM    bi.ProcessMessageLog pml INNER JOIN bi.[LogMessageType] lmt     ON    pml.[LogMessageTypeId] = lmt.[LogMessageTypeId] WHERE    pml.[LogMessage] = 'Ski[LogMessageTypeName]of message: IApplicationCanceled' AND        lmt.[LogMessageType] = 'Warning'; which is obviously not ideal. Thankfully that seems to have been solved with this latest release. One disappointment about this new release is that the process for running tests as part of a CI build has not changed from the horrendously complicated process required previously. Check out my blog post Setting up database unit testing as part of a Continuous Integration build process [VS2010 DB Tools - Datadude] for instructions on how to do it. In that blog post I describe it as “fiddly” – I was being kind when I said that! @Jamiet

    Read the article

  • Mock Objects for Testing - Test Automation Engineer Perspective

    - by user9009
    Hello How often QA engineers are responsible for developing Mock Objects for Unit Testing. So dealing with Mock Objects is just developer job ?. The reason i ask is i'm interested in QA as my career and am learning tools like JUnit , TestNG and couple of frameworks. I just want to know until what level of unit testing is done by developer and from what point QA engineer takes over testing for better test coverage ? Thanks Edit : Based on the answers below am providing more details about what QA i was referring to . I'm interested in more of Test Automation rather than simple QA involved in record and play of script. So Test Automation engineers are responsible for developing frameworks ? or do they have a team of developers dedicated in Framework development ? Yes i was asking about usage of Mock Objects for testing from Test Automation engineer perspective.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >