Search Results

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

Page 122/408 | < Previous Page | 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129  | Next Page >

  • How can I use that?

    - by user289220
    test test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test test

    Read the article

  • Throwing special type of exception to terminate unit test

    - by trendl
    Assume I want to write a unit test to test a particular piece of functionality that is implemented within a method. If I wanted to execute the method completely, I would have to do some extra set up work (mock objects expectations etc.). Instead of doing that I use the following approach: - I set up the expectations I'm interested in verifying and then make the tested method throw a special type of exception (e.g. TerminateTestException). - Further down in the unit test I catch the exception and verify the mock object expectations. It works fine but I'm not sure it is good practice. I do not do this regularly, only in cases where it saves me time and effort. One thing that comes to mind as an argument against using this is that throwing exceptions takes long time so the tests execute slower than if I used a different approach.

    Read the article

  • How to emulate onLowMemory()?

    - by Samuh
    I have put some instructions in onLowMemory() callback and want to test the same. Is there a "direct" way to test onLowMemory function of the application subclass? Or will I have to just overload the phone by starting many apps and doing memory intensive tasks? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Python/Django tests running only one test at a time

    - by user2876296
    I have a unittest for my view class TestFromAllAdd(TestCase): fixtures = ['staging_accounts_user.json', 'staging_main_category.json', 'staging_main_dashboard.json', 'staging_main_location.json', 'staging_main_product.json', 'staging_main_shoppinglist.json'] def setUp(self): self.factory = RequestFactory() self.c = Client() self.c.login(username='admin', password='admin') def from_all_products_html404_test(self): request = self.factory.post('main/adding_from_all_products', {'product_id': ''}) request.user = User.objects.get(username= 'admin') response = adding_from_all_products(request) self.assertEqual(response.status_code, 404) But I have a few more classes with tests and I cant run them all at the same time: python manage.py test main doesnt run tests, but if i run; python manage.py test main.TestFromAllAdd.from_all_products_html404_test , runs one test;

    Read the article

  • Cannot execute newly created TestMethod in VS2010

    - by FrontSvin
    When I try to run a new TestMethod on an existing TestClass in Visual Studio 2010 (by right-clicking on the method name and choosing Run Tests) the test method does not execute. After a restart of VS, the problem has gone. Am I missing some refresh thing, or is right-clicking even the correct way of executing a single test method?

    Read the article

  • Ways to Unit Test Oauth for different services in ruby?

    - by viatropos
    Are there any best practices in writing unit tests when 90% of the time I'm building the Oauth connecting class, I need to actually be logging into the remote service? I am building a rubygem that logs in to Twitter/Google/MySpace, etc., and the hardest part is making sure I have the settings right for that particular provider, and I would like to write tests for that. Is there a recommended way to do that? If I did mocks or stubs, I'd still have to spend that 90% of the time figuring out how to use the service, and would end up writing tests after the fact instead of before...

    Read the article

  • How do I inherit abstract unit tests in Ruby?

    - by Graeme Moss
    I have two unit tests that should share a lot of common tests with slightly different setup methods. If I write something like class Abstract < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @field = create end def test_1 ... end end class Concrete1 < Abstract def create SomeClass1.new end end class Concrete2 < Abstract def create SomeClass2.new end end then Concrete1 does not seem to inherit the tests from Abstract. Or at least I cannot get them to run in eclipse. If I choose "Run all TestCases" for the file that contains Concrete1 then Abstract is run even though I do not want it to be. If I specify Concrete1 then it does not run any tests at all! If I specify test_1 in Concrete1 then it complains it cannot find it ("uncaught throw :invalid_test (ArgumentError)"). I'm new to Ruby. What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • Why Create Mock Objects?

    - by Chris
    During a recent interview I was asked why one would want to create mock objects. My answer went something like, "Take a database--if you're writing test code, you may not want that test hooked up live to the production database where actual operations will be performed." Judging by response, my answer clearly was not what the interviewer was looking for. What's a better answer?

    Read the article

  • Using Moq to Validate Separate Invocations with Distinct Arguments

    - by Thermite
    I'm trying to validate the values of arguments passed to subsequent mocked method invocations (of the same method), but cannot figure out a valid approach. A generic example follows: public class Foo { [Dependency] public Bar SomeBar { get; set; } public void SomeMethod() { this.SomeBar.SomeOtherMethod("baz"); this.SomeBar.SomeOtherMethod("bag"); } } public class Bar { public void SomeOtherMethod(string input) { } } public class MoqTest { [TestMethod] public void RunTest() { Mock<Bar> mock = new Mock<Bar>(); Foo f = new Foo(); mock.Setup(m => m.SomeOtherMethod(It.Is<string>("baz"))); mock.Setup(m => m.SomeOtherMethod(It.Is<string>("bag"))); // this of course overrides the first call f.SomeMethod(); mock.VerifyAll(); } } Using a Function in the Setup might be an option, but then it seems I'd be reduced to some sort of global variable to know which argument/iteration I'm verifying. Maybe I'm overlooking the obvious within the Moq framework?

    Read the article

  • JUnit - assertSame

    - by Michael
    Can someone tell me why assertSame() do fail when I use values 127? import static org.junit.Assert.*; ... @Test public void StationTest1() { .. assertSame(4, 4); // OK assertSame(10, 10); // OK assertSame(100, 100); // OK assertSame(127, 127); // OK assertSame(128, 128); // raises an junit.framework.AssertionFailedError! assertSame(((int) 128),((int) 128)); // also junit.framework.AssertionFailedError! } I'm using JUnit 4.8.1.

    Read the article

  • Does it make sense to test ui components seperately?

    - by Bless Yahu
    I'm working on a webform that has about 15 user controls, separated by context (comments, locations, members/leaders, etc).   If each control can render individually (using real or test data), does it make sense to have a seperate "functional" test page to test them in isolation or is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • How to use __LINE__ in a string

    - by John
    Just using it as a method parameter is fine but what about an easy way to use it in strings? For instance say I have this: 11 void myTest() 12 { 13 if(!testCondition) 14 logError("testcondition failed"); 15 } And I want the output to be: "myTest line 14: testcondition failed" How can I write logError? Does it have to be some monstrosity of a macro?

    Read the article

  • How specific do I get in BDD scenarios?

    - by CodeSpelunker
    Take two different ways of stating the same behavior. Option A: Given a customer has 50 items in their shopping cart When they check out Then they will receive a 10% discount on their order Option B: Given a customer has a high volume of items in their shopping cart When they check out Then they will receive a high volume discount on their order The former is far more specific. If someone has some question about exactly when a customer gets a high volume discount or how much to give them, reading this scenario makes it very clear. Serving the purposes of documenting the behavior, it's about as specific as it can be, although any change in those values will require changing the scenario. The second is more generalized and doesn't have the clarity of the first. Automating it would require incorporating the values "50" and "10" in the step implementations. On the other hand, the scenario captures the core business need: a high volume customer gets a discount. If we later decide to use "40" and "15", the scenario doesn't have to change because the core business need hasn't really changed (though the step implementation would). Also, the term "high volume customer" communicates something about why we're giving them the discount. So, which is better? Rather, under what circumstances should I favor the former or the latter?

    Read the article

  • ???????????????????????? [closed]

    - by 015.lo
    ?????????. – ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ???????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????

    Read the article

  • The Red Gate Guide to SQL Server Team based Development Free e-book

    - by Mladen Prajdic
    After about 6 months of work, the new book I've coauthored with Grant Fritchey (Blog|Twitter), Phil Factor (Blog|Twitter) and Alex Kuznetsov (Blog|Twitter) is out. They're all smart folks I talk to online and this book is packed with good ideas backed by years of experience. The book contains a good deal of information about things you need to think of when doing any kind of multi person database development. Although it's meant for SQL Server, the principles can be applied to any database platform out there. In the book you will find information on: writing readable code, documenting code, source control and change management, deploying code between environments, unit testing, reusing code, searching and refactoring your code base. I've written chapter 5 about Database testing and chapter 11 about SQL Refactoring. In the database testing chapter (chapter 5) I cover why you should test your database, why it is a good idea to have a database access interface composed of stored procedures, views and user defined functions, what and how to test. I talk about how there are many testing methods like black and white box testing, unit and integration testing, error and stress testing and why and how you should do all those. Sometimes you have to convince management to go for testing in the development lifecycle so I give some pointers and tips how to do that. Testing databases is a bit different from testing object oriented code in a way that to have independent unit tests you need to rollback your code after each test. The chapter shows you ways to do this and also how to avoid it. At the end I show how to test various database objects and how to test access to them. In the SQL Refactoring chapter (chapter 11) I cover why refactor and where to even begin refactoring. I also who you a way to achieve a set based mindset to solve SQL problems which is crucial to good SQL set based programming and a few commonly seen problems to refactor. These problems include: using functions on columns in the where clause, SELECT * problems, long stored procedure with many input parameters, one subquery per condition in the select statement, cursors are good for anything problem, using too large data types everywhere and using your data in code for business logic anti-pattern. You can read more about it and download it here: The Red Gate Guide to SQL Server Team-based Development Hope you like it and send me feedback if you wish too.

    Read the article

  • How are software projects 'typically' managed/deployed

    - by rguilbault
    My company is evaluating adopting off-the-shelf ALM products to aid in our development lifecycle; we currently use our own homegrown solutions to manage requirements gathering, specification documentation, testing, etc. One of the issues I am having is that we have what we call a pipeline, which consists of particular stops: [Source] - [QC] - [Production] At the first stop, the developer works out a solution to some requested change and performs individual testing. When that process is complete (and peer review has been performed), our ALM system physically moves the affected programs from the [Source] runtime environment to the [QC] runtime environment. You can think of this as analogous to moving some web pages from the 'test' server to the 'live' server, where QC personnel can bang on the system and complain that the developer has it all wrong ;-) Once QC signs off that the changes are working, the system again moves the code along to the next stage, where additional testing is performed, etc. I have been searching the internet for a few days trying to find how the process is accomplished anywhere else -- I have read a bit about builds, automated testing, various ALM products, etc. but nowhere does any of this state how builds interact with initial change requests, what the triggers are, how dependencies are managed, how the various forms of testing are accommodated (e.g. unit testing, integration testing, regression testing), etc. Can anyone point me to any resources or attempt to explain (generically) how a change could/should be tracked and moved though the development lifecycle? I'd be very appreciative. To keep things consistent, let's say that we have a project called Calculator, which we want to add support for the basic trigonometric functions: sine, cosine and tangent. I'm open to reorganizing the company however we need to in order to accomplish due diligence testing and we can suppose that any tools are available for use (if that helps to illustrate the process). To start things off, I think I understand this much: we document the requirements, e.g.: support sine, cosine and tangent functions we create some type of change request/work order to assign to programming coding takes place, commits are made to version control peer review commences programmer marks the work order as completed? ... now what? How does QC do their thing? Would they perform testing before closing the 'work order'?

    Read the article

  • What guidelines should be followed when using an unstable/testing/stable branching scheme?

    - by Elliot
    My team is currently using feature branches while doing development. For each user story in our sprint, we create a branch and work it in isolation. Hence, according to Martin Fowler, we practice Continuous Building, not Continuous Integration. I am interested in promoting an unstable/testing/stable scheme, similar to that of Debian, so that code is promoted from unstable = testing = stable. Our definition of done, I'd recommend, is when unit tests pass (TDD always), minimal documentation is complete, automated functional tests pass, and feature has been demo'd and accepted by PO. Once accepted by the PO, the story will be merged into the testing branch. Our test developers spend most of their time in this branch banging on the software and continuously running our automated tests. This scares me, however, because commits from another incomplete story may now make it into the testing branch. Perhaps I'm missing something because this seems like an undesired consequence. So, if moving to a code promotion strategy to solve our problems with feature branches, what strategy/guidelines do you recommend? Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129  | Next Page >