Search Results

Search found 32072 results on 1283 pages for 'catch unit test'.

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 13/1283 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • javascript - catch SyntaxError and run alternate function

    - by ludicco
    Hello there, I'm trying to build something on javascript that I can have an input that can be everything like string, xml, javascript and (non-javascript string without quotes) as follows: //strings eval("'hello I am a string'"); /* note the following proper quote marks */ //xml eval(<p>Hello I am a XML doc</p>); //javascript eval("var hello = 2+2;"); So this first 3 are working well since they are simple javascript native formats but when I try use this inside javascript //plain-text without quotes eval("hello I am a plain text without quotes"); //--SyntaxError: missing ; before statement:--// Obviously javascript interprets this as syntax error because it thinks its javascript throwing a SyntaxError. So what I would like to do it to catch this error and perform the adjustment method if this occurs. I've already tried with try catch but it doesn't work since it keeps returning the Syntax error as soon as it tries to execute the code. Any help would be much appreciated Cheers :) Additional Information: Imagine an external file that javascript would read, using spidermonkey, so it's a non-browser stuff(I can't use HttpRequest, DOM, etc...)..not sure if this matters, but there it is. :)

    Read the article

  • Writing Unit Tests for ASP.NET Web API Controller

    - by shiju
    In this blog post, I will write unit tests for a ASP.NET Web API controller in the EFMVC reference application. Let me introduce the EFMVC app, If you haven't heard about EFMVC. EFMVC is a simple app, developed as a reference implementation for demonstrating ASP.NET MVC, EF Code First, ASP.NET Web API, Domain-Driven Design (DDD), Test-Driven Development (DDD). The current version is built with ASP.NET MVC 4, EF Code First 5, ASP.NET Web API, Autofac, AutoMapper, Nunit and Moq. All unit tests were written with Nunit and Moq. You can download the latest version of the reference app from http://efmvc.codeplex.com/ Unit Test for HTTP Get Let’s write a unit test class for verifying the behaviour of a ASP.NET Web API controller named CategoryController. Let’s define mock implementation for Repository class, and a Command Bus that is used for executing write operations.  [TestFixture] public class CategoryApiControllerTest { private Mock<ICategoryRepository> categoryRepository; private Mock<ICommandBus> commandBus; [SetUp] public void SetUp() {     categoryRepository = new Mock<ICategoryRepository>();     commandBus = new Mock<ICommandBus>(); } The code block below provides the unit test for a HTTP Get operation. [Test] public void Get_All_Returns_AllCategory() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()                 {                     Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }                 }     };     // Act     var categories = controller.Get();     // Assert     Assert.IsNotNull(categories, "Result is null");     Assert.IsInstanceOf(typeof(IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense>),categories, "Wrong Model");             Assert.AreEqual(3, categories.Count(), "Got wrong number of Categories"); }        The GetCategories method is provided below: private static IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> GetCategories() {     IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = new List<CategoryWithExpense> {     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=1, CategoryName = "Test1", Description="Test1Desc", TotalExpenses=1000},     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=2, CategoryName = "Test2", Description="Test2Desc",TotalExpenses=2000},     new CategoryWithExpense { CategoryId=3, CategoryName = "Test3", Description="Test3Desc",TotalExpenses=3000}       }.AsEnumerable();     return fakeCategories; } In the unit test method Get_All_Returns_AllCategory, we specify setup on the mocked type ICategoryrepository, for a call to GetCategoryWithExpenses method returns dummy data. We create an instance of the ApiController, where we have specified the Request property of the ApiController since the Request property is used to create a new HttpResponseMessage that will provide the appropriate HTTP status code along with response content data. Unit Tests are using for specifying the behaviour of components so that we have specified that Get operation will use the model type IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> for sending the Content data. The implementation of HTTP Get in the CategoryController is provided below: public IQueryable<CategoryWithExpense> Get() {     var categories = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().AsQueryable();     return categories; } Unit Test for HTTP Post The following are the behaviours we are going to implement for the HTTP Post: A successful HTTP Post  operation should return HTTP status code Created An empty Category should return HTTP status code BadRequest A successful HTTP Post operation should provide correct Location header information in the response for the newly created resource. Writing unit test for HTTP Post is required more information than we write for HTTP Get. In the HTTP Post implementation, we will call to Url.Link for specifying the header Location of Response as shown in below code block. var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category); string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId }); response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri); return response; While we are executing Url.Link from unit tests, we have to specify HttpRouteData information from the unit test method. Otherwise, Url.Link will get a null value. The code block below shows the unit tests for specifying the behaviours for the HTTP Post operation. [Test] public void Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();          var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Post(category);               // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.Created, response.StatusCode);     var newCategory = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryModel>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(string.Format("http://localhost/api/category/{0}", newCategory.CategoryId), response.Headers.Location.ToString()); } [Test] public void Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 0;     category.CategoryName = "";     // The ASP.NET pipeline doesn't run, so validation don't run.     controller.ModelState.AddModelError("", "mock error message");     var response = controller.Post(category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, response.StatusCode);   } In the above code block, we have written two unit methods, Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode and Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode. The unit test method Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode  verifies the behaviour 1 and 3, that we have defined in the beginning of the section “Unit Test for HTTP Post”. The unit test method Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode verifies the behaviour 2. For extracting the data from response, we call Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result of HttpResponseMessage object and deserializeit it with Json Convertor. The implementation of HTTP Post in the CategoryController is provided below: // POST /api/category public HttpResponseMessage Post(CategoryModel category) {       if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {                               var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category);             string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId });             response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri);             return response;         }     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); } The unit test implementation for HTTP Put and HTTP Delete are very similar to the unit test we have written for  HTTP Get. The complete unit tests for the CategoryController is given below: [TestFixture] public class CategoryApiControllerTest { private Mock<ICategoryRepository> categoryRepository; private Mock<ICommandBus> commandBus; [SetUp] public void SetUp() {     categoryRepository = new Mock<ICategoryRepository>();     commandBus = new Mock<ICommandBus>(); } [Test] public void Get_All_Returns_AllCategory() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()                 {                     Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }                 }     };     // Act     var categories = controller.Get();     // Assert     Assert.IsNotNull(categories, "Result is null");     Assert.IsInstanceOf(typeof(IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense>),categories, "Wrong Model");             Assert.AreEqual(3, categories.Count(), "Got wrong number of Categories"); }        [Test] public void Get_CorrectCategoryId_Returns_Category() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     var response = controller.Get(1);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);     var category = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryWithExpense>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(1, category.CategoryId, "Got wrong number of Categories"); } [Test] public void Get_InValidCategoryId_Returns_NotFound() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     var response = controller.Get(5);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.NotFound, response.StatusCode);            } [Test] public void Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();          var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Post(category);               // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.Created, response.StatusCode);     var newCategory = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryModel>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(string.Format("http://localhost/api/category/{0}", newCategory.CategoryId), response.Headers.Location.ToString()); } [Test] public void Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 0;     category.CategoryName = "";     // The ASP.NET pipeline doesn't run, so validation don't run.     controller.ModelState.AddModelError("", "mock error message");     var response = controller.Post(category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, response.StatusCode);   } [Test] public void Put_Category_Returns_OKStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Put(category.CategoryId,category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);    } [Test] public void Delete_Category_Returns_NoContentStatusCode() {     // Arrange              commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<DeleteCategoryCommand >())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act               var response = controller.Delete(1);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.NoContent, response.StatusCode);   } private static IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> GetCategories() {     IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = new List<CategoryWithExpense> {     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=1, CategoryName = "Test1", Description="Test1Desc", TotalExpenses=1000},     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=2, CategoryName = "Test2", Description="Test2Desc",TotalExpenses=2000},     new CategoryWithExpense { CategoryId=3, CategoryName = "Test3", Description="Test3Desc",TotalExpenses=3000}       }.AsEnumerable();     return fakeCategories; } }  The complete implementation for the Api Controller, CategoryController is given below: public class CategoryController : ApiController {       private readonly ICommandBus commandBus;     private readonly ICategoryRepository categoryRepository;     public CategoryController(ICommandBus commandBus, ICategoryRepository categoryRepository)     {         this.commandBus = commandBus;         this.categoryRepository = categoryRepository;     } public IQueryable<CategoryWithExpense> Get() {     var categories = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().AsQueryable();     return categories; }   // GET /api/category/5 public HttpResponseMessage Get(int id) {     var category = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().Where(c => c.CategoryId == id).SingleOrDefault();     if (category == null)     {         return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.NotFound);     }     return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, category); }   // POST /api/category public HttpResponseMessage Post(CategoryModel category) {       if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {                               var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category);             string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId });             response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri);             return response;         }     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); }   // PUT /api/category/5 public HttpResponseMessage Put(int id, CategoryModel category) {     if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, category);     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); }       // DELETE /api/category/5     public HttpResponseMessage Delete(int id)     {         var command = new DeleteCategoryCommand { CategoryId = id };         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {             return new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.NoContent);         }             throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);     } } Source Code The EFMVC app can download from http://efmvc.codeplex.com/ . The unit test project can be found from the project EFMVC.Tests and Web API project can be found from EFMVC.Web.API.

    Read the article

  • Implementing Unit Testing on the iPhone

    - by james.ingham
    Hi, So I've followed this tutorial to setup unit testing on my app when I got a little stuck. At bullet point 8 in that tutorial it shows this image, which is what I should be expecting when I build: However this isn't what I get when I build. I get this error message: Command /bin/sh failed with exit code 1 as well as the error message the unit test has created. Then, when I expand on the first error I get this: PhaseScriptExecution "Run Script" "build/3D Pool.build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.build/Script-1A6BA6AE10F28F40008AC2A8.sh" cd "/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool" setenv ACTION build setenv ALTERNATE_GROUP staff ... setenv XCODE_VERSION_MAJOR 0300 setenv XCODE_VERSION_MINOR 0320 setenv YACC /Developer/usr/bin/yacc /bin/sh -c "\"/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/3D Pool.build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.build/Script-1A6BA6AE10F28F40008AC2A8.sh\"" /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:412: note: Started tests for architectures 'i386' /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:419: note: Running tests for architecture 'i386' (GC OFF) objc[12589]: GC: forcing GC OFF because OBJC_DISABLE_GC is set Test Suite '/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.octest(Tests)' started at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000 Test Suite 'LogicTests' started at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000 Test Case '-[LogicTests testFail]' started. /Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/LogicTests.m:17: error: -[LogicTests testFail] : Must fail to succeed. Test Case '-[LogicTests testFail]' failed (0.000 seconds). Test Suite 'LogicTests' finished at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000. Executed 1 test, with 1 failure (0 unexpected) in 0.000 (0.000) seconds Test Suite '/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.octest(Tests)' finished at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000. Executed 1 test, with 1 failure (0 unexpected) in 0.000 (0.002) seconds /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:448: error: Failed tests for architecture 'i386' (GC OFF) /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:462: note: Completed tests for architectures 'i386' Command /bin/sh failed with exit code 1 Now this is very odd as it is running the tests (and succeeding as you can see my STFail firing) because if I add a different test which passes I get no errors, so the tests are working fine. But why am I getting this extra build fail? It may also be of note that when downloading solutions/templates which should work out the box, I get the same error. I'm guessing I've set something up wrong here but I've just followed a tutorial 100% correctly!! If anyone could help I'd be very grateful! Thanks EDIT: According to this blog, this post and a few other websites, I'm not the only one getting this problem. It has been like this since the release of xCode 3.2, assuming the apple dev center documents and tutorials etc are pre-3.2 as well. However some say its a known issue whereas others seem to think this was intentional. I for one would like both the extended console and in code messages, and I certainly do not like the "Command /bin/sh..." error and really think they would have documented such an update. Hopefully it will be fixed soon anyway. UPDATE: Here's confirmation it's something changed since the release of xCode 3.2.1. This image: is from my test build using 3.2.1. This one is from an older version (3.1.4): . (The project for both was unchanged).

    Read the article

  • Implementing Unit Testing with the iPhone SDK

    - by ing0
    Hi, So I've followed this tutorial to setup unit testing on my app when I got a little stuck. At bullet point 8 in that tutorial it shows this image, which is what I should be expecting when I build: However this isn't what I get when I build. I get this error message: Command /bin/sh failed with exit code 1 as well as the error message the unit test has created. Then, when I expand on the first error I get this: PhaseScriptExecution "Run Script" "build/3D Pool.build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.build/Script-1A6BA6AE10F28F40008AC2A8.sh" cd "/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool" setenv ACTION build setenv ALTERNATE_GROUP staff ... setenv XCODE_VERSION_MAJOR 0300 setenv XCODE_VERSION_MINOR 0320 setenv YACC /Developer/usr/bin/yacc /bin/sh -c "\"/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/3D Pool.build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.build/Script-1A6BA6AE10F28F40008AC2A8.sh\"" /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:412: note: Started tests for architectures 'i386' /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:419: note: Running tests for architecture 'i386' (GC OFF) objc[12589]: GC: forcing GC OFF because OBJC_DISABLE_GC is set Test Suite '/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.octest(Tests)' started at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000 Test Suite 'LogicTests' started at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000 Test Case '-[LogicTests testFail]' started. /Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/LogicTests.m:17: error: -[LogicTests testFail] : Must fail to succeed. Test Case '-[LogicTests testFail]' failed (0.000 seconds). Test Suite 'LogicTests' finished at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000. Executed 1 test, with 1 failure (0 unexpected) in 0.000 (0.000) seconds Test Suite '/Users/james/Desktop/FYP/3D Pool/build/Debug-iphonesimulator/LogicTests.octest(Tests)' finished at 2010-01-04 21:05:06 +0000. Executed 1 test, with 1 failure (0 unexpected) in 0.000 (0.002) seconds /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:448: error: Failed tests for architecture 'i386' (GC OFF) /Developer/Tools/RunPlatformUnitTests.include:462: note: Completed tests for architectures 'i386' Command /bin/sh failed with exit code 1 Now this is very odd as it is running the tests (and succeeding as you can see my STFail firing) because if I add a different test which passes I get no errors, so the tests are working fine. But why am I getting this extra build fail? It may also be of note that when downloading solutions/templates which should work out the box, I get the same error. I'm guessing I've set something up wrong here but I've just followed a tutorial 100% correctly!! If anyone could help I'd be very grateful! Thanks EDIT: According to this blog, this post and a few other websites, I'm not the only one getting this problem. It has been like this since the release of xCode 3.2, assuming the apple dev center documents and tutorials etc are pre-3.2 as well. However some say its a known issue whereas others seem to think this was intentional. I for one would like both the extended console and in code messages, and I certainly do not like the "Command /bin/sh..." error and really think they would have documented such an update. Hopefully it will be fixed soon anyway. UPDATE: Here's confirmation it's something changed since the release of xCode 3.2.1. This image: is from my test build using 3.2.1. This one is from an older version (3.1.4): . (The project for both was unchanged). Edit: Image URLS updated.

    Read the article

  • How important is the unit test in the software development?

    - by Lo Wai Lun
    We are doing software testing by testing a lot if I/O cases, so developers and system analysts can open reviews and test for their committed code within a given time period (e.g. 1 week). But when it come across with extracting information from a database, how to consider the cases and the corresponding methodology to start with? Although that is more likely to be a case studies because the unit-testing depends on the project we have involved which is too specific and particular most of the time. What is the general overview of the steps and precautions for unit-testing?

    Read the article

  • How to catch segmentation fault in Linux?

    - by Alex Farber
    I need to catch segmentation fault in third party library cleanup operations. This happens sometimes just before my program exits, and I cannot fix the real reason of this. In Windows programming I could do this with __try - __catch. Is there cross-platform or platform-specific way to do the same? I need this in Linux, gcc.

    Read the article

  • Best way to implement try catch in php4

    - by rgz
    What is the closest you can get to a try-catch block in php4? I'm in the middle of a callback during an xmlrpc request and it's required to return a specifically structured array no matter what. I have to error check all accesses to external resources, resulting in a deep stack of nested if-else blocks, ugly.

    Read the article

  • Best practice Unit testing abstract classes?

    - by Paul Whelan
    Hello I was wondering what the best practice is for unit testing abstract classes and classes that extend abstract classes. Should I test the abstract class by extending it and stubbing out the abstract methods and then test all the concrete methods? Then only test the methods I override and the abstract methods in the unit tests for objects that extend my abstract class. Should I have an abstract test case that can be used to test the methods of the abstract class and extend this class in my test case for objects that extend the abstract class? EDIT: My abstract class has some concrete methods. I would be interested to see what people are using. Thanks Paul

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing functions within repository interfaces - ASP.net MVC3 & Moq

    - by RawryLions
    I'm getting into writing unit testing and have implemented a nice repository pattern/moq to allow me to test my functions without using "real" data. So far so good.. However.. In my repository interface for "Posts" IPostRepository I have a function: Post getPostByID(int id); I want to be able to test this from my Test class but cannot work out how. So far I am using this pattern for my tests: [SetUp] public void Setup() { mock = new Mock<IPostRepository>(); } [Test] public void someTest() { populate(10); //This populates the mock with 10 fake entries //do test here } In my function "someTest" I want to be able to call/test the function GetPostById. I can find the function with mock.object.getpostbyid but the "object" is null. Any help would be appreciated :) iPostRepository: public interface IPostRepository { IQueryable<Post> Posts {get;} void SavePost(Post post); Post getPostByID(int id); }

    Read the article

  • Problem with continue in While Loop within Try/Catch in C# (2.0)

    - by csharpnoob
    Hi, when i try to use in my ASPX Webpage in the Code Behind this try{ while() { ... db.Open(); readDataMoney = new OleDbCommand("SELECT * FROM Customer WHERE card = '" + customer.card + "';", db).ExecuteReader(); while (readDataMoney.Read()) { try { if (!readDataMoney.IsDBNull(readDataMoney.GetOrdinal("Credit"))) { customer.credit = Convert.ToDouble(readDataMoney[readDataMoney.GetOrdinal("Credit")]); } if (!readDataMoney.IsDBNull(readDataMoney.GetOrdinal("Bonus"))) { customer.bonus = Convert.ToDouble(readDataMoney[readDataMoney.GetOrdinal("Bonus")]); } } catch (Exception ex) { Connector.writeLog("Money: " + ex.StackTrace + "" + ex.Message + "" + ex.Source); customer.credit = 0.0; customer.credit = 0.0; continue; } finally { } } readDataMoney.Close(); vsiDB.Close(); ... } }catch { continue; } The whole page hangs if there is a problem when the read from db isn't working. I tried to check for !isNull, but same problem. I have a lots of differend MDB Files to process, which are readonly (can't repair/compact) and some or others not. Same Design/Layout of Tables. With good old ASP Classic 3.0 all of them are processing with the "On Resume Next". I know I know. But that's how it is. Can't change the source. So the basic question: So is there any way to tell .NET to continue the loop whatever happens within the try loop if there is any exception? After a lots of wating time i get this exceptions: at System.Data.Common.UnsafeNativeMethods.IDBInitializeInitialize.Invoke(IntPtr pThis) at System.Data.OleDb.DataSourceWrapper.InitializeAndCreateSession(OleDbConnectionString constr, SessionWrapper& sessionWrapper) at System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnectionInternal..ctor(OleDbConnectionString constr, OleDbConnection connection) at System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnectionFactory.CreateConnection(DbConnectionOptions options, Object poolGroupProviderInfo, DbConnectionPool pool, DbConnection owningObject) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.CreateNonPooledConnection(DbConnection owningConnection, DbConnectionPoolGroup poolGroup) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.GetConnection(DbConnection owningConnection) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionClosed.OpenConnection(DbConnection outerConnection, DbConnectionFactory connectionFactory) at System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnection.Open() at GetCustomer(String card)Thread was being aborted.System.Data and System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal.ReadInt16(IntPtr ptr, Int32 ofs) System.Data.ProviderBase.DbBuffer.ReadInt16(Int32 offset) System.Data.OleDb.ColumnBinding.Value_I2() System.Data.OleDb.ColumnBinding.Value() System.Data.OleDb.OleDbDataReader.GetValue(Int32 ordinal) System.Data.OleDb.OleDbDataReader.get_Item(Int32 index) Thread was terminated.mscorlib Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Ruby on Rails: Unit Testing non activerecord models and still load fixtures

    - by Vaibhav Gumashta
    I may be missing something but I am stuck in this scenario: I have a non activerecord model, which I want to test. I have derived its test case class from: Test::Unit::TestCase. However, the test case class for the model, uses within itself, other activerecord model classes and I want to load fixtures for them. My problem is that the fixtures class method is available only when I subclass the test case class from ActiveSupport::TestCase (it is defined within ActiveRecord::TestFixtures which gets included in ActiveSupport::TestCase). Any help, coz running the tests gives me the error: undefined method "fixtures" (which is understandable) and in case I derive my test case class from ActiveSupport::TestCase it complains that there is no corresponding DB table. Also, I don't want to create a dummy table for backing my model class. Thanks a ton!

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2010 Not Recognizing Unit Test

    - by jmease
    In an existing solution I added a new Test Project. In my Test Project .cs file I have a class decorated with the [TestClass] attribute and a method decorated with the [TestMethod] attribute. I have verified that in Configuration Manager the build check box is checked for the Test Project (as my google search has revealed was the problem for others with this issue). I have set Test Project as my start up project for the solution. When I try to start the test I get "Can not start test project because the project does not contain any tests". I am really new to unit testing. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • “It’s only test code…”

    - by Chris George
    “Let me hack this in, it’s only test code”, “Don’t worry about getting it reviewed, it’s only test code”, “It doesn’t have to be elegant or efficient, it’s only test code”… do these phrases sound familiar? Chances are if you’ve working with test automation, at one point or other you will have heard these phrases, you have probably even used them yourself! What is certain is that code written under this “it’s only test code” mantra will come back and bite you in the arse! I’ve recently encountered a case where a test was giving a false positive, therefore hiding a real product bug because that test code was very badly written. Firstly it was very difficult to understand what the test was actually trying to achieve let alone how it was doing it, and this complexity masked a simple logic error. These issues are real and they do happen. Let’s take a step back from this and look at what we are trying to do. We are writing test code that tests product code, and we do this to create a suite of tests that will help protect our software against regressions. This test code is making sure that the product behaves as it should by employing some sort of expected result verification. The simple cases of these are generally not a problem. However, automation allows us to explore more complex scenarios in many more permutations. As this complexity increases then so does the complexity of the test code. It is at this point that code which has not been architected properly will cause problems.   Keep your friends close… So, how do we make sure we are doing it right? The development teams I have worked on have always had Test Engineers working very closely with their Software Engineers. This is something that I have always tried to take full advantage of. They are coding experts! So run your ideas past them, ask for advice on how to structure your code, help you design your data structures. This may require a shift in your teams viewpoint, as contrary to this section title and folklore, Software Engineers are not actually the mortal enemy of Test Engineers. As time progresses, and test automation becomes more and more ingrained in what we do, the two roles are converging more than ever. Over the 16 years I have spent as a Test Engineer, I have seen the grey area between the two roles grow significantly larger. This serves to strengthen the relationship and common bond between the two roles which helps to make test code activities so much easier!   Pair for the win Possibly the best thing you could do to write good test code is to pair program on the task. This will serve a few purposes. you will get the benefit of the Software Engineers knowledge and experience the Software Engineer will gain knowledge on the testing process. Sharing the love is a wonderful thing! two pairs of eyes are always better than one… And so are two brains. Between the two of you, I will guarantee you will derive more useful test cases than if it was just one of you.   Code reviews Another policy which certainly pays dividends is the practice of code reviews. By having one of your peers review your code before you commit it serves two purposes. Firstly, it forces you to explain your code. Just the act of doing this will often pick up errors in your code. Secondly, it gets yet another pair of eyes on your code! I cannot stress enough how important code reviews are. The benefits they offer apply as much to product code as test code. In short, Software and Test Engineers should all be doing them! It can be extended even further by getting test code reviewed by a Software Engineer and a Test Engineer, and likewise product code. This serves to keep both functions in the loop with changes going on within your code base.   Learn from your devs I briefly touched on this earlier but I’d like to go into more detail here. Pairing with your Software Engineers when writing your test code is such an amazing opportunity to improve your coding skills. As I sit here writing this article waiting to be called into court for jury service, it reminds me that it takes a lot of patience to be a Test Engineer, almost as much as it takes to be a juror! However tempting it is to go rushing in and start writing your automated tests, resist that urge. Discuss what you want to achieve then talk through the approach you’re going to take. Then code it up together. I find it really enlightening to ask questions like ‘is there a better way to do this?’ Or ‘is this how you would code it?’ The latter question, especially, is where I learn the most. I’ve found that most Software Engineers will be reluctant to show you the ‘right way’ to code something when writing tests because they perceive the ‘right way’ to be too complicated for the Test Engineer (e.g. not mentioning LINQ and instead doing something verbose). So by asking how THEY would code it, it unleashes their true dev-ness and advanced code usually ensues! I would like to point out, however, that you don’t have to accept their method as the final answer. On numerous occasions I have opted for the more simple/verbose solution because I found the code written by the Software Engineer too advanced and therefore I would find it unreadable when I return to the code in a months’ time! Always keep the target audience in mind when writing clever code, and in my case that is mostly Test Engineers.  

    Read the article

  • Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-First

    - by Timothy Klenke
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-first.aspxThis is the second of two posts on some common strategies for approaching the job of writing tests.  The previous post covered test-after workflows where as this will focus on test-first.  Each workflow presented is a method of attack for adding tests to a project.  The more tools in your tool belt the better.  So here is a partial list of some test-first methodologies. Ping Pong Ping Pong is a methodology commonly used in pair programing.  One developer will write a new failing test.  Then they hand the keyboard to their partner.  The partner writes the production code to get the test passing.  The partner then writes the next test before passing the keyboard back to the original developer. The reasoning behind this testing methodology is to facilitate pair programming.  That is to say that this testing methodology shares all the benefits of pair programming, including ensuring multiple team members are familiar with the code base (i.e. low bus number). Test Blazer Test Blazing, in some respects, is also a pairing strategy.  The developers don’t work side by side on the same task at the same time.  Instead one developer is dedicated to writing tests at their own desk.  They write failing test after failing test, never touching the production code.  With these tests they are defining the specification for the system.  The developer most familiar with the specifications would be assigned this task. The next day or later in the same day another developer fetches the latest test suite.  Their job is to write the production code to get those tests passing.  Once all the tests pass they fetch from source control the latest version of the test project to get the newer tests. This methodology has some of the benefits of pair programming, namely lowering the bus number.  This can be good way adding an extra developer to a project without slowing it down too much.  The production coder isn’t slowed down writing tests.  The tests are in another project from the production code, so there shouldn’t be any merge conflicts despite two developers working on the same solution. This methodology is also a good test for the tests.  Can another developer figure out what system should do just by reading the tests?  This question will be answered as the production coder works there way through the test blazer’s tests. Test Driven Development (TDD) TDD is a highly disciplined practice that calls for a new test and an new production code to be written every few minutes.  There are strict rules for when you should be writing test or production code.  You start by writing a failing (red) test, then write the simplest production code possible to get the code working (green), then you clean up the code (refactor).  This is known as the red-green-refactor cycle. The goal of TDD isn’t the creation of a suite of tests, however that is an advantageous side effect.  The real goal of TDD is to follow a practice that yields a better design.  The practice is meant to push the design toward small, decoupled, modularized components.  This is generally considered a better design that large, highly coupled ball of mud. TDD accomplishes this through the refactoring cycle.  Refactoring is only possible to do safely when tests are in place.  In order to use TDD developers must be trained in how to look for and repair code smells in the system.  Through repairing these sections of smelly code (i.e. a refactoring) the design of the system emerges. For further information on TDD, I highly recommend the series “Is TDD Dead?”.  It discusses its pros and cons and when it is best used. Acceptance Test Driven Development (ATDD) Whereas TDD focuses on small unit tests that concentrate on a small piece of the system, Acceptance Tests focuses on the larger integrated environment.  Acceptance Tests usually correspond to user stories, which come directly from the customer. The unit tests focus on the inputs and outputs of smaller parts of the system, which are too low level to be of interest to the customer. ATDD generally uses the same tools as TDD.  However, ATDD uses fewer mocks and test doubles than TDD. ATDD often complements TDD; they aren’t competing methods.  A full test suite will usually consist of a large number of unit (created via TDD) tests and a smaller number of acceptance tests. Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) BDD is more about audience than workflow.  BDD pushes the testing realm out towards the client.  Developers, managers and the client all work together to define the tests. Typically different tooling is used for BDD than acceptance and unit testing.  This is done because the audience is not just developers.  Tools using the Gherkin family of languages allow for test scenarios to be described in an English format.  Other tools such as MSpec or FitNesse also strive for highly readable behaviour driven test suites. Because these tests are public facing (viewable by people outside the development team), the terminology usually changes.  You can’t get away with the same technobabble you can with unit tests written in a programming language that only developers understand.  For starters, they usually aren’t called tests.  Usually they’re called “examples”, “behaviours”, “scenarios”, or “specifications”. This may seem like a very subtle difference, but I’ve seen this small terminology change have a huge impact on the acceptance of the process.  Many people have a bias that testing is something that comes at the end of a project.  When you say we need to define the tests at the start of the project many people will immediately give that a lower priority on the project schedule.  But if you say we need to define the specification or behaviour of the system before we can start, you’ll get more cooperation.   Keep these test-first and test-after workflows in your tool belt.  With them you’ll be able to find new opportunities to apply them.

    Read the article

  • Unit test: How best to provide an XML input?

    - by TheSilverBullet
    I need to write a unit test which validates the serialization of two attributes of an XML(size ~ 30 KB) file. What is the best way to provide an input for this test? Here are the options I have considered: Add the file to the project and use a file reader Pass the contents of the XML as a string Create the XML through a program and pass it Which is my best option and why? If there is another way which you think is better, I would love to hear it.

    Read the article

  • How can I reduce the amount of time it takes to fully regression test an application ready for release?

    - by DrLazer
    An app I work on is being developed with a modified version of scrum. If you are not familiar with scrum, it's just an alternative approach to a more traditional watefall model, where a series of features are worked on for a set amount of time known as a sprint. The app is written in C# and makes use of WPF. We use Visual C# 2010 Express edition as an IDE. If we work on a sprint and add in a few new features, but do not plan to release until a further sprint is complete, then regression testing is not an issue as such. We just test the new features and give the app a good once over. However, if a release is planned that our customers can download - a full regression test is factored in. In the past this wasn't a big deal, it took 3 or 4 days and the devs simply fix up any bugs found in the regression phase, but now, as the app is getting larger and larger and incorporating more and more features, the regression is spanning out for weeks. I am interested in any methods that people know of or use that can decrease this time. At the moment the only ideas I have are to either start writing Unit Tests, which I have never fully tried out in a commercial environment, or to research the possibilty of any UI Automation API's or tools that would allow me to write a program to perform a series of batch tests. I know literally nothing about the possibilities of UI automation so any information would be valuable. I don't know that much about Unit testing either, how complicated can the tests be? Is it possible to get Unit tests to use the UI? Are there any other methods I should consider? Thanks for reading, and for any advice in advance. Edit: Thanks for the information. Does anybody know of any alternatives to what has been mentioned so far (NUnit, RhinoMocks and CodedUI)?

    Read the article

  • How can I reduce the amount of time it takes to fully regression test an application ready for release?

    - by DrLazer
    An app I work on is being developed with a modified version of scrum. If you are not familiar with scrum, it's just an alternative approach to a more traditional watefall model, where a series of features are worked on for a set amount of time known as a sprint. The app is written in C# and makes use of WPF. We use Visual C# 2010 Express edition as an IDE. If we work on a sprint and add in a few new features, but do not plan to release until a further sprint is complete, then regression testing is not an issue as such. We just test the new features and give the app a good once over. However, if a release is planned that our customers can download - a full regression test is factored in. In the past this wasn't a big deal, it took 3 or 4 days and the devs simply fix up any bugs found in the regression phase, but now, as the app is getting larger and larger and incorporating more and more features, the regression is spanning out for weeks. I am interested in any methods that people know of or use that can decrease this time. At the moment the only ideas I have are to either start writing Unit Tests, which I have never fully tried out in a commercial environment, or to research the possibilty of any UI Automation API's or tools that would allow me to write a program to perform a series of batch tests. I know literally nothing about the possibilities of UI automation so any information would be valuable. I don't know that much about Unit testing either, how complicated can the tests be? Is it possible to get Unit tests to use the UI? Are there any other methods I should consider? Thanks for reading, and for any advice in advance.

    Read the article

  • Cross compiling unit tests with CppUnit or similar

    - by Mark
    Has anyone used a package like CppUnit to cross-compile C++ unit tests to run on an embedded platform? I'm using G++ on a Linux box to compile executables that must be run on a LynxOS board. I can't seem to get any of the common unit test packages to configure and build something that will create unit tests. I see a lot of unit test packages, CppUnit, UnitTest++, GTest, CppUTest, etc., but very little about using these packages in a cross-compiler scenario. The ones with a "configure" script imply that this is possible, but I can't seem to get them to configure and build.

    Read the article

  • .NET Test Harness what should it have

    - by Conor
    Hi Folks, We have a software house developing code for us on a project, .NET Web Service (WCF) and we are also paying for a test harness to be built as a separate billable task on a daily rate. I have just joined the company and am reviewing what we are getting from the software house and wanted to know what you guys in industry thought about it? Basically what we got was a WinForm that called the w/s that had an input area (Web Service Request) to drop our XML a Submit button along with a response area for the result of the Web Response and that's it... Our internal BA has created all the xml request documents so there was no logic put into the harness around this. Looking on the Net for a definition of a Test Harness I got this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_harness It states it should have these 3 below things: Automate the testing process. Execute test suites of test cases. Generate associated test reports. Clearly we have got none of this apart from a partial "Automate the testing process" via a WinForm. OK, from my development background I would expect someone to Produce a WinForm as a test harness 5 years ago and really should be using some sort of Tooling around this, I explicitly told the Software House I expected some sort of tooling (NUnit,NBUnit, SOAPIU) so we could create a regression test pack for future use. [Didn’t get it but I asked for this after the requirements were signed off as I wasn’t employed then :)] Would someone be able to clarify with me if my requirement for this is over realistic, I know if I did this, I would use NUnit and TDD and then reuse the test harness as a regression test pack in future? I am interested to see what the community thought. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Bad linking in Qt unit test -- missing the link to the moc file?

    - by dwj
    I'm trying to unit test a class that inherits QObject; the class itself is located up one level in my directory structure. When I build the unit test I get the standard unresolved errors if a class' MOC file cannot be found: test.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "public: virtual void * __thiscall UnitToTest::qt_metacast(char const *)" (?qt_metacast@UnitToTest@@UAEPAXPBD@Z) + 2 missing functions The MOC file is created but appears to not be linking. I've been poking around SO, the web, and Qt's docs for quite a while and have hit a wall. How do I get the unit test to include the MOC file in the link? ==== My project file is dead simple: TEMPLATE = app TARGET = test DESTDIR = . CONFIG += qtestlib INCLUDEPATH += . .. DEPENDPATH += . HEADERS += test.h SOURCES += test.cpp ../UnitToTest.cpp stubs.cpp DEFINES += UNIT_TEST My directory structure and files: C:. | UnitToTest.cpp | UnitToTest.h | \---test | test.cpp (Makefiles removed for clarity) | test.h | test.pro | stubs.cpp | +---debug | UnitToTest.obj | test.obj | test.pdb | moc_test.cpp | moc_test.obj | stubs.obj Edit: Additional information The generated Makefile.Debug shows the moc file missing: SOURCES = test.cpp \ ..\test.cpp \ stubs.cpp debug\moc_test.cpp OBJECTS = debug\test.obj \ debug\UnitToTest.obj \ debug\stubs.obj \ debug\moc_test.obj

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing a Java Chat Application

    - by Epitaph
    I have developed a basic Chat application in Java. It consists of a server and multiple client. The server continually monitors for incoming messages and broadcasts them to all the clients. The client is made up of a Swing GUI with a text area (for messages sent by the server and other clients), a text field (to send Text messages) and a button (SEND). The client also continually monitors for incoming messages from other clients (via the Server). This is achieved with Threads and Event Listeners and the application works as expected. But, how do I go about unit testing my chat application? As the methods involve establishing a connection with the server and sending/receiving messages from the server, I am not sure if these methods should be unit tested. As per my understanding, Unit Testing shouldn't be done for tasks like connecting to a database or network. The few test cases that I could come up with are: 1) The max limit of the text field 2) Client can connect to the Server 3) Server can connect to the Client 4) Client can send message 5) Client can receive message 6) Server can send message 7) Server can receive message 8) Server can accept connections from multiple clients But, since most of the above methods involve some kind of network communication, I cannot perform unit testing. How should I go about unit testing my chat application?

    Read the article

  • SQLite assembly not copied to output folder for unit testing

    - by Groo
    Problem: SQLite assembly referenced in my DAL assembly does not get copied to the output folder when doing unit tests (Copy local is set to true). I am working on a .Net 3.5 app in VS2008, with NHibernate & SQLite in my DAL. Data access is exposed through the IRepository interface (repository factory) to other layers, so there is no need to reference NHibernate or the System.Data.SQLite assemblies in other layers. For unit testing, there is a public factory method (also in my DAL) which creates an in-memory SQLite session and creates a new IRepository implementation. This is also done to avoid have a shared SQLite in-memory config for all assemblies which need it, and to avoid referencing those DAL internal assemblies. The problem is when I run unit tests which reside a separate project - if I don't add System.Data.SQLite as a reference to the unit test project, it doesn't get copied to the TestResults...\Out folder (although this project references my DAL project, which references System.Data.SQLite, which has its Copy local property set to true), so the tests fail while NHibernate is being configured. If I add the reference to my testing project, then it does get copied and unit tests work. What am I doing wrong?

    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 | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >