Search Results

Search found 19002 results on 761 pages for 'coded ui testing'.

Page 13/761 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

• Cheap server stress testing

  - by acrosman

  The IT department of the nonprofit organization I work for recently got a new virtual server running CentOS (with Apache and PHP 5), which is supposed to host our website. During the process of setting up the server I discovered that the slightest use of the new machine caused major performance problems (I couldn't extract tarballs without bringing it to a halt). After several weeks of casting about in the dark by tech support, it now appears to be working fine, but I'm still nervous about moving the main site there. I have no budget to work with (so no software or services that require money), although due to recent cut backs I have several older desktops that I could use if it helps. The site doesn't need to withstand massive amounts of traffic (it's a Drupal site just a few thousand visitors a day), but I would like to put it through a bit of it paces before moving the main site over. What are cheap tools that I can use to get a sense if the server can withstand even low levels of traffic? I'm not looking to test the site itself yet, just fundamental operation of the server.

  Read the article

• Separate Action from Assertion in Unit Tests

  - by DigitalMoss

  Setup Many years ago I took to a style of unit testing that I have come to like a lot. In short, it uses a base class to separate out the Arrangement, Action and Assertion of the test into separate method calls. You do this by defining method calls in [Setup]/[TestInitialize] that will be called before each test run. [Setup] public void Setup() { before_each(); //arrangement because(); //action } This base class usually includes the [TearDown] call as well for when you are using this setup for Integration tests. [TearDown] public void Cleanup() { after_each(); } This often breaks out into a structure where the test classes inherit from a series of Given classes that put together the setup (i.e. GivenFoo : GivenBar : WhenDoingBazz) with the Assertions being one line tests with a descriptive name of what they are covering [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } The Problem There are very few tests that wrap around a single action so you end up with lots of classes so recently I have taken to defining the action in a series of methods within the test class itself: [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { because_an_action_was_taken(); Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } private void because_an_action_was_taken() { //perform action here } This results in several "action" methods within the test class but allows grouping of similar tests (i.e. class == WhenTestingDifferentWaysToSetBuzz) The Question Does someone else have a better way of separating out the three 'A's of testing? Readability of tests is important to me so I would prefer that, when a test fails, that the very naming structure of the tests communicate what has failed. If someone can read the Inheritance structure of the tests and have a good idea why the test might be failing then I feel it adds a lot of value to the tests (i.e. GivenClient : GivenUser : WhenModifyingUserPermissions : ThenReadAccessShouldBeTrue). I am aware of Acceptance Testing but this is more on a Unit (or series of units) level with boundary layers mocked. EDIT : My question is asking if there is an event or other method for executing a block of code before individual tests (something that could be applied to specific sets of tests without it being applied to all tests within a class like [Setup] currently does. Barring the existence of this event, which I am fairly certain doesn't exist, is there another method for accomplishing the same thing? Using [Setup] for every case presents a problem either way you go. Something like [Action("Category")] (a setup method that applied to specific tests within the class) would be nice but I can't find any way of doing this.

  Read the article

• Should developers be involved in testing phases?

  - by LudoMC

  Hi, we are using a classical V-shaped development process. We then have requirements, architecture, design, implementation, integration tests, system tests and acceptance. Testers are preparing test cases during the first phases of the project. The issue is that, due to resources issues (*), test phases are too long and are often shortened due to time constraints (you know project managers... ;)). So my question is simple: should developers be involved in the tests phases and isn't it too 'dangerous'. I'm afraid it will give the project managers a false feeling of better quality as the work has been done but would the added man.days be of any value? I'm not really confident of developers doing tests (no offense here but we all know it's quite hard to break in a few clicks what you have made in severals days). Thanks for sharing your thoughts. (*) For obscure reasons, increasing the number of testers is not an option as of today. (Just upfront, it's not a duplicate of Should programmers help testers in designing tests? which talks about test preparation and not test execution, where we avoid the implication of developers)

  Read the article

• DRY, string, and unit testing

  - by Rodrigue

  I have a recurring question when writing unit tests for code that involves constant string values. Let's take an example of a method/function that does some processing and returns a string containing a pre-defined constant. In python, that would be something like: STRING_TEMPLATE = "/some/constant/string/with/%s/that/needs/interpolation/" def process(some_param): # We do some meaningful work that gives us a value result = _some_meaningful_action() return STRING_TEMPLATE % result If I want to unit test process, one of my tests will check the return value. This is where I wonder what the best solution is. In my unit test, I can: apply DRY and use the already defined constant repeat myself and rewrite the entire string def test_foo_should_return_correct_url(): string_result = process() # Applying DRY and using the already defined constant assert STRING_TEMPLATE % "1234" == string_result # Repeating myself, repeating myself assert "/some/constant/string/with/1234/that/needs/interpolation/" == url The advantage I see in the former is that my test will break if I put the wrong string value in my constant. The inconvenient is that I may be rewriting the same string over and over again across different unit tests.

  Read the article

• Testing my model for hybrid scheduling in Embedded Systems

  - by markusian

  I am working on a project for school, where I have to analyze the performances of a few fixed-priority servers algorithms (polling server, deferrable server, priority exchange) using a simulator in the case of hybrid scheduling, where we have both hard periodic tasks and soft aperiodic tasks. In my model I consider that: the hard tasks have a period equal to their deadline, with a known worst case execution time (wcet). The actual execution time could be smaller than the wcet. the soft tasks have a known wcet and random interarrival times. The actual execution time could be smaller than the wcet. In order to test those algorithms I need realistic case studies. For this reason I'm digging in the scientific literature but I am facing different problems: Sometimes I find a list of hard tasks with wcet, but it is not specified how the soft tasks parameters are found. Given the wcet of a task, how can I model its actual execution time? This means, what random distribution should I use considering the wcet? How can I model the random interarrival times of soft aperiodic tasks?

  Read the article

• Unit testing multiple conditions in an IF statement

  - by bwalk2895

  I have a chunk of code that looks something like this: function bool PassesBusinessRules() { bool meetsBusinessRules = false; if (PassesBusinessRule1 && PassesBusinessRule2 && PassesBusinessRule3) { meetsBusinessRules= true; } return meetsBusinessRules; } I believe there should be four unit tests for this particular function. Three to test each of the conditions in the if statement and ensure it returns false. And another test that makes sure the function returns true. Question: Should there actually be ten unit tests instead? Nine that checks each of the possible failure paths. IE: False False False False False True False True False And so on for each possible combination. I think that is overkill, but some of the other members on my team do not. The way I look at it is if BusinessRule1 fails then it should always return false, it doesn't matter if it was checked first or last.

  Read the article

• Web Form Testing [closed]

  - by Frank G.

  I created a application for a client that is along the lines of a ticket tracking system. I wanted to know if anyone know of software that could beta test the web forms. Well I am looking for something that could automatically populate/fill whatever forms are on the web page with generic data. The purpose of this is to just randomly populate data and see if I get any errors on the page when submitted plus to also see how validation for the form functions. Does anyone know of anything that could do this?

  Read the article

• Who should write the test plan?

  - by Cheng Kiang

  Hi, I am in the in-house development team of my company, and we develop our company's web sites according to the requirements of the marketing team. Before releasing the site to them for acceptance testing, we were requested to give them a test plan to follow. However, the development team feels that since the requirements came from the requestors, they would have the best knowledge of what to test, what to lookout for, how things should behave etc and a test plan is thus not required. We are always in an argument over this, and developers find it a waste of time to write down things like:- Click on button A. Key in XYZ in the form field and click button B. You should see behaviour C. which we have to repeat for each requirement/feature requested. This is basically rephrasing what's already in the requirements document. We are moving towards using an Agile approach for managing our projects and this is also requested at the end of each iteration. Unit and integration testing aside, who should be the one to come up with the end user acceptance test plan? Should it be the reqestors or the developers? Many thanks in advance. Regards CK

  Read the article

• Writing Acceptance test cases

  - by HH_

  We are integrating a testing process in our SCRUM process. My new role is to write acceptance tests of our web applications in order to automate them later. I have read a lot about how tests cases should be written, but none gave me practical advices to write test cases for complex web applications, and instead they threw conflicting principles that I found hard to apply: Test cases should be short: Take the example of a CMS. Short test cases are easy to maintain and to identify the inputs and outputs. But what if I want to test a long series of operations (eg. adding a document, sending a notification to another user, the other user replies, the document changes state, the user gets a notice). It rather seems to me that test cases should represent complete scenarios. But I can see how this will produce overtly complex test documents. Tests should identify inputs and outputs:: What if I have a long form with many interacting fields, with different behaviors. Do I write one test for everything, or one for each? Test cases should be independent: But how can I apply that if testing the upload operation requires that the connect operation is successful? And how does it apply to writing test cases? Should I write a test for each operation, but each test declares its dependencies, or should I rewrite the whole scenario for each test? Test cases should be lightly-documented: This principles is specific to Agile projects. So do you have any advice on how to implement this principle? Although I thought that writing acceptance test cases was going to be simple, I found myself overwhelmed by every decision I had to make (FYI: I am a developer and not a professional tester). So my main question is: What steps or advices do you have in order to write maintainable acceptance test cases for complex applications. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Should we test all our methods?

  - by Zenzen

  So today I had a talk with my teammate about unit testing. The whole thing started when he asked me "hey, where are the tests for that class, I see only one?". The whole class was a manager (or a service if you prefer to call it like that) and almost all the methods were simply delegating stuff to a DAO so it was similar to: SomeClass getSomething(parameters) { return myDao.findSomethingBySomething(parameters); } A kind of boilerplate with no logic (or at least I do not consider such simple delegation as logic) but a useful boilerplate in most cases (layer separation etc.). And we had a rather lengthy discussion whether or not I should unit test it (I think that it is worth mentioning that I did fully unit test the DAO). His main arguments being that it was not TDD (obviously) and that someone might want to see the test to check what this method does (I do not know how it could be more obvious) or that in the future someone might want to change the implementation and add new (or more like "any") logic to it (in which case I guess someone should simply test that logic). This made me think, though. Should we strive for the highest test coverage %? Or is it simply an art for art's sake then? I simply do not see any reason behind testing things like: getters and setters (unless they actually have some logic in them) "boilerplate" code Obviously a test for such a method (with mocks) would take me less than a minute but I guess that is still time wasted and a millisecond longer for every CI. Are there any rational/not "flammable" reasons to why one should test every single (or as many as he can) line of code?

  Read the article

• Resurrecting a 5,000 line test plan that is a decade old

  - by ale

  I am currently building a test plan for the system I am working on. The plan is 5,000 lines long and about 10 years old. The structure is like this: 1. test title precondition: some W needs to be set up, X needs to be completed action: do some Y postcondition: message saying Z is displayed 2. ... What is this type of testing called ? Is it useful ? It isn't automated.. the tests would have to be handed to some unlucky person to run through and then the results would have to be given to development. It doesn't seem efficient. Is it worth modernising this method of testing (removing tests for removed features, updating tests where different postconditions happen, ...) or would a whole different approach be more appropriate ? We plan to start unit tests but the software requires so much work to actually get 'units' to test - there are no units at present ! Thank you.

  Read the article

• Add autoFill capabilities to jQuery-UI 1.8.1

  - by rockinthesixstring

  here's what I currently have, unfortunately I cannot seem to figure out how to get autoFill to work with jQuery-UI... It used to work with the straight up Autocomplete.js <script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.4.2/jquery.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jqueryui/1.8.1/jquery-ui.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script src="http://jquery-ui.googlecode.com/svn/tags/latest/external/jquery.bgiframe-2.1.1.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jqueryui/1.8.1/i18n/jquery-ui-i18n.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> var thesource = "RegionsAutoComplete.axd?PID=3" $(function () { function log(message) { $("<div/>").text(message).prependTo("#log"); $("#log").attr("scrollTop", 0); } $.expr[':'].textEquals = function (a, i, m) { return $(a).text().match("^" + m[3] + "$"); }; $("#birds").autocomplete({ source: thesource, change: function (event, ui) { //if the value of the textbox does not match a suggestion, clear its value if ($(".ui-autocomplete li:textEquals('" + $(this).val() + "')").size() == 0) { $(this).val(''); } else { log(ui.item ? ("Selected: " + ui.item.value + " aka " + ui.item.id) : "Nothing selected, input was " + this.value); } } }).live('keydown', function (e) { var keyCode = e.keyCode || e.which; //if TAB or RETURN is pressed and the text in the textbox does not match a suggestion, set the value of the textbox to the text of the first suggestion if ((keyCode == 9 || keyCode == 13) && ($(".ui-autocomplete li:textEquals('" + $(this).val() + "')").size() == 0)) { $(this).val($(".ui-autocomplete li:visible:first").text()); } }); }); </script> I've used the answer here to get the mustMatch working, but unfortunately if I "tab" away from the input box, I get the "Nothing selected" response instead of an Value and ID. Does anyone know how to extract the ID out of the autocomplete when you don't actually select the field?

  Read the article

• Understanding how software testing works and what to test.

  - by RHaguiuda

  Intro: I've seen lots of topics here on SO about software testing and other terms I don't understand. Problem: As a beginner developer I, unfortunately, have no idea how software testing works, not even how to test a simple function. This is a shame, but thats the truth. I also hope this question can help others beginners developers too. Question: Can you help me to understand this subject a little bit more? Maybe some questions to start would help: When I develop a function, how should I test it? For example: when working with a sum function, should I test every input value possible or just some limits? How about testing functions with strings as parameters? In a big program, do I have to test every single piece of code of it? When you guys program do you test every code written? How automated test works and how can I try one? How tools for automated testing works and what they do? I`ve heard about unit testing. Can I have a brief explanation on this? What is a testing framework? If possible please post some code with examples to clarify the ideas. Any help on this topic is very welcome! Thanks.

  Read the article

• How fast are my services? Comparing basicHttpBinding and ws2007HttpBinding using the SO-Aware Test Workbench

  - by gsusx

  When working on real world WCF solutions, we become pretty aware of the performance implications of the binding and behavior configuration of WCF services. However, whether it’s a known fact the different binding and behavior configurations have direct reflections on the performance of WCF services, developers often struggle to figure out the real performance behavior of the services. We can attribute this to the lack of tools for correctly testing the performance characteristics of WCF services...(read more)

  Read the article

• SO-Aware at the Atlanta Connected Systems User Group

  - by gsusx

  Today my colleague Don Demsak will be presenting a session about WCF management, testing and governance using SO-Aware and the SO-Aware Test Workbench at the Connected Systems User Group in Atlanta . Don is a very engaging speaker and has prepared some very cool demos based on lessons of real world WCF solutions. If you are in the ATL area and interested in WCF, AppFabric, BizTalk you should definitely swing by Don’s session . Don’t forget to heckle him a bit (you can blame it for it ;) )...(read more)

  Read the article

• When you should and should not use the 'new' keyword?

  - by skizeey

  I watched a Google Tech Talk presentation on Unit Testing, given by Misko Hevery, and he said to avoid using the new keyword in business logic code. I wrote a program, and I did end up using the new keyword here and there, but they were mostly for instantiating objects that hold data (ie, they didn't have any functions or methods). I'm wondering, did I do something wrong when I used the new keyword for my program. And where can we break that 'rule'?

  Read the article

• In IE8, jquery-ui's dialog set the height of its contents to zero. How can I fix this?

  - by brahn

  I am using jquery UI's dialog widget to render a modal dialog in my web application. I do this by passing the ID of the desired DOM element into the following function: var setupDialog = function (eltId) { $("#" + eltId).dialog({ autoOpen: false, width: 610, minWidth: 610, height: 450, minHeight: 200, modal: true, resizable: false, draggable: false, }); }; Everything works just fine in Firefox, Safari, and Chrome. However, in IE 8 when the dialog is opened only the div.ui-dialog-titlebar is visible -- the div.ui-dialog-contents are not. The problem seems to be that while in the modern browsers, the div.ui-dialog-contents has a specific height set in its style, i.e. after opening the dialog, the resulting HTML is: <div class="ui-dialog-content ui-widget-content" id="invite-friends-dialog" style="width: auto; min-height: 198px; height: 448px">...</div> while in IE8 the height style attribute is set to zero, and the resulting HTML is: <div class="ui-dialog-content ui-widget-content" id="invite-friends-dialog" style="min-height: 0px; width: auto; height: 0px">...</div> What do I need to do to get the height (and min-height) style attributes set correctly?

  Read the article

• Survey: how do you unit test your T-SQL?

  - by Alexander Kuznetsov

  How do you unit test your T-SQL? Which libraries/tools do you use? What percentage of your code is covered by unit tests and how do you measure it? Do you think the time and effort which you invested in your unit testing harness has paid off or not? Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!...(read more)

  Read the article

• Junit: splitting integration test and Unit tests.

  - by jeff porter

  Hello all, I've inherited a load of Junit test, but these tests (apart from most not working) are a mixture of actual unit test and integration tests (requiring external systems, db etc). So I'm trying to think of a way to actually separate them out, so that I can run the unit test nice and quickly and the integration tests after that. The options are.. 1: Split them into separate directories. 2: Move to Junit4 and annotate the classes to separate them. 3: Use a file naming convention to tell what a class is , i.e. AdapterATest and AdapterAIntergrationTest. 3 has the issue that Eclipse has the option to "Run all tests in the selected project/package or folder". So it would make it very hard to just run the integration tests. 2: runs the risk that developers might start writing integration tests in unit test classes and it just gets messy. 1: Seems like the neatest solution, but my gut says there must be a better solution out there. So that is my question, how do you lot break apart integration tests and proper unit tests?

  Read the article

• jquery ui drag and drop showing feedback

  - by sea_1987

  Hi there, I have some drag and drop functionality on my website, I am wanting to hightlight the area that is droppable with a chage in border color when the draggable element is clicked/starting to be dragged. If the click/or drag stops I want the border of the droppable element to change back to its origianl state, I currently have this code, but it does not work very well. $(".drag_check").draggable({helper:"clone", opacity:"0.5"}); $(".drag_check").mousedown(function() { $('.searchPage').css("border", "solid 3px #00FF66").fadeIn(1000); }); $(".drag_check").mouseup(function(){ $('.searchPage').css("border", "solid 3px #E2E5F1").fadeIn(1000); }) $(".searchPage").droppable({ accept:".drag_check", hoverClass: "dropHover", drop: function(ev, ui) { var droppedItem = ui.draggable.children(); cv_file = ui.draggable.map(function() {//map the names and values of each of the selected checkboxes into array return ui.draggable.children().attr('name')+"="+ui.draggable.children().attr('value'); }).get(); var link = ui.draggable.children().attr('name').substr(ui.draggable.children().attr('name').indexOf("[")+1, ui.draggable.children().attr('name').lastIndexOf("]")-8) $.ajax({ type:"POST", url:"/search", data:ui.draggable.children().attr('name')+"="+ui.draggable.children().val()+"&save=Save CVs", success:function(){ window.alert(cv_file+"&save=Save CVs"); $('.shortList').append('<li><span class="inp_bg"><input type="checkbox" name="remove_cv'+link+'" value="Y" /></span><a href="/cv/'+link+'/">'+link+'</a></li>'); $('.searchPage').css("border", "solid 3px #E2E5F1").fadeIn(1000); }, error:function() { alert("Somthing has gone wrong"); } }); } });

  Read the article

• Is there a real difference between dynamic analysis and testing?

  - by user970696

  Often testing is regarded as a dynamic analysis of a software. Yet while writing my thesis, the reviewer noted to me that dynamic analysis is about analyzing the program behind the scenes - e.g. profiling and that it is not the same as testing because its "analysis" which looks inside and observes. I know that "static analysis" is not testing, should we then separate this "dynamic analysis" also from testing? Some books do refer to dynamic analysis in this sense. I would maybe say that testing is a one mean of dynamic analysis?

  Read the article

• jQuery UI Rang Slider show divs based on selected range

  - by andi_sf

  I have set up a range slider that should show/hide divs based on their range values - meaning if the range of the one specifies in the div falls into the selected range in the slider it should show - the others hide. Somehow it does not work correctly - if anybody could help that would be greatly appreciated. My code so far: $("#slider").slider({ range: true, min: 150, max: 280, step: 5, values: [150, 280], slide: function(event, ui) { $("#amount").val('Min. Value' + ui.values[0] + ' - Max. Value' + ui.values[1]); }, change: function(event, ui) { $('#col-2 div').each(function(){ var valueS = parseInt($(this).attr("class")); var valueX = parseInt($(this).attr("title")); if (valueS < ui.values[0] && valueX <= ui.values[1] || valueS ui.values[0] && valueX = ui.values[1] ) { $(this).stop().animate({opacity: 0.25}, 500) } else { $(this).stop().animate({opacity: 1.0}, 500) $("#amount").val('Min. Value' + ui.values[0] + ' - Max. Value' + ui.values[1]); } }); } }); $("#amount").val('Min. Value' + $("#slider").slider("values", 0) + ' - Max. Value' + $("#slider").slider("values", 1)); }); I have also posted a sample at: http://www.webdesigneroakland.com/slider/444range_slider.html

  Read the article

• Test Doubles : Do they go in "source packages" or "test packages"?

  - by sbrattla

  I've got a couple of data access objects (DefaultPersonServices.class, DefaultAddressServices.class) which is responsible for various CRUD operations in a database. A few different classes use these services, but as the services requires that a connection is established with a database I can't really use them in unit tests as they take too long. Thus, I'd like to create a test doubles for them and simply do FakePersonServices.class and FakeAddressService.class implementations which I can use throughout testing. Now, this is all good (I assume)...but my question relates to where I put the test doubles. Should I keep them along with the default implementations (aka "real" implementations) or should I keep them in a corresponding test package. The default implementations are found in Source Packages : com.company.data.services. Should I keep the test doubles here too, or should the test doubles rather be in Test Packages : com.company.data.services?

  Read the article

• What Are Some Tips For Writing A Large Number of Unit Tests?

  - by joshin4colours

  I've recently been tasked with testing some COM objects of the desktop app I work on. What this means in practice is writing a large number (100) unit tests to test different but related methods and objects. While the unit tests themselves are fairly straight forward (usually one or two Assert()-type checks per test), I'm struggling to figure out the best way to write these tests in a coherent, organized manner. What I have found is that copy and Paste coding should be avoided. It creates more problems than it's worth, and it's even worse than copy-and-paste code in production code because test code has to be more frequently updated and modified. I'm leaning toward trying an OO-approach using but again, the sheer number makes even this approach daunting from an organizational standpoint due to concern with maintenance. It also doesn't help that the tests are currently written in C++, which adds some complexity with memory management issues. Any thoughts or suggestions?

  Read the article

• How do I force jquery to center an element when it snaps to another container using the draggable method?

  - by David

  Here's my script. I want some square-shaped draggable objects (in this case just td boxes with numbers in them) to be able to snap to some empty table cells and snap to the center of those cells (empty td boxes), not the top or bottom of those cells, which is what is seems to do by default. <script type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { $(".inputs div").draggable( { snap: ".spaces" } ); }); </script>

  Read the article

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