Search Results

Search found 694 results on 28 pages for 'mock'.

Page 13/28 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • What format have project managers used for defining features/requirements? [on hold]

    - by Jon
    At the company that I currently work at, Word documents are passed around which contain the features/requirements for the software we write, and those Word docs contain mock-ups (there aren't any use cases that I've seen). I'm just curious what project managers use at other companies. Do some skip making the requirements documents altogether and go straight for a ticket-tracker such as JIRA? What seems to work the best? Thanks, -Jon

    Read the article

  • Test interface implementation

    - by Michael
    I have a interface in our code base that I would like to be able to mock out for unit testing. I am writing a test implementation to allow the individual tests to be able to override the specific methods they are concerned with rather than implementing every method. I've run into a quandary over how the test implementation should behave if the test fails to override a method used by the method under test. Should I return a "non-value" (0, null) in the test implementation or throw a UnsupportedOperationException to explicitly fail the test?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing in Django

    - by acjohnson55
    I'm really struggling to write effective unit tests for a large Django project. I have reasonably good test coverage, but I've come to realize that the tests I've been writing are definitely integration/acceptance tests, not unit tests at all, and I have critical portions of my application that are not being tested effectively. I want to fix this ASAP. Here's my problem. My schema is deeply relational, and heavily time-oriented, giving my model object high internal coupling and lots of state. Many of my model methods query based on time intervals, and I've got a lot of auto_now_add going on in timestamped fields. So take a method that looks like this for example: def summary(self, startTime=None, endTime=None): # ... logic to assign a proper start and end time # if none was provided, probably using datetime.now() objects = self.related_model_set.manager_method.filter(...) return sum(object.key_method(startTime, endTime) for object in objects) How does one approach testing something like this? Here's where I am so far. It occurs to me that the unit testing objective should be given some mocked behavior by key_method on its arguments, is summary correctly filtering/aggregating to produce a correct result? Mocking datetime.now() is straightforward enough, but how can I mock out the rest of the behavior? I could use fixtures, but I've heard pros and cons of using fixtures for building my data (poor maintainability being a con that hits home for me). I could also setup my data through the ORM, but that can be limiting, because then I have to create related objects as well. And the ORM doesn't let you mess with auto_now_add fields manually. Mocking the ORM is another option, but not only is it tricky to mock deeply nested ORM methods, but the logic in the ORM code gets mocked out of the test, and mocking seems to make the test really dependent on the internals and dependencies of the function-under-test. The toughest nuts to crack seem to be the functions like this, that sit on a few layers of models and lower-level functions and are very dependent on the time, even though these functions may not be super complicated. My overall problem is that no matter how I seem to slice it, my tests are looking way more complex than the functions they are testing.

    Read the article

  • NuGet JustMock

    - by mehfuzh
    As most of us already know JustMock got  a free edition. The free edition is not a stripped down of the features of the full edition but I would rather say its a strip down of the type you can mock. Technically, free version runs on  proxy as full version runs on proxy + profiler. In full version, It switches to profiler when you are mocking final methods or sealed class or anything else that can not be done using inheritance. Like in full version you can mock non public methods , in free version you can still do it but it has to be virtual for protected or must be done through InternalsVisibleTo attribute for internal virtual methods (If you have access to the source and can apply the attribute). Now, you can get a copy of free edition from the product page. Install it and off you go. But it is also exposed to NuGet. Those of you are not familiar with NuGet (that will be odd). But still NuGet is the centralized package manager from Microsoft that cuts the workflow of manual inclusion of  libraries in your project. I think NuGet in future will limit the scope of  “.vsi” packages and installers because of its ease (except in some cases). Its similar to ruby gems. In ruby, virtually you can install any library in this way “gems  install <target_library>” and you are off to go. It will check the dependencies, install them or less prompt with the steps you need to do.   Now sticking to the post, to get started you first need to install NuGet package manager. Once you have completed the step pressing “Ctrl + W, Ctrl + Z” it will bring up an console like one below:   Once you are here, you just have to type “install-package justmock” Next, it will should print the confirmation when the installation is complete: Moving to visual studio solution explorer, you will now see:   Finally, NuGet is still in its early ages and steps that are shown here may not remain the same in coming releases, but feel free to enjoy what is out there right now. Regarding JustMock free edition, there is a nice post by Phil Japikse at Introducing JustMock Free Edition. I think its worth checking if not already.   Have fun and happy holidays!

    Read the article

  • Which unit test framework for c++ based games?

    - by jmp97
    Which combination of testing tools do you feel is best? Given the framework / library of your choice you might consider: suitability for TDD ease of use / productivity dealing with mock objects setup with continuous integration error reporting Note: While this is potentially a generic question like the one on SO I would argue that game development is usually bound to a specific work flow which influences the choice for testing. For a higher-level perspective, see question Automated testing of games.

    Read the article

  • Yet another use of OUTER APPLY in defensive programming

    - by Alexander Kuznetsov
    When a SELECT is used to populate variables from a subquery, it fails to change them if the subquery returns nothing - and that can lead to subtle bugs. We shall use OUTER APPLY to eliminate this problem. Prerequisites All we need is the following mock function that imitates a subquery: CREATE FUNCTION dbo.BoxById ( @BoxId INT ) RETURNS TABLE AS RETURN ( SELECT CAST ( 1 AS INT ) AS [Length] , CAST ( 2 AS INT ) AS [Width] , CAST ( 3 AS INT ) AS [Height] WHERE @BoxId = 1 ) ; Let us assume that this...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Unit-testing code that relies on untestable 3rd party code

    - by DudeOnRock
    Sometimes, especially when working with third party code, I write unit-test specific code in my production code. This happens when third party code uses singletons, relies on constants, accesses the file-system/a resource I don't want to access in a test situation, or overuses inheritance. The form my unit-test specific code takes is usually the following: if (accessing or importing a certain resource fails) I assume this is a test case and load a mock object Is this poor form, and if it is, what is normally done when writing tests for code that uses untestable third party code?

    Read the article

  • "static" as a semantic clue about statelessness?

    - by leoger
    this might be a little philosophical but I hope someone can help me find a good way to think about this. I've recently undertaken a refactoring of a medium sized project in Java to go back and add unit tests. When I realized what a pain it was to mock singletons and statics, I finally "got" what I've been reading about them all this time. (I'm one of those people that needs to learn from experience. Oh well.) So, now that I'm using Spring to create the objects and wire them around, I'm getting rid of static keywords left and right. (If I could potentially want to mock it, it's not really static in the same sense that Math.abs() is, right?) The thing is, I had gotten into the habit of using static to denote that a method didn't rely on any object state. For example: //Before import com.thirdparty.ThirdPartyLibrary.Thingy; public class ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper { public static Thingy newThingy(InputType input) { new Thingy.Builder().withInput(input).alwaysFrobnicate().build(); } } //called as... ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper.newThingy(input); //After public class ThirdPartyFactory { public Thingy newThingy(InputType input) { new Thingy.Builder().withInput(input).alwaysFrobnicate().build(); } } //called as... thirdPartyFactoryInstance.newThingy(input); So, here's where it gets touchy-feely. I liked the old way because the capital letter told me that, just like Math.sin(x), ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper.newThingy(x) did the same thing the same way every time. There's no object state to change how the object does what I'm asking it to do. Here are some possible answers I'm considering. Nobody else feels this way so there's something wrong with me. Maybe I just haven't really internalized the OO way of doing things! Maybe I'm writing in Java but thinking in FORTRAN or somesuch. (Which would be impressive since I've never written FORTRAN.) Maybe I'm using staticness as a sort of proxy for immutability for the purposes of reasoning about code. That being said, what clues should I have in my code for someone coming along to maintain it to know what's stateful and what's not? Perhaps this should just come for free if I choose good object metaphors? e.g. thingyWrapper doesn't sound like it has state indepdent of the wrapped Thingy which may itself be mutable. Similarly, a thingyFactory sounds like it should be immutable but could have different strategies that are chosen among at creation. I hope I've been clear and thanks in advance for your advice!

    Read the article

  • In Linux, which tools are free to use to make Web site mockups?

    - by user11173
    I am using Ubuntu/Fedora. Which available mock-up builders i can use before making a website? Follow up: Adobe AIR for Linux is no longer supported. To access older, unsupported versions, please read the AIR archive. Different operating system? Downloaded: http://www.balsamiq.com/download Direct Links Mockups for Desktop: Cross-Platform: MockupsForDesktop.air Windows: MockupsForDesktop.exe Mac OSX: MockupsForDesktop.dmg Linux 32bit: MockupsForDesktop32bit.deb Linux 64bit: MockupsForDesktop64bit.deb Windows with Adobe Air bundled: MockupsForDesktopInstallerWin.zip (for offline installations).

    Read the article

  • Book Review: MCTS Self-Paced Training Kit (Exam 70-667): Configuring Microsoft SharePoint 2010

    Microsoft Certification Exams are tough even though it is multiple choice. You should refer to training kits available on the market before attempting an exam. Configuring Microsoft SharePoint 2010 is a comprehensive Self-Paced Training Kit for those looking to obtain Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist Certification. The book examines all aspects of Microsoft SharePoint 2010 in a detailed manner with the help of a mock exam in the accompanying CD-ROM. In this review, Anand analyses the content of the book and also provides suggestions for the improvement.

    Read the article

  • Extension to add button "Report to Bugzilla"?

    - by Alois Mahdal
    We have: internal MediaWiki installation for internal documents (we don't use it in completely wiki-like style—only maintainers should normally make changes) internal Bugzilla installation for internal issues including these internal documents on the MediaWiki site Now only the icing on the cake is missing: an automatic button that would appear on each page, being able to open a Bugzilla page pre-fill some fields with information about that page Basically, name What I imagine as a best solution would be a sibling to the ubiquitous "[edit]" button, probably sitting next to it, like in this mock-up:

    Read the article

  • Generic RPM package for Python 2.x

    - by RaphDG
    I have a python application, it can run on Python = 2.6 and it's architecture independant. I need the rpm package of this application to be installed on Fedora 14 (python 2.7) and Centos 6.2 (python 2.6). I currently use mock to build one rpm package for each "flavour" and it works well. I apparently can't install the Centos compiled rpm on Fedora. It gives me this error message : error: Failed dependencies: python(abi) = 2.6 is needed by myapp-0.9.el6.noarch Here is the relevant part of my .spec file : %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")} Name: myapp Version: #VERSION# Release: #RELEASE#%{dist} Summary: myapp Group: Development/Languages License: Apache v2 Source0: %{name}-%{version}-#RELEASE#.tar.gz BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: python-devel BuildRequires: python-setuptools %description myapp %prep %setup -c %build %{__python} setup.py build %install %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} %{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot} Do I really have to use mock and build 2 rpms or is there another way to create a single generic 2.x rpm package ?

    Read the article

  • Code Behaviour via Unit Tests

    - by Dewald Galjaard
    Normal 0 false false false EN-ZA X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Some four months ago my car started acting up. Symptoms included a sputtering as my car’s computer switched between gears intermittently. Imagine building up speed, then when you reach 80km/h the car magically and mysteriously decide to switch back to third or even second gear. Clearly it was confused! I managed to track down a technician, an expert in his field to help me out. As he fitted his handheld computer to some hidden port under the dash, he started to explain “These cars are quite intelligent, you know. When they sense something is wrong they run in a restrictive program which probably account for how you managed to drive here in the first place...”  I was surprised and thought this was certainly going to be an interesting test drive. The car ran smoothly down the first couple of stretches as the technician ran through routine checks. Then he said “Ok, all looking good. We need to start testing aspects of the gearbox. Inside the gearbox there are a couple of sensors. One of them is a speed sensor which talks to the computer, which in turn will decide which gear to switch to. The restrictive program avoid these sensors altogether and allow the computer to obtain its input from other [non-affected] sources”. Then, as soon as he forced the speed sensor to come back online the symptoms and ill behaviour re-emerged... What an incredible analogy for getting into a discussion on unit testing software? Besides I should probably put my ill fortune to some good use, right? This example provide a lot of insight into how and why we should conduct unit tests when writing code. More importantly, it captures what is easily and unfortunately often the most overlooked goal of writing unit tests by those new to the art and those who oppose it alike - The goal of writing unit tests is to test the behaviour of our code under predefined conditions. Although it is very possible to test the intrinsic workings of each and every component in your code, writing several tests for each method in practise will soon prove to be an exhausting and ultimately fruitless exercise given the certain and ever changing nature of business requirements. Consequently it is true and quite possible whilst conducting proper unit tests, to call any single method several times as you examine and contemplate different scenarios. Let’s write some code to demonstrate what I mean. In my example I make use of the Moq framework and NUnit to create my tests. Truly you can use whatever you’re comfortable with. First we’ll create an ISpeedSensor interface. This is to represent the speed sensor located in the gearbox.  Then we’ll create a Gearbox class which we’ll pass to a constructor when we instantiate an object of type Computer. All three are described below.   ISpeedSensor.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {     public interface ISpeedSensor     {         int ReportCurrentSpeed();     } }   Gearbox.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {      public class Gearbox     {         private ISpeedSensor _speedSensor;           public Gearbox( ISpeedSensor gearboxSpeedSensor )         {             _speedSensor = gearboxSpeedSensor;         }         /// <summary>         /// This method obtain it's reading from the speed sensor.         /// </summary>         /// <returns></returns>         public int ReportCurrentSpeed()         {             return _speedSensor.ReportCurrentSpeed();         }     } } Computer.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {     public class Computer     {         private Gearbox _gearbox;         public Computer( Gearbox gearbox )         {                     }          public int GetCurrentSpeed()         {             return _gearbox.ReportCurrentSpeed( );         }     } } Since this post is about Unit testing, that is exactly what we’ll create next. Create a second project in your solution. I called mine AutomaticVehicleTests and I immediately referenced the respective nunit, moq and AutomaticVehicle dll’s. We’re going to write a test to examine what happens inside the Computer class. ComputerTests.cs namespace AutomaticVehicleTests {     [TestFixture]     public class ComputerTests     {         [Test]         public void Computer_Gearbox_SpeedSensor_DoesThrow()         {             // Mock ISpeedSensor in gearbox             Mock< ISpeedSensor > speedSensor = new Mock< ISpeedSensor >( );             speedSensor.Setup( n => n.ReportCurrentSpeed() ).Throws<Exception>();             Gearbox gearbox = new Gearbox( speedSensor.Object );               // Create Computer instance to test it's behaviour  towards an exception in gearbox             Computer carComputer = new Computer( gearbox );             // For simplicity let’s assume for now the car only travels at 60 km/h.             Assert.AreEqual( 60, carComputer.GetCurrentSpeed( ) );          }     } }   What is happening in this test? We have created a mocked object using the ISpeedsensor interface which we've passed to our Gearbox object. Notice that I created the mocked object using an interface, not the implementation. I’ll talk more about this in future posts but in short I do this to accentuate the fact that I'm not not really concerned with how SpeedSensor work internally at this particular point in time. Next I’ve gone ahead and created a scenario where I’ve declared the speed sensor in Gearbox to be faulty by forcing it to throw an exception should we ask Gearbox to report on its current speed. Sneaky, sneaky. This test is a simulation of how things may behave in the real world. Inevitability things break, whether it’s caused by mechanical failure, some logical error on your part or a fellow developer which didn’t consult the documentation (or the lack thereof ) - whether you’re calling a speed sensor, making a call to a database, calling a web service or just trying to write a file to disk. It’s a scenario I’ve created and this test is about how the code within the Computer instance will behave towards any such error as I’ve depicted. Now, if you’ve followed closely in my final assert method you would have noticed I did something quite unexpected. I might be getting ahead of myself now but I’m testing to see if the value returned is equal to what I expect it to be under perfect conditions – I’m not testing to see if an error has been thrown! Why is that? Well, in short this is TDD. Test Driven Development is about first writing your test to define the result we want, then to go back and change the implementation within your class to obtain the desired output (I need to make sure I can drive back to the repair shop. Remember? ) So let’s go ahead and run our test as is. It’s fails miserably... Good! Let’s go back to our Computer class and make a small change to the GetCurrentSpeed method.   Computer.cs public int GetCurrentSpeed() {   try   {     return _gearbox.ReportCurrentSpeed( );   }   catch   {     RunRestrictiveProgram( );   } }     This is a simple solution, I know, but it does provide a way to allow for different behaviour. You’re more than welcome to provide an implementation for RunRestrictiveProgram should you feel the need to. It's not within the scope of this post or related to the point I'm trying to make. What is important is to notice how the focus has shifted in our approach from how things can break - to how things behave when broken.   Happy coding!

    Read the article

  • Employee Info Starter Kit: Project Mission

    - by Mohammad Ashraful Alam
    Employee Info Starter Kit is an open source ASP.NET project template that is intended to address different types of real world challenges faced by web application developers when performing common CRUD operations. Using a single database table ‘Employee’, it illustrates how to utilize Microsoft ASP.NET 4.0, Entity Framework 4.0 and Visual Studio 2010 effectively in that context. Employee Info Starter Kit is highly influenced by the concept ‘Pareto Principle’ or 80-20 rule. where it is targeted to enable a web developer to gain 80% productivity with 20% of effort with respect to learning curve and production. User Stories The user end functionalities of this starter kit are pretty simple and straight forward that are focused in to perform CRUD operation on employee records as described below. Creating a new employee record Read existing employee record Update an existing employee record Delete existing employee records Key Technology Areas ASP.NET 4.0 Entity Framework 4.0 T-4 Template Visual Studio 2010 Architectural Objective There is no universal architecture which can be considered as the best for all sorts of applications around the world. Based on requirements, constraints, environment, application architecture can differ from one to another. Trade-off factors are one of the important considerations while deciding a particular architectural solution. Employee Info Starter Kit is highly influenced by the concept ‘Pareto Principle’ or 80-20 rule, where it is targeted to enable a web developer to gain 80% productivity with 20% of effort with respect to learning curve and production. “Productivity” as the architectural objective typically also includes other trade-off factors as well as, such as testability, flexibility, performance etc. Fortunately Microsoft .NET Framework 4.0 and Visual Studio 2010 includes lots of great features that have been implemented cleverly in this project to reduce these trade-off factors in the minimum level. Why Employee Info Starter Kit is Not a Framework? Application frameworks are really great for productivity, some of which are really unavoidable in this modern age. However relying too many frameworks may overkill a project, as frameworks are typically designed to serve wide range of different usage and are less customizable or editable. On the other hand having implementation patterns can be useful for developers, as it enables them to adjust application on demand. Employee Info Starter Kit provides hundreds of “connected” snippets and implementation patterns to demonstrate problem solutions in actual production environment. It also includes Visual Studio T-4 templates that generate thousands lines of data access and business logic layer repetitive codes in literally few seconds on the fly, which are fully mock testable due to language support for partial methods and latest support for mock testing in Entity Framework. Why Employee Info Starter Kit is Different than Other Open-source Web Applications? Software development is one of the rapid growing industries around the globe, where the technology is being updated very frequently to adapt greater challenges over time. There are literally thousands of community web sites, blogs and forums that are dedicated to provide support to adapt new technologies. While some are really great to enable learning new technologies quickly, in most cases they are either too “simple and brief” to be used in real world scenarios or too “complex and detailed” which are typically focused to achieve a product goal (such as CMS, e-Commerce etc) from "end user" perspective and have a long duration learning curve with respect to the corresponding technology. Employee Info Starter Kit, as a web project, is basically "developer" oriented which actually considers a hybrid approach as “simple and detailed”, where a simple domain has been considered to intentionally illustrate most of the architectural and implementation challenges faced by web application developers so that anyone can dive into deep into the corresponding new technology or concept quickly. Roadmap Since its first release by 2008 in MSDN Code Gallery, Employee Info Starter Kit gained a huge popularity in ASP.NET community and had 1, 50,000+ downloads afterwards. Being encouraged with this great response, we have a strong commitment for the community to provide support for it with respect to latest technologies continuously. Currently hosted in Codeplex, this community driven project is planned to have a wide range of individual editions, each of which will be focused on a selected application architecture, framework or platform, such as ASP.NET Webform, ASP.NET Dynamic Data, ASP.NET MVC, jQuery Ajax (RIA), Silverlight (RIA), Azure Service Platform (Cloud), Visual Studio Automated Test etc. See here for full list of current and future editions.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing DateTime – The Crazy Way

    - by João Angelo
    We all know that the process of unit testing code that depends on DateTime, particularly the current time provided through the static properties (Now, UtcNow and Today), it’s a PITA. If you go ask how to unit test DateTime.Now on stackoverflow I’ll bet that you’ll get two kind of answers: Encapsulate the current time in your own interface and use a standard mocking framework; Pull out the big guns like Typemock Isolator, JustMock or Microsoft Moles/Fakes and mock the static property directly. Now each alternative has is pros and cons and I would have to say that I glean more to the second approach because the first adds a layer of abstraction just for the sake of testability. However, the second approach depends on commercial tools that not every shop wants to buy or in the not so friendly Microsoft Moles. (Sidenote: Moles is now named Fakes and it will ship with VS 2012) This tends to leave people without an acceptable and simple solution so after reading another of these types of questions in SO I came up with yet another alternative, one based on the first alternative that I presented here but tries really hard to not get in your way with yet another layer of abstraction. So, without further dues, I present you, the Tardis. The Tardis is single section of conditionally compiled code that overrides the meaning of the DateTime expression inside a single class. You still get the normal coding experience of using DateTime all over the place, but in a DEBUG compilation your tests will be able to mock every static method or property of the DateTime class. An example follows, while the full Tardis code can be downloaded from GitHub: using System; using NSubstitute; using NUnit.Framework; using Tardis; public class Example { public Example() : this(string.Empty) { } public Example(string title) { #if DEBUG this.DateTime = DateTimeProvider.Default; this.Initialize(title); } internal IDateTimeProvider DateTime { get; set; } internal Example(string title, IDateTimeProvider provider) { this.DateTime = provider; #endif this.Initialize(title); } private void Initialize(string title) { this.Title = title; this.CreatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow; } private string title; public string Title { get { return this.title; } set { this.title = value; this.UpdatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow; } } public DateTime CreatedAt { get; private set; } public DateTime UpdatedAt { get; private set; } } public class TExample { public void T001() { // Arrange var tardis = Substitute.For<IDateTimeProvider>(); tardis.UtcNow.Returns(new DateTime(2000, 1, 1, 6, 6, 6)); // Act var sut = new Example("Title", tardis); // Assert Assert.That(sut.CreatedAt, Is.EqualTo(tardis.UtcNow)); } public void T002() { // Arrange var tardis = Substitute.For<IDateTimeProvider>(); var sut = new Example("Title", tardis); tardis.UtcNow.Returns(new DateTime(2000, 1, 1, 6, 6, 6)); // Act sut.Title = "Updated"; // Assert Assert.That(sut.UpdatedAt, Is.EqualTo(tardis.UtcNow)); } } This approach is also suitable for other similar classes with commonly used static methods or properties like the ConfigurationManager class.

    Read the article

  • Autofac Unit Testing using RegisterControllers()

    - by Kane
    I am having problems using Autofac 2.1.13 and writing my unit tests for my ASP.NET MV2 application. I can't seem to resolve controllers when using the RegisterControllers method. I have tried using the Resolve<() and ControllerBuilder.Current.GetControllerFactory().CreateController() methods but to no avail. I am sure that I've missed something simple here so can anyone assist? This was my first attempt at resolving the HomeController - but does not work. ContainerBuilder builder = new ContainerBuilder(); builder.RegisterControllers(typeof(HomeController).Assembly); IContainer container = builder.Build(); // Throws a Throws a A first chance exception of type 'Autofac.Core.Registration.ComponentNotRegisteredException' occurred in Autofac.dll var homeController = container.Resolve<HomeController>(); Similarly this does not work either. ContainerBuilder builder = new ContainerBuilder(); builder.RegisterControllers(typeof(HomeController).Assembly); IContainer container = builder.Build(); var containerProvider = new ContainerProvider(container); ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(new AutofacControllerFactory(containerProvider)); var request = new Mock<HttpRequestBase>(MockBehavior.Loose); request.Setup(r => r.Path).Returns("Path"); var httpContext = new Mock<HttpContextBase>(MockBehavior.Loose); httpContext.SetupGet(c => c.Request).Returns(request.Object); ControllerBuilder.Current.GetControllerFactory().CreateController(new RequestContext(httpContext.Object, new RouteData()), "home"); Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. I should note if I register my controllers without using the RegisterControllers() method my unit tests work. My question would seem to be limited to specifically using the RegisterControllers() method.

    Read the article

  • Is HttpContextWrapper all that....useful?

    - by bakasan
    I've been going through the process of cleaning up our controller code to make each action as testable. Generally speaking, this hasn't been too difficult--where we have opportunity to use a fixed object, like say FormsAuthentication, we generally introduce some form of wrapper as appropriate and be on our merry way. For reasons not particularly germaine to this conversation, when it came to dealing with usage of HttpContext, we decided to use the newly created HttpContextWrapper class rather than inventing something homegrown. One thing we did introduce was the ability to swap in a HttpContextWrapper (like say, for unit testing). This was wholly inspired by the way Oren Eini handles unit testing with DateTimes (see article, a pattern we also use) public static class FooHttpContext { public static Func<HttpContextWrapper> Current = () => new HttpContextWrapper(HttpContext.Current); public static void Reset() { Current = () => new HttpContextWrapper(HttpContext.Current); } } Nothing particularly fancy. And it works just fine in our controller code. The kicker came when we go to write unit tests. We're using Moq as our mocking framework, but alas var context = new Mock<HttpContextWrapper>() breaks since HttpContextWrapper doesn't have a parameterless ctor. And what does it take as a ctor parameter? A HttpContext object. So I find myself in a catch 22. I'm using the prescribed way to decouple HttpContext--but I can't mock a value in because the original HttpContext object was sealed and therefore difficult to test. I can map HttpContextBase, which both derive from--but that doesn't really get me what I'm after. Am I just missing the point somewhere with regard to HttpContextWrapper? I can find ways to work around the issue, but we are kind of fond of remaining consistent in decoupling using the Function delegate pattern--but it seems like we're not fully grokking intent of the wrapper.

    Read the article

  • Moq: Unable to cast to interface

    - by Pickels
    Hello, earlier today I asked this question. So since moq creates it's own class from an interface I wasn't able to cast it to a different class. So it got me wondering what if I created a ICustomPrincipal and tried to cast to that. This is how my mocks look: var MockHttpContext = new Mock<HttpContextBase>(); var MockPrincipal = new Mock<ICustomPrincipal>(); MockHttpContext.SetupGet(h => h.User).Returns(MockPrincipal.Object); In the method I am trying to test the follow code gives the error(again): var user = (ICustomPrincipal)httpContext.User; The error is the following: Unable to cast object of type 'IPrincipalProxy4081807111564298854aabfc890edcc8' to type 'MyProject.Web.ICustomPrincipal'. I guess I still need some practice with interfaces and moq but shouldn't I be able to cast the class that moq created back to ICustomPrincipal? I know httpContext.User returns an IPrincipal so maybe something gets lost there? Well if anybody can help me I would appreciate that. Pickels Edit: As requested the full code of the method I am testing. It's still not finished but this is what I have so far: public bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext) { if (httpContext == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("httpContext"); } var user = (ICustomPrincipal)httpContext.User; if (!user.Identity.IsAuthenticated) { return false; } return true; }

    Read the article

  • TDD test data loading methods

    - by Dave Hanson
    I am a TDD newb and I would like to figure out how to test the following code. I am trying to write my tests first, but I am having trouble for creating a test that touches my DataAccessor. I can't figure out how to fake it. I've done the extend the shipment class and override the Load() method; to continue testing the object. I feel as though I end up unit testing my Mock objects/stubs and not my real objects. I thought in TDD the unit tests were supposed to hit ALL of the methods on the object; however I can never seem to test that Load() code only the overriden Mock Load My tests were write an object that contains a list of orders based off of shipment number. I have an object that loads itself from the database. public class Shipment { //member variables protected List<string> _listOfOrders = new List<string>(); protected string _id = "" //public properties public List<string> ListOrders { get{ return _listOfOrders; } } public Shipment(string id) { _id = id; Load(); } //PROBLEM METHOD // whenever I write code that needs this Shipment object, this method tries // to hit the DB and fubars my tests // the only way to get around is to have all my tests run on a fake Shipment object. protected void Load() { _listOfOrders = DataAccessor.GetOrders(_id); } } I create my fake shipment class to test the rest of the classes methods .I can't ever test the Real load method without having an actual DB connection public class FakeShipment : Shipment { protected new void Load() { _listOfOrders = new List<string>(); } } Any thoughts? Please advise. Dave

    Read the article

  • Creating Dependencies Only to be able to Unit Test

    - by arin
    I just created a Manager that deals with a SuperClass that is extended all over the code base and registered with some sort of SuperClassManager (SCM). Now I would like to test my Manager that is aware of only the SuperClass. I tried to create a concrete SCM, however, that depends on a third party library and therefore I failed to do that in my jUnit test. Now the option is to mock all instances of this SCM. All is good until now, however, when my Manager deals with the SCM, it returns children of the SuperClass that my Manager does not know or care about. Nevertheless, the identities of these children are vital for my tests (for equality, etc.). Since I cannot use the concrete SCM, I have to mock the results of calls to the appropriate functions of the SCM, however, this means that my tests and therefore my Manager need to know and care about the children of the SuperClass. Checking the code base, there does not seem to be a more appropriate location for my test (that already maintains the appropriate real dependencies). Is it worth it to introduce unnecessary dependencies for the sake of unit testing?

    Read the article

  • Trouble getting started with Spring Roo and GWT

    - by Abdel Olakara
    Hi all, I am trying to get started with SpringRoo and GWT after seeing the keynote.. unfortunately I am stuck at this issue. I successfully created the project using Roo and added the persistence, the entities and when I perform the command "perform package" I get this error: 23/5/10 12:10:13 AM AST: [ERROR] ApplicationEntityTypesProcessor cannot be resolved 23/5/10 12:10:13 AM AST: [ERROR] ApplicationEntityTypesProcessor cannot be resolved to a type 23/5/10 12:10:13 AM AST: [WARN] advice defined in org.springframework.mock.staticmock.AnnotationDrivenStaticEntityMockingControl has not been applied [Xlint:adviceDidNotMatch] 23/5/10 12:10:13 AM AST: [WARN] advice defined in org.springframework.mock.staticmock.AbstractMethodMockingControl has not been applied [Xlint:adviceDidNotMatch] 23/5/10 12:10:13 AM AST: Build errors for helloroo; org.apache.maven.lifecycle.LifecycleExecutionException: Failed to execute goal org.codehaus.mojo:aspectj-maven-plugin:1.0:compile (default) on project helloroo: Compiler errors : error at import tp.gwt.request.ApplicationEntityTypesProcessor; I see this in the Maven console and cannot complete the build..I know there is some jar missing but how and why? because I downloaded all the latest version including GWT milestone release. Any idea why this error is occurring? How do I resolve this issue? Thanks in Advance, Abdel Olakara

    Read the article

  • How do I unit test a finalizer?

    - by GraemeF
    I have the following class which is a decorator for an IDisposable object (I have omitted the stuff it adds) which itself implements IDisposable using a common pattern: public class DisposableDecorator : IDisposable { private readonly IDisposable _innerDisposable; public DisposableDecorator(IDisposable innerDisposable) { _innerDisposable = innerDisposable; } #region IDisposable Members public void Dispose() { Dispose(true); GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } #endregion ~DisposableDecorator() { Dispose(false); } protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) { if (disposing) _innerDisposable.Dispose(); } } I can easily test that innerDisposable is disposed when Dispose() is called: [Test] public void Dispose__DisposesInnerDisposable() { var mockInnerDisposable = new Mock<IDisposable>(); new DisposableDecorator(mockInnerDisposable.Object).Dispose(); mockInnerDisposable.Verify(x => x.Dispose()); } But how do I write a test to make sure innerDisposable does not get disposed by the finalizer? I want to write something like this but it fails, presumably because the finalizer hasn't been called by the GC thread: [Test] public void Finalizer__DoesNotDisposeInnerDisposable() { var mockInnerDisposable = new Mock<IDisposable>(); new DisposableDecorator(mockInnerDisposable.Object); GC.Collect(); mockInnerDisposable.Verify(x => x.Dispose(), Times.Never()); }

    Read the article

  • NMock2.0 - how to stub a non interface call?

    - by dferraro
    Hello, I have a class API which has full code coverage and uses DI to mock out all the logic in the main class function (Job.Run) which does all the work. I found a bug in production where we werent doing some validation on one of the data input fields. So, I added a stub function called ValidateFoo()... Wrote a unit test against this function to Expect a JobFailedException, ran the test - it failed obviously because that function was empty. I added the validation logic, and now the test passes. Great, now we know the validation works. Problem is - how do I write the test to make sure that ValidateFoo() is actually called inside Job.Run()? ValidateFoo() is a private method of the Job class - so it's not an interface... Is there anyway to do this with NMock2.0? I know TypeMock supports fakes of non interface types. But changing mock libs right now is not an option. At this point if NMock can't support it, I will simply just add the ValidateFoo() call to the Run() method and test things manually - which obviously I'd prefer not to do considering my Job.Run() method has 100% coverage right now. Any Advice? Thanks very much it is appreciated. EDIT: the other option I have in mind is to just create an integration test for my Job.Run functionality (injecting to it true implementations of the composite objects instead of mocks). I will give it a bad input value for that field and then validate that the job failed. This works and covers my test - but it's not really a unit test but instead an integration test that tests one unit of functionality.... hmm.. EDIT2: IS there any way to do tihs? Anyone have ideas? Maybe TypeMock - or a better design?

    Read the article

  • Mocking an object that uses jni using EasyMock

    - by Visage
    So my class under test has code that looks braodly like this public void doSomething(int param) { Report report = new Report() ...do some calculations report.someMethod(someData) } my intention was to extract the construction of report into a protected method and override it to use a mock object that I could then test to ensure that someMethod had been called with the right data. So far so good. But Report isnt under my control, and to mkae things worse it uses JNI to load a library at runtime. If I do Report report = EasyMock.createMock(Report.class) then EasyMock attempts to use reflection to find out the class members, but this causes an attempt to load the JNI library, which fails (the JNI libraries are only available on UNIX). Im considering two things: a) Introduce a ReportWrapper interface with two implementations, one of which will delegate calls to an real Report (so basically a Proxy), and a second which will basically use a mock object. or b) instead of calling someMethod, call a protected method which will in turn call someMethod that I can override in a testing subclass. Either way it seems nasty. Any better ways?

    Read the article

  • Spring Stripes framework problem

    - by ali
    I am new to stripes and am attempting to integrate spring into stripes In the following code : public class ContactFormActionBeanTest { private static MockServletContext mockServletContext; private static MockHttpSession mockSession; @BeforeClass public static void setup() throws Exception { mockServletContext = new MockServletContext("webmail"); Map<String,String> params = new HashMap<String,String>(); params.put("ActionResolver.Packages", "stripesbook.action"); params.put("Extension.Packages", "stripesbook.ext," + "net.sourceforge.stripes.integration.spring"); mockServletContext.addFilter(StripesFilter.class, "StripesFilter", params); mockServletContext.setServlet(DispatcherServlet.class, "DispatcherServlet", null); mockSession = new MockHttpSession(mockServletContext); mockServletContext.addInitParameter("contextConfigLocation", "/WEB-INF/applicationContext-test.xml"); ContextLoaderListener springContextLoader = new ContextLoaderListener(); springContextLoader.contextInitialized( new ServletContextEvent(mockServletContext)); // Load mock user MockRoundtrip trip = new MockRoundtrip(mockServletContext, MockDataLoaderActionBean.class, mockSession); trip.execute(); // Login mock user trip = new MockRoundtrip(mockServletContext, LoginActionBean.class, mockSession); trip.setParameter("username", "freddy"); trip.setParameter("password", "nadia"); trip.execute("login"); } I get null in springContextLoader ContextLoaderListener springContextLoader = new ContextLoaderListener(); and test fails. Am I missing something? I am using eclipse with maven. Also when I try to deploy it for tomcat 6.0 I get following warnings: WARN net.sourceforge.stripes.util.ResolverUtil - Could not examine class 'stripesbook/ext/ContactFormatter.class' due to a java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError with message: Bad version number in .class file (unable to load class stripesbook.ext.ContactFormatter) I have checked to be sure that I am compiling with Java 5(set JDK compiler to 1.5) instead of 1.6 (Java 6); but didn't work out for me and still have problems running spring-stripes integrated project.

    Read the article

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