Search Results

Search found 544 results on 22 pages for 'tdd'.

Page 13/22 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

• What Test Environment Setup do Top Project Committers Use in the Ruby Community?

  - by viatropos

  Today I am going to get as far as I can setting up my testing environment and workflow. I'm looking for practical advice on how to setup the test environment from you guys who are very passionate and versed in Ruby Testing. By the end of the day (6am PST?) I would like to be able to: Type one 1-command to run test suites for ANY project I find on Github. Run autotest for ANY Github project so I can fork and make TESTABLE contributions. Build gems from the ground up with Autotest and Shoulda. For one reason or another, I hardly ever run tests for projects I clone from Github. The major reason is because unless they're using RSpec and have a Rake task to run the tests, I don't see the common pattern behind it all. I have built 3 or 4 gems writing tests with RSpec, and while I find the DSL fun, it's less than ideal because it just adds another layer/language of methods I have to learn and remember. So I'm going with Shoulda. But this isn't a question about which testing framework to choose. So the questions are: What is your, the SO reader and Github project committer, test environment setup using autotest so that whenever you git clone a gem, you can run the tests and autotest-develop them if desired? What are the guys who are writing the Paperclip Tests and Authlogic Tests doing? What is their setup? Thanks for the insight. Looking for answers that will make me a more effective tester.

  Read the article

• Visual Studio 2010 and Test Driven Development

  - by devoured elysium

  I'm making my first steps in Test Driven Development with Visual Studio. I have some questions regarding how to implement generic classes with VS 2010. First, let's say I want to implement my own version of an ArrayList. I start by creating the following test (I'm using in this case MSTest): [TestMethod] public void Add_10_Items_Remove_10_Items_Check_Size_Is_Zero() { var myArrayList = new MyArrayList<int>(); for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { myArrayList.Add(i); } for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { myArrayList.RemoveAt(0); } int expected = 0; int actual = myArrayList.Size; Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); } I'm using VS 2010 ability to hit ctrl + . and have it implement classes/methods on the go. I have been getting some trouble when implementing generic classes. For example, when I define an .Add(10) method, VS doesn't know if I intend a generic method(as the class is generic) or an Add(int number) method. Is there any way to differentiate this? The same can happen with return types. Let's assume I'm implementing a MyStack stack and I want to test if after I push and element and pop it, the stack is still empty. We all know pop should return something, but usually, the code of this test shouldn't care for it. Visual Studio would then think that pop is a void method, which in fact is not what one would want. How to deal with this? For each method, should I start by making tests that are "very specific" such as is obvious the method should return something so I don't get this kind of ambiguity? Even if not using the result, should I have something like int popValue = myStack.Pop() ? How should I do tests to generic classes? Only test with one generic kind of type? I have been using ints, as they are easy to use, but should I also test with different kinds of objects? How do you usually approach this? I see there is a popular tool called TestDriven for .NET. With VS 2010 release, is it still useful, or a lot of its features are now part of VS 2010, rendering it kinda useless? Thanks

  Read the article

• Best practices for multiple asserts on same result in C#

  - by asdseee

  What do you think is cleanest way of doing multiple asserts on a result? In the past I've put them all the same test but this is starting to feel a little dirty, I've just been playing with another idea using setup. [TestFixture] public class GridControllerTests { protected readonly string RequestedViewId = "A1"; protected GridViewModel Result { get; set;} [TestFixtureSetUp] public void Get_UsingStaticSettings_Assign() { var dataRepository = new XmlRepository("test.xml"); var settingsRepository = new StaticViewSettingsRepository(); var controller = new GridController(dataRepository, settingsRepository); this.Result = controller.Get(RequestedViewId); } [Test] public void Get_UsingStaticSettings_NotNull() { Assert.That(this.Result,Is.Not.Null); } [Test] public void Get_UsingStaticSettings_HasData() { Assert.That(this.Result.Data,Is.Not.Null); Assert.That(this.Result.Data.Count,Is.GreaterThan(0)); } [Test] public void Get_UsingStaticSettings_IdMatches() { Assert.That(this.Result.State.ViewId,Is.EqualTo(RequestedViewId)); } [Test] public void Get_UsingStaticSettings_FirstTimePageIsOne() { Assert.That(this.Result.State.CurrentPage, Is.EqualTo(1)); } }

  Read the article

• What's the state of PHP unit testing frameworks in 2010?

  - by Pekka

  As far as I can see, PHPUnit is the only serious product in the field at the moment. It is widely used, is integrated into Continuous Integration suites like phpUnderControl, and well regarded. The thing is, I don't really like working with PHPUnit. I find it hard to set up (PEAR is the only officially supported installation method, and I hate PEAR), sometimes complicated to work with and, correct me if I'm wrong, lacking executability from a web page context (i.e. no CLI, which would really be nice when developing a web app.) The only competition to I can see is Simpletest, which looks very nice but hasn't seen a new release for almost two years, which tends to rule it out for me - Unit Testing is quite a static field, true, but as I will be deploying those tests alongside web applications, I would like to see active development on the project, at least for security updates and such. There is a SO question that pretty much confirms what I'm saying: Simple test vs PHPunit Seeing that that is almost two years old as well, though, I think it's time to ask again: Does anybody know any other serious feature-complete unit testing frameworks? Am I wrong in my criticism of PHPUnit? Is there still development going on for SimpleTest?

  Read the article

• Unit Testing: hard dependency MessageBox.Show()

  - by Sean B

  What ways can the SampleConfirmationDialog be unit tested? The SampleConfirmationDialog would be exercised via acceptance tests, however how could we unit test it, seeing as MessageBox is not abstract and no matching interface? public interface IConfirmationDialog { /// <summary> /// Confirms the dialog with the user /// </summary> /// <returns>True if confirmed, false if not, null if cancelled</returns> bool? Confirm(); } /// <summary> /// Implementation of a confirmation dialog /// </summary> public class SampleConfirmationDialog : IConfirmationDialog { /// <summary> /// Confirms the dialog with the user /// </summary> /// <returns>True if confirmed, false if not, null if cancelled</returns> public bool? Confirm() { return MessageBox.Show("do operation x?", "title", MessageBoxButton.YesNo, MessageBoxImage.Question) == MessageBoxResult.Yes; } }

  Read the article

• How do I unit test the methods in a method object?

  - by Sancho

  I've performed the "Replace Method with Method Object" refactoring described by Beck. Now, I have a class with a "run()" method and a bunch of member functions that decompose the computation into smaller units. How do I test those member functions? My first idea is that my unit tests be basically copies of the "run()" method (with different initializations), but with assertions between each call to the member functions to check the state of the computation. (I'm using Python and the unittest module.)

  Read the article

• Detect if Visual Studio Test is running

  - by RTigger

  Is there an easy way to detect if you're running in the context of a Visual Studio Test as opposed to debug or release? Here's the scenario - we have a factory class that we use heavily throughout our existing codebase, and I figured instead of refactoring it out in each class so we can substitute the default factory with one that would return mock/fake objects, I could add something in the factory class itself to return those mock objects if it detects it's running in "test" mode.

  Read the article

• Python unittest: Generate multiple tests programmatically?

  - by Rosarch

  I have a function to test, under_test, and a set of expected input/output pairs: [ (2, 332), (234, 99213), (9, 3), # ... ] I would like each one of these input/output pairs to be tested in its own test_* method. Is that possible? This is sort of what I want, but forcing every single input/output pair into a single test: class TestPreReqs(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.expected_pairs = [(23, 55), (4, 32)] def test_expected(self): for exp in self.expected_pairs: self.assertEqual(under_test(exp[0]), exp[1]) if __name__ == '__main__': unittest.main()

  Read the article

• Passing System classes as constructor parameters

  - by mcl

  This is probably crazy. I want to take the idea of Dependency Injection to extremes. I have isolated all System.IO-related behavior into a single class so that I can mock that class in my other classes and thereby relieve my larger suite of unit tests of the burden of worrying about the actual file system. But the File IO class I end up with can only be tested with integration tests, which-- of course-- introduces complexity I don't really want to deal with when all I really want to do is make sure my FileIO class calls the correct System.IO stuff. I don't need to integration test System.IO. My FileIO class is doing more than simply wrapping System.IO functions, every now and then it does contain some logic (maybe this is the problem?). So what I'd like is to be able to test my File IO class to ensure that it makes the correct system calls by mocking the System.IO classes themselves. Ideally this would be as easy as having a constructor like so: public FileIO( System.IO.Directory directory, System.IO.File file, System.IO.FileStream fileStream ) { this.Directory = directory; this.File = file; this.FileStream = fileStream; } And then calling in methods like: public GetFilesInFolder(string folderPath) { return this.Directory.GetFiles(folderPath) } But this doesn't fly since the System.IO classes in question are static classes. As far as I can tell they can neither be instantiated in this way or subclassed for the purposes of mocking.

  Read the article

• Cannot debug tests using Resharper

  - by Mike

  Hi, I'm not able to debug my tests using Resharper-Debug option in my project. I have seen this issue raised by lots of people, but has't come across a solid suggestion which solves my issue. The strange thing is that, if I create a sample project and write a simple unit test, I'm able to debug it without any issues.However when I try to do this in my current project, it simply throws a dialog box saying "Cannot Launch Debugger".I have checked this with my peers, and they does't face this issue :( Also I don't have any issues while running the test. It's an XP machine and following is the version of resharper: JetBrains ReSharper 5.1 C# Edition Build 5.1.1753.4 on 2010-10-15T15:51:30 Licensed to: XXXXXXX Plugins: none. Visual Studio 9.0.21022.8. Copyright © 2003–2011 JetBrains s.r.o.. All rights reserved. Thanks, -M

  Read the article

• Code generation tool, to create C# adapter classes for unit testing?

  - by RyBolt

  I know I wouldn't need this with Typemock, however, with something like MoQ , I need to use the adapter pattern to enable the creation of mocks via interfaces for code I don't control. For example, TcpClient is a .NET class, so I use adapter pattern to enable mocking of this object, b/c I need an interface of that class. I then produce interface ITcpClient, that can then be implemented via a TcpClientAdapter class, which is just plain vanilla adapter pattern implementation. I am looking for a tool to do this automatically (creation of interface and adapter), I would think there is one out there somewhere? (or is everyone just hand coding these)

  Read the article

• Writing an OS for Motorola 68K processor. Can I emulate it? And can I test-drive OS development?

  - by ulver

  Next term, I'll need to write a basic operating system for Motorola 68K processor as part of a course lab material. Is there a Linux emulator of a basic hardware setup with that processor? So my partners and I can debug quicker on our computers instead of physically restarting the board and stuff. Is it possible to apply test-driven development technique to OS development? Code will be mostly assembly and C. What will be the main difficulties with trying to test-drive this? Any advice on how to do it?

  Read the article

• how can protected members of base class be accessed during unit test?

  - by amateur

  I am creating a unit test in mstest with rhino mocks. I have a class A that inherits class B. I am testing class A and create an instance of it for my test. The class it inherits, "B", has some protected methods and protected properties that I would like to access for the benefit of my tests. For example, validate that a protected property on my base class has the expected value. Any ideas how I might access these protected properties of class B during my test?

  Read the article

• Where to start with the development of first database driven Web App (long question)?

  - by Ryan

  Hi all, I've decided to develop a database driven web app, but I'm not sure where to start. The end goal of the project is three-fold: 1) to learn new technologies and practices, 2) deliver an unsolicited demo to management that would show how information that the company stores as office documents spread across a cumbersome network folder structure can be consolidated and made easier to access and maintain and 3) show my co-workers how Test Drive Development and prototyping via class diagrams can be very useful and reduces future maintenance headaches. I think this ends up being a basic CMS to which I have generated a set of features, see below. 1) Create a database to store the site structure (organized as a tree with a 'project group'-project structure). 2) Pull the site structure from the database and display as a tree using basic front end technologies. 3) Add administrator privileges/tools for modifying the site structure. 4) Auto create required sub pages* when an admin adds a new project. 4.1) There will be several sub pages under each project and the content for each sub page is different. 5) add user privileges for assigning read and write privileges to sub pages. What I would like to do is use Test Driven Development and class diagramming as part of my process for developing this project. My problem; I'm not sure where to start. I have read on Unit Testing and UML, but never used them in practice. Also, having never worked with databases before, how to I incorporate these items into the models and test units? Thank you all in advance for your expertise.

  Read the article

• NUnit [Test] is not a valid attribute

  - by tyndall

  I've included the necessary assemblies into a Windows Class project in VS2008. When I start to try to write a test I get a red squiggle line and the message [Test] is not a valid attribute. I've used NUnit before... maybe an earlier version. What am I doing wrong? I'm on version 2.5.2. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using NUnit; using NUnit.Core; using NUnit.Framework; namespace AccessPoint.Web.Test { public class LoginTests { [Test] public void CanLogin() { } } }

  Read the article

• How do you unit test private methods?

  - by Eric Labashosky

  I'm building a class library that will have some public & private methods. I want to be able to unit test the private methods (mostly while developing, but also it could be useful for future refactoring). What is the best way to do this?

  Read the article

• Best way to make an attribute always an array?

  - by Shadowfirebird

  I'm using my MOO project to teach myself Test Driven Design, and it's taking me interesting places. For example, I wrote a test that said an attribute on a particular object should always return an array, so -- t = Thing.new("test") p t.names #-> ["test"] t.names = nil p t.names #-> [] The code I have for this is okay, but it doesn't seem terribly ruby to me: class Thing def initialize(names) self.names = names end def names=(n) n = [] if n.nil? n = [n] unless n.instance_of?(Array) @names = n end attr_reader :names end Is there a more elegant, Ruby-ish way of doing this? (NB: if anyone wants to tell me why this is a dumb test to write, that would be interesting too...)

  Read the article

• How to test that action uses argument?

  - by Caster Troy

  I am supposed to be using test-driven development but in this particular case, as I am having trouble, I implemented the action method first. It looks like this: public ViewResult Index(int pageNumber = 1) { var posts = repository.All(); var model = new PagedList<Post>(posts, pageNumber, PageSize); return View(model); } Both the repository and the PagedList<> have been tested already. Now I want to verify that when the action is given a page number that the page number is actually considered. private Mock<IPostsRepository> repository; private HomeController controller; [Test] public void Index_Doohickey() { var actual = controller.Index(2); // .. How do I test that the controller actually uses the page number here? }

  Read the article

• Disadvantages of Test Driven Development?

  - by IanL

  What do I lose by adopting test driven design? List only negatives; do not list benefits written in a negative form.

  Read the article

• Mock implementations in C++

  - by forneo

  Hi guys, I need a mock implementation of a class - for testing purposes - and I'm wondering how I should best go about doing that. I can think of two general ways: Create an interface that contains all public functions of the class as pure virtual functions, then create a mock class by deriving from it. Mark all functions (well, at least all that are to be mocked) as virtual. I'm used to doing it the first way in Java, and it's quite common too (probably since they have a dedicated interface type). But I've hardly ever seen such interface-heavy designs in C++, thus I'm wondering. The second way will probably work, but I can't help but think of it as kind of ugly. Is anybody doing that? If I follow the first way, I need some naming assistance. I have an audio system that is responsible for loading sound files and playing the loaded tracks. I'm using OpenAL for that, thus I've called the interface "Audio" and the implementation "OpenALAudio". However, this implies that all OpenAL-specific code has to go into that class, which feels kind of limiting. An alternative would be to leave the class' name "Audio" and find a different one for the interface, e.g. "AudioInterface" or "IAudio". Which would you suggest, and why?

  Read the article

• How would you TDD the functionality of getting the corresponding process of a running windows service?

  - by Matt Spinelli

  Purpose Over the last year or more I've been learning unit testing via books I've read recently like The Art of Unit Testing, Working Effectively with Legacy Code, and others. I've also been using unit tests, mocking frameworks, and the like, periodically at work and definitely see the value. However, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around TDD (as opposed to TAD) when the situation calls for code that is gong to mostly use external API calls. Problem to solve Get the process associated with a windows service using the service name. example: Function GetProcess(ByVal serviceName As String) As Process Rules Show each major iteration in production & test code using TDD No need to see any other code or configuration that is required to get things to run. Just curious about the interfaces, concrete classes, and test methods. C# or VB.NET Must use the .Net framework regarding services/processes (i.e. System.Diagnostics.Process) Test Frameworks: Nunit or MSTest Isolation Frameworks: Moq, Rhino Mock, or Microsoft Moles Must write true unit tests (no integration tests) Additional notes As far as I can tell there are two approaches design wise. Use an Inversion of Control approach along with using the Adapter and/or Facade patterns to wrap the underlying .net framework objects dealing with processes and services. Keep the .net framework code in the class containing the Get Process method and use code detouring (interception) via Microsoft Moles to isolate the hard dependencies from the method under test.

  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

• Why are MVC & TDD not employed more in game architecture?

  - by secoif

  I will preface this by saying I haven't looked a huge amount of game source, nor built much in the way of games. But coming from trying to employ 'enterprise' coding practices in web apps, looking at game source code seriously hurts my head: "What is this view logic doing in with business logic? this needs refactoring... so does this, refactor, refactorrr" This worries me as I'm about to start a game project, and I'm not sure whether trying to mvc/tdd the dev process is going to hinder us or help us, as I don't see many game examples that use this or much push for better architectural practices it in the community. The following is an extract from a great article on prototyping games, though to me it seemed exactly the attitude many game devs seem to use when writing production game code: Mistake #4: Building a system, not a game ...if you ever find yourself working on something that isn’t directly moving your forward, stop right there. As programmers, we have a tendency to try to generalize our code, and make it elegant and be able to handle every situation. We find that an itch terribly hard not scratch, but we need to learn how. It took me many years to realize that it’s not about the code, it’s about the game you ship in the end. Don’t write an elegant game component system, skip the editor completely and hardwire the state in code, avoid the data-driven, self-parsing, XML craziness, and just code the damned thing. ... Just get stuff on the screen as quickly as you can. And don’t ever, ever, use the argument “if we take some extra time and do this the right way, we can reuse it in the game”. EVER. is it because games are (mostly) visually oriented so it makes sense that the code will be weighted heavily in the view, thus any benefits from moving stuff out to models/controllers, is fairly minimal, so why bother? I've heard the argument that MVC introduces a performance overhead, but this seems to me to be a premature optimisation, and that there'd more important performance issues to tackle before you worry about MVC overheads (eg render pipeline, AI algorithms, datastructure traversal, etc). Same thing regarding TDD. It's not often I see games employing test cases, but perhaps this is due to the design issues above (mixed view/business) and the fact that it's difficult to test visual components, or components that rely on probablistic results (eg operate within physics simulations). Perhaps I'm just looking at the wrong source code, but why do we not see more of these 'enterprise' practices employed in game design? Are games really so different in their requirements, or is a people/culture issue (ie game devs come from a different background and thus have different coding habits)?

  Read the article

• A TDD Journey: 3- Mocks vs. Stubs; Test Frameworks; Assertions; ReSharper Accelerators

  Test-Driven Development (TDD) involves the repetition of a very short development cycle that begins with an initially-failing test that defines the required functionality, and ends with producing the minimum amount of code to pass that test, and finally refactoring the new code. Michael Sorens continues his introduction to TDD that is more of a journey in six parts, by implementing the first tests and introducing the topics of Test doubles; Test Runners, Constraints and assertions

  Read the article

• Is the difference between BDD and TDD nothing more than a vocabulary shift?

  - by Desolate Planet

  Hello, I recently made a start on learning BDD (Behaviour Driven Development) after watching a Google tech talk presented by David Astels. He made a very interesting case for using BDD and some of the literature I've read seem to highlight that it's easier to sell BDD to management. Admittedly, I'm a little skeptical about BDD after watching the above video. So, I'm interested to understand if BDD is indeed nothing more than a change in vocabulary or if it offers other benefits.

  Read the article

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