Search Results

Search found 13748 results on 550 pages for 'split testing'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 133/550 | < Previous Page | 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140  | Next Page >

  • Attribute to skip over statement in unit test c#

    - by Eli Perpinyal
    I am looking to skip a certain statement in my unit tests eg: if (MessageBox.Show("Are you sure you want to remove " + contact.CompanyName + " from the contacts?", "Confirm Delete", MessageBoxButton.YesNo, MessageBoxImage.Question, MessageBoxResult.Yes) == MessageBoxResult.Yes) is there an attribute i can place above the statement to avoid the unit test executing it?

    Read the article

  • Running single integration test quickly in Grails

    - by Prakash
    Is it possible to quickly run single/all integration test in a class quickly in Grails. The test-app comes with heavy baggage of clearing of all compiled files and generating cobertura reports hence even if we run single integration test, the entire code base is compiled,instrumented and the cobertura report is getting generated. For our application this takes more than 2 minutes. If it was possible to quickly run one integration test and get a rapid feedbck, it would be immensely helpful. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Boost.Test: Looking for a working non-Trivial Test Suite Example / Tutorial

    - by Robert S. Barnes
    The Boost.Test documentation and examples don't really seem to contain any non-trivial examples and so far the two tutorials I've found here and here while helpful are both fairly basic. I would like to have a master test suite for the entire project, while maintaining per module suites of unit tests and fixtures that can be run independently. I'll also be using a mock server to test various networking edge cases. I'm on Ubuntu 8.04, but I'll take any example Linux or Windows since I'm writing my own makefiles anyways.

    Read the article

  • Rails test across multiple environments

    - by DSimon
    Is there some way to change Rails environments mid-way through a test? Or, alternately, what would be the right way to set up a test suite that can start up Rails in one environment, run the first half of my test in it, then restart Rails in another environment to finish the test? The two environments have separate databases. Some necessary context: I'm writing a Rails plugin that allows multiple installations of a Rails app to communicate with each other with user assistance, so that a user without Internet access can still use the app. They'll run a local version of an app, and upload their work to the online app by saving a file to a thumbdrive and taking it to an Internet cafe. The plugin adds two special environments to Rails: "offline-production" and "offline-test". I want to write functional tests that involve both the "test" and "offline-test" environments, to represent the main online version of the app and the local offline version of the app respectively.

    Read the article

  • Test-driven Development: Writing tests for private / protected variables

    - by Chetan
    I'm learning TDD, and I have a question about private / protected variables. My question is: If a function I want to test is operating on a private variable, how should I test it? Here is the example I'm working with: I have a class called Table that contains an instance variable called internalRepresentation that is a 2D array. I want to create a function called multiplyValuesByN that multiplies all the values in the 2D array by the argument n. So I write the test for it (in Python): def test_multiplyValuesByN (self): t = Table(3, 3) # 3x3 table, filled with 0's t.set(0, 0, 4) # Set value at position (0,0) to 4 t.multiplyValuesByN(3) assertEqual(t.internalRepresentation, [[12, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0]]) Now, if I make internalRepresentation private or protected, this test will not work. How am I supposed to write the test so it doesn't depend on internalRepresentation but still tests that it looks correct after calling multiplyValuesByN?

    Read the article

  • How to run a recorded (HTML) selenium test from .NET

    - by Gaspar Nagy
    I run Selenium tests with Selenium RC from .NET (c#). In some cases, I would like to keep the test case source as HTML (to be able to modify it from Selenium IDE), but I would like to run/include these tests from my c# unit tests. Maybe it is obvious, but I can't find the API method in the Selenium Core to achieve this. Any idea how to do that? (I think the "includePartial" command in Selenium on Rails does the thing that I would need, but for c#.)

    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

  • Is there a way to extract the message from a JavaScript dialog in Chrome?

    - by Samuel
    I’ve been working on an extension for automating tests in Chrome, and I came across an obscure issue with JavaScript dialogs. The message shown in the dialog can’t be readily retrieved/copied. I’ve used the GetWindowText and InternalGetWindowText functions, but they only return the title of the dialog and the text from the buttons, not the actual message itself. I even looked at programs that extract text from forms, but no luck. So does anyone know of a way to retrieve the text from these JavaScript dialogs in Chrome?

    Read the article

  • Is there a Java unit-test framework that auto-tests getters and setters?

    - by Michael Easter
    There is a well-known debate in Java (and other communities, I'm sure) whether or not trivial getter/setter methods should be tested. Usually, this is with respect to code coverage. Let's agree that this is an open debate, and not try to answer it here. There have been several blog posts on using Java reflection to auto-test such methods. Does any framework (e.g. jUnit) provide such a feature? e.g. An annotation that says "this test T should auto-test all the getters/setters on class C, because I assert that they are standard". It seems to me that it would add value, and if it were configurable, the 'debate' would be left as an option to the user.

    Read the article

  • Using fixtures with factory_girl

    - by deb
    When building the following factory: Factory.define :user do |f| f.sequence(:name) { |n| "foo#{n}" } f.resume_type_id { ResumeType.first.id } end ResumeType.first returns nil and I get an error. ResumeType records are loaded via fixtures. I checked using the console and the entries are there, the table is not empty. I've found a similar example in the factory_girl mailing list, and it's supposed to work. What am I missing? Do I have to somehow tell factory_girl to set up the fixtures before running the tests?

    Read the article

  • Simulating interaction between two users in Jmeter

    - by Victoria
    I have to register two users and simulate interaction between them (for example, a conversation). I can do the following: register the first user, then register the second, sign in using first user's data, write message to the second user and sign out. Then sign in using the second user's data, answer to the message and sign out. Is it possible to implement users' conversation without signing out if the system requires enabled cookies for users?

    Read the article

  • How to know if your Unit Test is "right-sized"?

    - by leeand00
    One thing that I've always noticed with my unit tests is that they get to be kind of verbose; seeing as they could also be not verbose enough, how do you get a sense of when your unit tests are the right size? I know of a good quote for this and it's: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to remove." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

    Read the article

  • Why does this Assert fail?

    - by Peter Goras
    IEnumerable<ReportReceipt> expected = new List<ReportReceipt>() { new ReportReceipt("fileName1","Hash1","some comments1") }; IEnumerable<ReportReceipt> actual = new List<ReportReceipt>() { new ReportReceipt("fileName1","Hash1","some comments1") }; Assert.IsTrue(expected.SequenceEqual(actual)); I'm running MSTest with VS 2008.

    Read the article

  • VIsual Studio 2010 Web Performance Test / Load tests / Coded UI Tests. ANYONE REALLY USE THESE?

    - by punkouter
    I can find some articles on how to use them but I can't seem to find anywhere peoples impression of them using them in real projects. I have been trying to figure out how to use them and Ive had alot of problems.. Can someone out there who uses these tools on the job give me thier impression? Are there better alternate tools available? Using these really just a waste of time ? With Coded UI Tests I see how they are good for basic javascript checking but its so basic of a example I don't think it is worth it. With web tests I like how they work but when I activate code coverage/ASP.NET profiling it doesnt work half the time.

    Read the article

  • When mocking a class with Moq, how can I CallBase for just specific methods?

    - by Daryn
    I really appreciate Moq's Loose mocking behaviour that returns default values when no expectations are set. It's convenient and saves me code, and it also acts as a safety measure: dependencies won't get unintentionally called during the unit test (as long as they are virtual). However, I'm confused about how to keep these benefits when the method under test happens to be virtual. In this case I do want to call the real code for that one method, while still having the rest of the class loosely mocked. All I have found in my searching is that I could set mock.CallBase = true to ensure that the method gets called. However, that affects the whole class. I don't want to do that because it puts me in a dilemma about all the other properties and methods in the class that hide call dependencies: if CallBase is true then I have to either Setup stubs for all of the properties and methods that hide dependencies -- Even though my test doesn't think it needs to care about those dependencies, or Hope that I don't forget to Setup any stubs (and that no new dependencies get added to the code in the future) -- Risk unit tests hitting a real dependency. Q: With Moq, is there any way to test a virtual method, when I mocked the class to stub just a few dependencies? I.e. Without resorting to CallBase=true and having to stub all of the dependencies? Example code to illustrate (uses MSTest, InternalsVisibleTo DynamicProxyGenAssembly2) In the following example, TestNonVirtualMethod passes, but TestVirtualMethod fails - returns null. public class Foo { public string NonVirtualMethod() { return GetDependencyA(); } public virtual string VirtualMethod() { return GetDependencyA();} internal virtual string GetDependencyA() { return "! Hit REAL Dependency A !"; } // [... Possibly many other dependencies ...] internal virtual string GetDependencyN() { return "! Hit REAL Dependency N !"; } } [TestClass] public class UnitTest1 { [TestMethod] public void TestNonVirtualMethod() { var mockFoo = new Mock<Foo>(); mockFoo.Setup(m => m.GetDependencyA()).Returns(expectedResultString); string result = mockFoo.Object.NonVirtualMethod(); Assert.AreEqual(expectedResultString, result); } [TestMethod] public void TestVirtualMethod() // Fails { var mockFoo = new Mock<Foo>(); mockFoo.Setup(m => m.GetDependencyA()).Returns(expectedResultString); // (I don't want to setup GetDependencyB ... GetDependencyN here) string result = mockFoo.Object.VirtualMethod(); Assert.AreEqual(expectedResultString, result); } string expectedResultString = "Hit mock dependency A - OK"; }

    Read the article

  • How can I change a connection string, or other app settings, at test time in Visual Studio 2008?

    - by David
    I need to test a class library project in VS. This project, itself, does not have a web.config file, but the classes do on the web server to which it's deployed. I access these like this: ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["stringname"].ConnectionString; Can I adjust these strings while running unit tests in VS? Should I have considered a different design method to avoid this problem?

    Read the article

  • Rails Functional Test Failing Due to Association

    - by Koby
    I have an accounts model that holds some basic account info (account name, website, etc). I then have a user model that has the following in the app/models/user.rb belongs_to :account I also have the following in my routes.rb map.resources :account, :has_many => [:users, :othermodel] the problem I'm facing is that the following test is failing: test "should create user" do assert_difference('User.count') do post :create, :user => { } #this is the line it's actually failing on end assert_redirected_to user_path(assigns(:user)) #it doesn't get here yet end The error it gives is "Can't find Account without ID" so I kind of understand WHY it's failing, because of the fact that it doesn't have the account object (or account_id as it were) to know under what account to create the user. I have tried variations of the following but I am completely lost: post :create, :user => { accounts(:one) } #I have the 'fixtures :accounts' syntax at the top of the test class post :create, [accounts(:one), :user] => { } post :create, :user => { accounts(:one), #other params for :user } and like I said, just about every variation I could think of. I can't find much documentation on doing this and this might be why people have moved to Factories for doing test data, but I want to understand things that come standard in Rails before moving onto other things. Can anyone help me get this working?

    Read the article

  • Second Unit Test Not Running

    - by TomJ
    I am having trouble getting my Method B test to run. The logic is fine, but when the unit tests are run, only Method A will run. If Method A and B are switched in terms of spots, only Method B will run. So clearly the code is wrong at some point. Do I need to call method B's test from inside method A in order to get both unit tests to run? I'm pretty new to C#, so forgive my basic question. using redacted; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using System; namespace UnitTests { [TestClass()] public class ClassTest { public TestContext TestContext{get;set;} [TestMethod()] public void MethodATest() { the unit test } [TestMethod()] public void MethodBTest() { the unit test } } }

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140  | Next Page >