Search Results

Search found 910 results on 37 pages for 'assert'.

Page 14/37 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • Authlogic and password and password confirmation attributes - inaccessible?

    - by adam
    Im trying to test my successfully creates a new user after login (using authlogic). Ive added a couple of new fields to the user so just want to make sure that the user is saved properly. The problem is despite creating a valid user factory, whenever i try to grab its attributes to post to the create method, password and password confirmation are being ommitted. I presuem this is a security method that authlogic performs in the background. This results in validations failing and the test failing. Im wondering how do i get round this problem? I could just type the attributes out by hand but that doesnt seem very dry. context "on POST to :create" do context "on posting a valid user" do setup do @user = Factory.build(:user) post :create, :user => @user.attributes end should "be valid" do assert @user.valid? end should_redirect_to("users sentences index page") { sentences_path() } should "add user to the db" do assert User.find_by_username(@user.username) end end ##User factory Factory.define :user do |f| f.username {Factory.next(:username) } f.email { Factory.next(:email)} f.password_confirmation "password" f.password "password" f.native_language {|nl| nl.association(:language)} f.second_language {|nl| nl.association(:language)} end

    Read the article

  • C# unit test code questions continue

    - by 5YrsLaterDBA
    more questions after questions in here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2714073/c-unit-test-code-questions I found the VS unit test testframe treat private and protected method in the same way but deferent with public method. The following is the generated code for a private method: /// <summary> ///A test for recordLogin ///</summary> [TestMethod()] [DeploymentItem("SystemSoftware.exe")] public void recordLoginTest() { User_Accessor target = new User_Accessor(); // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value Guid userId = new Guid(); // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value string action = string.Empty; // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value Users user = null; // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value AndeDBEntities db = null; // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value bool expected = false; // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value bool actual; actual = target.recordLogin(userId, action, user, db); Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); Assert.Inconclusive("Verify the correctness of this test method."); } questions: [DeploymentItem("SystemSoftware.exe")] is for private and protected methods, why needs it and what is it for? In my original class/file, if I point to the original method and try to "Find All References". The reference in the unit test class/file will not show up for private and protected methods but it will show up for all public methods. Why is that? Is it right? 3.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing using InternalsVisibleToAttribute requires compiling with /out:filename.ext?

    - by Will Marcouiller
    In my most recent question: Unit Testing Best Practice? / C# InternalsVisibleTo() attribute for VBNET 2.0 while testing?, I was asking about InternalsVisibleToAttribute. I have read the documentation on how to use it, and everything is fine and understood. However, I can't instantiate my class Groupe from my Testing project. I want to be able to instantiate my internal class in my wrapper assembly, from my testing assembly. Any help is appreciated! EDIT #1 Here's the compile-time error I get when I do try to instantiate my type: Erreur 2 'Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Groupe' n'est pas accessible dans ce contexte, car il est 'Private'. C:\Open\Projects\Exemples\Src\Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory\Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Tests\GroupeTests.vb 9 18 Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Tests (This says that my type is not accessible in this context, because it is private.) But it's Friend (internal)! EDIT #2 Here's a piece of code as suggested for the Groupe class implementing the Public interface IGroupe: #Region "Importations" Imports System.DirectoryServices Imports System.Runtime.CompilerServices #End Region <Assembly: InternalsVisibleTo("Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Tests")> Friend Class Groupe Implements IGroupe #Region "Membres privés" Private _classe As String = "group" Private _domaine As String Private _membres As CustomSet(Of IUtilisateur) Private _groupeNatif As DirectoryEntry #End Region #Region "Constructeurs" Friend Sub New() _membres = New CustomSet(Of IUtilisateur)() _groupeNatif = New DirectoryEntry() End Sub Friend Sub New(ByVal domaine As String) If (String.IsNullOrEmpty(domaine)) Then Throw New ArgumentNullException() _domaine = domaine _membres = New CustomSet(Of IUtilisateur)() _groupeNatif = New DirectoryEntry(domaine) End Sub Friend Sub New(ByVal groupeNatif As DirectoryEntry) _groupeNatif = groupeNatif _domaine = _groupeNatif.Path _membres = New CustomSet(Of IUtilisateur)() End Sub #End Region And the code trying to use it: #Region "Importations" Imports NUnit.Framework Imports Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Tests #End Region <TestFixture()> _ Public Class GroupeTests <Test()> _ Public Sub CreerDefaut() Dim g As Groupe = New Groupe() Assert.IsNotNull(g) Assert.IsInstanceOf(Groupe, g) End Sub End Class EDIT #3 Damn! I have just noticed that I wasn't importing the assembly in my importation region. Nope, didn't solve anything =( Thanks!

    Read the article

  • java.lang.IllegalStateException: missing behavior definition for the preceding method call getMessag

    - by user362199
    Hi All, I'm using EasyMock(version 2.4) and TestNG for writing UnitTest. I have a following scenario and I cannot change the way class hierarchy is defined. I'm testing ClassB which is extending ClassA. ClassB look like this public class ClassB extends ClassA { public ClassB() { super("title"); } @Override public String getDisplayName() { return ClientMessages.getMessages("ClassB.title"); } } ClassA code public abstract class ClassA { private String title; public ClassA(String title) { this.title = ClientMessages.getMessages(title); } public String getDisplayName() { return this.title; } } ClientMessages class code public class ClientMessages { private static MessageResourse messageResourse; public ClientMessages(MessageResourse messageResourse) { this.messageResourse = messageResourse; } public static String getMessages(String code) { return messageResourse.getMessage(code); } } MessageResourse Class code public class MessageResourse { public String getMessage(String code) { return code; } } Testing ClassB import static org.easymock.classextension.EasyMock.createMock; import org.easymock.classextension.EasyMock; import org.testng.Assert; import org.testng.annotations.Test; public class ClassBTest { private MessageResourse mockMessageResourse = createMock(MessageResourse.class); private ClassB classToTest; private ClientMessages clientMessages; @Test public void testGetDisplayName() { EasyMock.expect(mockMessageResourse.getMessage("ClassB.title")).andReturn("someTitle"); clientMessages = new ClientMessages(mockMessageResourse); classToTest = new ClassB(); Assert.assertEquals("someTitle" , classToTest.getDisplayName()); EasyMock.replay(mockMessageResourse); } } When I'm running this this test I'm getting following exception: java.lang.IllegalStateException: missing behavior definition for the preceding method call getMessage("title") While debugging what I found is, it's not considering the mock method call mockMessageResourse.getMessage("ClassB.title") as it has been called from the construtor (ClassB object creation). Can any one please help me how to test in this case. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Resolving a Generic with a Generic parameter in Castle Windsor

    - by Aaron Fischer
    I am trying to register a type like IRequestHandler1[GenericTestRequest1[T]] which will be implemented by GenericTestRequestHandler`1[T] but I am currently getting an error from Windsor "Castle.MicroKernel.ComponentNotFoundException : No component for supporting the service " Is this type of operation supported? Or is it to far removed from the suppored register( Component.For(typeof( IList<).ImplementedBy( typeof( List< ) ) ) below is an example of a breaking test. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// public interface IRequestHandler{} public interface IRequestHandler<TRequest> : IRequestHandler where TRequest : Request{} public class GenericTestRequest<T> : Request{} public class GenericTestRequestHandler<T> : RequestHandler<GenericTestRequest<T>>{} [TestFixture] public class ComponentRegistrationTests{ [Test] public void DoNotAutoRegisterGenericRequestHandler(){ var IOC = new Castle.Windsor.WindsorContainer(); var type = typeof( IRequestHandler<> ).MakeGenericType( typeof( GenericTestRequest<> ) ); IOC.Register( Component.For( type ).ImplementedBy( typeof( GenericTestRequestHandler<> ) ) ); var requestHandler = IoC.Container.Resolve( typeof(IRequestHandler<GenericTestRequest<String>>)); Assert.IsInstanceOf <IRequestHandler<GenericTestRequest<String>>>( requestHandler ); Assert.IsNotNull( requestHandler ); } }

    Read the article

  • C-macro: set a register field defined by a bit-mask to a given value

    - by geschema
    I've got 32-bit registers with field defined as bit-masks, e.g. #define BM_TEST_FIELD 0x000F0000 I need a macro that allows me to set a field (defined by its bit-mask) of a register (defined by its address) to a given value. Here's what I came up with: #include <stdio.h> #include <assert.h> typedef unsigned int u32; /* * Set a given field defined by a bit-mask MASK of a 32-bit register at address * ADDR to a value VALUE. */ #define SET_REGISTER_FIELD(ADDR, MASK, VALUE) \ { \ u32 mask=(MASK); u32 value=(VALUE); \ u32 mem_reg = *(volatile u32*)(ADDR); /* Get current register value */ \ assert((MASK) != 0); /* Null masks are not supported */ \ while(0 == (mask & 0x01)) /* Shift the value to the left until */ \ { /* it aligns with the bit field */ \ mask = mask >> 1; value = value << 1; \ } \ mem_reg &= ~(MASK); /* Clear previous register field value */ \ mem_reg |= value; /* Update register field with new value */ \ *(volatile u32*)(ADDR) = mem_reg; /* Update actual register */ \ } /* Test case */ #define BM_TEST_FIELD 0x000F0000 int main() { u32 reg = 0x12345678; printf("Register before: 0x%.8X\n", reg);/* should be 0x12345678 */ SET_REGISTER_FIELD(&reg, BM_TEST_FIELD, 0xA); printf("Register after: 0x%.8X\n", reg); /* should be 0x123A5678 */ return 0; } Is there a simpler way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Google App Engine: Unit testing concurrent access to memcache

    - by Phuong Nguyen de ManCity fan
    Would you guys show me a way to simulating concurrent access to memcache on Google App Engine? I'm trying with LocalServiceTestHelpers and threads but don't have any luck. Every time I try to access Memcache within a thread, then I get this error: ApiProxy$CallNotFoundException: The API package 'memcache' or call 'Increment()' was not found I guess that the testing library of GAE SDK tried to mimic the real environment and thus setup the environment for only one thread (the thread that running the test) which cannot be seen by other thread. Here is a piece of code that can reproduce the problem package org.seamoo.cache.memcacheImpl; import org.testng.Assert; import org.testng.annotations.AfterMethod; import org.testng.annotations.BeforeMethod; import org.testng.annotations.Test; import com.google.appengine.api.memcache.MemcacheService; import com.google.appengine.api.memcache.MemcacheServiceFactory; import com.google.appengine.tools.development.testing.LocalMemcacheServiceTestConfig; import com.google.appengine.tools.development.testing.LocalServiceTestHelper; public class MemcacheTest { LocalServiceTestHelper helper; public MemcacheTest() { LocalMemcacheServiceTestConfig memcacheConfig = new LocalMemcacheServiceTestConfig(); helper = new LocalServiceTestHelper(memcacheConfig); } /** * */ @BeforeMethod public void setUp() { helper.setUp(); } /** * @see LocalServiceTest#tearDown() */ @AfterMethod public void tearDown() { helper.tearDown(); } @Test public void memcacheConcurrentAccess() throws InterruptedException { final MemcacheService service = MemcacheServiceFactory.getMemcacheService(); Runnable runner = new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub service.increment("test-key", 1L, 1L); try { Thread.sleep(200L); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } service.increment("test-key", 1L, 1L); } }; Thread t1 = new Thread(runner); Thread t2 = new Thread(runner); t1.start(); t2.start(); while (t1.isAlive()) { Thread.sleep(100L); } Assert.assertEquals((Long) (service.get("test-key")), new Long(4L)); } }

    Read the article

  • Unit test for Web Forms MVP presenter has a null Model

    - by jacksonakj
    I am using Web Forms MVP to write an DotNetNuke user control. When the 'SubmitContactUs' event is raised in my unit test the presenter attempts to set the 'Message' property on the Modal. However the View.Modal is null in the presenter. Shouldn't the Web Forms MVP framework automatically build a new View.Model object in the presenter? It could be that the 'Arrange' portion of my test is missing something that the presenter needs. Any help would be appreciated. Here is my test: using System; using AthleticHost.ContactUs.Core.Presenters; using AthleticHost.ContactUs.Core.Views; using Xunit; using Moq; namespace AthleticHost.ContactUs.Tests { public class ContactUsPresenterTests { [Fact] public void ContactUsPresenter_Sets_Message_OnSubmit() { // Arrange var view = new Mock<IContactUsView>(); var presenter = new ContactUsPresenter(view.Object); // Act view.Raise(v => v.Load += null, new EventArgs()); view.Raise(v => v.SubmitContactUs += null, new SubmitContactUsEventArgs("Chester", "Tester", "[email protected]", "http://www.test.com", "This is a test of the emergancy broadcast system...")); presenter.ReleaseView(); // Assert Assert.Contains("Chester Tester", view.Object.Model.Message); } } }

    Read the article

  • How do I Unit Test Actions without Mocking that use UpdateModel?

    - by Hellfire
    I have been working my way through Scott Guthrie's excellent post on ASP.NET MVC Beta 1. In it he shows the improvements made to the UpdateModel method and how they improve unit testing. I have recreated a similar project however anytime I run a UnitTest that contains a call to UpdateModel I receive an ArgumentNullException naming the controllerContext parameter. Here's the relevant bits, starting with my model: public class Country { public Int32 ID { get; set; } public String Name { get; set; } public String Iso3166 { get; set; } } The controller action: [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult Edit(Int32 id, FormCollection form) { using ( ModelBindingDataContext db = new ModelBindingDataContext() ) { Country country = db.Countries.Where(c => c.CountryID == id).SingleOrDefault(); try { UpdateModel(country, form); db.SubmitChanges(); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } catch { return View(country); } } } And finally my unit test that's failing: [TestMethod] public void Edit() { CountryController controller = new CountryController(); FormCollection form = new FormCollection(); form.Add("Name", "Canada"); form.Add("Iso3166", "CA"); var result = controller.Edit(2 /*Canada*/, form) as RedirectToRouteResult; Assert.IsNotNull(result, "Expected to be redirected on successful POST."); Assert.AreEqual("Show", result.RouteName, "Expected to redirect to the View action."); } ArgumentNullException is thrown by the call to UpdateModel with the message "Value cannot be null. Parameter name: controllerContext". I'm assuming that somewhere the UpdateModel requires the System.Web.Mvc.ControllerContext which isn't present during execution of the test. I'm also assuming that I'm doing something wrong somewhere and just need to pointed in the right direction. Help Please!

    Read the article

  • How to mock the Request.ServerVariables using MOQ for ASP.NET MVC?

    - by melaos
    hi guys, i'm just learning to put in unit testing for my asp.net mvc when i came to learn about the mock and the different frameworks there is out there now. after checking SO, i found that MOQ seems to be the easiest to pick up. as of now i'm stuck trying to mock the Request.ServerVariables, as after reading this post, i've learned that it's better to abstract them into property. as such: /// <summary> /// Return the server port /// </summary> protected string ServerPort { get { return Request.ServerVariables.Get("SERVER_PORT"); } } But i'm having a hard time learning how to properly mock this. I have a home controller ActionResult function which grabs the user server information and proceed to create a form to grab the user's information. i tried to use hanselman's mvcmockhelpers class but i'm not sure how to use it. this is what i have so far... [Test] public void Create_Redirects_To_ProductAdded_On_Success() { FakeViewEngine engine = new FakeViewEngine(); HomeController controller = new HomeController(); controller.ViewEngine = engine; MvcMockHelpers.SetFakeControllerContext(controller); controller.Create(); var results = controller.Create(); var typedResults = results as RedirectToRouteResult; Assert.AreEqual("", typedResults.RouteValues["action"], "Wrong action"); Assert.AreEqual("", typedResults.RouteValues["controller"], "Wrong controller"); } Questions: As of now i'm still getting null exception error when i'm running the test. So what am i missing here? And if i use the mvcmockhelpers class, how can i still call the request.verifyall function to ensure all the mocking are properly setup?

    Read the article

  • Static variable not initialized

    - by Simon Linder
    Hi all, I've got a strange problem with a static variable that is obviously not initialized as it should be. I have a huge project that runs with Windows and Linux. As the Linux developer doesn't have this problem I would suggest that this is some kind of wired Visual Studio stuff. Header file class MyClass { // some other stuff here ... private: static AnotherClass* const Default_; }; CPP file AnotherClass* const Default_(new AnotherClass("")); MyClass(AnotherClass* const var) { assert(Default_); ... } Problem is that Default_is always NULL. I also tried a breakpoint at the initialization of that variable but I cannot catch it. There is a similar problem in another class. CPP file std::string const MyClass::MyString_ ("someText"); MyClass::MyClass() { assert(MyString_ != ""); ... } In this case MyString_is always empty. So again not initialized. Does anyone have an idea about that? Is this a Visual Studio settings problem? Cheers Simon

    Read the article

  • How reliable is Verify() in Moq?

    - by matthewayinde
    I'm only new to Unit Testing and ASP.NET MVC. I've been trying to get my head into both using Steve Sanderson's "Pro ASP.NET MVC Framework". In the book there is this piece of code: public class AdminController : Controller { ... [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult Edit(Product product, HttpPostedFileBase image) { ... productsRepository.SaveProduct(product); TempData["message"] = product.Name + " has been saved."; return RedirectToAction("Index"); } } That he tests like so: [Test] public void Edit_Action_Saves_Product_To_Repository_And_Redirects_To_Index() { // Arrange AdminController controller = new AdminController(mockRepos.Object); Product newProduct = new Product(); // Act var result = (RedirectToRouteResult)controller.Edit(newProduct, null); // Assert: Saved product to repository and redirected mockRepos.Verify(x => x.SaveProduct(newProduct)); Assert.AreEqual("Index", result.RouteValues["action"]); } THE TEST PASSES. So I intensionally corrupt the code by adding "productsRepository.DeleteProduct(product);" after the "SaveProduct(product);" as in: ... productsRepository.SaveProduct(product); productsRepository.DeleteProduct(product); ... THE TEST PASSES.(i.e Condones a calamitous [hypnosis + intellisense]-induced typo :) ) Could this test be written better? Or is there something I should know? Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • Can Castle.Windsor do automatic resolution of concrete types

    - by Anthony
    We are evaluating IoC containers for C# projects, and both Unity and Castle.Windsor are standing out. One thing that I like about Unity (NInject and StructureMap also do this) is that types where it is obvious how to construct them do not have to be registered with the IoC Container. Is there way to do this in Castle.Windsor? Am I being fair to Castle.Windsor to say that it does not do this? Is there a design reason to deliberately not do this, or is it an oversight, or just not seen as important or useful? I am aware of container.Register(AllTypes... in Windsor but that's not quite the same thing. It's not entirely automatic, and it's very broad. To illustrate the point, here are two NUnit tests doing the same thing via Unity and Castle.Windsor. The Castle.Windsor one fails. : namespace SimpleIocDemo { using NUnit.Framework; using Castle.Windsor; using Microsoft.Practices.Unity; public interface ISomeService { string DoSomething(); } public class ServiceImplementation : ISomeService { public string DoSomething() { return "Hello"; } } public class RootObject { public ISomeService SomeService { get; private set; } public RootObject(ISomeService service) { SomeService = service; } } [TestFixture] public class IocTests { [Test] public void UnityResolveTest() { UnityContainer container = new UnityContainer(); container.RegisterType<ISomeService, ServiceImplementation>(); // Root object needs no registration in Unity RootObject rootObject = container.Resolve<RootObject>(); Assert.AreEqual("Hello", rootObject.SomeService.DoSomething()); } [Test] public void WindsorResolveTest() { WindsorContainer container = new WindsorContainer(); container.AddComponent<ISomeService, ServiceImplementation>(); // fails with exception "Castle.MicroKernel.ComponentNotFoundException: // No component for supporting the service SimpleIocDemo.RootObject was found" // I could add // container.AddComponent<RootObject>(); // but that approach does not scale RootObject rootObject = container.Resolve<RootObject>(); Assert.AreEqual("Hello", rootObject.SomeService.DoSomething()); } } }

    Read the article

  • Java Generic Casting Type Mismatch

    - by Kay
    public class MaxHeap<T extends Comparable<T>> implements Heap<T>{ private T[] heap; private int lastIndex; public void main(String[] args){ int i; T[] arr = {1,3,4,5,2}; //ERROR HERE ******* foo } public T[] Heapsort(T[]anArray, int n){ // build initial heap T[]sortedArray = anArray; for (int i = n-1; i< 0; i--){ //assert: the tree rooted at index is a semiheap heapRebuild(anArray, i, n); //assert: the tree rooted at index is a heap } //sort the heap array int last = n-1; //invariant: Array[0..last] is a heap, //Array[last+1..n-1] is sorted for (int j=1; j<n-1;j++) { sortedArray[0]=sortedArray[last]; last--; heapRebuild(anArray, 0, last); } return sortedArray; } protected void heapRebuild(T[ ] items, int root, int size){ foo } } The error is on the line with "T[arr] = {1,3,4,5,2}" Eclispe complains that there is a: "Type mismatch: cannot convert from int to T" I've tried to casting nearly everywhere but to no avail.A simple way out would be to not use generics but instead just ints but that's sadly not an option. I've got to find a way to resolve the array of ints "{1,3,4,5,2}" into an array of T so that the rest of my code will work smoothly.

    Read the article

  • Prolog: Not executing code as expected.

    - by Louis
    Basically I am attempting to have an AI agent navigate a world based on given percepts. My issue is handling how the agent moves. Basically, I have created find_action/4 such that we pass in the percepts, action, current cell, and the direction the agent is facing. As it stands the entire code looks like: http://wesnoth.pastebin.com/kdNvzZ6Y My issue is mainly with lines 102 to 106. Basically, in it's current form the code does not work and the find_action is skipped even when the agent is in fact facing right (I have verified this). This broken code is as follows: % If we are headed right, take a left turn find_action([_, _, _, _, _], Action, _, right) :- retractall(facing(_)), assert(facing(up)), Action = turnleft . However, after some experimentation I have concluded that the following works: % If we are headed right, take a left turn find_action([_, _, _, _, _], Action, _, _) :- facing(right), retractall(facing(_)), assert(facing(up)), Action = turnleft . I am not entire sure why this is. I've attempted to create several identical find_action's as well, each checking a different direction using the facing(_) format, however swipl does not like this and throws an error. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Using Rails, problem testing has_many relationship

    - by east
    The summary is that I've code that works when manually testing, but isn't doing what I would think it should when trying to build an automated test. Here are the details: I've two models: Payment and PaymentTranscation. class Payment ... has_many :transactions, :class_name => 'PaymentTransaction' class PaymentTranscation ... belongs_to payment The PaymentTransaction is only created in a Payment model method, like so: def pay_up ... transactions.create!(params...) ... end I've manually tested this code, inspected the database, and everything works well. The failing automated test looks like this: def test_pay_up purchase = Payment.new(...) assert purchase.save assert_equal purchase.state, :initialized.to_s assert purchase.pay_up # this should create a new PaymentTransaction... assert_equal purchase.state, :succeeded.to_s assert_equal purchase.transactions.count, 1 # FAILS HERE; transactions is an empty array end If I step through the code, it's clear that the PaymentTransaction is getting created correctly (though I can't see it in the database because everything is in a testing transaction). What I can't figure out is why transactions is returning an empty array in the test when I know a valid PaymentTransaction is getting created. Anybody have some suggestions? Thanks in advance, east

    Read the article

  • OnContextMenu() not working in view class

    - by Anu
    Hi, i have a popup menu for contextmenu.And i wrote the function for each menu in CMainframe. I have OnContextMenu() in each view class and in one dialog class.Its works fine in Dialog class.But not in View class.Codings are below: CMainframe funciton: void CMainFrame::OnUpdateFptrend(CCmdUI* pCmdUI) { ((CMainFrame *)AfxGetMainWnd())->SendMessage(WM_COMMAND,ID_TRENDVIEW,NULL); } void CMainFrame::OnUpdateFptuning(CCmdUI* pCmdUI) { ((CMainFrame *)AfxGetMainWnd())->SendMessageWM_COMMAND,ID_TUNINGVIEW,NULL); } Dialog class Contextmenu: void CFacePlate::OnContextMenu(CWnd* pWnd, CPoint point) { CMenu mnuPopup; mnuPopup.LoadMenu(IDR_FPMENU); CRect rBarRect; rBarRect.left = rBarRect.top = 0; rBarRect.right = 1000;rBarRect.bottom = 300; CMenu *mnuPopupMenu = mnuPopup.GetSubMenu(0); ASSERT(mnuPopupMenu); if( rBarRect.PtInRect(point) ) mnuPopupMenu->TrackPopupMenu(TPM_LEFTALIGN | TPM_RIGHTBUTTON, point.x, point.y, this); } View class: void CGroupView::OnContextMenu(CWnd* pWnd, CPoint point) { CMenu mnuPopup; mnuPopup.LoadMenu(IDR_FPMENU); CRect rBarRect; rBarRect.left = rBarRect.top = 0; rBarRect.right = 1150;rBarRect.bottom = 390; CMenu *mnuPopupMenu = mnuPopup.GetSubMenu(0); ASSERT(mnuPopupMenu); if( rBarRect.PtInRect(point) ) mnuPopupMenu->TrackPopupMenu(TPM_LEFTALIGN | TPM_RIGHTBUTTON, point.x, point.y, this); } When i press popup menu from Faceplate(Dialogclass),it goes to Mainframe function.At the same time when i press menu from any view class,it doesnot go to Mainframe function.Why its like that?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing (xUnit) an ASP.NET Mvc Controller with a custom input model?

    - by Danny Douglass
    I'm having a hard time finding information on what I expect to be a pretty straightforward scenario. I'm trying to unit test an Action on my ASP.NET Mvc 2 Controller that utilizes a custom input model w/ DataAnnotions. My testing framework is xUnit, as mentioned in the title. Here is my custom Input Model: public class EnterPasswordInputModel { [Required(ErrorMessage = "")] public string Username { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "Password is a required field.")] public string Password { get; set; } } And here is my Controller (took out some logic to simplify for this ex.): [HttpPost] public ActionResult EnterPassword(EnterPasswordInputModel enterPasswordInput) { if (!ModelState.IsValid) return View(); // do some logic to validate input // if valid - next View on successful validation return View("NextViewName"); // else - add and display error on current view return View(); } And here is my xUnit Fact (also simplified): [Fact] public void EnterPassword_WithValidInput_ReturnsNextView() { // Arrange var controller = CreateLoginController(userService.Object); // Act var result = controller.EnterPassword( new EnterPasswordInputModel { Username = username, Password = password }) as ViewResult; // Assert Assert.Equal("NextViewName", result.ViewName); } When I run my test I get the following error on my test fact when trying to retrieve the controller result (Act section): System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!

    Read the article

  • How do I pass a LuaTable between two Lua states using LuaInterface?

    - by user316675
    I've been trying to pass a LuaTable class between two Lua states, like so: LuaManager L1 = new Lua(); LuaManager L2 = new Lua(); LuaTable table = L1.DoString("return {apple = 25}")[0]; L2["tbl"] = table; double results = L2.DoString("return tbl[\"apple\"]")[0]; Assert.AreEqual(25.0, results); The above test fails; I receive a return value of nil. Using the Immediate Window confirms that "table" is a non-null object, and that table["apple"] returns 25; it's something that's being lost in translation to L2. Interestingly, when the object is loaded back into the same state, the test works, like so: //Succeeds LuaManager lua = new Lua(); LuaTable table = lua.DoString("return {apple = 25}")[0]; lua["tbl"] = table; double results = lua.DoString("return tbl[\"apple\"]")[0]; Assert.AreEqual(25.0, results); How can I safely pass the LuaTables without hassles? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Is NUnit's ExpectedExceptionAttribute only way to test if something raises an exception?

    - by Dariusz Walczak
    Hello, I'm completely new at C# and NUnit. In Boost.Test there is a family of BOOST_*_THROW macros. In Python's test module there is TestCase.assertRaises method. As far as I understand it, in C# with NUnit (2.4.8) the only method of doing exception test is to use ExpectedExceptionAttribute. Why should I prefer ExpectedExceptionAttribute over - let's say - Boost.Test's approach? What reasoning can stand behind this design decision? Why is that better in case of C# and NUnit? Finally, if I decide to use ExpectedExceptionAttribute, how can I do some additional tests after exception was raised and catched? Let's say that I want to test requirement saying that object has to be valid after some setter raised System.IndexOutOfRangeException. How would you fix following code to compile and work as expected? [Test] public void TestSetterException() { Sth.SomeClass obj = new SomeClass(); // Following statement won't compile. Assert.Raises( "System.IndexOutOfRangeException", obj.SetValueAt( -1, "foo" ) ); Assert.IsTrue( obj.IsValid() ); } Edit: Thanks for your answers. Today, I've found an It's the Tests blog entry where all three methods described by you are mentioned (and one more minor variation). It's shame that I couldn't find it before :-(.

    Read the article

  • Using Moq to set indexers in C#

    - by emddudley
    I'm having trouble figuring out how to set indexers in C# with Moq. The Moq documentation is weak, and I've done a lot of searching... what I'd like to do is similar in the solution to How to Moq Setting an Indexed property: var someClass = new Mock<ISomeClass>(); someClass.SetupSet(o => o.SomeIndexedProperty[3] = 25); I want to modify the above to work for any index and any value so I can just do something like this: someClass.Object.SomeIndexedProperty[1] = 5; Currently I have the following, which works great for the indexed property getter, but if I ever set the value Moq ignores it: var someValues = new int[] { 10, 20, 30, 40 }; var someClass = new Mock<ISomeClass>(); someClass.Setup(o => o.SomeIndexedProperty[It.IsAny<int>()]) .Returns<int>(index => someValues[index]); // Moq doesn't set the value below, so the Assert fails! someClass.Object.SomeIndexedProperty[3] = 25; Assert.AreEqual(25, someClass.Object.SomeIndexedProperty[3]);

    Read the article

  • What is the way to go to fake my database layer in a unit test?

    - by Michel
    Hi, i have a question about unit testing. say i have a controller with one create method which puts a new customer in the database: //code a bit shortened public actionresult Create(Formcollection formcollection){ client c = nwe client(); c.Name = formcollection["name"]; ClientService.Save(c); { Clientservice would call a datalayer object and save it in the database. What i do now is create a database testscript and set my database in a know condition before testing. So when i test this method in the unit test, i know that there must be one more client in the database, and what it's name is. In short: ClientController cc = new ClientController(); cc.Create(new FormCollection (){name="John"}); //i know i had 10 clients before assert.areEqual(11, ClientService.GetNumberOfClients()); //the last inserted one is John assert.areEqual("John", ClientService.GetAllClients()[10].Name); So i've read that unit testing should not be hitting the database, i've setup an IOC for the database classes, but then what? I can create a fake database class, and make it do nothing. But then ofcourse my assertions will not work because if i say GetNumberOfClients() it will alwasy return X because it has no interaction with the fake database class used in the Create Method. I can also create a List of Clients in the fake database class, but as there will be two different instance created (one in the controller action and one in the unit test), they will have no interaction. What is the way to make this unit test work without a database?

    Read the article

  • C# Attribute XmlIgnore and XamlWriter class - XmlIgnore not working

    - by Horst Walter
    I have a class, containing a property Brush MyBrush marked as [XmlIgnore]. Nevertheless it is serialized in the stream causing trouble when trying to read via XamlReader. I did some tests, e.g. when changing the visibility (to internal) of the Property it is gone in the stream. Unfortunately I cannot do this in my particular scenario. Did anybody have the same issue and? Do you see any way to work around this? Remark: C# 4.0 as far I can tell This is a method from my Unit Test where I do test the XamlSerialization: // buffer to a StringBuilder StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); XmlWriter writer = XmlWriter.Create(sb, settings); XamlDesignerSerializationManager manager = new XamlDesignerSerializationManager(writer) {XamlWriterMode = XamlWriterMode.Expression}; XamlWriter.Save(testObject, manager); xml = sb.ToString(); Assert.IsTrue(!String.IsNullOrEmpty(xml) && !String.IsNullOrEmpty(xml), "Xaml Serialization failed for " + testObject.GetType() + " no xml string available"); xml = sb.ToString(); MemoryStream ms = xml.StringToStream(); object root = XamlReader.Load(ms); Assert.IsTrue(root != null, "After reading from MemoryStream no result for Xaml Serialization"); In one of my classes I use the Property Brush. In the above code this Unit Tests fails because of a Brush object not serializable is the value. When I remove the Setter (as below, the Unit Test passes. Using the XmlWriter (basically same test as above) it works. In the StringBuffer sb I can see that Property Brush is serialized when the Setter is there and not when removed (most likely another check ignoring the Property because of no setter). Other Properties with [XmlIgnore] are ignored as intended. [XmlIgnore] public Brush MyBrush { get { ..... } // removed because of problem with Serialization // set { ... } }

    Read the article

  • Assemblies mysteriously loaded into new AppDomains

    - by Eric
    I'm testing some code that does work whenever assemblies are loaded into an appdomain. For unit testing (in VS2k8's built-in test host) I spin up a new, uniquely-named appdomain prior to each test with the idea that it should be "clean": [TestInitialize()] public void CalledBeforeEachTestMethod() { AppDomainSetup appSetup = new AppDomainSetup(); appSetup.ApplicationBase = @"G:\<ProjectDir>\bin\Debug"; Evidence baseEvidence = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.Evidence; Evidence evidence = new Evidence( baseEvidence ); _testAppDomain = AppDomain.CreateDomain( "myAppDomain" + _appDomainCounter++, evidence, appSetup ); } [TestMethod] public void MissingFactoryCausesAppDomainUnload() { SupportingClass supportClassObj = (SupportingClass)_testAppDomain.CreateInstanceAndUnwrap( GetType().Assembly.GetName().Name, typeof( SupportingClass ).FullName ); try { supportClassObj.LoadMissingRegistrationAssembly(); Assert.Fail( "Should have nuked the app domain" ); } catch( AppDomainUnloadedException ) { } } [TestMethod] public void InvalidFactoryMethodCausesAppDomainUnload() { SupportingClass supportClassObj = (SupportingClass)_testAppDomain.CreateInstanceAndUnwrap( GetType().Assembly.GetName().Name, typeof( SupportingClass ).FullName ); try { supportClassObj.LoadInvalidFactoriesAssembly(); Assert.Fail( "Should have nuked the app domain" ); } catch( AppDomainUnloadedException ) { } } public class SupportingClass : MarshalByRefObject { public void LoadMissingRegistrationAssembly() { MissingRegistration.Main(); } public void LoadInvalidFactoriesAssembly() { InvalidFactories.Main(); } } If every test is run individually I find that it works correctly; the appdomain is created and has only the few intended assemblies loaded. However, if multiple tests are run in succession then each _testAppDomain already has assemblies loaded from all previous tests. Oddly enough, the two tests get appdomains with different names. The test assemblies that define MissingRegistration and InvalidFactories (two different assemblies) are never loaded into the unit test's default appdomain. Can anyone explain this behavior?

    Read the article

  • pthread_exit and/or pthread_join causing Abort and SegFaults.

    - by MJewkes
    The following code is a simple thread game, that switches between threads causing the timer to decrease. It works fine for 3 threads, causes and Abort(core dumped) for 4 threads, and causes a seg fault for 5 or more threads. Anyone have any idea why this might be happening? #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <errno.h> #include <assert.h> int volatile num_of_threads; int volatile time_per_round; int volatile time_left; int volatile turn_id; int volatile thread_running; int volatile can_check; void * player (void * id_in){ int id= (int)id_in; while(1){ if(can_check){ if (time_left<=0){ break; } can_check=0; if(thread_running){ if(turn_id==id-1){ turn_id=random()%num_of_threads; time_left--; } } can_check=1; } } pthread_exit(NULL); } int main(int argc, char *args[]){ int i; int buffer; pthread_t * threads =(pthread_t *)malloc(num_of_threads*sizeof(pthread_t)); thread_running=0; num_of_threads=atoi(args[1]); can_check=0; time_per_round = atoi(args[2]); time_left=time_per_round; srandom(time(NULL)); //Create Threads for (i=0;i<num_of_threads;i++){ do{ buffer=pthread_create(&threads[i],NULL,player,(void *)(i+1)); }while(buffer == EAGAIN); } can_check=1; time_left=time_per_round; turn_id=random()%num_of_threads; thread_running=1; for (i=0;i<num_of_threads;i++){ assert(!pthread_join(threads[i], NULL)); } return 0; }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >