Search Results

Search found 10978 results on 440 pages for 'collision testing'.

Page 14/440 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • Test Data in a Distributed System

    - by Davin Tryon
    A question that has been vexing me lately has been about how to effectively test (end-to-end) features in a distributed system. Particuarly, how to effectively manage (through time) test data for feature testing. The system in question is a typical SOA setup. The composition is done in JavaScript when call to several REST APIs. Each service is built as an independent block. Each service has some kind of persistent storage (SQL Server in most cases). The main issue at the moment is how to approach test data when testing end-to-end features. Functional end-to-end testing occurs through the UI, and it is therefore necessary for test data to be set up before the test run (this could be manual or automated testing). As is typical in a distributed system, identifiers from one service are used as a link in another service. So, some level of synchronization needs to be present in the data to effectively test. What is the best way to manage and set up this data after a successful deployment to a test environment? For example, is it better to manage this test data inside each service? Or package it together with the testing suite? Does that testing suite exist as a separate project? I'm interested in design guidance about how to store and manage this test data as the application features evolve.

    Read the article

  • web application load / stress testing services

    - by Booji Boy
    Can you recommend reputable companies that offer help (consulting services, etc) in load testing (ASP.NET) web applications? We have a client looking to load test an ASP.NET application and we don't have any expertise in load testing web applications. The client is located in central Massachusetts. My employer http://www.goADNET.com was looking for an option besides, “I can figure out how to do it”.

    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

  • What should come first: testing or code review?

    - by Silver Light
    Hello! I'm quite new to programming design patterns and life cycles and I was wondering, what should come first, code review or testing, regarding that those are done by separate people? From the one side, why bother reviewing code if nobody checked if it even works? From the other, some errors can be found early, if you do the review before testing. Which approach is recommended and why? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Ball to Ball Collision - Detection and Handling

    - by Simucal
    With the help of the Stack Overflow community I've written a pretty basic-but fun physics simulator. You click and drag the mouse to launch a ball. It will bounce around and eventually stop on the "floor". My next big feature I want to add in is ball to ball collision. The ball's movement is broken up into a x and y speed vector. I have gravity (small reduction of the y vector each step), I have friction (small reduction of both vectors each collision with a wall). The balls honestly move around in a surprisingly realistic way. I guess my question has two parts: What is the best method to detect ball to ball collision? Do I just have an O(n^2) loop that iterates over each ball and checks every other ball to see if it's radius overlaps? What equations do I use to handle the ball to ball collisions? Physics 101 How does it effect the two balls speed x/y vectors? What is the resulting direction the two balls head off in? How do I apply this to each ball? Handling the collision detection of the "walls" and the resulting vector changes were easy but I see more complications with ball-ball collisions. With walls I simply had to take the negative of the appropriate x or y vector and off it would go in the correct direction. With balls I don't think it is that way. Some quick clarifications: for simplicity I'm ok with a perfectly elastic collision for now, also all my balls have the same mass right now, but I might change that in the future. In case anyone is interested in playing with the simulator I have made so far, I've uploaded the source here (EDIT: Check the updated source below). Edit: Resources I have found useful 2d Ball physics with vectors: 2-Dimensional Collisions Without Trigonometry.pdf 2d Ball collision detection example: Adding Collision Detection Success! I have the ball collision detection and response working great! Relevant code: Collision Detection: for (int i = 0; i < ballCount; i++) { for (int j = i + 1; j < ballCount; j++) { if (balls[i].colliding(balls[j])) { balls[i].resolveCollision(balls[j]); } } } This will check for collisions between every ball but skip redundant checks (if you have to check if ball 1 collides with ball 2 then you don't need to check if ball 2 collides with ball 1. Also, it skips checking for collisions with itself). Then, in my ball class I have my colliding() and resolveCollision() methods: public boolean colliding(Ball ball) { float xd = position.getX() - ball.position.getX(); float yd = position.getY() - ball.position.getY(); float sumRadius = getRadius() + ball.getRadius(); float sqrRadius = sumRadius * sumRadius; float distSqr = (xd * xd) + (yd * yd); if (distSqr <= sqrRadius) { return true; } return false; } public void resolveCollision(Ball ball) { // get the mtd Vector2d delta = (position.subtract(ball.position)); float d = delta.getLength(); // minimum translation distance to push balls apart after intersecting Vector2d mtd = delta.multiply(((getRadius() + ball.getRadius())-d)/d); // resolve intersection -- // inverse mass quantities float im1 = 1 / getMass(); float im2 = 1 / ball.getMass(); // push-pull them apart based off their mass position = position.add(mtd.multiply(im1 / (im1 + im2))); ball.position = ball.position.subtract(mtd.multiply(im2 / (im1 + im2))); // impact speed Vector2d v = (this.velocity.subtract(ball.velocity)); float vn = v.dot(mtd.normalize()); // sphere intersecting but moving away from each other already if (vn > 0.0f) return; // collision impulse float i = (-(1.0f + Constants.restitution) * vn) / (im1 + im2); Vector2d impulse = mtd.multiply(i); // change in momentum this.velocity = this.velocity.add(impulse.multiply(im1)); ball.velocity = ball.velocity.subtract(impulse.multiply(im2)); } Source Code: Complete source for ball to ball collider. Binary: Compiled binary in case you just want to try bouncing some balls around. If anyone has some suggestions for how to improve this basic physics simulator let me know! One thing I have yet to add is angular momentum so the balls will roll more realistically. Any other suggestions? Leave a comment!

    Read the article

  • Using CGRectIntersectsRect for collision detection

    - by user309030
    Hi guys, I've got a long rectangular image which is rotated at different kind of angles. However the frame of the rectangular image does not rotate along with the image and instead, the rotation causes the frame to to become larger to fit the rotated image. So when I used CGRectIntersectsRect, the collision detection is totally off because the other image colliding with the rectangular image will collide before it even reaches the visible area of the rect image. In case you don't really know what I'm talking about, have a look at the ascii drawing: normal rectangular image frame, O - pixels, |, – - frame |----------| |OOOOOOOOOO| |----------| after rotation |----------| |O | | O | | O | | O | | O | | O | | O | | O | | O | |----------| I've read through some of the collision articles but all of them are talking about collision with a normal straight rectangle and what I really want is collision with a slanted image, preferably pixel collision detection. TIA for any suggestions made.

    Read the article

  • I need help with 2D collision response (of stacking rotating polygons, with friction and gravity, for a game)

    - by Register Sole
    Hi I am looking for suggestions on how to write a collision response for game programming purpose (so not a scientific simulation). I am dealing with 2D polygons that are rotating, and I want them to be able to stack. I also want friction and gravity. I have a detection mechanism that returns the separating axis, how long the polygons are overlapping, and up to 2 points of contact. For the response, I am currently using an impulse-based response, which main idea is: find the separating axis, length of overlap, and the point of contact (if there are two, pick a random point between to simulate averaged force. i believe there are better ways than this) separate the object (modifying their positions, taking into account of their masses. i do not separate them completely though, to keep track that they are colliding to reduce jitter) calculate normal force based on the coefficient of restitution as if there is no friction. calculate friction, as if there is no normal force. I also assume that the direction of the friction is the same throughout the collision. apply the two forces (which result in a rather inaccurate result, since each force is calculated as if the other is not present. for non-rotating bodies though, this method is exact) I am aware that this method requires the coefficient of friction to be sufficiently small due to the assumption that the direction of friction stays the same in a collision. Also, the result is visually satisfying if gravity is not present. However, when there is gravity, objects on ground jitter and drift (even with zero coefficient of restitution)! It also happens for stacking objects. Larger coefficient of restitution and gravity increase the jittering. I hope you can help me with this. Some things i would like to know more about is how to handle collision with two point of contacts (how to end up having an object sitting still on the ground?), how to reduce, and prevent if possible, jitter and drift (do people use the most accurate method possible, or is there a trick to overcome this?), and how to handle multiple objects collision (for example, in the case of stacking objects, how do I check collisions between all of them and keep them all stable at every frame so they don't jitter?). A total reformulation of my algorithm is also welcomed, as long as it works. Another thing to note is that I am not making a Physics game, so I only need a visually satisfying response (though a realistic response is preferable, if it is not performance-heavy). But surely jittering and drifting objects on flat ground are not at all acceptable. In addition, I am a Physics student, so feel free to talk about impulse and whatever needed. Finally, I'm sorry for the long post. I tried to be as concise as I can. Thank you for reading it! EDIT It seems what I didn't manage to come up all this time is to separate resting contact as a class of its own and how to solve them. Currently reading the paper suggested by Jedediah. More suggestions on the topic are welcome :) CASE CLOSED After reading various papers referenced in the paper, successfully implemented simultaneous impulse method (referring to the original paper by Erin Catto, [Catt05]). Thanks maaaan!! The paper is wonderful. The current system is visibly much better than the previous. Still haven't separated resting contact as a class of its own though, which brings me to my next question. Love you all! Haha (sorry, I'm just so happy thanks to you).

    Read the article

  • Separate Database for Integration Testing

    - by john doe
    I am performance integration testing where I fire up the ASPX pages using WatiN and fill the fields and insert into the database. There are couple of problems that I am facing. 1) Should I use a completely separate database for integration testing? I already gave db_test and db_dev. db_test is for unit testing and is cleared after each test. db_dev is for developers. 2) When I run WatiN test which are contained in a separate assembly (not separate from unit test assembly which should be better since WatiN test take so much time to run). So WatiN test fire up the WebApps project and uses their web.config which is pointing to the dev database. Is there anyway I can tell WatiN to use a separate web.config which contains a different database name?

    Read the article

  • Need help with implementing collision detection using the Separating Axis Theorem

    - by Eddie Ringle
    So, after hours of Googling and reading, I've found that the basic process of detecting a collision using SAT is: for each edge of poly A project A and B onto the normal for this edge if intervals do not overlap, return false end for for each edge of poly B project A and B onto the normal for this edge if intervals do not overlap, return false end for However, as many ways as I try to implement this in code, I just cannot get it to detect the collision. My current code is as follows: for (unsigned int i = 0; i < asteroids.size(); i++) { if (asteroids.valid(i)) { asteroids[i]->Update(); // Player-Asteroid collision detection bool collision = true; SDL_Rect asteroidBox = asteroids[i]->boundingBox; // Bullet-Asteroid collision detection for (unsigned int j = 0; j < player.bullets.size(); j++) { if (player.bullets.valid(j)) { Bullet b = player.bullets[j]; collision = true; if (b.x + (b.w / 2.0f) < asteroidBox.x - (asteroidBox.w / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (b.x - (b.w / 2.0f) > asteroidBox.x + (asteroidBox.w / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (b.y - (b.h / 2.0f) > asteroidBox.y + (asteroidBox.h / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (b.y + (b.h / 2.0f) < asteroidBox.y - (asteroidBox.h / 2.0f)) collision = false; if (collision) { bool realCollision = false; float min1, max1, min2, max2; // Create a list of vertices for the bullet CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> bullVerts; bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x - b.w / 2.0f, b.y + b.h / 2.0f)); bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x - b.w / 2.0f, b.y - b.h / 2.0f)); bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x + b.w / 2.0f, b.y - b.h / 2.0f)); bullVerts.insert(new Vector2D(b.x + b.w / 2.0f, b.y + b.h / 2.0f)); // Create a list of vectors of the edges of the bullet and the asteroid CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> bullEdges; CrissCross::Data::LList<Vector2D *> asteroidEdges; for (int k = 0; k < 4; k++) { int n = (k == 3) ? 0 : k + 1; bullEdges.insert(new Vector2D(bullVerts[k]->x - bullVerts[n]->x, bullVerts[k]->y - bullVerts[n]->y)); asteroidEdges.insert(new Vector2D(asteroids[i]->vertices[k]->x - asteroids[i]->vertices[n]->x, asteroids[i]->vertices[k]->y - asteroids[i]->vertices[n]->y)); } for (unsigned int k = 0; k < asteroidEdges.size(); k++) { Vector2D *axis = asteroidEdges[k]->getPerpendicular(); min1 = max1 = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < asteroids[i]->vertices.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[l]); min1 = (test < min1) ? test : min1; max1 = (test > max1) ? test : max1; } min2 = max2 = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < bullVerts.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[l]); min2 = (test < min2) ? test : min2; max2 = (test > max2) ? test : max2; } delete axis; axis = NULL; if ( (min1 - max2) > 0 || (min2 - max1) > 0 ) { realCollision = false; break; } else { realCollision = true; } } if (realCollision == false) { for (unsigned int k = 0; k < bullEdges.size(); k++) { Vector2D *axis = bullEdges[k]->getPerpendicular(); min1 = max1 = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < asteroids[i]->vertices.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(asteroids[i]->vertices[l]); min1 = (test < min1) ? test : min1; max1 = (test > max1) ? test : max1; } min2 = max2 = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[0]); for (unsigned int l = 1; l < bullVerts.size(); l++) { float test = axis->dotProduct(bullVerts[l]); min2 = (test < min2) ? test : min2; max2 = (test > max2) ? test : max2; } delete axis; axis = NULL; if ( (min1 - max2) > 0 || (min2 - max1) > 0 ) { realCollision = false; break; } else { realCollision = true; } } } if (realCollision) { player.bullets.remove(j); int numAsteroids; float newDegree; srand ( j + asteroidBox.x ); if ( asteroids[i]->degree == 90.0f ) { if ( rand() % 2 == 1 ) { numAsteroids = 3; newDegree = 30.0f; } else { numAsteroids = 2; newDegree = 45.0f; } for ( int k = 0; k < numAsteroids; k++) asteroids.insert(new Asteroid(asteroidBox.x + (10 * k), asteroidBox.y + (10 * k), newDegree)); } delete asteroids[i]; asteroids.remove(i); } while (bullVerts.size()) { delete bullVerts[0]; bullVerts.remove(0); } while (bullEdges.size()) { delete bullEdges[0]; bullEdges.remove(0); } while (asteroidEdges.size()) { delete asteroidEdges[0]; asteroidEdges.remove(0); } } } } } } bullEdges is a list of vectors of the edges of a bullet, asteroidEdges is similar, and bullVerts and asteroids[i].vertices are, obviously, lists of vectors of each vertex for the respective bullet or asteroid. Honestly, I'm not looking for code corrections, just a fresh set of eyes.

    Read the article

  • How does the workflow between testers doing testing and coders doing the coding for pending testing

    - by dotnetdev
    In a large company that does software development, they often have dedicated teams for build management, testing, development, and so forth. Agile or not, how does this workflow amongst teams work? I mean would the test team write unit tests and then the dev team write code to adhere to these tests (basically TDD)? And then the test team may write tests for a completely different project or have a slight quiet period until the dev team have done their coding. What possible workflows are there? This is something that interests me greatly. I know that in my current company we are doing it incorrectly (we have 1 tester about 5 devs, which is small scale) but I am not sure how exactly to draw out the ideal workflow. Many (ok, an ex-Project Manager) have tried, but all failed.

    Read the article

  • Web Performance testing using VS2010 "Testing a file download"

    - by cheedep
    Hi All, I am trying out the VS 2010 testing tools for the first time. And I tried recording a web performance test and my actions had a file download implemented as in the KB article here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/812406 by streaming chunks of 10000 bytes. However my test is failing at the download saying "The response stream has been closed". Please help me understand why it is happening this way also any suggestions how you would test such a file download. My main aim was to see how the download was performing for a load test with Intercontinental 350kbps connection on files of about 30-50 MB. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to get access under testing

    - by Friedrich
    This question is related to: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3027705/experiences-with-language-converters I just can tell I searched the web for quite a few days but hardly found anything about somewhat "proper" test in access. I found some framworks like accessunit but that's Unit testing, what abouut the forms? What about the different reports etc. A counter-example in "testing" is e.g the rails or Seaside or Smalltalk area. Where testing is thought of as integral part. But I have not found anything comparable for Access based solutions. Maybe some of you know better?

    Read the article

  • 2D Platformer Collision Problems With Both Axes

    - by AusGat
    I'm working on a little 2D platformer/fighting game with C++ and SDL, and I'm having quite a bit of trouble with the collision detection. The levels are made up of an array of tiles, and I use a for loop to go through each one (I know it may not be the best way to do it, and I may need help with that too). For each side of the character, I move it one pixel in that direction and check for a collision (I also check to see if the character is moving in that direction). If there is a collision, I set the velocity to 0 and move the player to the edge of the tile. My problem is that if I check for horizontal collisions first, and the player moves vertically at more than one pixel per frame, it handles the horizontal collision and moves the character to the side of the tile even if the tile is below (or above) the character. If I handle vertical collision first, it does the same, except it does it for the horizontal axis. How can I handle collisions on both axes without having those problems? Is there any better way to handle collision than how I'm doing it?

    Read the article

  • When is type testing OK?

    - by svidgen
    Assuming a language with some inherent type safety (e.g., not JavaScript): Given a method that accepts a SuperType, we know that in most cases wherein we might be tempted to perform type testing to pick an action: public void DoSomethingTo(SuperType o) { if (o isa SubTypeA) { o.doSomethingA() } else { o.doSomethingB(); } } We should usually, if not always, create a single, overridable method on the SuperType and do this: public void DoSomethingTo(SuperType o) { o.doSomething(); } ... wherein each subtype is given its own doSomething() implementation. The rest of our application can then be appropriately ignorant of whether any given SuperType is really a SubTypeA or a SubTypeB. Wonderful. But, we're still given is a-like operations in most, if not all, type-safe languages. And that seems suggests a potential need for explicit type testing. So, in what situations, if any, should we or must we perform explicit type testing? Forgive my absent mindedness or lack of creativity. I know I've done it before; but, it was honestly so long ago I can't remember if what I did was good! And in recent memory, I don't think I've encountered a need to test types outside my cowboy JavaScript.

    Read the article

  • White box testing with Google Test

    - by Daemin
    I've been trying out using GoogleTest for my C++ hobby project, and I need to test the internals of a component (hence white box testing). At my previous work we just made the test classes friends of the class being tested. But with Google Test that doesn't work as each test is given its own unique class, derived from the fixture class if specified, and friend-ness doesn't transfer to derived classes. Initially I created a test proxy class that is friends with the tested class. It contains a pointer to an instance of the tested class and provides methods for the required, but hidden, members. This worked for a simple class, but now I'm up to testing a tree class with an internal private node class, of which I need to access and mess with. I'm just wondering if anyone using the GoogleTest library has done any white box testing and if they have any hints or helpful constructs that would make this easier. Ok, I've found the FRIEND_TEST macro defined in the documentation, as well as some hints on how to test private code in the advanced guide. But apart from having a huge amount of friend declerations (i.e. one FRIEND_TEST for each test), is there an easier idion to use, or should I abandon using GoogleTest and move to a different test framework?

    Read the article

  • White box testing with Google Test

    - by Daemin
    I've been trying out using GoogleTest for my C++ hobby project, and I need to test the internals of a component (hence white box testing). At my previous work we just made the test classes friends of the class being tested. But with Google Test that doesn't work as each test is given its own unique class, derived from the fixture class if specified, and friend-ness doesn't transfer to derived classes. Initially I created a test proxy class that is friends with the tested class. It contains a pointer to an instance of the tested class and provides methods for the required, but hidden, members. This worked for a simple class, but now I'm up to testing a tree class with an internal private node class, of which I need to access and mess with. I'm just wondering if anyone using the GoogleTest library has done any white box testing and if they have any hints or helpful constructs that would make this easier. Ok, I've found the FRIEND_TEST macro defined in the documentation, as well as some hints on how to test private code in the advanced guide. But apart from having a huge amount of friend declerations (i.e. one FRIEND_TEST for each test), is there an easier idion to use, or should I abandon using GoogleTest and move to a different test framework?

    Read the article

  • unit/integration testing web service proxy client

    - by cori
    I'm rewriting a PHP client/proxy library that provides an interface to a SOAP-based .Net webservice, and in the process I want to add some unit and integration tests so future modifications are less risky. The work the library I'm working on performs is to marshall the calls to the web service and do a little reorganizing of the responses to present a slightly more -object-oriented interface to the underlying service. Since this library is little else than a thin layer on top of web service calls, my basic assumption is that I'll really be writing integration tests more than unit tests - for example, I don't see any reason to mock away the web service - the work that's performed by the code I'm working on is very light; it's almost passing the response from the service right back to its consumer. Most of the calls are basic CRUD operations: CreateRole(), CreateUser(), DeleteUser(), FindUser(), &ct. I'll be starting from a known database state - the system I'm using for these tests is isolated for testing purposes, so the results will be more or less predictable. My question is this: is it natural to use web service calls to confirm the results of operations within the tests and to reset the state of the application within the scope of each test? Here's an example: One test might be createUserReturnsValidUserId() and might go like this: public function createUserReturnsValidUserId() { // we're assuming a global connection to the service $newUserId = $client->CreateUser("user1"); assertNotNull($newUserId); assertNotNull($client->FindUser($newUserId); $client->deleteUser($newUserId); } So I'm creating a user, making sure I get an ID back and that it represents a user in the system, and then cleaning up after myself (so that later tests don't rely on the success or failure of this test w/r/t the number of users in the system, for example). However this still seems pretty fragile - lots of dependencies and opportunities for tests to fail and effect the results of later tests, which I definitely want to avoid. Am I missing some options of ways to decouple these tests from the system under test, or is this really the best I can do? I think this is a fairly general unit/integration testing question, but if it matters I'm using PHPUnit for the testing framework.

    Read the article

  • Node.JS testing with Jasmine, databases, and pre-existing code

    - by Jim Rubenstein
    I've recently built the start of a core system which is likely going turn into a monster product. I'm building the system with node.js, and decided after I got a small base built, that It'd be a great idea to start using some sort of automated test suite to test the application. I decided to use jasmine, as it seems pretty solid and has a lot of features for stubbing spying and mocking methods and classes. The application has a lot of external data stores and api access (kestrel, mysql, mongodb, facebook, and more). My issue is, I've got a good amount of code written that I want to start testing - as it represents the underpinnings of the application. What are the best practices for testing methods/classes that access external APIs that I may or may not have control over? As an example, I have a data structure that fetches a bunch of data from a MySQL database. I want to test the method that retrieves the data; and I'm not sure how to go about it. I could test the fetch method which is supposed to return an array of objects, but to isolate the method from the database, I need to define my own fixture data. So what I end up doing is stubbing the mysql execution, and returning a static dataset. So, I end up writing a function that returns the dataset that makes my test pass. That doesn't seem to actually test the code, other than verifying a method is being called. I know this is kind of abstract and vague, it seems that the idea of testing is very much abstract though, so hopefully someone has some experience and can guide me in the right direction. Any advice, or reading I can do is more than welcomed. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing to prove balanced tree

    - by Darrel Hoffman
    I've just built a self-balancing tree (red-black) in Java (language should be irrelevant for this question though), and I'm trying to come up with a good means of testing that it's properly balanced. I've tested all the basic tree operations, but I can't think of a way to test that it is indeed well and truly balanced. I've tried inserting a large dictionary of words, both pre-sorted and un-sorted. With a balanced tree, those should take roughly the same amount of time, but an unbalanced tree would take significantly longer on the already-sorted list. But I don't know how to go about testing for that in any reasonable, reproducible way. (I've tried doing millisecond tests on these, but there's no noticeable difference - probably because my source data is too small.) Is there a better way to be sure that the tree is really balanced? Say, by looking at the tree after it's created and seeing how deep it goes? (That is, without modifying the tree itself by adding a depth field to each node, which is just wasteful if you don't need it for anything other than testing.)

    Read the article

  • Implementing unit testing at a company that doesn't do it

    - by Pete
    My company's head of software development just "resigned" (i.e. fired) and we are now looking into improving the development practices at our company. We want to implement unit testing in all software created from here on out. Feedback from the developers is this: We know testing is valuable But, you are always changing the specs so it'd be a waste of time And, your deadlines are so tight we don't have enough time to test anyway Feedback from the CEO is this: I would like our company to have automated testing, but I don't know how to make it happen We don't have time to write large specification documents How do developers get the specs now? Word of mouth or PowerPoint slide. Obviously, that's a big problem. My suggestion is this: Let's also give the developers a set of test data and unit tests That's the spec. It's up to management to be clear and quantitative about what it wants. The developers can put it whatever other functionality they feel is needed and it need not be covered by tests Well, if you've ever been in a company that was in this situation, how did you solve the problem? Does this approach seem reasonable?

    Read the article

  • How do I implement collision detection with a sprite walking up a rocky-terrain hill?

    - by detectivecalcite
    I'm working in SDL and have bounding rectangles for collisions set up for each frame of the sprite's animation. However, I recently stumbled upon the issue of putting together collisions for characters walking up and down hills/slopes with irregularly curved or rocky terrain - what's a good way to do collisions for that type of situation? Per-pixel? Loading up the points of the incline and doing player-line collision checking? Should I use bounding rectangles in general or circle collision detection?

    Read the article

  • Normal vector of a face loaded from an FBX model during collision?

    - by Corey Ogburn
    I'm loading a simple 6 sided cube from a UV-mapped FBX model and I'm using a BoundingBox to test for collisions. Once I determine there's a collision, I want to use the normal vector of the collided surface to correct the movement of whatever collided with the cube. I suppose this is a two-part question: 1) How can I determine which face of the cube was collided with in a collision? 2) How can I get the normal vector of that surface?

    Read the article

  • What should be tested in Javascript?

    - by Nathan Hoad
    At work, we've just started on a heavily Javascript based application (actually using Coffeescript, but still), of which I've been implementing an automated test system using JsTestDriver and fabric. We've never written something with this much Javascript, so up until now we've never done any Javascript testing. I'm unsure what exactly we should be testing in our unit tests. We've written JQuery plugins for various things, so it's quite obvious that they should be verified for correctness as much as possible with JsTestDriver, but everyone else in my team seems to think that we should be testing the page level Javascript as well. I don't think we should be testing page level Javascript as unit tests, but instead using a system like Selenium to verify everything works as expected. My main reasoning for this is that at the moment, page level Javascript tests are guaranteed to fail through JsTestDriver, because they're trying to access elements on the DOM that can't possibly exist. So, what should be unit tested in Javascript?

    Read the article

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