Search Results

Search found 32072 results on 1283 pages for 'catch unit test'.

Page 15/1283 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • C# Unit testing resources

    - by Mohit Deshpande
    I migrated from Java to C# and so I am wondering how to unit tests in C#. I remember using JUnit to test my Java applications and importing the package, etc. How can I unit test in C#? What are some good resources for unit testing in C#?

    Read the article

  • A good way to write unit tests

    - by bobobobo
    So, I previously wasn't really in the practice of writing unit tests - now I kind of am and I need to check if I'm on the right track. Say you have a class that deals with math computations. class Vector3 { public: // Yes, public. float x,y,z ; // ... ctors ... } ; Vector3 operator+( const Vector3& a, const Vector3 &b ) { return Vector3( a.x + b.y /* oops!! hence the need for unit testing.. */, a.y + b.y, a.z + b.z ) ; } There are 2 ways I can really think of to do a unit test on a Vector class: 1) Hand-solve some problems, then hard code the numbers into the unit test and pass only if equal to your hand and hard-coded result bool UnitTest_ClassVector3_operatorPlus() { Vector3 a( 2, 3, 4 ) ; Vector3 b( 5, 6, 7 ) ; Vector3 result = a + b ; // "expected" is computed outside of computer, and // hard coded here. For more complicated operations like // arbitrary axis rotation this takes a bit of paperwork, // but only the final result will ever be entered here. Vector3 expected( 7, 9, 11 ) ; if( result.isNear( expected ) ) return PASS ; else return FAIL ; } 2) Rewrite the computation code very carefully inside the unit test. bool UnitTest_ClassVector3_operatorPlus() { Vector3 a( 2, 3, 4 ) ; Vector3 b( 5, 6, 7 ) ; Vector3 result = a + b ; // "expected" is computed HERE. This // means all you've done is coded the // same thing twice, hopefully not having // repeated the same mistake again Vector3 expected( 2 + 5, 6 + 3, 4 + 7 ) ; if( result.isNear( expected ) ) return PASS ; else return FAIL ; } Or is there another way to do something like this?

    Read the article

  • Grails unit testing and bootstrap

    - by tbruyelle
    I wrote an unit test for a controller. I have a Bootstrap file which alter the metaclass of domain classes by adding a method asPublicMap(). I use this method in the controller to return domain classes as json but only some selected public fields. My unit test failed because of MissingMethodException for asPublicMap(). As I understood, bootstrap classes are not loaded for unit tests, only for integration tests. That's why I got this error. My question is : Is there another place to put metaclass manipulation in order to take them into account during unit tests ?

    Read the article

  • Do you write unit tests for all the time in TDD?

    - by mcaaltuntas
    I have been designing and developing code with TDD style for a long time. What disturbs me about TDD is writing tests for code that does not contain any business logic or interesting behaviour. I know TDD is a design activity more than testing but sometimes I feel it's useless to write tests in these scenarios. For example I have a simple scenario like "When user clicks check button, it should check file's validity". For this scenario I usually start writing tests for presenter/controller class like the one below. @Test public void when_user_clicks_check_it_should_check_selected_file_validity(){ MediaService service =mock(MediaService); View view =mock(View); when(view.getSelectedFile).thenReturns("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); MediaController controller =new MediaController(service,view); controller.check(); verify(service).check("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); } As you can see there is no design decision or interesting code to verify behaviour. I am testing values from view passed to MediaService. I usually write but don't like these kind of tests. What do yo do about these situations ? Do you write tests for all the time ? UPDATE : I have changed the test name and code after complaints. Some users said that you should write tests for the trivial cases like this so in the future someone might add interesting behaviour. But what about “Code for today, design for tomorrow.” ? If someone, including myself, adds more interesting code in the future the test can be created for it then. Why should I do it now for the trivial cases ?

    Read the article

  • Unit Test this - Simple method but don't know what's to test!

    - by user309705
    a very simple method, but don't know what's to test! I'd like to test this method in Business Logic Layer, and the _dataAccess apparently is from data layer. public DataSet GetLinksByAnalysisId(int analysisId) { DataSet result = new DataSet(); result = _dataAccess.SelectAnalysisLinksOverviewByAnalysisId(analysisId); return result; } All Im testing really is to test _dataAccess.SelectAnalysisLinksOverviewByAnalysisId() is get called! here's my test code (using Rhino mock) [TestMethod] public void Test() { var _dataAccess = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IDataAccess>(); _dataAccess.Expect(x => x.SelectAnalysisLinksOverviewByAnalysisId(_settings.UserName, 0, out dateExecuted)); var analysisBusinessLogic = new AnalysisLinksBusinessLogic(_dataAccess); analysisBusinessLogic.GetLinksByAnalysisId(_settings, 0); _dataAccess.VerifyAllExpectations(); } Let me know if you writing the test for this method what would you test against? Many Thanks!

    Read the article

  • ruby Test::Unit Command line options?

    - by Joe Soul-bringer
    Hi all, When running tests in Ruby's unit::test framework, is there a really easy way to specify, from the command-line, that only one test should be run (that is, specify the test class and test member variable)? If not, is there another framework that has this feature?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing - Am I doing it right?

    - by baron
    Hi everyone, Basically I have been programing for a little while and after finishing my last project can fully understand how much easier it would have been if I'd have done TDD. I guess I'm still not doing it strictly as I am still writing code then writing a test for it, I don't quite get how the test becomes before the code if you don't know what structures and how your storing data etc... but anyway... Kind of hard to explain but basically lets say for example I have a Fruit objects with properties like id, color and cost. (All stored in textfile ignore completely any database logic etc) FruitID FruitName FruitColor FruitCost 1 Apple Red 1.2 2 Apple Green 1.4 3 Apple HalfHalf 1.5 This is all just for example. But lets say I have this is a collection of Fruit (it's a List<Fruit>) objects in this structure. And my logic will say to reorder the fruitids in the collection if a fruit is deleted (this is just how the solution needs to be). E.g. if 1 is deleted, object 2 takes fruit id 1, object 3 takes fruit id2. Now I want to test the code ive written which does the reordering, etc. How can I set this up to do the test? Here is where I've got so far. Basically I have fruitManager class with all the methods, like deletefruit, etc. It has the list usually but Ive changed hte method to test it so that it accepts a list, and the info on the fruit to delete, then returns the list. Unit-testing wise: Am I basically doing this the right way, or have I got the wrong idea? and then I test deleting different valued objects / datasets to ensure method is working properly. [Test] public void DeleteFruit() { var fruitList = CreateFruitList(); var fm = new FruitManager(); var resultList = fm.DeleteFruitTest("Apple", 2, fruitList); //Assert that fruitobject with x properties is not in list ? how } private static List<Fruit> CreateFruitList() { //Build test data var f01 = new Fruit {Name = "Apple",Id = 1, etc...}; var f02 = new Fruit {Name = "Apple",Id = 2, etc...}; var f03 = new Fruit {Name = "Apple",Id = 3, etc...}; var fruitList = new List<Fruit> {f01, f02, f03}; return fruitList; }

    Read the article

  • Unit Test Sessions Window Closes when debugging

    - by Daniel Dyson
    When I select an NUnit test in the Unit Test Sessions window and click debug, the window disappears. My breakpoints are hit, but if I hit F5, the Unit Test Sessions window does not return until the test returns a result or I stop the debugging session. This is preventing me from viewing any console output during tests. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • What kind of code would Kent Beck avoid unit testing?

    - by tieTYT
    I've been watching a few of the Is TDD Dead? talks on youtube, and one of the things that surprised me is Kent Beck seems to acknowledge that there are just some kinds of programs that aren't worth unit testing. For example, right here DHH says that Kent Beck is ... very happy to say "Well, TDD doesn't fit in this case, I'm just going to bail" It's frustrating to me that Kent Beck seems to acknowledge this, but nobody asks him to elaborate on it or give concrete examples. I'd like to know the situations where Kent Beck thinks TDD is a bad fit. Nobody can read his mind or speak for him, but I'm hoping he's been transparent enough through his books/tweets/whatever for someone to be able to answer. I'm not necessarily going to take what he says as gospel, but it would be useful to know that the times I've tried TDD and it just felt impossible/useless are situations that he would have bailed on it himself. Or, if it turned out he would have tested that code it'd suggest to me that I was approaching the process very wrong. I also think it would be enlightening to understand why he would bail on such projects. My opinion on why this is not a duplicate of "When is it appropriate to not unit test?" After skimming those answers I'm not satisfied. For example, look at UncleBob's answer. He doesn't even acknowledge that such a situation exists. I really think there's value in understanding Kent Beck's position, not just a general, "What's your opinion?" type of question. After all, he's the father of TDD.

    Read the article

  • What open source POSIX compliance test suites are available?

    - by Richard Pennington
    I'm working on a small open source project, ELLCC, that uses clang/LLVM as a cross compiler for various target processors. For the runtime environment, I'm using the NetBSD libraries and porting them to target Linux and standalone systems. I want to run a POSIX compliance test suite on the code. I've found the Open POSIX Test Suite, which looks like a good start, but it hasn't been updated since 2005. I've done some preliminary testing (with gcc and ecc under Linux), and it looks like it needs a few updates for modern compilers. My questions are: Does the Open POSIX Test Suite live on somewhere in a more up to date form? Are there other open source alternatives?

    Read the article

  • How to unit test models in MVC / MVR app?

    - by BBnyc
    I'm building a node.js web app and am trying to do so for the first time in a test driven fashion. I'm using nodeunit for testing, which I find allows me to write tests quickly and painlessly. In this particular app, the heavy lifting primarily involves translating SQL data into complex Javascript object and serving them to the front-end via json. Likewise, the app also spends a great deal of code validating and translating complex, multidimensional Javascript objects it receives from the front-end into SQL rows. Hence I have used a fat model design for the app -- most of the real code resides in the models, where the data translation happens. What's the best approach to test such models with unit tests? I mean in particular the methods that have create javascript objects from the SQL rows and serve them to the front-end. Right now what I'm doing is making particular requests of my models with the unit tests and checking the returned data for all of the fields that should be there. However I have a suspicion that this is not the most robust kind of testing I could be doing. My current testing design also means I have to package my app code with some dummy data so that my tests can anticipate the kind of data that the app should be returning when tests run.

    Read the article

  • Is wrapping a third party code the only solution to unit test its consumers? [closed]

    - by Songo
    I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Now some people argue that if a library is stable enough and won't change often then there is no need to wrap it. So assuming that Zend_Mail is stable and won't change and it fits my needs entirely, then I won't need a wrapper for it. Now take a look at my class Logger that depends on Zend_Mail: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Now is wrapping Zend_Mail the only solution or is there a better approach to this problem? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Myths and Practices

    We all understand the value of Unit Testing, but how come so few organisations maintain unit tests for their in-house applications? We can no longer pretend that unit testing is a universal panacea for ensuring less-buggy applications. Instead, we should be prepared to actively justify the use of unit tests, and be more savvy about where in the development cycle the unit test resources should be most effectively used.

    Read the article

  • How to unit test asynchronous APIs?

    - by Ben Clayton
    Hi all. I have installed Google Toolbox for Mac (http://code.google.com/p/google-toolbox-for-mac/) into Xcode and followed the instructions to set up unit testing found here (http://code.google.com/p/google-toolbox-for-mac/wiki/iPhoneUnitTesting). It all works great, and I can test my synchronous methods on all my objects absolutely fine. However, most of the complex APIs I actually want to test return results asynchronously via calling a method on a delegate - for example a call to a file download and update system will return immediately and then run a -fileDownloadDidComplete: method when the file finishes downloading. How would I test this as a unit test? It seems like I'd want to the testDownload function, or at least the test framework to 'wait' for fileDownloadDidComplete: method to run. Any ideas much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Where to place unit test project

    - by Karsten
    I'm thinking about where to put the unit/integration test project. I follow the 1 test project pr. project convention I can think of 3 ways, that all seems good to me, which make it kind of hard to choose :-) Test project is put under a Tests sub folder to the project it tests. Test project is put next to the project it tests, in a "project".Tests folder. I believe this is what Roy Osherove recommends. Put all test projects in a sub folder in the root. e.g. \Tests\"project".Tests Something else? What you choose and why?

    Read the article

  • Typical size of unit tests compared to test code

    - by Frank Schwieterman
    I'm curious what a reasonable / typical value is for the ratio of test code to production code when people are doing TDD. Looking at one component, I have 530 lines of test code for 130 lines of production code. Another component has 1000 lines of test code for 360 lines of production code. So the unit tests are requiring roughly 3x to 5x as much code. This is for Javascript code. I don't have much tested C# code handy, but I think for another project I was looking at 2x to 3x as much test code then production code. It would seem to me that the lower that value is, assuming the tests are sufficient, would reflect higher quality tests. Pure speculation, I just wonder what ratios other people see. I know lines of code is an loose metric, but since I code in the same style for both test and production (same spacing format, same ammount of comments, etc) the values are comparable.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing custom controls in Silverlight

    - by Hrvoje
    I have several custom controls (some kind of frames for content and layout management, like wrap panel), and would like to write unit tests for them. It's hard to find any good examples except Silverlight control toolkit, which has some helper classes to do unit tests and it's quite complicated. For MVVM classes it's easy to write tests because they don't use SL dependency system and infrastructure. Questions: how to unit test DepedenyProperty, what do I need to test how to test attached property do I test bindings with theme or UserControl, like simple textblock content binding, or command/event binding in MVVM with UserControl what else do I test in my custom controls, beside my business logic any good tutorial to achieve tests like those in control toolkit How do I start? Is SL controls toolkit only option for learning? For testing framework i'm using one from control toolkit, and for continuus integration on TFS build server I planned to use Statlight (from codeplex). Any advice on that?

    Read the article

  • Try/Catch or test parameters

    - by Ondra Morský
    I was recently on a job interview and I was given a task to write simple method in C# to calculate when the trains meet. The code was simple mathematical equation. What I did was that I checked all the parameters on the beginning of the method to make sure, that the code will not fail. My question is: Is it better to check the parameters, or use try/catch? Here are my thoughts: Try/catch is shorter Try/catch will work always even if you forget about some condition Catch is slow in .NET Testing parameters is probably cleaner code (Exceptions should be exceptional) Testing parameters gives you more control over return values I would prefer testing parameters in methods longer than +/- 10 lines, but what do you think about using try/catch in simple methods just like this – i.e. return (a*b)/(c+d); There are many similar questions on stackexchnage, but I am interested in this particular scenario.

    Read the article

  • Seam unit test can't connect to JBoss4.0.5GA

    - by user240423
    Does anybody know how to connect with JBoss4.0.5GA in Seam2.2.0GA unit test? I'm using Seam2.2.0GA with the embeded JBoss to run the unit test, the module needs to call old JBoss server (EJB2, because the vendor locked in JCA has to deploy on old JBoss). it's typical seam test case, and I can't get it connect to JBoss4.0.5GA by using jbossall-client.jar from JBoss4.0.5GA. so far I tested the embeded JBoss can only working with JBoss5.X server. with JBoss4.2.3GA, it report: [testng] java.rmi.MarshalException: Failed to communicate. Problem during marshalling/unmarshalling; nested exception is: [testng] java.net.SocketException: end of file [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.transport.socket.SocketClientInvoker.handleException(SocketClientInvoker.java:122) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.transport.socket.MicroSocketClientInvoker.transport(MicroSocketClientInvoker.java:679) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.MicroRemoteClientInvoker.invoke(MicroRemoteClientInvoker.java:122) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.Client.invoke(Client.java:1634) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.Client.invoke(Client.java:548) This is the best result I could get (JBoss5.1.0GA jbossall-client.jar call JBoss4.2.3GA server in the embeded JBoss env), here is the ant script: <testng classpathref="build.test.classpath" outputDir="${target.test-reports.dir}" haltOnfailure="true"> <jvmarg line="-Dsun.lang.ClassLoader.allowArraySyntax=true" /> <jvmarg line="-Dorg.jboss.j2ee.Serialization=true" /> <!-- <jvmarg line="-Djboss.remoting.pre_2_0_compatible=true" /> --> <jvmarg line="-Djboss.jndi.url=jnp://localhost:1099" /> <xmlfileset dir="src/test/java" includes="${ant.project.name}-testsuite.xml" /> </testng> Can anybody help?

    Read the article

  • Unit test insert/update/delete

    - by Kurresmack
    Hey, I have googled this a little and didn't really find the answer I needed. I am working on a webpage in C# with MSSQL and LINQ for a customer. I want the users to be able to send messages to each other. So what I do is that I unit test this with data that actually goes into the database. The problem is that I now depend on having at least 2 users who I know the ID of. Furthermore I have to clean up after my self. This leads to rather large unit tests that test alot in one test. Lets say I would like to update a user. That would mean that I would have to ceate the user, update it, and then delete it. This a lot of assertions in one unit test and if it fails with updating i have to manually delete it. If I would do it any other way, without saving the data to DB, I would not for sure be able to know that the data was present in the database after updating etc. What is the proper way to do this without having a test that tests a lot of functuality in one test?

    Read the article

  • MSTest unit test passes by itself, fails when other tests are run

    - by Sarah Vessels
    I'm having trouble with some MSTest unit tests that pass when I run them individually but fail when I run the entire unit test class. The tests test some code that SLaks helped me with earlier, and he warned me what I was doing wasn't thread-safe. However, now my code is more complicated and I don't know how to go about making it thread-safe. Here's what I have: public static class DLLConfig { private static string _domain; public static string Domain { get { return _domain = AlwaysReadFromFile ? readCredentialFromFile(DOMAIN_TAG) : _domain ?? readCredentialFromFile(DOMAIN_TAG); } } } And my test is simple: string expected = "the value I know exists in the file"; string actual = DLLConfig.Domain; Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); When I run this test by itself, it passes. When I run it alongside all the other tests in the test class (which perform similar checks on different properties), actual is null and the test fails. I note this is not a problem with a property whose type is a custom Enum type; maybe I'm having this problem with the Domain property because it is a string? Or maybe it's a multi-threaded issue with how MSTest works?

    Read the article

  • Passing a paramter/object to a ruby unit/test before running it using TestRunner

    - by Nahir Khan
    I'm building a tool that automates a process then runs some tests on it's own results then goes to do some other stuff. In trying to clean up my code I have created a separate file that just has the test cases class. Now before I can run these tests, I have to pass the class a couple of parameters/objects before they can be run. Now the problem is that I can't seem to find a way to pass a parameter/object to the test class. Right now I am thinking to generate a Yaml file and read it in the test class but it feels "wrong" to use a temporary file for this. If anyone has a nicer solution that would be great! *********Edit******* Example Code of what I am doing right now: #!/usr/bin/ruby require 'test/unit/ui/console/testrunner' require 'yaml' require 'TS_SampleTestSuite' automatingSomething() importantInfo = getImportantInfo() File.open('filename.yml', 'w') do |f| f.puts importantInfo.to_yaml end Test::Unit::UI::Console::TestRunner.run(TS_SampleTestSuite) Now in the example above TS_SampleTestSuite needs importantInfo, so the first "test case" is a method that just reads in the information from the Yaml file filname.yml. I hope that clears up some confusion.

    Read the article

  • How can I unit test my custom validation attribute

    - by MightyAtom
    I have a custom asp.net mvc class validation attribute. My question is how can I unit test it? It would be one thing to test that the class has the attribute but this would not actually test that the logic inside it. This is what I want to test. [Serializable] [EligabilityStudentDebtsAttribute(ErrorMessage = "You must answer yes or no to all questions")] public class Eligability { [BooleanRequiredToBeTrue(ErrorMessage = "You must agree to the statements listed")] public bool StatementAgree { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "Please choose an option")] public bool? Income { get; set; } .....removed for brevity } [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class)] public class EligabilityStudentDebtsAttribute : ValidationAttribute { // If AnyDebts is true then // StudentDebts must be true or false public override bool IsValid(object value) { Eligability elig = (Eligability)value; bool ok = true; if (elig.AnyDebts == true) { if (elig.StudentDebts == null) { ok = false; } } return ok; } } I have tried to write a test as follows but this does not work: [TestMethod] public void Eligability_model_StudentDebts_is_required_if_AnyDebts_is_true() { // Arrange var eligability = new Eligability(); var controller = new ApplicationController(); // Act controller.ModelState.Clear(); controller.ValidateModel(eligability); var actionResult = controller.Section2(eligability,null,string.Empty); // Assert Assert.IsInstanceOfType(actionResult, typeof(ViewResult)); Assert.AreEqual(string.Empty, ((ViewResult)actionResult).ViewName); Assert.AreEqual(eligability, ((ViewResult)actionResult).ViewData.Model); Assert.IsFalse(((ViewResult)actionResult).ViewData.ModelState.IsValid); } The ModelStateDictionary does not contain the key for this custom attribute. It only contains the attributes for the standard validation attributes. Why is this? What is the best way to test these custom attributes? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Has test driven development (TDD) actually benefited a real world project?

    - by James
    I am not new to coding. I have been coding (seriously) for over 15 years now. I have always had some testing for my code. However, over the last few months I have been learning test driven design/development (TDD) using Ruby on Rails. So far, I'm not seeing the benefit. I see some benefit to writing tests for some things, but very few. And while I like the idea of writing the test first, I find I spend substantially more time trying to debug my tests to get them to say what I really mean than I do debugging actual code. This is probably because the test code is often substantially more complicated than the code it tests. I hope this is just inexperience with the available tools (RSpec in this case). I must say though, at this point, the level of frustration mixed with the disappointing lack of performance is beyond unacceptable. So far, the only value I'm seeing from TDD is a growing library of RSpec files that serve as templates for other projects/files. Which is not much more useful, maybe less useful, than the actual project code files. In reading the available literature, I notice that TDD seems to be a massive time sink up front, but pays off in the end. I'm just wondering, are there any real world examples? Does this massive frustration ever pay off in the real world? I really hope I did not miss this question somewhere else on here. I searched, but all the questions/answers are several years old at this point. It was a rare occasion when I found a developer who would say anything bad about TDD, which is why I have spent as much time on this as I have. However, I noticed that nobody seems to point to specific real-world examples. I did read one answer that said the guy debugging the code in 2011 would thank you for have a complete unit testing suite (I think that comment was made in 2008). So, I'm just wondering, after all these years, do we finally have any examples showing the payoff is real? Has anybody actually inherited or gone back to code that was designed/developed with TDD and has a complete set of unit tests and actually felt a payoff? Or did you find that you were spending so much time trying to figure out what the test was testing (and why it was important) that you just tossed out the whole mess and dug into the code?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >