Search Results

Search found 9492 results on 380 pages for 'logic unit'.

Page 16/380 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | Next Page >

N-tier architecture and unit tests (using Java)

- by Alexandre FILLATRE

Hi there, I'd like to have your expert explanations about an architectural question. Imagine a Spring MVC webapp, with validation API (JSR 303). So for a request, I have a controller that handles the request, then passes it to the service layer, which passes to the DAO one. Here's my question. At which layer should the validation occur, and how ? My though is that the controller has to handle basic validation (are mandatory fields empty ? Is the field length ok ? etc.). Then the service layer can do some tricker stuff, that involve other objets. The DAO does no validation at all. BUT, if I want to implement some unit testing (i.e. test layers below service, not the controllers), I'll end up with unexpected behavior because some validations should have been done in the Controller layer. As we don't use it for unit testing, there is a problem. What is the best way to deal with this ? I know there is no universal answer, but your personal experience is very welcomed. Thanks a lot. Regards.

Read the article
Unit testing a Grails custom taglib based on built-in Grails taglib

- by dipess

I've an app based on Grails 1.3.7. And I need to write a unit test for a custom taglib that is based on the built-in taglib, <g:select /> to be specific. I checked out the solution on this previous SO post but the solution stated is not working in my case (some properties are not being prooperly mocked up). The other solution that I found was this. Using this approach, I get most of the properties of FormTagLib mocked up except for the grailsApplication property that select requires. The actual error that I get is Cannot invoke method getArtefact() on null object. How can I properly write the unit test in such a case? Edit Here are my test class and the full stacktrace. Line #45 on the stacktrace is the call to the g.select from my custom taglib. My custom taglib is something like def clientSpecificQueues = {attrs-> def queueList = taskService.getClientSpecificQueues(session.clientName) def queueLabel = "Some String" if (queueList.size() > 0){ out << queueLabel else out << g.select(name:'queueId', from: queueList, optionKey: 'id', optionValue: 'name') }

Read the article
Best way to unit test Collection?

- by limc

I'm just wondering how folks unit test and assert that the "expected" collection is the same/similar as the "actual" collection (order is not important). To perform this assertion, I wrote my simple assert API:- public void assertCollection(Collection<?> expectedCollection, Collection<?> actualCollection) { assertNotNull(expectedCollection); assertNotNull(actualCollection); assertEquals(expectedCollection.size(), actualCollection.size()); assertTrue(expectedCollection.containsAll(actualCollection)); assertTrue(actualCollection.containsAll(expectedCollection)); } Well, it works. It's pretty simple if I'm asserting just bunch of Integers or Strings. It can also be pretty painful if I'm trying to assert a collection of Hibernate domains, say for example. The collection.containsAll(..) relies on the equals(..) to perform the check, but I always override the equals(..) in my Hibernate domains to check only the business keys (which is the best practice stated in the Hibernate website) and not all the fields of that domain. Sure, it makes sense to check just against the business keys, but there are times I really want to make sure all the fields are correct, not just the business keys (for example, new data entry record). So, in this case, I can't mess around with the domain.equals(..) and it almost seems like I need to implement some comparators for just unit testing purposes instead of relying on collection.containsAll(..). Are there some testing libraries I could leverage here? How do you test your collection? Thanks.

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
What is the purpose of unit testing an interface repository

- by ahsteele

I am unit testing an ICustomerRepository interface used for retrieving objects of type Customer. As a unit test what value am I gaining by testing the ICustomerRepository in this manner? Under what conditions would the below test fail? For tests of this nature is it advisable to do tests that I know should fail? i.e. look for id 4 when I know I've only placed 5 in the repository I am probably missing something obvious but it seems the integration tests of the class that implements ICustomerRepository will be of more value. [TestClass] public class CustomerTests : TestClassBase { private Customer SetUpCustomerForRepository() { return new Customer() { CustId = 5, DifId = "55", CustLookupName = "The Dude", LoginList = new[] { new Login { LoginCustId = 5, LoginName = "tdude" }, new Login { LoginCustId = 5, LoginName = "tdude2" } } }; } [TestMethod] public void CanGetCustomerById() { // arrange var customer = SetUpCustomerForRepository(); var repository = Stub<ICustomerRepository>(); // act repository.Stub(rep => rep.GetById(5)).Return(customer); // assert Assert.AreEqual(customer, repository.GetById(5)); } } Test Base Class public class TestClassBase { protected T Stub<T>() where T : class { return MockRepository.GenerateStub<T>(); } } ICustomerRepository and IRepository public interface ICustomerRepository : IRepository<Customer> { IList<Customer> FindCustomers(string q); Customer GetCustomerByDifID(string difId); Customer GetCustomerByLogin(string loginName); } public interface IRepository<T> { void Save(T entity); void Save(List<T> entity); bool Save(T entity, out string message); void Delete(T entity); T GetById(int id); ICollection<T> FindAll(); }

Read the article
ASP.NET MVC Unit Testing Controllers - Repositories

- by Brian McCord

This is more of an opinion seeking question, so there may not be a "right" answer, but I would welcome arguments as to why your answer is the "right" one. Given an MVC application that is using Entity Framework for the persistence engine, a repository layer, a service layer that basically defers to the repository, and a delete method on a controller that looks like this: public ActionResult Delete(State model) { try { if( model == null ) { return View( model ); } _stateService.Delete( model ); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } catch { return View( model ); } } I am looking for the proper way to Unit Test this. Currently, I have a fake repository that gets used in the service, and my unit test looks like this: [TestMethod] public void Delete_Post_Passes_With_State_4() { //Arrange var stateService = GetService(); var stateController = new StateController( stateService ); ViewResult result = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var model = (State)result.ViewData.Model; //Act RedirectToRouteResult redirectResult = stateController.Delete( model ) as RedirectToRouteResult; stateController = new StateController( stateService ); var newresult = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var newmodel = (State)newresult.ViewData.Model; //Assert Assert.AreEqual( redirectResult.RouteValues["action"], "Index" ); Assert.IsNull( newmodel ); } Is this overkill? Do I need to check to see if the record actually got deleted (as I already have Service and Repository tests that verify this)? Should I even use a fake repository here or would it make more sense just to mock the whole thing? The examples I'm looking at used this model of doing things, and I just copied it, but I'm really open to doing things in a "best practices" way. Thanks.

Read the article
Unit Testing the Use of TransactionScope

- by Randolpho

The preamble: I have designed a strongly interfaced and fully mockable data layer class that expects the business layer to create a TransactionScope when multiple calls should be included in a single transaction. The problem: I would like to unit test that my business layer makes use of a TransactionScope object when I expect it to. Unfortunately, the standard pattern for using TransactionScope is a follows: using(var scope = new TransactionScope()) { // transactional methods datalayer.InsertFoo(); datalayer.InsertBar(); scope.Complete(); } While this is a really great pattern in terms of usability for the programmer, testing that it's done seems... unpossible to me. I cannot detect that a transient object has been instantiated, let alone mock it to determine that a method was called on it. Yet my goal for coverage implies that I must. The Question: How can I go about building unit tests that ensure TransactionScope is used appropriately according to the standard pattern? Final Thoughts: I've considered a solution that would certainly provide the coverage I need, but have rejected it as overly complex and not conforming to the standard TransactionScope pattern. It involves adding a CreateTransactionScope method on my data layer object that returns an instance of TransactionScope. But because TransactionScope contains constructor logic and non-virtual methods and is therefore difficult if not impossible to mock, CreateTransactionScope would return an instance of DataLayerTransactionScope which would be a mockable facade into TransactionScope. While this might do the job it's complex and I would prefer to use the standard pattern. Is there a better way?

Read the article
How to unit test generic classes

- by Rowland Shaw

I'm trying to set up some unit tests for an existing compact framework class library. However, I've fallen at the first hurdle, where it appears that the test framework is unable to load the types involved (even though they're both in the class library being tested) Test method MyLibrary.Tests.MyGenericClassTest.MyMethodTest threw exception: System.MissingMethodException: Could not load type 'MyLibrary.MyType' from assembly 'MyLibrary, Version=1.0.3778.36113, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null'.. My code is loosely: public class MyGenericClass<T> : List<T> where T : MyType, new() { public bool MyMethod(T foo) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } With test methods: public void MyMethodTestHelper<T>() where T : MyType, new() { MyGenericClass<T> target = new MyGenericClass<T>(); foo = new T(); expected = true; actual = target.MyMethod(foo); Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); } [TestMethod()] public void MyMethodTest() { MyMethodTestHelper<MyType>(); } I'm a bit stumped though, as I can't even get it to break in the debugger to get to the inner exception, so what else do I check? EDIT this does seem to be something specific to the Compact Framework - recompiling the class libraries and the unit tests for the full framework, gives the expected output (i.e. the debugger stops when I'm going to throw a NotImplementedException).

Read the article
C++ and Dependency Injection in unit testing

- by lhumongous

Suppose I have a C++ class like so: class A { public: A() { } void SetNewB( const B& _b ) { m_B = _b; } private: B m_B; } In order to unit test something like this, I would have to break A's dependency on B. Since class A holds onto an actual object and not a pointer, I would have to refactor this code to take a pointer. Additionally, I would need to create a parent interface class for B so I can pass in my own fake of B when I test SetNewB. In this case, doesn't unit testing with dependency injection further complicate the existing code? If I make B a pointer, I'm now introducing heap allocation, and some piece of code is now responsible for cleaning it up (unless I use ref counted pointers). Additionally, if B is a rather trivial class with only a couple of member variables and functions, why introduce a whole new interface for it instead of just testing with an instance of B? I suppose you could make the argument that it would be easier to refactor A by using an interface. But are there some cases where two classes might need to be tightly coupled?

Read the article
Unit Testing - Algorithm or Sample based ?

- by ohadsc

Say I'm trying to test a simple Set class public IntSet : IEnumerable<int> { Add(int i) {...} //IEnumerable implementation... } And suppose I'm trying to test that no duplicate values can exist in the set. My first option is to insert some sample data into the set, and test for duplicates using my knowledge of the data I used, for example: //OPTION 1 void InsertDuplicateValues_OnlyOneInstancePerValueShouldBeInTheSet() { var set = new IntSet(); //3 will be added 3 times var values = new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5}; foreach (int i in values) set.Add(i); //I know 3 is the only candidate to appear multiple times int counter = 0; foreach (int i in set) if (i == 3) counter++; Assert.AreEqual(1, counter); } My second option is to test for my condition generically: //OPTION 2 void InsertDuplicateValues_OnlyOneInstancePerValueShouldBeInTheSet() { var set = new IntSet(); //The following could even be a list of random numbers with a duplicate var values = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5}; foreach (int i in values) set.Add(i); //I am not using my prior knowledge of the sample data //the following line would work for any data CollectionAssert.AreEquivalent(new HashSet<int>(values), set); } Of course, in this example, I conveniently have a set implementation to check against, as well as code to compare collections (CollectionAssert). But what if I didn't have either ? This is the situation when you are testing your real life custom business logic. Granted, testing for expected conditions generically covers more cases - but it becomes very similar to implementing the logic again (which is both tedious and useless - you can't use the same code to check itself!). Basically I'm asking whether my tests should look like "insert 1, 2, 3 then check something about 3" or "insert 1, 2, 3 and check for something in general" EDIT - To help me understand, please state in your answer if you prefer OPTION 1 or OPTION 2 (or neither, or that it depends on the case, etc )

Read the article
Unit Testing Interfaces in Python

- by Nicholas Mancuso

I am currently learning python in preperation for a class over the summer and have gotten started by implementing different types of heaps and priority based data structures. I began to write a unit test suite for the project but ran into difficulties into creating a generic unit test that only tests the interface and is oblivious of the actual implementation. I am wondering if it is possible to do something like this.. suite = HeapTestSuite(BinaryHeap()) suite.run() suite = HeapTestSuite(BinomialHeap()) suite.run() What I am currently doing just feels... wrong (multiple inheritance? ACK!).. class TestHeap: def reset_heap(self): self.heap = None def test_insert(self): self.reset_heap() #test that insert doesnt throw an exception... for x in self.inseq: self.heap.insert(x) def test_delete(self): #assert we get the first value we put in self.reset_heap() self.heap.insert(5) self.assertEquals(5, self.heap.delete_min()) #harder test. put in sequence in and check that it comes out right self.reset_heap() for x in self.inseq: self.heap.insert(x) for x in xrange(len(self.inseq)): val = self.heap.delete_min() self.assertEquals(val, x) class BinaryHeapTest(TestHeap, unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.inseq = range(99, -1, -1) self.heap = BinaryHeap() def reset_heap(self): self.heap = BinaryHeap() class BinomialHeapTest(TestHeap, unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.inseq = range(99, -1, -1) self.heap = BinomialHeap() def reset_heap(self): self.heap = BinomialHeap() if __name__ == '__main__': unittest.main()

Read the article
XSLT 1.0 help with recursion logic

- by DashaLuna

Hello guys, I'm having troubles with the logic and would apprecite any help/tips. I have <Deposits> elements and <Receipts> elements. However there isn't any identification what receipt was paid toward what deposit. I am trying to update the <Deposits> elements with the following attributes: @DueAmont - the amount that is still due to pay @Status - whether it's paid, outstanding (partly paid) or due @ReceiptDate - the latest receipt's date that was paid towards this deposit Every deposit could be paid with one or more receipts. It also could happen, that 1 receipt could cover one or more deposits. For example. If there are 3 deposits: 500 100 450 That are paid with the following receipts: 200 100 250 I want to get the following info: Deposit 1 is fully paid (status=paid, dueAmount=0, receiptNum=3. Deposit 2 is partly paid (status=outstanding, dueAmount=50, receiptNum=3. Deposit 3 is not paid (status=due, dueAmount=450, receiptNum=NAN. I've added comments in the code explaining what I'm trying to do. I am staring at this code for the 3rd day now non stop - can't see what I'm doing wrong. Please could anyone help me with it? :) Thanks! Set up: $deposits - All the available deposits $receiptsAsc - All the available receipts sorted by their @ActionDate Code:  <xsl:variable name="depositsClassified"> <xsl:call-template name="classifyDeposits"> <xsl:with-param name="depositsAll" select="$deposits"/> <xsl:with-param name="receiptsAll" select="$receiptsAsc"/> <xsl:with-param name="receiptCount" select="'1'"/> </xsl:call-template> </xsl:variable>  <xsl:template name="classifyDeposits"> <xsl:param name="depositsAll"/> <xsl:param name="receiptsAll"/> <xsl:param name="receiptCount"/>  <xsl:if test="$depositsAll">  <xsl:variable name="deposit" select="$depositsAll[1]"/>  <xsl:variable name="receiptSum"> <xsl:choose> <xsl:when test="$receiptsAll"> <xsl:value-of select="sum($receiptsAll[position() <= $receiptCount]/@ReceiptAmount)"/> </xsl:when> <xsl:otherwise>0</xsl:otherwise> </xsl:choose> </xsl:variable>  <xsl:variable name="diff" select="$deposit/@DepositTotalAmount - $receiptSum"/> <xsl:choose>  <xsl:when test="($diff > 0) and ($receiptCount < count($receiptsAll))"> <xsl:call-template name="classifyDeposits"> <xsl:with-param name="depositsAll" select="$depositsAll"/> <xsl:with-param name="receiptsAll" select="$receiptsAll"/> <xsl:with-param name="receiptCount" select="$receiptCount + 1"/> </xsl:call-template> </xsl:when>  <xsl:otherwise>  <xsl:apply-templates select="$deposit" mode="defineDeposit"> <xsl:with-param name="diff" select="$diff"/> <xsl:with-param name="receiptNum" select="$receiptCount"/> </xsl:apply-templates>  <xsl:variable name="receiptsUpdatedRTF"> <xsl:for-each select="$receiptsAll"> <xsl:choose>  <xsl:when test="position() < $receiptCount"> <xsl:copy> <xsl:copy-of select="./@*"/> <xsl:attribute name="ReceiptAmount">0</xsl:attribute> </xsl:copy> </xsl:when>  <xsl:when test="position() = $receiptCount"> <xsl:copy> <xsl:copy-of select="./@*"/> <xsl:attribute name="ReceiptAmount"> <xsl:value-of select="format-number($diff, '#.00;#.00')"/> </xsl:attribute> </xsl:copy> </xsl:when>  <xsl:otherwise> <xsl:copy-of select="."/> </xsl:otherwise> </xsl:choose> </xsl:for-each> </xsl:variable> <xsl:variable name="receiptsUpdated" select="msxsl:node-set($receiptsUpdatedRTF)/Receipts"/>  <xsl:call-template name="classifyDeposits"> <xsl:with-param name="depositsAll" select="$deposits[position() != 1]"/> <xsl:with-param name="receiptsAll" select="$receiptsUpdated"/> <xsl:with-param name="receiptCount" select="$receiptCount"/> </xsl:call-template> </xsl:otherwise> </xsl:choose> </xsl:if> </xsl:template>  <xsl:template match="MultiDeposits" mode="defineDeposit"> <xsl:param name="diff"/> <xsl:param name="receiptNum"/> <xsl:choose> <xsl:when test="$diff <= 0"> <xsl:apply-templates select="." mode="addAttrs"> <xsl:with-param name="status" select="'paid'"/> <xsl:with-param name="dueAmount" select="'0'"/> <xsl:with-param name="receiptNum" select="$receiptNum"/> </xsl:apply-templates> </xsl:when> <xsl:when test="$diff = ./@DepositTotalAmount"> <xsl:apply-templates select="." mode="addAttrs"> <xsl:with-param name="status" select="'due'"/> <xsl:with-param name="dueAmount" select="$diff"/> </xsl:apply-templates> </xsl:when> <xsl:when test="$diff < ./@DepositTotalAmount"> <xsl:apply-templates select="." mode="addAttrs"> <xsl:with-param name="status" select="'outstanding'"/> <xsl:with-param name="dueAmount" select="$diff"/> <xsl:with-param name="receiptNum" select="$receiptNum"/> </xsl:apply-templates> </xsl:when> <xsl:otherwise/> </xsl:choose> </xsl:template>  <xsl:template match="MultiDeposits" mode="addAttrs"> <xsl:param name="status"/> <xsl:param name="dueAmount"/> <xsl:param name="receiptNum" select="''"/> <xsl:copy> <xsl:copy-of select="./@*"/> <xsl:attribute name="Status"><xsl:value-of select="$status"/></xsl:attribute> <xsl:attribute name="DueAmount"><xsl:value-of select="$dueAmount"/></xsl:attribute> <xsl:if test="$receiptNum != ''"> <xsl:attribute name="ReceiptDate"> <xsl:value-of select="$receiptsAsc[position() = $receiptNum]/@ActionDate"/> </xsl:attribute> </xsl:if> <xsl:copy-of select="./*"/> </xsl:copy> </xsl:template>

Read the article
What type of code is suitable for unit testing?

- by RPK

In Test Driven Development, what type of code is testable? I am using a Micro-ORM (PetaPoco) and I have several methods that interact with the database like: AddCustomer UpdateRecord etc. I want to know how to write a test for these methods. I searched YouTube for videos on writing a test for DAL, but I didn't find any. I want to know which method or class is testable and how to write a test before writing the code itself.

Read the article
Do you write common pre-conditions for a large number of unit test cases ?

- by Vinoth Kumar

I have heard/read writing common pre-conditions for a large number of test cases is a bad thing, since this dependency may cause large number of test cases to fail if something changes . What are your thoughts on it ? If this is so , then what exactly is the purpose of setUp() method in Junit that runs before each test case ? If the same code inside setUp() runs before each test case , why cant it run only once before running all the test cases together ?

Read the article
What if I can't make my unit test fail in "Red, Green, Refactor" of TDD?

- by Joshua Harris

So let's say that I have a test: @Test public void MoveY_MoveZero_DoesNotMove() { Point p = new Point(50.0, 50.0); p.MoveY(0.0); Assert.assertAreEqual(50.0, p.Y); } This test then causes me to create the class Point: public class Point { double X; double Y; public void MoveY(double yDisplace) { throw new NotYetImplementedException(); } } Ok. It fails. Good. Then I remove the exception and I get green. Great, but of course I need to test if it changes value. So I write a test that calls p.MoveY(10.0) and checks if p.Y is equal to 60.0. It fails, so then I change the function to look like so: public void MoveY(double yDisplace) { Y += yDisplace; } Great, now I have green again and I can move on. I've tested not moving and moving in the positive direction, so naturally I should test a negative value. The only problem with this test is that if I wrote the test correctly, then it doesn't fail at first. That means that I didn't fit the principle of "Red, Green, Refactor." Of course, This is a first-world problem of TDD, but getting a fail at first is helpful in that it shows that your test can fail. Otherwise this seemingly innocent test that is just passing for incorrect reasons could fail later because it was written wrong. That might not be a problem if it happened 5 minutes later, but what if it happens to the poor-sap that inheirited your code two years later. What he knows is that MoveY does not work with negative values because that is what the test is telling him. But, it really could work and just be a bug in the test. I don't think that would happen in this particular case because the code sample is so simple, but if it were a large complicated system that might not be the case. It seems crazy to say that I want to fail my tests, but that is an important step in TDD, for good reasons.

Read the article
Create Business logic Layer, Data Access Layer classes and Stored Procedure scripts from database ta

Create Business logic Layer, Data Access Layer classes and Stored Procedure scripts from database table

Read the article
FxEngine Plugin to simulate logic gates

This article shows how to build plugins to simulate logic gates with the FxEngine framework

Read the article
What Exactly Does the Wattage Rating on a Power Supply Unit Mean?

- by Jason Fitzpatrick

Your PSU is rated 80 Plus Bronze and for 650 watts, but what exactly does that mean? Read on to see how wattage and power efficiency ratings translate to real world use. Today’s Question & Answer session comes to us courtesy of SuperUser—a subdivision of Stack Exchange, a community-drive grouping of Q&A web sites. How To Use USB Drives With the Nexus 7 and Other Android Devices Why Does 64-Bit Windows Need a Separate “Program Files (x86)” Folder? Why Your Android Phone Isn’t Getting Operating System Updates and What You Can Do About It

Read the article
What is the best unit test framework for .NET and why?

- by rmx

It seems to me that everyone uses NUnit without even considering the other options. I think this is because: Everyone is familiar with it already so they won't have to learn a new API. It is already set up with their continuous integration server to work with NUnit. Am I wrong about this? I decided to use xUnit on one of my own projects recently and I love it! It makes so much more sense to me and conceptually it seems like a definite step forward from NUnit. I'd like to hear opinions on which framework is actually the best - not taking into consideration having to learn it or reconfigure your automated testing.

Read the article
Separating logic and data in browser game

- by Tesserex

I've been thinking this over for days and I'm still not sure what to do. I'm trying to refactor a combat system in PHP (...sorry.) Here's what exists so far: There are two (so far) types of entities that can participate in combat. Let's just call them players and NPCs. Their data is already written pretty well. When involved in combat, these entities are wrapped with another object in the DB called a Combatant, which gives them information about the particular fight. They can be involved in multiple combats at once. I'm trying to write the logic engine for combat by having combatants injected into it. I want to be able to mock everything for testing. In order to separate logic and data, I want to have two interfaces / base classes, one being ICombatantData and the other ICombatantLogic. The two implementers of data will be one for the real objects stored in the database, and the other for my mock objects. I'm now running into uncertainties with designing the logic side of things. I can have one implementer for each of players and NPCs, but then I have an issue. A combatant needs to be able to return the entity that it wraps. Should this getter method be part of logic or data? I feel strongly that it should be in data, because the logic part is used for executing combat, and won't be available if someone is just looking up information about an upcoming fight. But the data classes only separate mock from DB, not player from NPC. If I try having two child classes of the DB data implementer, one for each entity type, then how do I architect that while keeping my mocks in the loop? Do I need some third interface like IEntityProvider that I inject into the data classes? Also with some of the ideas I've been considering, I feel like I'll have to put checks in place to make sure you don't mismatch things, like making the logic for an NPC accidentally wrap the data for a player. Does that make any sense? Is that a situation that would even be possible if the architecture is correct, or would the right design prohibit that completely so I don't need to check for it? If someone could help me just layout a class diagram or something for this it would help me a lot. Thanks. edit Also useful to note, the mock data class doesn't really need the Entity, since I'll just be specifying all the parameters like combat stats directly instead. So maybe that will affect the correct design.

Read the article
Any pre-rolled System.IO abstraction libraries out there for Unit Testing?

- by Binary Worrier

To test methods that use the file system we need to basically put System.IO behind a set of interfaces that we can then mock, I do this with a DiskIO class and interface. As my DiskIO code gets larger (and the grumblings from the we're unconvinced about this TDD thing crowd here in work get louder), I went looking for a comprehensive open source library that already does this and found . . . nothing. I may be looking in the wrong place or have approached this problem in completely the wrong way. I can't be the only idiot in this position, do these libraries exist, if so where are they? Any you've used and would recommend? Thanks P.S. I'm happy with my current approach i.e. starting with what we need, and adding only when the need arises. Unfortunately the we're unconvinced about this TDD thing crowd remain unconvinced, and think that I can't be right.

Read the article
Should I unit test the DefaultModelBinder?

- by Byron Sommardahl

I'm having some trouble unit testing the DefaultModelBinder which led me to start researching. I'm not turning up -any- resources on testing the DefaultModelBinder. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I shouldn't be testing this part of MVC? Your thoughts?

Read the article
Unit testing ASP.NET MVC 2 routes with areas bails out on AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas()

- by Sandor Drieënhuizen

I'm unit testing my routes in ASP.NET MVC 2. I'm using MSTest and I'm using areas as well. When I call AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas() however, it throws this exception: System.InvalidOperationException: System.InvalidOperationException: This method cannot be called during the application's pre-start initialization stage.. OK, so I reckon I can't call it from my class initializer. But when can I call it? I don't have an Application_Start in my test obviously.

Read the article
Rx Reactive extensions: Unit testing with FromAsyncPattern

- by Andrew Anderson

The Reactive Extensions have a sexy little hook to simplify calling async methods: var func = Observable.FromAsyncPattern<InType, OutType>( myWcfService.BeginDoStuff, myWcfService.EndDoStuff); func(inData).ObserveOnDispatcher().Subscribe(x => Foo(x)); I am using this in an WPF project, and it works great at runtime. Unfortunately, when trying to unit test methods that use this technique I am experiencing random failures. ~3 out of every five executions of a test that contain this code fails. Here is a sample test (implemented using a Rhino/unity auto-mocking container): [TestMethod()] public void SomeTest() { // arrange var container = GetAutoMockingContainer(); container.Resolve<IMyWcfServiceClient>() .Expect(x => x.BeginDoStuff(null, null, null)) .IgnoreArguments() .Do( new Func<Specification, AsyncCallback, object, IAsyncResult>((inData, asyncCallback, state) => { return new CompletedAsyncResult(asyncCallback, state); })); container.Resolve<IRepositoryServiceClient>() .Expect(x => x.EndRetrieveAttributeDefinitionsForSorting(null)) .IgnoreArguments() .Do( new Func<IAsyncResult, OutData>((ar) => { return someMockData; })); // act var target = CreateTestSubject(container); target.DoMethodThatInvokesService(); // Run the dispatcher for everything over background priority Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Background, new Action(() => { })); // assert Assert.IsTrue(my operation ran as expected); } The problem that I see is that the code that I specified to run when the async action completed (in this case, Foo(x)), is never called. I can verify this by setting breakpoints in Foo and observing that they are never reached. Further, I can force a long delay after calling DoMethodThatInvokesService (which kicks off the async call), and the code is still never run. I do know that the lines of code invoking the Rx framework were called. Other things I've tried: I have attempted to modify the second last line according to the suggestions here: Reactive Extensions Rx - unit testing something with ObserveOnDispatcher No love. I have added .Take(1) to the Rx code as follows: func(inData).ObserveOnDispatcher().Take(1).Subscribe(x = Foo(x)); This improved my failure rate to something like 1 in 5, but they still occurred. I have rewritten the Rx code to use the plain jane Async pattern. This works, however my developer ego really would love to use Rx instead of boring old begin/end. In the end I do have a work around in hand (i.e. don't use Rx), however I feel that it is not ideal. If anyone has ran into this problem in the past and found a solution, I'd dearly love to hear it.

Read the article
Unit Testing UrlHelper Extension Methods

- by fregas

I'm trying to create unit tests to make sure my extension methods for UrlHelper work? Does anyone know how to do this? I'm using MVC 1.0 and MvcContrib. I can test the routes but can't test code like this: public static string MoreFloorplans(this UrlHelper urlHelper, long productID, int pageIndex) { return urlHelper.Action<CatalogController>(x => x.GetRelatedProducts(productID, pageIndex)); }

Read the article

< Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | Next Page >