Search Results

Search found 26297 results on 1052 pages for 'unit test'.

Page 19/1052 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

  • Unit-test FileSystemWatcher.Error Event

    - by dotNetkow
    I'm trying to unit test a private method that I have attached to my FileSystemWatcher's Error event. MSDN says that this event "occurs when the internal buffer overflows." I've tried to cause a buffer overflow but have not been successful so far. The FileSystemWatcher's various properties are: fileWatcher.IncludeSubdirectories = false; fileWatcher.Filter = "*"; fileWatcher.NotifyFilter = (NotifyFilters.FileName | NotifyFilters.LastAccess | NotifyFilters.Size); What is the best way of raising this event for the purpose of unit-testing?

    Read the article

  • Lazarus: Can't find unit [unit] used by [program]

    - by Ree
    I'm trying to use an external library (wingraph) in a simple program. I have .o and .ppu files. I added the directory that contains them to the list of both "Other Unit Files" and "Include Files" paths under Project-Compiler Options. When building, I still get the error "Can't find unit wingraph used by [program]". The library is Windows specific and I'm compiling on Windows, too. What should I do to solve the problem? Note that I don't have extensive knowledge about Pascal itself nor its tools. I'm just trying to quickly help someone start using the library.

    Read the article

  • Qt, unit testing and mock objects.

    - by Eye of Hell
    Hello. Qt framework has internal support for testing via QtTest package. Unfortunately, i didn't find any facilities in it that can assist in creating mock objects. Qt signals and slots offers a natural way to create a unit-testing friendly units with input (slots) and output (signals). But is it any easy way to test that calling specified slot in object will result in emitting correct signals with correct arguments? Of course i can manually create a mock objects and connect them to objects being tested, but it's a lot of code. Maybe it's some techniques exists that allows to somehow automate mock objects creation while unit-testing Qt-based applications?

    Read the article

  • How to make efficient code emerge through unit testing

    - by Jean
    Hi, I participate in a TDD Coding Dojo, where we try to practice pure TDD on simple problems. It occured to me however that the code which emerges from the unit tests isn't the most efficient. Now this is fine most of the time, but what if the code usage grows so that efficiency becomes a problem. I love the way the code emerges from unit testing, but is it possible to make the efficiency property emerge through further tests ? Here is a trivial example in ruby: prime factorization. I followed a pure TDD approach making the tests pass one after the other validating my original acceptance test (commented at the bottom). What further steps could I take, if I wanted to make one of the generic prime factorization algorithms emerge ? To reduce the problem domain, let's say I want to get a quadratic sieve implementation ... Now in this precise case I know the "optimal algorithm, but in most cases, the client will simply add a requirement that the feature runs in less than "x" time for a given environment. require 'shoulda' require 'lib/prime' class MathTest < Test::Unit::TestCase context "The math module" do should "have a method to get primes" do assert Math.respond_to? 'primes' end end context "The primes method of Math" do should "return [] for 0" do assert_equal [], Math.primes(0) end should "return [1] for 1 " do assert_equal [1], Math.primes(1) end should "return [1,2] for 2" do assert_equal [1,2], Math.primes(2) end should "return [1,3] for 3" do assert_equal [1,3], Math.primes(3) end should "return [1,2] for 4" do assert_equal [1,2,2], Math.primes(4) end should "return [1,5] for 5" do assert_equal [1,5], Math.primes(5) end should "return [1,2,3] for 6" do assert_equal [1,2,3], Math.primes(6) end should "return [1,3] for 9" do assert_equal [1,3,3], Math.primes(9) end should "return [1,2,5] for 10" do assert_equal [1,2,5], Math.primes(10) end end # context "Functionnal Acceptance test 1" do # context "the prime factors of 14101980 are 1,2,2,3,5,61,3853"do # should "return [1,2,3,5,61,3853] for ${14101980*14101980}" do # assert_equal [1,2,2,3,5,61,3853], Math.primes(14101980*14101980) # end # end # end end and the naive algorithm I created by this approach module Math def self.primes(n) if n==0 return [] else primes=[1] for i in 2..n do if n%i==0 while(n%i==0) primes<<i n=n/i end end end primes end end end

    Read the article

  • Looking for *small*, open source, c# project with extensive Unit Testing

    - by Gern Blandston
    (I asked this question but did not receive much response. It was recommended that I ask the same question with regards to C#. ) I am a VB.NET developer with little C# experience (yes, I know I need to write more in C#), looking for small open source projects that demonstrate high unit testing coverage from which to learn. I'm looking for small projects because I don't want to have to wade through a ton of code to get a better understanding of how to apply unit testing in my own situation, in which I write mostly IT business apps used internally by my company. UPDATE: Original question that got me asking about this is here

    Read the article

  • How apply Unit tests in ASP.NET webforms

    - by gre3ns0ul
    Hi guys. I'm developing a website in asp.net webforms with 3 layers; UI, BLL and DAL The website is already developed, but i like have more control about the unit tests of each form Pass specific values at specific inputs for i see, if application survives or not. I already study about NUnit but in webforms in UI layer how can apply these tests? What i wnat is get some way to test UI (validations) without have to access to the BLL as i was an user. I'm trying to add the Unit tests to my app but i not sure how to do it! somebody can help my small-bigger problem? apreciated

    Read the article

  • Unit testing UDP socket handling code

    - by JustJeff
    Are there any 'good' ways to cause a thread waiting on a recvfrom() call to become unblocked and return with an error? The motivation for this is to write unit tests for a system which includes a unit that reads UDP datagrams. One of the branches handles errors on the recvfrom call itself. The code isn't required to distinguish between different types of errors, it just has to set a flag. I've thought of closing the socket from another thread, or do a shutdown on it, to cause recvfrom to return with an error, but this seems a bit heavy handed. I've seen mention elsewhere that sending an over-sized packet would do it, and so set up an experiment where a 16K buffer was sent to a recvfrom waiting for just 4K, but that didn't result in an error. The recvfrom just return 4096, to indicate it had gotten that many bytes.

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with Stubs for unit testing?

    - by MatthewMartin
    I just watched this funny YouTube Video about unit testing (it's Hitler with fake subtitles chewing out his team for not doing good unit tests--skip it if you're humor impaired) where stubs get roundly criticized. But I don't understand what wrong with stubs. I haven't started using a mocking framework and I haven't started feeling the pain from not using one. Am I in for a world a hurt sometime down the line, having chosen handwritten stubs and fakes instead of mocks (like Rhinomock etc)? (using Fowler's taxonomy) What are the considerations for picking between a mock and handwritten stub?

    Read the article

  • ProgrammingError: (1146, "Table 'test_<DB>.<TABLE>' doesn't exist") when running unit test for Djang

    - by abigblackman
    I'm running a unit test using the Django framework and get this error. Running the actual code does not have this problem, running the unit tests creates a test database on the fly so I suspect the issue lies there. The code that throws the error looks like this member = Member.objects.get(email=email_address) and the model looks like class Member(models.Model): member_id = models.IntegerField(primary_key=True) created_on = models.DateTimeField(editable=False, default=datetime.datetime.utcnow()) flags = models.IntegerField(default=0) email = models.CharField(max_length=150, blank=True) phone = models.CharField(max_length=150, blank=True) country_iso = models.CharField(max_length=6, blank=True) location_id = models.IntegerField(null=True, blank=True) facebook_uid = models.IntegerField(null=True, blank=True) utc_offset = models.IntegerField(null=True, blank=True) tokens = models.CharField(max_length=3000, blank=True) class Meta: db_table = u'member' there's nothing too odd there i can see. the user running the tests has the same permissions to the database server as the user that runs the website where else can I look to see what's going wrong, why is this table not being created?

    Read the article

  • sbt: "test" works "test:run" not

    - by Martin
    I try to establish a build pipeline on Jenkins with a Play(2.0.2) project. As I want to just build the sources once and use the classes for downstream builds, I now have created a "compile"-job, that runs "sbt test:compile". That works so far. The next job should then just run the compiled tests. If I use "sbt test" it works as expected, but compiles the sources again. But if I try to run "sbt test:run" it says: [info] Loading project definition from ~/myproject/project [info] Set current project to myproject (in build file: ~/myproject/) java.lang.RuntimeException: No main class detected. at scala.sys.package$.error(package.scala:27) [error] {file:~/myproject/test:run: No main class detected. The same happens locally. I can run "sbt test" but not "sbt test:run". Same error. Is there someone who can point me to the right direction?

    Read the article

  • I want to create a common unit test function to check all functions based on parameter

    - by Nilesh Rathod
    I want to create a common unit test function to check all functions based on parameter for e.g commonmethod(string methodname,string paramter1,....) { .... } what logic should i write inside this method so that by passing a actual function in parameter methodname and then the common method should execute that function and should return the output. i am using entity framework for all functions which has been created in my project and now i dont want to create a separate unit test function for each function.just one function should do the job based on different parameters... is that possible.. ?, if so then please provide me an code for same.. Thanks in advance..!!!

    Read the article

  • Multiple Asserts in a Unit Test

    - by whatispunk
    I've just finished reading Roy Osherove's "The Art of Unit Testing" and I am trying to adhere to the best practices he lays out in the book. One of those best practices is to not use multiple asserts in a test method. The reason for this rule is fairly clear to me, but it makes me wonder... If I have a method like: public Foo MakeFoo(int x, int y, int z) { Foo f = new Foo(); f.X = x; f.Y = y; f.Z = z; return f; } Must I really write individual unit tests to assert each separate property of Foo is initialized with the supplied value? Is it really all that uncommon to use multiple asserts in a test method? FYI: I am using MSTest.

    Read the article

  • Wrong code coverage on of unit test

    - by KamilPyc
    I'm using code coverage for unit tests in Xcode. Everything is working except some special cases, for example protocol declaration shows wrong values. If I have : @protocol SomeProtocole <NSObject> @property (nonatomic, readonly) NSObject *example; @end I will get 0% code coverage for this file. But I have unit test that is using class that conforms to that protocol. Only solution I found so far is to filter code coverage raport to not include protocols. But I would like to see real values for protocols. Any one have some solution to fix it?

    Read the article

  • Is my code really not unit-testable?

    - by John
    A lot of code in a current project is directly related to displaying things using a 3rd-party 3D rendering engine. As such, it's easy to say "this is a special case, you can't unit test it". But I wonder if this is a valid excuse... it's easy to think "I am special" but rarely actually the case. Are there types of code which are genuinely not suited for unit-testing? By suitable, I mean "without it taking longer to figure out how to write the test than is worth the effort"... dealing with a ton of 3D math/rendering it could take a lot of work to prove the output of a function is correct compared with just looking at the rendered graphics.

    Read the article

  • Silverlight unit testing (using NUnit)

    - by 1gn1ter
    I'm using NUnit for testing back-end. Unit tests are being executed while building (I'm using TeamCity for continuous building). Now I hove to test front-end (Silverlight 4.0). Because the tests are being executed while building, I have to simulate browser (TypeMock - is not free, isn't it?) could I use NUnit.Mocks somehow?. How to use NUnit for Silverlight testing? I've found WHITE framework could it help? Any other advises about software/frameworks to use for Silverlight unit testing?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing: hard dependency MessageBox.Show()

    - by Sean B
    What ways can the SampleConfirmationDialog be unit tested? The SampleConfirmationDialog would be exercised via acceptance tests, however how could we unit test it, seeing as MessageBox is not abstract and no matching interface? public interface IConfirmationDialog { /// <summary> /// Confirms the dialog with the user /// </summary> /// <returns>True if confirmed, false if not, null if cancelled</returns> bool? Confirm(); } /// <summary> /// Implementation of a confirmation dialog /// </summary> public class SampleConfirmationDialog : IConfirmationDialog { /// <summary> /// Confirms the dialog with the user /// </summary> /// <returns>True if confirmed, false if not, null if cancelled</returns> public bool? Confirm() { return MessageBox.Show("do operation x?", "title", MessageBoxButton.YesNo, MessageBoxImage.Question) == MessageBoxResult.Yes; } }

    Read the article

  • python unit testing os.remove fails file system

    - by hwjp
    Am doing a bit of unit testing on a function which attempts to open a new file, but should fail if the file already exists. when the function runs sucessfully, the new file is created, so i want to delete it after every test run, but it doesn't seem to be working: class MyObject_Initialisation(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): if os.path.exists(TEMPORARY_FILE_NAME): try: os.remove(TEMPORARY_FILE_NAME) except WindowsError: #TODO: can't figure out how to fix this... #time.sleep(3) #self.setUp() #this just loops forever pass def tearDown(self): self.setUp() any thoughts? The Windows Error thrown seems to suggest the file is in use... could it be that the tests are run in parallel threads? I've read elsewhere that it's 'bad practice' to use the filesystem in unit testing, but really? Surely there's a way around this that doesn't invole dummying the filesystem?

    Read the article

  • Write Unit test for sorting

    - by user175084
    I need to write a unit test for a method where I arrange data according to another default list. This is the method. internal AData[] GetDataArrayInInitialSortOrder(ABData aBData) { Dictionary<string,AData > aMap = aBData.ADataArray.ToDictionary(v => v.GroupName, v => v); List<AData> newDataList = new List<AData>(); foreach (AData aData in _viewModel.ADList) newDataList.Add(aMap[aData.GroupName]); return newDataList.ToArray(); } Please help I am new in unit testing and this is not easy for me. Any sample or links are appreciated Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >