Search Results

Search found 24046 results on 962 pages for 'turing test'.

Page 2/962 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Can't build and run an android test project created using "ant create test-project" when tested proj

  - by Mike

  I have a module that builds an app called MyApp. I have another that builds some testcases for that app, called MyAppTests. They both build their own APKs, and they both work fine from within my IDE. I'd like to build them using ant so that I can take advantage of continuous integration. Building the app module works fine. I'm having difficulty getting the Test module to compile and run. Using Christopher's tip from a previous question, I used android create test-project -p MyAppTests -m ../MyApp -n MyAppTests to create the necessary build files to build and run my test project. This seems to work great (once I remove an unnecessary test case that it constructed for me and revert my AndroidManifest.xml to the one I was using before it got replaced by android create), but I have two problems. The first problem: The project doesn't compile because it's missing libraries. $ ant run-tests Buildfile: build.xml [setup] Project Target: Google APIs [setup] Vendor: Google Inc. [setup] Platform Version: 1.6 [setup] API level: 4 [setup] WARNING: No minSdkVersion value set. Application will install on all Android versions. -install-tested-project: [setup] Project Target: Google APIs [setup] Vendor: Google Inc. [setup] Platform Version: 1.6 [setup] API level: 4 [setup] WARNING: No minSdkVersion value set. Application will install on all Android versions. -compile-tested-if-test: -dirs: [echo] Creating output directories if needed... -resource-src: [echo] Generating R.java / Manifest.java from the resources... -aidl: [echo] Compiling aidl files into Java classes... compile: [javac] Compiling 1 source file to /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/classes -dex: [echo] Converting compiled files and external libraries into /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/classes.dex... [echo] -package-resources: [echo] Packaging resources [aaptexec] Creating full resource package... -package-debug-sign: [apkbuilder] Creating MyApp-debug-unaligned.apk and signing it with a debug key... [apkbuilder] Using keystore: /Users/mike/.android/debug.keystore debug: [echo] Running zip align on final apk... [echo] Debug Package: /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/MyApp-debug.apk install: [echo] Installing /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/MyApp-debug.apk onto default emulator or device... [exec] 1567 KB/s (288354 bytes in 0.179s) [exec] pkg: /data/local/tmp/MyApp-debug.apk [exec] Success -compile-tested-if-test: -dirs: [echo] Creating output directories if needed... [mkdir] Created dir: /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/gen [mkdir] Created dir: /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/bin [mkdir] Created dir: /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/bin/classes -resource-src: [echo] Generating R.java / Manifest.java from the resources... -aidl: [echo] Compiling aidl files into Java classes... compile: [javac] Compiling 5 source files to /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/bin/classes [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/GsonTest.java:4: package roboguice.test does not exist [javac] import roboguice.test.RoboUnitTestCase; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/GsonTest.java:8: package com.google.gson does not exist [javac] import com.google.gson.JsonElement; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/GsonTest.java:9: package com.google.gson does not exist [javac] import com.google.gson.JsonParser; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/GsonTest.java:11: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol: class RoboUnitTestCase [javac] public class GsonTest extends RoboUnitTestCase<MyApplication> { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/HttpTest.java:6: package roboguice.test does not exist [javac] import roboguice.test.RoboUnitTestCase; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/HttpTest.java:7: package roboguice.util does not exist [javac] import roboguice.util.RoboLooperThread; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/HttpTest.java:11: package com.google.gson does not exist [javac] import com.google.gson.JsonObject; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/HttpTest.java:15: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol: class RoboUnitTestCase [javac] public class HttpTest extends RoboUnitTestCase<MyApplication> { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/LinksTest.java:4: package roboguice.test does not exist [javac] import roboguice.test.RoboUnitTestCase; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/LinksTest.java:12: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol: class RoboUnitTestCase [javac] public class LinksTest extends RoboUnitTestCase<MyApplication> { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:4: package roboguice.test does not exist [javac] import roboguice.test.RoboUnitTestCase; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:5: package roboguice.util does not exist [javac] import roboguice.util.RoboAsyncTask; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:6: package roboguice.util does not exist [javac] import roboguice.util.RoboLooperThread; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:12: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol: class RoboUnitTestCase [javac] public class SafeAsyncTest extends RoboUnitTestCase<MyApplication> { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/classes/com/myapp/activity/Stories.class: warning: Cannot find annotation method 'value()' in type 'roboguice.inject.InjectResource': class file for roboguice.inject.InjectResource not found [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/classes/com/myapp/activity/Stories.class: warning: Cannot find annotation method 'value()' in type 'roboguice.inject.InjectResource' [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/classes/com/myapp/activity/Stories.class: warning: Cannot find annotation method 'value()' in type 'roboguice.inject.InjectView': class file for roboguice.inject.InjectView not found [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/classes/com/myapp/activity/Stories.class: warning: Cannot find annotation method 'value()' in type 'roboguice.inject.InjectView' [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/classes/com/myapp/activity/Stories.class: warning: Cannot find annotation method 'value()' in type 'roboguice.inject.InjectView' [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/classes/com/myapp/activity/Stories.class: warning: Cannot find annotation method 'value()' in type 'roboguice.inject.InjectView' [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/GsonTest.java:15: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class JsonParser [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.GsonTest [javac] final JsonParser parser = new JsonParser(); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/GsonTest.java:15: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class JsonParser [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.GsonTest [javac] final JsonParser parser = new JsonParser(); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/GsonTest.java:18: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class JsonElement [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.GsonTest [javac] final JsonElement e = parser.parse(s); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/GsonTest.java:20: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class JsonElement [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.GsonTest [javac] final JsonElement e2 = parser.parse(s2); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/HttpTest.java:19: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method getInstrumentation() [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.HttpTest [javac] assertEquals("MyApp", getInstrumentation().getTargetContext().getResources().getString(com.myapp.R.string.app_name)); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/HttpTest.java:62: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class RoboLooperThread [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.HttpTest [javac] new RoboLooperThread() { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/HttpTest.java:82: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method assertTrue(java.lang.String,boolean) [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.HttpTest [javac] assertTrue(result[0], result[0].contains("Search")); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/HttpTest.java:87: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class JsonObject [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.HttpTest [javac] final JsonObject[] result = {null}; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/HttpTest.java:90: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class RoboLooperThread [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.HttpTest [javac] new RoboLooperThread() { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/HttpTest.java:117: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class JsonObject [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.HttpTest [javac] final JsonObject[] result = {null}; [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/HttpTest.java:120: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class RoboLooperThread [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.HttpTest [javac] new RoboLooperThread() { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/LinksTest.java:27: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method assertTrue(boolean) [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.LinksTest [javac] assertTrue(m.matches()); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/LinksTest.java:28: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method assertEquals(java.lang.String,java.lang.String) [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.LinksTest [javac] assertEquals( map.get(url), m.group(1) ); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:19: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method getInstrumentation() [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest [javac] assertEquals("MyApp", getInstrumentation().getTargetContext().getString(com.myapp.R.string.app_name)); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:27: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class RoboLooperThread [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest [javac] new RoboLooperThread() { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:65: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method assertEquals(com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest.State,com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest.State) [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest [javac] assertEquals(State.TEST_SUCCESS,state[0]); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:74: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class RoboLooperThread [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest [javac] new RoboLooperThread() { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:105: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method assertEquals(com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest.State,com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest.State) [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest [javac] assertEquals(State.TEST_SUCCESS,state[0]); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:113: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class RoboLooperThread [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest [javac] new RoboLooperThread() { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:144: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method assertEquals(com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest.State,com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest.State) [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest [javac] assertEquals(State.TEST_SUCCESS,state[0]); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:154: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : class RoboLooperThread [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest [javac] new RoboLooperThread() { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java:187: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method assertEquals(com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest.State,com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest.State) [javac] location: class com.myapp.test.SafeAsyncTest [javac] assertEquals(State.TEST_SUCCESS,state[0]); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/StoriesTest.java:11: cannot access roboguice.activity.GuiceListActivity [javac] class file for roboguice.activity.GuiceListActivity not found [javac] public class StoriesTest extends ActivityUnitTestCase<Stories> { [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/StoriesTest.java:21: cannot access roboguice.application.GuiceApplication [javac] class file for roboguice.application.GuiceApplication not found [javac] setApplication( new MyApplication( getInstrumentation().getTargetContext() ) ); [javac] ^ [javac] /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/StoriesTest.java:22: incompatible types [javac] found : com.myapp.activity.Stories [javac] required: android.app.Activity [javac] final Activity activity = startActivity(intent, null, null); [javac] ^ [javac] 39 errors [javac] 6 warnings BUILD FAILED /opt/local/android-sdk-mac/platforms/android-1.6/templates/android_rules.xml:248: Compile failed; see the compiler error output for details. Total time: 24 seconds That's not a hard problem to solve. I'm not sure it's the right thing to do, but I copied the missing libraries (roboguice and gson) from the MyApp/libs directory to the MyAppTests/libs directory and everything seems to compile fine. But that leads to the second problem, which I'm currently stuck on. The tests compile fine but they won't run: $ cp ../MyApp/libs/gson-r538.jar libs/ $ cp ../MyApp/libs/roboguice-1.1-SNAPSHOT.jar libs/ 0 10:23 /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests $ ant run-testsBuildfile: build.xml [setup] Project Target: Google APIs [setup] Vendor: Google Inc. [setup] Platform Version: 1.6 [setup] API level: 4 [setup] WARNING: No minSdkVersion value set. Application will install on all Android versions. -install-tested-project: [setup] Project Target: Google APIs [setup] Vendor: Google Inc. [setup] Platform Version: 1.6 [setup] API level: 4 [setup] WARNING: No minSdkVersion value set. Application will install on all Android versions. -compile-tested-if-test: -dirs: [echo] Creating output directories if needed... -resource-src: [echo] Generating R.java / Manifest.java from the resources... -aidl: [echo] Compiling aidl files into Java classes... compile: [javac] Compiling 1 source file to /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/classes -dex: [echo] Converting compiled files and external libraries into /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/classes.dex... [echo] -package-resources: [echo] Packaging resources [aaptexec] Creating full resource package... -package-debug-sign: [apkbuilder] Creating MyApp-debug-unaligned.apk and signing it with a debug key... [apkbuilder] Using keystore: /Users/mike/.android/debug.keystore debug: [echo] Running zip align on final apk... [echo] Debug Package: /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/MyApp-debug.apk install: [echo] Installing /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyApp/bin/MyApp-debug.apk onto default emulator or device... [exec] 1396 KB/s (288354 bytes in 0.201s) [exec] pkg: /data/local/tmp/MyApp-debug.apk [exec] Success -compile-tested-if-test: -dirs: [echo] Creating output directories if needed... -resource-src: [echo] Generating R.java / Manifest.java from the resources... -aidl: [echo] Compiling aidl files into Java classes... compile: [javac] Compiling 5 source files to /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/bin/classes [javac] Note: /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/src/com/myapp/test/SafeAsyncTest.java uses unchecked or unsafe operations. [javac] Note: Recompile with -Xlint:unchecked for details. -dex: [echo] Converting compiled files and external libraries into /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/bin/classes.dex... [echo] -package-resources: [echo] Packaging resources [aaptexec] Creating full resource package... -package-debug-sign: [apkbuilder] Creating MyAppTests-debug-unaligned.apk and signing it with a debug key... [apkbuilder] Using keystore: /Users/mike/.android/debug.keystore debug: [echo] Running zip align on final apk... [echo] Debug Package: /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/bin/MyAppTests-debug.apk install: [echo] Installing /Users/mike/Projects/myapp/android/MyAppTests/bin/MyAppTests-debug.apk onto default emulator or device... [exec] 1227 KB/s (94595 bytes in 0.075s) [exec] pkg: /data/local/tmp/MyAppTests-debug.apk [exec] Success run-tests: [echo] Running tests ... [exec] [exec] android.test.suitebuilder.TestSuiteBuilder$FailedToCreateTests:INSTRUMENTATION_RESULT: shortMsg=Class ref in pre-verified class resolved to unexpected implementation [exec] INSTRUMENTATION_RESULT: longMsg=java.lang.IllegalAccessError: Class ref in pre-verified class resolved to unexpected implementation [exec] INSTRUMENTATION_CODE: 0 BUILD SUCCESSFUL Total time: 38 seconds Any idea what's causing the "Class ref in pre-verified class resolved to unexpected implementation" error?

  Read the article

• Integrating JavaScript Unit Tests with Visual Studio

  - by Stephen Walther

  Modern ASP.NET web applications take full advantage of client-side JavaScript to provide better interactivity and responsiveness. If you are building an ASP.NET application in the right way, you quickly end up with lots and lots of JavaScript code. When writing server code, you should be writing unit tests. One big advantage of unit tests is that they provide you with a safety net that enable you to safely modify your existing code – for example, fix bugs, add new features, and make performance enhancements -- without breaking your existing code. Every time you modify your code, you can execute your unit tests to verify that you have not broken anything. For the same reason that you should write unit tests for your server code, you should write unit tests for your client code. JavaScript is just as susceptible to bugs as C#. There is no shortage of unit testing frameworks for JavaScript. Each of the major JavaScript libraries has its own unit testing framework. For example, jQuery has QUnit, Prototype has UnitTestJS, YUI has YUI Test, and Dojo has Dojo Objective Harness (DOH). The challenge is integrating a JavaScript unit testing framework with Visual Studio. Visual Studio and Visual Studio ALM provide fantastic support for server-side unit tests. You can easily view the results of running your unit tests in the Visual Studio Test Results window. You can set up a check-in policy which requires that all unit tests pass before your source code can be committed to the source code repository. In addition, you can set up Team Build to execute your unit tests automatically. Unfortunately, Visual Studio does not provide “out-of-the-box” support for JavaScript unit tests. MS Test, the unit testing framework included in Visual Studio, does not support JavaScript unit tests. As soon as you leave the server world, you are left on your own. The goal of this blog entry is to describe one approach to integrating JavaScript unit tests with MS Test so that you can execute your JavaScript unit tests side-by-side with your C# unit tests. The goal is to enable you to execute JavaScript unit tests in exactly the same way as server-side unit tests. You can download the source code described by this project by scrolling to the end of this blog entry. Rejected Approach: Browser Launchers One popular approach to executing JavaScript unit tests is to use a browser as a test-driver. When you use a browser as a test-driver, you open up a browser window to execute and view the results of executing your JavaScript unit tests. For example, QUnit – the unit testing framework for jQuery – takes this approach. The following HTML page illustrates how you can use QUnit to create a unit test for a function named addNumbers(). <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Using QUnit</title> <link rel="stylesheet" href="http://github.com/jquery/qunit/raw/master/qunit/qunit.css" type="text/css" /> </head> <body> <h1 id="qunit-header">QUnit example</h1> <h2 id="qunit-banner"></h2> <div id="qunit-testrunner-toolbar"></div> <h2 id="qunit-userAgent"></h2> <ol id="qunit-tests"></ol> <div id="qunit-fixture">test markup, will be hidden</div> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://code.jquery.com/jquery-latest.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://github.com/jquery/qunit/raw/master/qunit/qunit.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> // The function to test function addNumbers(a, b) { return a+b; } // The unit test test("Test of addNumbers", function () { equals(4, addNumbers(1,3), "1+3 should be 4"); }); </script> </body> </html> This test verifies that calling addNumbers(1,3) returns the expected value 4. When you open this page in a browser, you can see that this test does, in fact, pass. The idea is that you can quickly refresh this QUnit HTML JavaScript test driver page in your browser whenever you modify your JavaScript code. In other words, you can keep a browser window open and keep refreshing it over and over while you are developing your application. That way, you can know very quickly whenever you have broken your JavaScript code. While easy to setup, there are several big disadvantages to this approach to executing JavaScript unit tests: You must view your JavaScript unit test results in a different location than your server unit test results. The JavaScript unit test results appear in the browser and the server unit test results appear in the Visual Studio Test Results window. Because all of your unit test results don’t appear in a single location, you are more likely to introduce bugs into your code without noticing it. Because your unit tests are not integrated with Visual Studio – in particular, MS Test -- you cannot easily include your JavaScript unit tests when setting up check-in policies or when performing automated builds with Team Build. A more sophisticated approach to using a browser as a test-driver is to automate the web browser. Instead of launching the browser and loading the test code yourself, you use a framework to automate this process. There are several different testing frameworks that support this approach: · Selenium – Selenium is a very powerful framework for automating browser tests. You can create your tests by recording a Firefox session or by writing the test driver code in server code such as C#. You can learn more about Selenium at http://seleniumhq.org/. LTAF – The ASP.NET team uses the Lightweight Test Automation Framework to test JavaScript code in the ASP.NET framework. You can learn more about LTAF by visiting the project home at CodePlex: http://aspnet.codeplex.com/releases/view/35501 jsTestDriver – This framework uses Java to automate the browser. jsTestDriver creates a server which can be used to automate multiple browsers simultaneously. This project is located at http://code.google.com/p/js-test-driver/ TestSwam – This framework, created by John Resig, uses PHP to automate the browser. Like jsTestDriver, the framework creates a test server. You can open multiple browsers that are automated by the test server. Learn more about TestSwarm by visiting the following address: https://github.com/jeresig/testswarm/wiki Yeti – This is the framework introduced by Yahoo for automating browser tests. Yeti uses server-side JavaScript and depends on Node.js. Learn more about Yeti at http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2010/08/25/introducing-yeti-the-yui-easy-testing-interface/ All of these frameworks are great for integration tests – however, they are not the best frameworks to use for unit tests. In one way or another, all of these frameworks depend on executing tests within the context of a “living and breathing” browser. If you create an ASP.NET Unit Test then Visual Studio will launch a web server before executing the unit test. Why is launching a web server so bad? It is not the worst thing in the world. However, it does introduce dependencies that prevent your code from being tested in isolation. One of the defining features of a unit test -- versus an integration test – is that a unit test tests code in isolation. Another problem with launching a web server when performing unit tests is that launching a web server can be slow. If you cannot execute your unit tests quickly, you are less likely to execute your unit tests each and every time you make a code change. You are much more likely to fall into the pit of failure. Launching a browser when performing a JavaScript unit test has all of the same disadvantages as launching a web server when performing an ASP.NET unit test. Instead of testing a unit of JavaScript code in isolation, you are testing JavaScript code within the context of a particular browser. Using the frameworks listed above for integration tests makes perfect sense. However, I want to consider a different approach for creating unit tests for JavaScript code. Using Server-Side JavaScript for JavaScript Unit Tests A completely different approach to executing JavaScript unit tests is to perform the tests outside of any browser. If you really want to test JavaScript then you should test JavaScript and leave the browser out of the testing process. There are several ways that you can execute JavaScript on the server outside the context of any browser: Rhino – Rhino is an implementation of JavaScript written in Java. The Rhino project is maintained by the Mozilla project. Learn more about Rhino at http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/ V8 – V8 is the open-source Google JavaScript engine written in C++. This is the JavaScript engine used by the Chrome web browser. You can download V8 and embed it in your project by visiting http://code.google.com/p/v8/ JScript – JScript is the JavaScript Script Engine used by Internet Explorer (up to but not including Internet Explorer 9), Windows Script Host, and Active Server Pages. Internet Explorer is still the most popular web browser. Therefore, I decided to focus on using the JScript Script Engine to execute JavaScript unit tests. Using the Microsoft Script Control There are two basic ways that you can pass JavaScript to the JScript Script Engine and execute the code: use the Microsoft Windows Script Interfaces or use the Microsoft Script Control. The difficult and proper way to execute JavaScript using the JScript Script Engine is to use the Microsoft Windows Script Interfaces. You can learn more about the Script Interfaces by visiting http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/t9d4xf28(VS.85).aspx The main disadvantage of using the Script Interfaces is that they are difficult to use from .NET. There is a great series of articles on using the Script Interfaces from C# located at http://www.drdobbs.com/184406028. I picked the easier alternative and used the Microsoft Script Control. The Microsoft Script Control is an ActiveX control that provides a higher level abstraction over the Window Script Interfaces. You can download the Microsoft Script Control from here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=d7e31492-2595-49e6-8c02-1426fec693ac After you download the Microsoft Script Control, you need to add a reference to it to your project. Select the Visual Studio menu option Project, Add Reference to open the Add Reference dialog. Select the COM tab and add the Microsoft Script Control 1.0. Using the Script Control is easy. You call the Script Control AddCode() method to add JavaScript code to the Script Engine. Next, you call the Script Control Run() method to run a particular JavaScript function. The reference documentation for the Microsoft Script Control is located at the MSDN website: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa227633%28v=vs.60%29.aspx Creating the JavaScript Code to Test To keep things simple, let’s imagine that you want to test the following JavaScript function named addNumbers() which simply adds two numbers together: MvcApplication1\Scripts\Math.js function addNumbers(a, b) { return 5; } Notice that the addNumbers() method always returns the value 5. Right-now, it will not pass a good unit test. Create this file and save it in your project with the name Math.js in your MVC project’s Scripts folder (Save the file in your actual MVC application and not your MVC test application). Creating the JavaScript Test Helper Class To make it easier to use the Microsoft Script Control in unit tests, we can create a helper class. This class contains two methods: LoadFile() – Loads a JavaScript file. Use this method to load the JavaScript file being tested or the JavaScript file containing the unit tests. ExecuteTest() – Executes the JavaScript code. Use this method to execute a JavaScript unit test. Here’s the code for the JavaScriptTestHelper class: JavaScriptTestHelper.cs   using System; using System.IO; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using MSScriptControl; namespace MvcApplication1.Tests { public class JavaScriptTestHelper : IDisposable { private ScriptControl _sc; private TestContext _context; /// <summary> /// You need to use this helper with Unit Tests and not /// Basic Unit Tests because you need a Test Context /// </summary> /// <param name="testContext">Unit Test Test Context</param> public JavaScriptTestHelper(TestContext testContext) { if (testContext == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("TestContext"); } _context = testContext; _sc = new ScriptControl(); _sc.Language = "JScript"; _sc.AllowUI = false; } /// <summary> /// Load the contents of a JavaScript file into the /// Script Engine. /// </summary> /// <param name="path">Path to JavaScript file</param> public void LoadFile(string path) { var fileContents = File.ReadAllText(path); _sc.AddCode(fileContents); } /// <summary> /// Pass the path of the test that you want to execute. /// </summary> /// <param name="testMethodName">JavaScript function name</param> public void ExecuteTest(string testMethodName) { dynamic result = null; try { result = _sc.Run(testMethodName, new object[] { }); } catch { var error = ((IScriptControl)_sc).Error; if (error != null) { var description = error.Description; var line = error.Line; var column = error.Column; var text = error.Text; var source = error.Source; if (_context != null) { var details = String.Format("{0} \r\nLine: {1} Column: {2}", source, line, column); _context.WriteLine(details); } } throw new AssertFailedException(error.Description); } } public void Dispose() { _sc = null; } } }     Notice that the JavaScriptTestHelper class requires a Test Context to be instantiated. For this reason, you can use the JavaScriptTestHelper only with a Visual Studio Unit Test and not a Basic Unit Test (These are two different types of Visual Studio project items). Add the JavaScriptTestHelper file to your MVC test application (for example, MvcApplication1.Tests). Creating the JavaScript Unit Test Next, we need to create the JavaScript unit test function that we will use to test the addNumbers() function. Create a folder in your MVC test project named JavaScriptTests and add the following JavaScript file to this folder: MvcApplication1.Tests\JavaScriptTests\MathTest.js /// <reference path="JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js"/> function testAddNumbers() { // Act var result = addNumbers(1, 3); // Assert assert.areEqual(4, result, "addNumbers did not return right value!"); }   The testAddNumbers() function takes advantage of another JavaScript library named JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js. This library contains all of the code necessary to make assertions. Add the following JavaScriptnitTestFramework.js to the same folder as the MathTest.js file: MvcApplication1.Tests\JavaScriptTests\JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js var assert = { areEqual: function (expected, actual, message) { if (expected !== actual) { throw new Error("Expected value " + expected + " is not equal to " + actual + ". " + message); } } }; There is only one type of assertion supported by this file: the areEqual() assertion. Most likely, you would want to add additional types of assertions to this file to make it easier to write your JavaScript unit tests. Deploying the JavaScript Test Files This step is non-intuitive. When you use Visual Studio to run unit tests, Visual Studio creates a new folder and executes a copy of the files in your project. After you run your unit tests, your Visual Studio Solution will contain a new folder named TestResults that includes a subfolder for each test run. You need to configure Visual Studio to deploy your JavaScript files to the test run folder or Visual Studio won’t be able to find your JavaScript files when you execute your unit tests. You will get an error that looks something like this when you attempt to execute your unit tests: You can configure Visual Studio to deploy your JavaScript files by adding a Test Settings file to your Visual Studio Solution. It is important to understand that you need to add this file to your Visual Studio Solution and not a particular Visual Studio project. Right-click your Solution in the Solution Explorer window and select the menu option Add, New Item. Select the Test Settings item and click the Add button. After you create a Test Settings file for your solution, you can indicate that you want a particular folder to be deployed whenever you perform a test run. Select the menu option Test, Edit Test Settings to edit your test configuration file. Select the Deployment tab and select your MVC test project’s JavaScriptTest folder to deploy. Click the Apply button and the Close button to save the changes and close the dialog. Creating the Visual Studio Unit Test The very last step is to create the Visual Studio unit test (the MS Test unit test). Add a new unit test to your MVC test project by selecting the menu option Add New Item and selecting the Unit Test project item (Do not select the Basic Unit Test project item): The difference between a Basic Unit Test and a Unit Test is that a Unit Test includes a Test Context. We need this Test Context to use the JavaScriptTestHelper class that we created earlier. Enter the following test method for the new unit test: [TestMethod] public void TestAddNumbers() { var jsHelper = new JavaScriptTestHelper(this.TestContext); // Load JavaScript files jsHelper.LoadFile("JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js"); jsHelper.LoadFile(@"..\..\..\MvcApplication1\Scripts\Math.js"); jsHelper.LoadFile("MathTest.js"); // Execute JavaScript Test jsHelper.ExecuteTest("testAddNumbers"); } This code uses the JavaScriptTestHelper to load three files: JavaScripUnitTestFramework.js – Contains the assert functions. Math.js – Contains the addNumbers() function from your MVC application which is being tested. MathTest.js – Contains the JavaScript unit test function. Next, the test method calls the JavaScriptTestHelper ExecuteTest() method to execute the testAddNumbers() JavaScript function. Running the Visual Studio JavaScript Unit Test After you complete all of the steps described above, you can execute the JavaScript unit test just like any other unit test. You can use the keyboard combination CTRL-R, CTRL-A to run all of the tests in the current Visual Studio Solution. Alternatively, you can use the buttons in the Visual Studio toolbar to run the tests: (Unfortunately, the Run All Impacted Tests button won’t work correctly because Visual Studio won’t detect that your JavaScript code has changed. Therefore, you should use either the Run Tests in Current Context or Run All Tests in Solution options instead.) The results of running the JavaScript tests appear side-by-side with the results of running the server tests in the Test Results window. For example, if you Run All Tests in Solution then you will get the following results: Notice that the TestAddNumbers() JavaScript test has failed. That is good because our addNumbers() function is hard-coded to always return the value 5. If you double-click the failing JavaScript test, you can view additional details such as the JavaScript error message and the line number of the JavaScript code that failed: Summary The goal of this blog entry was to explain an approach to creating JavaScript unit tests that can be easily integrated with Visual Studio and Visual Studio ALM. I described how you can use the Microsoft Script Control to execute JavaScript on the server. By taking advantage of the Microsoft Script Control, we were able to execute our JavaScript unit tests side-by-side with all of our other unit tests and view the results in the standard Visual Studio Test Results window. You can download the code discussed in this blog entry from here: http://StephenWalther.com/downloads/Blog/JavaScriptUnitTesting/JavaScriptUnitTests.zip Before running this code, you need to first install the Microsoft Script Control which you can download from here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=d7e31492-2595-49e6-8c02-1426fec693ac

  Read the article

• What is the relationship between Turing Machine & Modern Computer ? [closed]

  - by smwikipedia

  I heard a lot that modern computers are based on Turing machine. I just cannot build a bridge between a conceptual Turing Machine and a modern computer. Could someone help me build this bridge? Below is my current understanding. I think the computer is a big general-purpose Turing machine. Each program we write is a small specific-purpose Turing machine. The classical Turing machine do its job based on the input and its current state inside and so do our programs. Let's take a running program (a process) as an example. We know that in the process's address space, there's areas for stack, heap, and code. A classical Turing machine doesn't have the ability to remember many things, so we borrow the concept of stack from the push-down automaton. The heap and stack areas contains the state of our specific-purpose Turing machine (our program). The code area represents the logic of this small Turing machine. And various I/O devices supply input to this Turing machine.

  Read the article

• What is the relationship between Turing Machine & Modern Computer ?

  - by smwikipedia

  I heard a lot that modern computers are based on Turing machine. I just cannot build a bridge from a conceptual Turing Machine to a real modern computer. Could someone help me build this bridge? Below is my current understanding. I think the computer is a big general-purpose Turing machine. Each program we write is a small specific-purpose Turing machine. The classical Turing machine do its job based on the input and its current state inside and so do our programs. Let's take a running program (a process) as an example. We know that in the process's address space, there's areas for stack, heap, and code. A classical Turing machine doesn't have the ability to remember many things, so we borrow the concept of stack from the push-down automaton. The heap and stack areas contains the state of our specific-purpose Turing machine (our program). The code area represents the logic of this small Turing machine. And various I/O devices supply input to this Turing machine.

  Read the article

• How do you unit test a unit test?

  - by FlySwat

  I was watching Rob Connerys webcasts on the MVCStoreFront App, and I noticed he was unit testing even the most mundane things, things like: public Decimal DiscountPrice { get { return this.Price - this.Discount; } } Would have a test like: [TestMethod] public void Test_DiscountPrice { Product p = new Product(); p.Price = 100; p.Discount = 20; Assert.IsEqual(p.DiscountPrice,80); } While, I am all for unit testing, I sometimes wonder if this form of test first development is really beneficial, for example, in a real process, you have 3-4 layers above your code (Business Request, Requirements Document, Architecture Document), where the actual defined business rule (Discount Price is Price - Discount) could be misdefined. If that's the situation, your unit test means nothing to you. Additionally, your unit test is another point of failure: [TestMethod] public void Test_DiscountPrice { Product p = new Product(); p.Price = 100; p.Discount = 20; Assert.IsEqual(p.DiscountPrice,90); } Now the test is flawed. Obviously in a simple test, it's no big deal, but say we were testing a complicated business rule. What do we gain here? Fast forward two years into the application's life, when maintenance developers are maintaining it. Now the business changes its rule, and the test breaks again, some rookie developer then fixes the test incorrectly...we now have another point of failure. All I see is more possible points of failure, with no real beneficial return, if the discount price is wrong, the test team will still find the issue, how did unit testing save any work? What am I missing here? Please teach me to love TDD, as I'm having a hard time accepting it as useful so far. I want too, because I want to stay progressive, but it just doesn't make sense to me. EDIT: A couple people keep mentioned that testing helps enforce the spec. It has been my experience that the spec has been wrong as well, more often than not, but maybe I'm doomed to work in an organization where the specs are written by people who shouldn't be writing specs.

  Read the article

• CakePHP Test Fixtures Drop My Tables Permanently After Running A Test Case

  - by Frank

  I'm not sure what I've done wrong in my CakePHP unit test configuration. Every time I run a test case, the model tables associated with my fixtures are missing form my test database. After running an individual test case I have to re-import my database tables using phpMyAdmin. Here are the relevant files: This is the class I'm trying to test comment.php. This table is dropped after the test. App::import('Sanitize'); class Comment extends AppModel{ public $name = 'Comment'; public $actsAs = array('Tree'); public $belongsTo = array('User' => array('fields'=>array('id', 'username'))); public $validate = array( 'text' = array( 'rule' =array('between', 1, 4000), 'required' ='true', 'allowEmpty'='false', 'message' = "You can't leave your comment text empty!") ); database.php class DATABASE_CONFIG { var $default = array( 'driver' = 'mysql', 'persistent' = false, 'host' = 'project.db', 'login' = 'projectman', 'password' = 'projectpassword', 'database' = 'projectdb', 'prefix' = '' ); var $test = array( 'driver' = 'mysql', 'persistent' = false, 'host' = 'project.db', 'login' = 'projectman', 'password' = 'projectpassword', 'database' = 'testprojectdb', 'prefix' = '' ); } My comment.test.php file. This is the table that keeps getting dropped. <?php App::import('Model', 'Comment'); class CommentTestCase extends CakeTestCase { public $fixtures = array('app.comment', 'app.user'); function start(){ $this-Comment =& ClassRegistry::init('Comment'); $this-Comment-useDbConfig = 'test_suite'; } This is my comment_fixture.php class: <?php class CommentFixture extends CakeTestFixture { var $name = "Comment"; var $import = 'Comment'; } And just in case, here is a typical test method in the CommentTestCase class function testMsgNotificationUserComment(){ $user_id = '1'; $submission_id = '1'; $parent_id = $this-Comment-commentOnModel('Submission', $submission_id, '0', $user_id, "Says: A"); $other_user_id = '2'; $msg_id = $this-Comment-commentOnModel('Submission', $submission_id, $parent_id, $other_user_id, "Says: B"); $expected = array(array('Comment'=array('id'=$msg_id, 'text'="Says: B", 'submission_id'=$submission_id, 'topic_id'='0', 'ack'='0'))); $result = $this-Comment-getMessages($user_id); $this-assertEqual($result, $expected); } I've been dealing with this for a day now and I'm starting to be put off by CakePHP's unit testing. In addition to this issue -- Servral times now I've had data inserted into by 'default' database configuration after running tests! What's going on with my configuration?!

  Read the article

• A way of doing real-world test-driven development (and some thoughts about it)

  - by Thomas Weller

  Lately, I exchanged some arguments with Derick Bailey about some details of the red-green-refactor cycle of the Test-driven development process. In short, the issue revolved around the fact that it’s not enough to have a test red or green, but it’s also important to have it red or green for the right reasons. While for me, it’s sufficient to initially have a NotImplementedException in place, Derick argues that this is not totally correct (see these two posts: Red/Green/Refactor, For The Right Reasons and Red For The Right Reason: Fail By Assertion, Not By Anything Else). And he’s right. But on the other hand, I had no idea how his insights could have any practical consequence for my own individual interpretation of the red-green-refactor cycle (which is not really red-green-refactor, at least not in its pure sense, see the rest of this article). This made me think deeply for some days now. In the end I found out that the ‘right reason’ changes in my understanding depending on what development phase I’m in. To make this clear (at least I hope it becomes clear…) I started to describe my way of working in some detail, and then something strange happened: The scope of the article slightly shifted from focusing ‘only’ on the ‘right reason’ issue to something more general, which you might describe as something like  'Doing real-world TDD in .NET , with massive use of third-party add-ins’. This is because I feel that there is a more general statement about Test-driven development to make:  It’s high time to speak about the ‘How’ of TDD, not always only the ‘Why’. Much has been said about this, and me myself also contributed to that (see here: TDD is not about testing, it's about how we develop software). But always justifying what you do is very unsatisfying in the long run, it is inherently defensive, and it costs time and effort that could be used for better and more important things. And frankly: I’m somewhat sick and tired of repeating time and again that the test-driven way of software development is highly preferable for many reasons - I don’t want to spent my time exclusively on stating the obvious… So, again, let’s say it clearly: TDD is programming, and programming is TDD. Other ways of programming (code-first, sometimes called cowboy-coding) are exceptional and need justification. – I know that there are many people out there who will disagree with this radical statement, and I also know that it’s not a description of the real world but more of a mission statement or something. But nevertheless I’m absolutely sure that in some years this statement will be nothing but a platitude. Side note: Some parts of this post read as if I were paid by Jetbrains (the manufacturer of the ReSharper add-in – R#), but I swear I’m not. Rather I think that Visual Studio is just not production-complete without it, and I wouldn’t even consider to do professional work without having this add-in installed... The three parts of a software component Before I go into some details, I first should describe my understanding of what belongs to a software component (assembly, type, or method) during the production process (i.e. the coding phase). Roughly, I come up with the three parts shown below:   First, we need to have some initial sort of requirement. This can be a multi-page formal document, a vague idea in some programmer’s brain of what might be needed, or anything in between. In either way, there has to be some sort of requirement, be it explicit or not. – At the C# micro-level, the best way that I found to formulate that is to define interfaces for just about everything, even for internal classes, and to provide them with exhaustive xml comments. The next step then is to re-formulate these requirements in an executable form. This is specific to the respective programming language. - For C#/.NET, the Gallio framework (which includes MbUnit) in conjunction with the ReSharper add-in for Visual Studio is my toolset of choice. The third part then finally is the production code itself. It’s development is entirely driven by the requirements and their executable formulation. This is the delivery, the two other parts are ‘only’ there to make its production possible, to give it a decent quality and reliability, and to significantly reduce related costs down the maintenance timeline. So while the first two parts are not really relevant for the customer, they are very important for the developer. The customer (or in Scrum terms: the Product Owner) is not interested at all in how  the product is developed, he is only interested in the fact that it is developed as cost-effective as possible, and that it meets his functional and non-functional requirements. The rest is solely a matter of the developer’s craftsmanship, and this is what I want to talk about during the remainder of this article… An example To demonstrate my way of doing real-world TDD, I decided to show the development of a (very) simple Calculator component. The example is deliberately trivial and silly, as examples always are. I am totally aware of the fact that real life is never that simple, but I only want to show some development principles here… The requirement As already said above, I start with writing down some words on the initial requirement, and I normally use interfaces for that, even for internal classes - the typical question “intf or not” doesn’t even come to mind. I need them for my usual workflow and using them automatically produces high componentized and testable code anyway. To think about their usage in every single situation would slow down the production process unnecessarily. So this is what I begin with: namespace Calculator {     /// <summary>     /// Defines a very simple calculator component for demo purposes.     /// </summary>     public interface ICalculator     {         /// <summary>         /// Gets the result of the last successful operation.         /// </summary>         /// <value>The last result.</value>         /// <remarks>         /// Will be <see langword="null" /> before the first successful operation.         /// </remarks>         double? LastResult { get; }       } // interface ICalculator   } // namespace Calculator So, I’m not beginning with a test, but with a sort of code declaration - and still I insist on being 100% test-driven. There are three important things here: Starting this way gives me a method signature, which allows to use IntelliSense and AutoCompletion and thus eliminates the danger of typos - one of the most regular, annoying, time-consuming, and therefore expensive sources of error in the development process. In my understanding, the interface definition as a whole is more of a readable requirement document and technical documentation than anything else. So this is at least as much about documentation than about coding. The documentation must completely describe the behavior of the documented element. I normally use an IoC container or some sort of self-written provider-like model in my architecture. In either case, I need my components defined via service interfaces anyway. - I will use the LinFu IoC framework here, for no other reason as that is is very simple to use. The ‘Red’ (pt. 1)   First I create a folder for the project’s third-party libraries and put the LinFu.Core dll there. Then I set up a test project (via a Gallio project template), and add references to the Calculator project and the LinFu dll. Finally I’m ready to write the first test, which will look like the following: namespace Calculator.Test {     [TestFixture]     public class CalculatorTest     {         private readonly ServiceContainer container = new ServiceContainer();           [Test]         public void CalculatorLastResultIsInitiallyNull()         {             ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();               Assert.IsNull(calculator.LastResult);         }       } // class CalculatorTest   } // namespace Calculator.Test       This is basically the executable formulation of what the interface definition states (part of). Side note: There’s one principle of TDD that is just plain wrong in my eyes: I’m talking about the Red is 'does not compile' thing. How could a compiler error ever be interpreted as a valid test outcome? I never understood that, it just makes no sense to me. (Or, in Derick’s terms: this reason is as wrong as a reason ever could be…) A compiler error tells me: Your code is incorrect, but nothing more.  Instead, the ‘Red’ part of the red-green-refactor cycle has a clearly defined meaning to me: It means that the test works as intended and fails only if its assumptions are not met for some reason. Back to our Calculator. When I execute the above test with R#, the Gallio plugin will give me this output: So this tells me that the test is red for the wrong reason: There’s no implementation that the IoC-container could load, of course. So let’s fix that. With R#, this is very easy: First, create an ICalculator - derived type:        Next, implement the interface members: And finally, move the new class to its own file: So far my ‘work’ was six mouse clicks long, the only thing that’s left to do manually here, is to add the Ioc-specific wiring-declaration and also to make the respective class non-public, which I regularly do to force my components to communicate exclusively via interfaces: This is what my Calculator class looks like as of now: using System; using LinFu.IoC.Configuration;   namespace Calculator {     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         public double? LastResult         {             get             {                 throw new NotImplementedException();             }         }     } } Back to the test fixture, we have to put our IoC container to work: [TestFixture] public class CalculatorTest {     #region Fields       private readonly ServiceContainer container = new ServiceContainer();       #endregion // Fields       #region Setup/TearDown       [FixtureSetUp]     public void FixtureSetUp()     {        container.LoadFrom(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory, "Calculator.dll");     }       ... Because I have a R# live template defined for the setup/teardown method skeleton as well, the only manual coding here again is the IoC-specific stuff: two lines, not more… The ‘Red’ (pt. 2) Now, the execution of the above test gives the following result: This time, the test outcome tells me that the method under test is called. And this is the point, where Derick and I seem to have somewhat different views on the subject: Of course, the test still is worthless regarding the red/green outcome (or: it’s still red for the wrong reasons, in that it gives a false negative). But as far as I am concerned, I’m not really interested in the test outcome at this point of the red-green-refactor cycle. Rather, I only want to assert that my test actually calls the right method. If that’s the case, I will happily go on to the ‘Green’ part… The ‘Green’ Making the test green is quite trivial. Just make LastResult an automatic property:     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         public double? LastResult { get; private set; }     }         One more round… Now on to something slightly more demanding (cough…). Let’s state that our Calculator exposes an Add() method:         ...   /// <summary>         /// Adds the specified operands.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="operand1">The operand1.</param>         /// <param name="operand2">The operand2.</param>         /// <returns>The result of the additon.</returns>         /// <exception cref="ArgumentException">         /// Argument <paramref name="operand1"/> is &lt; 0.<br/>         /// -- or --<br/>         /// Argument <paramref name="operand2"/> is &lt; 0.         /// </exception>         double Add(double operand1, double operand2);       } // interface ICalculator A remark: I sometimes hear the complaint that xml comment stuff like the above is hard to read. That’s certainly true, but irrelevant to me, because I read xml code comments with the CR_Documentor tool window. And using that, it looks like this:   Apart from that, I’m heavily using xml code comments (see e.g. here for a detailed guide) because there is the possibility of automating help generation with nightly CI builds (using MS Sandcastle and the Sandcastle Help File Builder), and then publishing the results to some intranet location.  This way, a team always has first class, up-to-date technical documentation at hand about the current codebase. (And, also very important for speeding up things and avoiding typos: You have IntelliSense/AutoCompletion and R# support, and the comments are subject to compiler checking…).     Back to our Calculator again: Two more R# – clicks implement the Add() skeleton:         ...           public double Add(double operand1, double operand2)         {             throw new NotImplementedException();         }       } // class Calculator As we have stated in the interface definition (which actually serves as our requirement document!), the operands are not allowed to be negative. So let’s start implementing that. Here’s the test: [Test] [Row(-0.5, 2)] public void AddThrowsOnNegativeOperands(double operand1, double operand2) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => calculator.Add(operand1, operand2)); } As you can see, I’m using a data-driven unit test method here, mainly for these two reasons: Because I know that I will have to do the same test for the second operand in a few seconds, I save myself from implementing another test method for this purpose. Rather, I only will have to add another Row attribute to the existing one. From the test report below, you can see that the argument values are explicitly printed out. This can be a valuable documentation feature even when everything is green: One can quickly review what values were tested exactly - the complete Gallio HTML-report (as it will be produced by the Continuous Integration runs) shows these values in a quite clear format (see below for an example). Back to our Calculator development again, this is what the test result tells us at the moment: So we’re red again, because there is not yet an implementation… Next we go on and implement the necessary parameter verification to become green again, and then we do the same thing for the second operand. To make a long story short, here’s the test and the method implementation at the end of the second cycle: // in CalculatorTest:   [Test] [Row(-0.5, 2)] [Row(295, -123)] public void AddThrowsOnNegativeOperands(double operand1, double operand2) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => calculator.Add(operand1, operand2)); }   // in Calculator: public double Add(double operand1, double operand2) {     if (operand1 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");     }     if (operand2 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");     }     throw new NotImplementedException(); } So far, we have sheltered our method from unwanted input, and now we can safely operate on the parameters without further caring about their validity (this is my interpretation of the Fail Fast principle, which is regarded here in more detail). Now we can think about the method’s successful outcomes. First let’s write another test for that: [Test] [Row(1, 1, 2)] public void TestAdd(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Add(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); } Again, I’m regularly using row based test methods for these kinds of unit tests. The above shown pattern proved to be extremely helpful for my development work, I call it the Defined-Input/Expected-Output test idiom: You define your input arguments together with the expected method result. There are two major benefits from that way of testing: In the course of refining a method, it’s very likely to come up with additional test cases. In our case, we might add tests for some edge cases like ‘one of the operands is zero’ or ‘the sum of the two operands causes an overflow’, or maybe there’s an external test protocol that has to be fulfilled (e.g. an ISO norm for medical software), and this results in the need of testing against additional values. In all these scenarios we only have to add another Row attribute to the test. Remember that the argument values are written to the test report, so as a side-effect this produces valuable documentation. (This can become especially important if the fulfillment of some sort of external requirements has to be proven). So your test method might look something like that in the end: [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 2)] [Row(0, 999999999, 999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, double.MaxValue)] public void TestAdd(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Add(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); } And this will produce the following HTML report (with Gallio):   Not bad for the amount of work we invested in it, huh? - There might be scenarios where reports like that can be useful for demonstration purposes during a Scrum sprint review… The last requirement to fulfill is that the LastResult property is expected to store the result of the last operation. I don’t show this here, it’s trivial enough and brings nothing new… And finally: Refactor (for the right reasons) To demonstrate my way of going through the refactoring portion of the red-green-refactor cycle, I added another method to our Calculator component, namely Subtract(). Here’s the code (tests and production): // CalculatorTest.cs:   [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 0)] [Row(0, 999999999, -999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, -double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, -double.MaxValue)] public void TestSubtract(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Subtract(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); }   [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 0)] [Row(0, 999999999, -999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, -double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, -double.MaxValue)] public void TestSubtractGivesExpectedLastResult(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       calculator.Subtract(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, calculator.LastResult); }   ...   // ICalculator.cs: /// <summary> /// Subtracts the specified operands. /// </summary> /// <param name="operand1">The operand1.</param> /// <param name="operand2">The operand2.</param> /// <returns>The result of the subtraction.</returns> /// <exception cref="ArgumentException"> /// Argument <paramref name="operand1"/> is &lt; 0.<br/> /// -- or --<br/> /// Argument <paramref name="operand2"/> is &lt; 0. /// </exception> double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2);   ...   // Calculator.cs:   public double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2) {     if (operand1 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");     }       if (operand2 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");     }       return (this.LastResult = operand1 - operand2).Value; }   Obviously, the argument validation stuff that was produced during the red-green part of our cycle duplicates the code from the previous Add() method. So, to avoid code duplication and minimize the number of code lines of the production code, we do an Extract Method refactoring. One more time, this is only a matter of a few mouse clicks (and giving the new method a name) with R#: Having done that, our production code finally looks like that: using System; using LinFu.IoC.Configuration;   namespace Calculator {     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         #region ICalculator           public double? LastResult { get; private set; }           public double Add(double operand1, double operand2)         {             ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(operand1, operand2);               return (this.LastResult = operand1 + operand2).Value;         }           public double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2)         {             ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(operand1, operand2);               return (this.LastResult = operand1 - operand2).Value;         }           #endregion // ICalculator           #region Implementation (Helper)           private static void ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(double operand1, double operand2)         {             if (operand1 < 0.0)             {                 throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");             }               if (operand2 < 0.0)             {                 throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");             }         }           #endregion // Implementation (Helper)       } // class Calculator   } // namespace Calculator But is the above worth the effort at all? It’s obviously trivial and not very impressive. All our tests were green (for the right reasons), and refactoring the code did not change anything. It’s not immediately clear how this refactoring work adds value to the project. Derick puts it like this: STOP! Hold on a second… before you go any further and before you even think about refactoring what you just wrote to make your test pass, you need to understand something: if your done with your requirements after making the test green, you are not required to refactor the code. I know… I’m speaking heresy, here. Toss me to the wolves, I’ve gone over to the dark side! Seriously, though… if your test is passing for the right reasons, and you do not need to write any test or any more code for you class at this point, what value does refactoring add? Derick immediately answers his own question: So why should you follow the refactor portion of red/green/refactor? When you have added code that makes the system less readable, less understandable, less expressive of the domain or concern’s intentions, less architecturally sound, less DRY, etc, then you should refactor it. I couldn’t state it more precise. From my personal perspective, I’d add the following: You have to keep in mind that real-world software systems are usually quite large and there are dozens or even hundreds of occasions where micro-refactorings like the above can be applied. It’s the sum of them all that counts. And to have a good overall quality of the system (e.g. in terms of the Code Duplication Percentage metric) you have to be pedantic on the individual, seemingly trivial cases. My job regularly requires the reading and understanding of ‘foreign’ code. So code quality/readability really makes a HUGE difference for me – sometimes it can be even the difference between project success and failure… Conclusions The above described development process emerged over the years, and there were mainly two things that guided its evolution (you might call it eternal principles, personal beliefs, or anything in between): Test-driven development is the normal, natural way of writing software, code-first is exceptional. So ‘doing TDD or not’ is not a question. And good, stable code can only reliably be produced by doing TDD (yes, I know: many will strongly disagree here again, but I’ve never seen high-quality code – and high-quality code is code that stood the test of time and causes low maintenance costs – that was produced code-first…) It’s the production code that pays our bills in the end. (Though I have seen customers these days who demand an acceptance test battery as part of the final delivery. Things seem to go into the right direction…). The test code serves ‘only’ to make the production code work. But it’s the number of delivered features which solely counts at the end of the day - no matter how much test code you wrote or how good it is. With these two things in mind, I tried to optimize my coding process for coding speed – or, in business terms: productivity - without sacrificing the principles of TDD (more than I’d do either way…).  As a result, I consider a ratio of about 3-5/1 for test code vs. production code as normal and desirable. In other words: roughly 60-80% of my code is test code (This might sound heavy, but that is mainly due to the fact that software development standards only begin to evolve. The entire software development profession is very young, historically seen; only at the very beginning, and there are no viable standards yet. If you think about software development as a kind of casting process, where the test code is the mold and the resulting production code is the final product, then the above ratio sounds no longer extraordinary…) Although the above might look like very much unnecessary work at first sight, it’s not. With the aid of the mentioned add-ins, doing all the above is a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds (while writing this post took hours and days…). The most important thing is to have the right tools at hand. Slow developer machines or the lack of a tool or something like that - for ‘saving’ a few 100 bucks -  is just not acceptable and a very bad decision in business terms (though I quite some times have seen and heard that…). Production of high-quality products needs the usage of high-quality tools. This is a platitude that every craftsman knows… The here described round-trip will take me about five to ten minutes in my real-world development practice. I guess it’s about 30% more time compared to developing the ‘traditional’ (code-first) way. But the so manufactured ‘product’ is of much higher quality and massively reduces maintenance costs, which is by far the single biggest cost factor, as I showed in this previous post: It's the maintenance, stupid! (or: Something is rotten in developerland.). In the end, this is a highly cost-effective way of software development… But on the other hand, there clearly is a trade-off here: coding speed vs. code quality/later maintenance costs. The here described development method might be a perfect fit for the overwhelming majority of software projects, but there certainly are some scenarios where it’s not - e.g. if time-to-market is crucial for a software project. So this is a business decision in the end. It’s just that you have to know what you’re doing and what consequences this might have… Some last words First, I’d like to thank Derick Bailey again. His two aforementioned posts (which I strongly recommend for reading) inspired me to think deeply about my own personal way of doing TDD and to clarify my thoughts about it. I wouldn’t have done that without this inspiration. I really enjoy that kind of discussions… I agree with him in all respects. But I don’t know (yet?) how to bring his insights into the described production process without slowing things down. The above described method proved to be very “good enough” in my practical experience. But of course, I’m open to suggestions here… My rationale for now is: If the test is initially red during the red-green-refactor cycle, the ‘right reason’ is: it actually calls the right method, but this method is not yet operational. Later on, when the cycle is finished and the tests become part of the regular, automated Continuous Integration process, ‘red’ certainly must occur for the ‘right reason’: in this phase, ‘red’ MUST mean nothing but an unfulfilled assertion - Fail By Assertion, Not By Anything Else!

  Read the article

• If all programming languages are Turing Complete then why do we have language wars?

  - by kadaj

  There are language wars saying one programming language is better than other.. Consider Lisp and Java; and we can argue that the meta programming capabilities of Lisp is better than that of Java. But that does not mean Java cannot have meta programming capabilities without being another dialect of Lisp. Basically all programming languages are Turing Complete. So doesn't that mean we could solve any solvable problem in all those programming languages?

  Read the article

• Turing machines of prime number

  - by surbhi

  how to create a turing machine of prime number?

  Read the article

• Practical non-Turing-complete languages?

  - by Kyle Cronin

  Nearly all programming languages used are Turing Complete, and while this affords the language to represent any computable algorithm, it also comes with its own set of problems. Seeing as all the algorithms I write are intended to halt, I would like to be able to represent them in a language that guarantees they will halt. Regular expressions used for matching strings and finite state machines are used when lexing, but I'm wondering if there's a more general, broadly language that's not Turing complete? edit: I should clarify, by 'general purpose' I don't necessarily want to be able to write all halting algorithms in the language (I don't think that such a language would exist) but I suspect that there are common threads in halting proofs that can be generalized to produce a language in which all algorithms are guaranteed to halt. There's also another way to tackle this problem - eliminate the need for theoretically infinite memory. Once you limit the amount of memory the machine is allowed, the number of states the machine is in is finite and countable, and therefore you can determine if the algorithm will halt (by not allowing the machine to move into a state it's been in before).

  Read the article

• Microsoft Test Manager error in displaying test steps caused by malware

  - by terje

  Sometimes the tool is blamed for errors which are not the fault of the tool – this is one such story.  It was however, not so easy to get to the bottom of it, so I hope sharing this story can help some others. One of our test developers started to get this message inside the test steps part of a test case in the MTM. saying “Could not load file or assembly ‘0 bytes from System, Version=4.0.0.0,……..” The same error came up inside Visual Studio when we opened a test case there. Then we noted a similar error on another piece of software – this error: A System.BadImageFormatException, and same message as above, but just for framework 2.0. We found this  description which pointed to a malware problem (See bottom of that post), that is a fake anti-spyware program called “Additional Guard”.  We checked the computer in question using Malwarebytes Anti-Malware tool.  It found and cleaned out 753 registry keys!!  After this cleanup operation the error was gone.  This is a great tool !  The “Additional Guard” program had been inadvertently installed, and then uninstalled afterwards, but the corrupted keys were of course not removed.  We also noted that this computer had full corporate virus scanning and malware protection, but still this nasty little thing still slipped through. Technorati Tags: Malware,BadImageFormatException,Microsoft Test Manager,Malwarebytes

  Read the article

• Should a developer create test cases and then run through test cases

  - by Eben Roux

  I work for a company where the development manager expects a developer to create test cases before writing any code. These test cases have to then be maintained by the developers. Every-so-often a developer will be expected to run through the test cases. From this you should be able to gather that the company in question is rather small and there are no testers. Coming from a Software Architect position and having to write / execute test cases wearing my 'tester' hat is somewhat of a shock to the system. I do it anyway but it does seem to be a rather expensive exercise :) EDIT: I seem to need to elaborate here: I am not talking about unit-testing, TDD, etc. :) I am talking about that bit of testing a tester does. Once I have developed a system (with my unit tests / tdd / etc.) the software goes through a testing phase. Should a developer be that tester and developer those test cases? I think the misunderstanding may stem from the fact that developers, typically, are not involved with this type of testing and, therefore, assumed I am referring to that testing we do do: unit testing. But alas, no. I hope that clears it up.

  Read the article

• Should devs, testers and business users have one unified test script?

  - by Carlos Jaime C. De Leon

  In development, I would normally have my own test scripts that would document the data, scenarios and execution steps that I plan to test; this is my dev test plan. When the functionality has been deployed to Test, testers test it using their own test script that they wrote. In UAT, the business user then tests using their own test plan. In retrospect, it looks like this provides a better coverage, with dev tests having a mix of black and white box testing, while testers and business users focus on black box testing. But on the other hand, this brings up distinct test cases that only are executed per stage (ie. some cases which testers thought of are only executed on Test stage) and it would like the dev missed it, which makes it a finding/bug. Is it worth consolidating the test scripts from the start? Thus using one unified test script, or is it abit difficult to do this upfront?

  Read the article

• JFLAP Turing Machine shortcut problem

  - by Robert Lamb

  In JFLAP (http://jflap.org), there are some shortcuts for Turing machine transitions. One of these shortcuts allows you to transition as long as the current tape symbol isn't the indicated symbol. For example, the transition !g,x;R basically says "Take this transition if the current tape symbol is not g". So far, so good. But the transition I want is !?,~;R which basically says "Move right as long as the current symbol is not the end-of-string (empty cell) symbol". The problem is I cannot figure out how to type in "!?". The JFLAP online documentation (http://www.jflap.org/tutorial/turing/one/index.html#syntax) has this to say: The first shortcut is that there exists the option of using the “!” character to convey the meaning of “any character but this character.” For example, concerning the transition (!a; x, R), if the head encounters any character but an “a”, it will replace the character with an “x” and move right. To write the expression “!?”, just type a “1” in when inputting a command. My question is...how do I actually do what that last sentence is trying to explain to me? Thanks for your help! Robert

  Read the article

• Turing-Complete language possibilities?

  - by I can't tell you my name.

  In every Turing-Complete language, is it possible to create a working Compiler for itself which first runs on an interpreter written in some other language and then compiles it's own source code? (Bootstrapping) Standards-Compilant C++ compiler which outputs binaries for, e.g.: Windows? Regex Parser and Evaluater? World of Warcraft clone? (Assuming the language gets the necessary API bindings as, for example, OpenGL and the WoW source code is available) (Everything here theoretical) Let's take Brainf*ck as an example language.

  Read the article

• A Turing Machine Question

  - by Hellnar

  Greetings, I have been struggling to find a question regarding this theoretical question, even tho it is not directly a programming question, I believe it is really related. Assume a type of Turing machine which cannot have more than 1000 squares. What would be the relationship between the set of such type of recognizable languages and set of normal recognizable languages.

  Read the article

• Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-After

  - by Timothy Klenke

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-after.aspxIn this post I’m going to outline a few common methods that can be used to increase the coverage of of your test suite.  This won’t be yet another post on why you should be doing testing; there are plenty of those types of posts already out there.  Assuming you know you should be testing, then comes the problem of how do I actual fit that into my day job.  When the opportunity to automate testing comes do you take it, or do you even recognize it? There are a lot of ways (workflows) to go about creating automated tests, just like there are many workflows to writing a program.  When writing a program you can do it from a top-down approach where you write the main skeleton of the algorithm and call out to dummy stub functions, or a bottom-up approach where the low level functionality is fully implement before it is quickly wired together at the end.  Both approaches are perfectly valid under certain contexts. Each approach you are skilled at applying is another tool in your tool belt.  The more vectors of attack you have on a problem – the better.  So here is a short, incomplete list of some of the workflows that can be applied to increasing the amount of automation in your testing and level of quality in general.  Think of each workflow as an opportunity that is available for you to take. Test workflows basically fall into 2 categories:  test first or test after.  Test first is the best approach.  However, this post isn’t about the one and only best approach.  I want to focus more on the lesser known, less ideal approaches that still provide an opportunity for adding tests.  In this post I’ll enumerate some test-after workflows.  In my next post I’ll cover test-first. Bug Reporting When someone calls you up or forwards you a email with a vague description of a bug its usually standard procedure to create or verify a reproduction plan for the bug via manual testing and log that in a bug tracking system.  This can be problematic.  Often reproduction plans when written down might skip a step that seemed obvious to the tester at the time or they might be missing some crucial environment setting. Instead of data entry into a bug tracking system, try opening up the test project and adding a failing unit test to prove the bug.  The test project guarantees that all aspects of the environment are setup properly and no steps are missing.  The language in the test project is much more precise than the English that goes into a bug tracking system. This workflow can easily be extended for Enhancement Requests as well as Bug Reporting. Exploratory Testing Exploratory testing comes in when you aren’t sure how the system will behave in a new scenario.  The scenario wasn’t planned for in the initial system requirements and there isn’t an existing test for it.  By definition the system behaviour is “undefined”. So write a new unit test to define that behaviour.  Add assertions to the tests to confirm your assumptions.  The new test becomes part of the living system specification that is kept up to date with the test suite. Examples This workflow is especially good when developing APIs.  When you are finally done your production API then comes the job of writing documentation on how to consume the API.  Good documentation will also include code examples.  Don’t let these code examples merely exist in some accompanying manual; implement them in a test suite. Example tests and documentation do not have to be created after the production API is complete.  It is best to write the example code (tests) as you go just before the production code. Smoke Tests Every system has a typical use case.  This represents the basic, core functionality of the system.  If this fails after an upgrade the end users will be hosed and they will be scratching their heads as to how it could be possible that an update got released with this core functionality broken. The tests for this core functionality are referred to as “smoke tests”.  It is a good idea to have them automated and run with each build in order to avoid extreme embarrassment and angry customers. Coverage Analysis Code coverage analysis is a tool that reports how much of the production code base is exercised by the test suite.  In Visual Studio this can be found under the Test main menu item. The tool will report a total number for the code coverage, which can be anywhere between 0 and 100%.  Coverage Analysis shouldn’t be used strictly for numbers reporting.  Companies shouldn’t set minimum coverage targets that mandate that all projects must have at least 80% or 100% test coverage.  These arbitrary requirements just invite gaming of the coverage analysis, which makes the numbers useless. The analysis tool will break down the coverage by the various classes and methods in projects.  Instead of focusing on the total number, drill down into this view and see which classes have high or low coverage.  It you are surprised by a low number on a class this is an opportunity to add tests. When drilling through the classes there will be generally two types of reaction to a surprising low test coverage number.  The first reaction type is a recognition that there is low hanging fruit to be picked.  There may be some classes or methods that aren’t being tested, which could easy be.  The other reaction type is “OMG”.  This were you find a critical piece of code that isn’t under test.  In both cases, go and add the missing tests. Test Refactoring The general theme of this post up to this point has been how to add more and more tests to a test suite.  I’ll step back from that a bit and remind that every line of code is a liability.  Each line of code has to be read and maintained, which costs money.  This is true regardless whether the code is production code or test code. Remember that the primary goal of the test suite is that it be easy to read so that people can easily determine the specifications of the system.  Make sure that adding more and more tests doesn’t interfere with this primary goal. Perform code reviews on the test suite as often as on production code.  Hold the test code up to the same high readability standards as the production code.  If the tests are hard to read then change them.  Look to remove duplication.  Duplicate setup code between two or more test methods that can be moved to a shared function.  Entire test methods can be removed if it is found that the scenario it tests is covered by other tests.  Its OK to delete a test that isn’t pulling its own weight anymore. Remember to only start refactoring when all the test are green.  Don’t refactor the tests and the production code at the same time.  An automated test suite can be thought of as a double entry book keeping system.  The unchanging, passing production code serves as the tests for the test suite while refactoring the tests. As with all refactoring, it is best to fit this into your regular work rather than asking for time later to get it done.  Fit this into the standard red-green-refactor cycle.  The refactor step no only applies to production code but also the tests, but not at the same time.  Perhaps the cycle should be called red-green-refactor production-refactor tests (not quite as catchy).   That about covers most of the test-after workflows I can think of.  In my next post I’ll get into test-first workflows.

  Read the article

• Why is this an invalid Turing machine?

  - by Danny King

  Whilst doing exam revision I am having trouble answering the following question from the book, "An Introduction to the Theory of Computation" by Sipser. Unfortunately there's no solution to this question in the book. Explain why the following is not a legitimate Turing machine. M = { The input is a polynomial p over variables x1, ..., xn Try all possible settings of x1, ..., xn to integer values Evaluate p on all of these settings If any of these settings evaluates to 0, accept; otherwise reject. } This is driving me crazy! I suspect it is because the set of integers is infinite? Does this somehow exceed the alphabet's allowable size? Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to convince developers and management to use automated test instead of manual test

  Everyone knows automated tests are good, unit test is good, we should all do it. But when you try to convince management that it's going to take double the time to deliver anything from now on, you are kicked out of the room. Learn how I convinced a dev lead to do automated test.

  Read the article

• How can I unit test rendering output?

  - by stephelton

  I've been embracing Test-Driven Development (TDD) recently and it's had wonderful impacts on my development output and the resiliency of my codebase. I would like to extend this approach to some of the rendering work that I do in OpenGL, but I've been unable to find any good approaches to this. I'll start with a concrete example so we know what kinds of things I want to test; lets say I want to create a unit cube that rotates about some axis, and that I want to ensure that, for some number of frames, each frame is rendered correctly. How can I create an automated test case for this? Preferably, I'd even be able to write a test case before writing any code to render the cube (per usual TDD practices.) Among many other things, I'd want to make sure that the cube's size, location, and orientation are correct in each rendered frame. I may even want to make sure that the lighting equations in my shaders are correct in each frame. The only remotely useful approach to this that I've come across involves comparing rendered output to a reference output, which generally precludes TDD practice, and is very cumbersome. I could go on about other desired requirements, but I'm afraid the ones I've listed already are out of reach.

  Read the article

• How to test the tests?

  - by Ryszard Szopa

  We test our code to make it more correct (actually, less likely to be incorrect). However, the tests are also code -- they can also contain errors. And if your tests are buggy, they hardly make your code better. I can think of three possible types of errors in tests: Logical errors, when the programmer misunderstood the task at hand, and the tests do what he thought they should do, which is wrong; Errors in the underlying testing framework (eg. a leaky mocking abstraction); Bugs in the tests: the test is doing slightly different than what the programmer thinks it is. Type (1) errors seem to be impossible to prevent (unless the programmer just... gets smarter). However, (2) and (3) may be tractable. How do you deal with these types of errors? Do you have any special strategies to avoid them? For example, do you write some special "empty" tests, that only check the test author's presuppositions? Also, how do you approach debugging a broken test case?

  Read the article

• Applicability of the Joel Test to web development companies

  - by dreftymac

  QUESTION: How can you re-write the questions of the Joel test to apply to web developers? 1. Do you use source control? (source control for all aspects of your app, including configuration, database and user-based settings?) 2. Can you make a build in one step? (can you deploy a site from staging to prod in 1 step?) ... 10. Do you have testers? (how do you test AJAX and CSS?) BACKGROUND: This is for people who work in a shop that does some web development but also uses some off-the-shelf tools like Drupal and Wordpress, but doing custom development on top of that. RELATED LINKS: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html What do you think about the Joel Test?

  Read the article

• Mozilla's Test Pilot Enters Alpha Test Phase

  Mozilla's Test Pilot initiative takes another step toward moving out of its testing phase.

  Read the article

• Do you test your SQL/HQL/Criteria ?

  - by 0101

  Do you test your SQL or SQL generated by your database framework? There are frameworks like DbUnit that allow you to create real in-memory database and execute real SQL. But its very hard to use(not developer-friendly so to speak), because you need to first prepare test data(and it should not be shared between tests). P.S. I don't mean mocking database or framework's database methods, but tests that make you 99% sure that your SQL is working even after some hardcore refactoring.

  Read the article

• /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID

  - by user1495181

  using ubuntu with net-snmp snmp work but in sys.log i see a lot of errors about snmpd.conf snmpd.conf: rwcommunity community 10.0.0.1 rwcommunity community 10.0.0.2 agentAddress udp:10.0.0.1:161 view systemonly included .1.3.6.1.2.1.1 view systemonly included .1.3.6.1.2.1.25.1 # Default access to basic system info rocommunity public default -V systemonly rouser authOnlyUser sysLocation Sitting on the Dock of the Bay sysContact Me <[email protected]> sysServices 72 proc mountd proc ntalkd 4 proc sendmail 10 1 disk / 10000 disk /var 5% includeAllDisks 10% load 12 10 5 trapsink localhost public iquerySecName internalUser rouser internalUser defaultMonitors yes linkUpDownNotifications yes master agentx errors: Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: prNames Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: prNames Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: prErrMessage Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: prErrMessage Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: trigger OID: prErrorFlag Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown monitor OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: memErrorName Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: memErrorName Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: memSwapErrorMsg Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: memSwapErrorMsg Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: trigger OID: memSwapError Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown monitor OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: extNames Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: extNames Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: extOutput Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: extOutput Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: trigger OID: extResult Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown monitor OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: dskPath Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: dskPath Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: dskErrorMsg Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: dskErrorMsg Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: trigger OID: dskErrorFlag Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown monitor OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: laNames Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: laNames Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: laErrMessage Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: laErrMessage Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: trigger OID: laErrorFlag Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown monitor OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: fileName Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: fileName Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: fileErrorMsg Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: fileErrorMsg Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: trigger OID: fileErrorFlag Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown monitor OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: payload OID: snmperrErrMessage Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Unknown payload OID: snmperrErrMessage Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: Unknown payload OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: trigger OID: snmperrErrorFlag Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: /usr/local/share/snmp/snmpd.conf: line 5: Error: unknown monitor OID Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: Turning on AgentX master support. Sep 12 16:35:00 test snmpd[5485]: net-snmp: 33 error(s) in config file(s)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >