Search Results

Search found 68011 results on 2721 pages for 'unit of work'.

Page 2/2721 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Are there any language agnostic unit testing frameworks?

  - by Bringer128

  I have always been skeptical of rewriting working code - porting code is no exception to this. However, with the advent of TDD and automated testing it is much more reasonable to rewrite and refactor code. Does anyone know if there is a TDD tool that can be used for porting old code? Ideally you could do the following: Write up language agnostic unit tests for the old code that pass (or fail if you find bugs!). Run unit tests on your other code base that fail. Write code in your new language that passes the tests without looking at the old code. The alternative would be to split step 1 into "Write up unit tests in language 1" and "Port unit tests to language 2", which significantly increases effort required and is difficult to justify if the old code base is going to stop being maintained after the port (that is, you don't get the benefit of continuous integration on this code base). EDIT: It's worth noting this question on StackOverflow.

  Read the article

• Advancing Code Review and Unit Testing Practice

  - by Graviton

  As a team lead managing a group of developers with no experience ( and see no need) in code review and unit testing, how can you advance code review and unit testing practice? How are you going to create a way so that code review and unit testing to naturally fit into the developer's flow? One of the resistance of these two areas is that "we are always tight on dateline, so no time for code review and unit testing". Another resistance for code review is that we currently don't know how to do it. Should we review the code upon every check-in, or review the code at a specified date?

  Read the article

• Isolated Unit Tests and Fine Grained Failures

  - by Winston Ewert

  One of the reasons often given to write unit tests which mock out all dependencies and are thus completely isolated is to ensure that when a bug exists, only the unit tests for that bug will fail. (Obviously, an integration tests may fail as well). That way you can readily determine where the bug is. But I don't understand why this is a useful property. If my code were undergoing spontaneous failures, I could see why its useful to readily identify the failure point. But if I have a failing test its either because I just wrote the test or because I just modified the code under test. In either case, I already know which unit contains a bug. What is the useful in ensuring that a test only fails due to bugs in the unit under test? I don't see how it gives me any more precision in identifying the bug than I already had.

  Read the article

• unit testing on ARM

  - by NomadAlien

  We are developing application level code that runs on an ARM processor. The BSP (low level code) is being delivered by a 3d party so our code sits just on top of this abstraction layer (code is written in c++). To do unit testing, I assume we will have to mock/stub out the BSP library(essentially abstracting out the HW), but what I'm not sure of is if I write/run the unit test on my pc, do I compile it with for example GCC? Normally we use Realview compiler to compile our code for the ARM. Can I assume that if I compile and run the code with x86 compiler and the unit tests pass that it will also pass when compiled with RealView compiler? I'm not sure how much difference the compiler makes and if you can trust that if the x86 compiled code pass the unit tests that you can also be confident that the Realview compiled code is ok.

  Read the article

• Scenario to illustrate how unit testing leads to better design

  - by Cocowalla

  For an internal training session, I'm trying to come up with a simple scenario that illustrates how unit testing leads to better design, by forcing you to think about things like coupling before you start coding. The idea is that I get the participants to code something first, without considering unit testing, then we do it again, but considering unit testing. Hopefully the code produced second time round should be more decoupled and maintainable. I'm struggling to come up with a scenario that can be coded quickly, yet can still demonstrate how unit testing can lead to better overall design.

  Read the article

• DRY, string, and unit testing

  - by Rodrigue

  I have a recurring question when writing unit tests for code that involves constant string values. Let's take an example of a method/function that does some processing and returns a string containing a pre-defined constant. In python, that would be something like: STRING_TEMPLATE = "/some/constant/string/with/%s/that/needs/interpolation/" def process(some_param): # We do some meaningful work that gives us a value result = _some_meaningful_action() return STRING_TEMPLATE % result If I want to unit test process, one of my tests will check the return value. This is where I wonder what the best solution is. In my unit test, I can: apply DRY and use the already defined constant repeat myself and rewrite the entire string def test_foo_should_return_correct_url(): string_result = process() # Applying DRY and using the already defined constant assert STRING_TEMPLATE % "1234" == string_result # Repeating myself, repeating myself assert "/some/constant/string/with/1234/that/needs/interpolation/" == url The advantage I see in the former is that my test will break if I put the wrong string value in my constant. The inconvenient is that I may be rewriting the same string over and over again across different unit tests.

  Read the article

• How to perform Unit Testing for Business Objects in asp.net

  - by Rajesh

  Unit Testing for Business Object

  Read the article

• What type of career path / jobs for a developer to have best work life balance?

  - by programmx10

  I know some people may look down on a question like this but I've been thinking lately a lot about what direction I can take my career to have a good work life balance, since I have been working for a startup where hours tend to drag on, etc and I find it often drains the life out of me. I have been going to interviews and some other companies are also startups / new companies and seem to have a similar attitude about working long hours. Maybe its the technologies I use, the type of development, I don't know but I'm curious if anyone can offer advice on what a path is to be a programmer / developer but work for a company that respects a regular work week and would only rarely find the need to move past this. I realize this won't lead to being the highest paid in my field but I'm ok with that and feel the tradeoff would be worth it as it would also give me time for my own projects, etc. I know some people may say this is too general but I believe it is a programmer specific question because I believe there tends to be a higher than average rate of working overtime, etc and people working in "startup" venture situations than in many other fields and there is definitely a mindset among a lot of people in the field of working long hours that doesn't exist in every industry.

  Read the article

• Unit Testing Error - The unit test adapter failed to connect to the data source or to read the data

  - by michael.lukatchik

  I'm using VSTS 2K8 and I've set up a Unit Test Project. In it, I have a test class with a method that does a simple assertion. I'm using an Excel 2007 spreadsheet as my data source. My test method looks like this: [DataSource("System.Data.Odbc", "Dsn=Excel Files;dbq=|DataDirectory|\\MyTestData.xlsx;defaultdir=C:\\TestData;driverid=1046;maxbuffersize=2048;pagetimeout=5", "Sheet1", DataAccessMethod.Sequential)] [DeploymentItem("MyTestData.xlsx")] [TestMethod()] public void State_Value_Is_Set() { string expected = "MD"; string actual = TestContext.DataRow["State"] as string; Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); } As indicated in the method decoration attributes, my Excel spreadsheet is on my local C:/ Drive. In it, the sheet where all of my data is located is named "Sheet1". I've copied the Excel spreadsheet into my project and I've set its Build Action = "Content" and I've set its Copy to Output Directory = "Copy if Newer". When trying to run this simple unit test, I receive the following error: The unit test adapter failed to connect to the data source or to read the data. For more information on troubleshooting this error, see "Troubleshooting Data-Driven Unit Tests" (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=62412) in the MSDN Library. Error details: ERROR [42S02] [Microsoft][ODBC Excel Driver] The Microsoft Office Access database engine could not find the object 'Sheet1'. Make sure the object exists and that you spell its name and the path name correctly. I've verified that the sheet name is spelled correctly (i.e. Sheet1) and I've verified that my data sources are set correctly. Web searches haven't turned up much at all. And I'm totally stumped. All help or input is appreciated!!!!

  Read the article

• How to use the unit of work and repository patterns in a service oriented enviroment

  - by A. Karimi

  I've created an application framework using the unit of work and repository patterns for it's data layer. Data consumer layers such as presentation depend on the data layer design. For example a CRUD abstract form has a dependency to a repository (IRepository). This architecture works like a charm in client/server environments (Ex. a WPF application and a SQL Server). But I'm looking for a good pattern to change or reuse this architecture for a service oriented environment. Of course I have some ideas: Idea 1: The "Adapter" design pattern Keep the current architecture and create a new unit of work and repository implementation which can work with a service instead of the ORM. Data layer consumers are loosely coupled to the data layer so it's possible but the problem is about the unit of work; I have to create a context which tracks the objects state at the client side and sends the changes to the server side on calling the "Commit" (Something that I think the RIA has done for Silverlight). Here the diagram: ----------- CLIENT----------- | ------------------ SERVER ---------------------- [ UI ] -> [ UoW/Repository ] ---> [ Web Services ] -> [ UoW/Repository ] -> [DB] Idea 2: Add another layer Add another layer (let say "local services" or "data provider"), then put it between the data layer (unit of work and repository) and the data consumer layers (like UI). Then I have to rewrite the consumer classes (CRUD and other classes which are dependent to IRepository) to depend on another interface. And the diagram: ----------------- CLIENT ------------------ | ------------------- SERVER --------------------- [ UI ] -> [ Local Services/Data Provider ] ---> [ Web Services ] -> [ UoW/Repository ] -> [DB] Please note that I have the local services layer on the current architecture but it doesn't expose the data layer functionality. In another word the UI layer can communicate with both of the data and local services layers whereas the local services layer also uses the data layer. | | | | | | | | ---> | Local Services | ---> | | | UI | | | | Data | | | | | | | ----------------------------> | |

  Read the article

• Is this method of writing Unit Tests correct?

  - by aspdotnetuser

  I have created a small C# project to help me learn how to write good unit tests. I know that one important rule of unit testing is to test the smallest 'unit' of code possible so that if it fails you know exactly what part of the code needs to fixed. I need help with the following before I continue to implement more unit tests for the project: If I have a Car class, for example, that creates a new Car object which has various attributes that are calculated when its' constructor method is called, would the two following tests be considered as overkill? Should there be one test that tests all calculated attributes of the Car object instead? [Test] public void CarEngineCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.GreaterOrEqual(car.Engine, 1); } [Test] public void CarNameCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.IsNotNull(car.Name); } Should I have the above two test methods to test these things or should I have one test method that asserts the Car object has first been created and then test these things in the same test method?

  Read the article

• Unit testing and Test Driven Development questions

  - by Theomax

  I'm working on an ASP.NET MVC website which performs relatively complex calculations as one of its functions. This functionality was developed some time ago (before I started working on the website) and defects have occurred whereby the calculations are not being calculated properly (basically these calculations are applied to each user which has certain flags on their record etc). Note; these defects have only been observed by users thus far, and not yet investigated in code while debugging. My questions are: Because the existing unit tests all pass and therefore do not indicate that the defects that have been reported exist; does this suggest the original code that was implemented is incorrect? i.e either the requirements were incorrect and were coded accordingly or just not coded as they were supposed to be coded? If I use the TDD approach, would I disgregard the existing unit tests as they don't show there are any problems with the calculations functionality - and I start by making some failing unit tests which test/prove there are these problems occuring, and then add code to make them pass? Note; if it's simply a bug that is occurring that can be found while debugging the code, do the unit tests need to be updated since they are already passing?

  Read the article

• About unit testing a function in the zend framework and unit testing in general

  - by sanders

  Hello people, I am diving into the world of unit testing. And i am sort of lost. I learned today that unit testing is testing if a function works. I wanted to test the following function: public function getEventById($id) { return $this->getResource('Event')->getEventById($id); } So i wanted to test this function as follows: public function test_Event_Get_Event_By_Id_Returns_Event_Item() { $p = $this->_model->getEventById(42); $this->assertEquals(42, EventManager_Resource_Event_Item_Interface); $this->assertType('EventManager_Resource_Event_Item_Interface', $p); } But then I got the error: 1) EventTest::test_Event_Get_Event_By_Id_Returns_Event_Item Zend_Db_Table_Exception: No adapter found for EventManager_Resource_Event /home/user/Public/ZendFramework-1.10.1/library/SF/Model/Abstract.php:101 /var/www/nrka2/application/modules/eventManager/models/Event.php:25 But then someone told me that i am currently unit testing and not doing an integration test. So i figured that i have to test the function getEventById on a different way. But I don't understand how. What this function does it just cals a resource and returns the event by id.

  Read the article

• Unit test and Code Coverage of Ant build scripts

  - by pablaasmo

  In our development environment We have more and more build scripts for ant to perform the build tasks for several different build jobs. These build scripts sometimes become large and do a lot of things and basically is source code in and of itself. So in a "TDD-world" we should have unit tests and coverage reports for the source code. I found AntUnit and BuildFileTest.java for doing unit tests. But it would also be interesting to know the code coverage of those unit tests. I have been searching google, but have not found anything. Does anyone know of a code coverage tool for Ant build scripts?

  Read the article

• How and when to use UNIT testing properly

  - by Zebs

  I am an iOS developer. I have read about unit testing and how it is used to test specific pieces of your code. A very quick example has to do with processing JSON data onto a database. The unit test reads a file from the project bundle and executes the method that is in charge of processing JSON data. But I dont get how this is different from actually running the app and testing with the server. So my question might be a bit general, but I honestly dont understand the proper use of unit testing, or even how it is useful; I hope the experienced programmers that surf around StackOverflow can help me. Any help is very much appreciated!

  Read the article

• Is unit testing or test-driven development worthwhile?

  - by Owen Johnson

  My team at work is moving to Scrum and other teams are starting to do test-driven development using unit tests and user acceptance tests. I like the UATs, but I'm not sold on unit testing for test-driven development or test-driven development in general. It seems like writing tests is extra work, gives people a crutch when they write the real code, and might not be effective very often. I understand how unit tests work and how to write them, but can anyone make the case that it's really a good idea and worth the effort and time? Also, is there anything that makes TDD especially good for Scrum?

  Read the article

• design pattern for unit testing? [duplicate]

  - by Maddy.Shik

  This question already has an answer here: Unit testing best practices for a unit testing newbie 4 answers I am beginner in developing test cases, and want to follow good patterns for developing test cases rather than following some person or company's specific ideas. Some people don't make test cases and just develop the way their senior have done in their projects. I am facing lot problems like object dependencies (when want to test method which persist A object i have to first persist B object since A is child of B). Please suggest some good books or sites preferably for learning design pattern for unit test cases. Or reference to some good source code or some discussion for Dos and Donts will do wonder. So that i can avoid doing mistakes be learning from experience of others.

  Read the article

• Unit testing - getting started

  - by higgenkreuz

  I am just getting started with unit testing but I am not sure if I really understand the point of it all. I read tutorials and books on it all, but I just have two quick questions: I thought the purpose of unit testing is to test code we actually wrote. However, to me it seems that in order to just be able to run the test, we have to alter the original code, at which point we are not really testing the code we wrote but rather the code we wrote for testing. Most of our codes rely on external sources. Upon refactoring our code however, even it would break the original code, our tests still would run just fine, since the external sources are just muck-ups inside our test cases. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of unit testing? Sorry if I sound dumb here, but I thought someone could enlighten me a bit. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Looking for a very subtle unit testing example

  - by Stéphane Bruckert

  In the context of Continuous Integration, I need to teach unit testing to a 20-people audience of programmers. Everything will be all right, but I am still trying to find the perfect unit testing example. More than writing tests like a robot, I want to show that unit testing can help prevent very subtle errors. I am thinking of the following scenario to happen when doing a live TDD demo: the test cases would already be written, we would have to write methods together, most of us would naturally have forgotten to handle a specific case for a method, everyone would then be surprised, when seeing that all tests don't pass, the failing test would make us think more and realize that we forgot an important case. My question will probably finish as "too broad" or "not clear what you are asking", but we never know, one of you might have a great idea. Your answer can use Java and JUnit, though any other language will be fine since only the idea will matter.

  Read the article

• How to unit test image processing code?

  - by rold2007

  I'm working in image processing (mainly OCR) and I wonder how I should integrate unit tests in my development. I'm already using unit tests for more "common" type of code but when dealing with image processing code I'm not sure how to deal with it. This kind of code always need some image data input/output and mocking this is not obvious. For now I'm mostly doing integration tests but they take a while to run and I would like some ideas on how to break down this kind of code into unit tests so that I can run them more quickly.

  Read the article

• Are unit tests really used as documentation?

  - by stijn

  I cannot count the number of times I read statements in the vein of 'unit tests are a very important source of documentation of the code under test'. I do not deny they are true. But personally I haven't found myself using them as documentation, ever. For the typical frameworks I use, the method declarations document their behaviour and that's all I need. And I assume the unit tests backup everything stated in that documentation, plus likely some more internal stuff, so on one side it duplicates the ducumentation while on the other it might add some more that is irrelevant. So the question is: when are unit tests used as documentation? When the comments do not cover everything? By developpers extending the source? And what do they expose that can be useful and relevant that the documentation itself cannot expose?

  Read the article

• Is static universally "evil" for unit testing and if so why does resharper recommend it?

  - by Vaccano

  I have found that there are only 3 ways to unit test (mock/stub) dependencies that are static in C#.NET: Moles TypeMock JustMock Given that two of these are not free and one has not hit release 1.0, mocking static stuff is not too easy. Does that make static methods and such "evil" (in the unit testing sense)? And if so, why does resharper want me to make anything that can be static, static? (Assuming resharper is not also "evil".) Clarification: I am talking about the scenario when you want to unit test a method and that method calls a static method in a different unit/class. By most definitions of unit testing, if you just let the method under test call the static method in the other unit/class then you are not unit testing, you are integration testing. (Useful, but not a unit test.)

  Read the article

• What is the value to checking in broken unit tests?

  - by Adam W.

  While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in broken unit tests? I will use a simple example. Case sensitivity. The current code is Case Sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests has found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

  Read the article

• What is the value of checking in failing unit tests?

  - by Adam W.

  While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in failing unit tests? I will use a simple example: Case Sensitivity. The current code is case sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests have found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

  Read the article

• What is the value of checking in failing unit tests?

  - by user20194

  While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in failing unit tests? I will use a simple example: Case Sensitivity. The current code is case sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests have found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

  Read the article

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