Search Results

Search found 4935 results on 198 pages for 'organizational unit'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 21/198 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

  • Visual studio 2008 unit test keeps failing

    - by Gerbrand
    I've create a method that calculates the harmonic mean based on a list of doubles. But when I'm running the test it keeps failing even thou the output result are the same. My harmonic mean method: public static double GetHarmonicMean(List<double> parameters) { var cumReciprocal = 0.0d; var countN = parameters.Count; foreach( var param in parameters) { cumReciprocal += 1.0d/param; } return 1.0d/(cumReciprocal/countN); } My test method: [TestMethod()] public void GetHarmonicMeanTest() { var parameters = new List<double> { 1.5d, 2.3d, 2.9d, 1.9d, 5.6d }; const double expected = 2.32432293165495; var actual = OwnFunctions.GetHarmonicMean(parameters); Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); } After running the test the following message is showing: Assert.AreEqual failed. Expected:<2.32432293165495. Actual:<2.32432293165495. For me that are both the same values. Can somebody explain this? Or am I doing something wrong?

    Read the article

  • Can Django flush its database(s) between every unit test

    - by mikem
    Django (1.2 beta) will reset the database(s) between every test that runs, meaning each test runs on an empty DB. However, the database(s) are not flushed. One of the effects of flushing the database is the auto_increment counters are reset. Consider a test which pulls data out of the database by primary key: class ChangeLogTest(django.test.TestCase): def test_one(self): do_something_which_creates_two_log_entries() log = LogEntry.objects.get(id=1) assert_log_entry_correct(log) log = LogEntry.objects.get(id=2) assert_log_entry_correct(log) This will pass because only two log entries were ever created. However, if another test is added to ChangeLogTest and it happens to run before test_one, the primary keys of the log entries are no longer 1 and 2, they might be 2 and 3. Now test_one fails. This is actually a two part question: Is it possible to force ./manage.py test to flush the database between each test case? Since Django doesn't flush the DB between each test by default, maybe there is a good reason. Does anyone know?

    Read the article

  • Global.asax for Unit Tests?

    - by AngryHacker
    In my MSTest UnitTest project, before running any tests, I need to execute some commands. Is there a feature, kind of like Global.asax is for web based projects, that will let me kick off something before any tests run?

    Read the article

  • How to write unit tests for an object having multiple properties

    - by jess
    Hi, I have various objects in application,and each has isvalid method to test if values of all properties are set correctly(as per business rules).Now,to test that for each violation isvalid throws false,i will have to write as many tests as rules being checked in isvalid.Is there a simpler way to do this? I am using MBunit.

    Read the article

  • Any way to separate unit tests from integration tests in VS2008?

    - by AngryHacker
    I have a project full of tests, unit and integration alike. Integration tests require that a pretty large database be present, so it's difficult to make it a part of the build process simply because of the time that it takes to re-initialize the database. Is there a way to somehow separate unit tests from integration tests and have the build server just run the unit tests? I see that there is an Ordered Unit test in VS2008, which allows you to pick and choose tests, but I can't make it just execute alone, without all the others. Is there a trick that I am missing? Or perhaps I could adorn the unit tests with an attribute? What are some of the approaches people are using? P.S. I know I could use mocking for integration tests (just to make them go faster) but then it wouldn't be a true integration test.

    Read the article

  • GuestPost: Unit Testing Entity Framework (v1) Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator

    - by Eric Nelson
    Time for another guest post (check out others in the series), this time bringing together the world of mocking with the world of Entity Framework. A big thanks to Moses for agreeing to do this. Unit Testing Entity Framework Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator by Muhammad Mosa Introduction Unit testing data access code in my opinion is a challenging thing. Let us consider unit tests and integration tests. In integration tests you are allowed to have environmental dependencies such as a physical database connection to insert, update, delete or retrieve your data. However when performing unit tests it is often much more efficient and productive to remove environmental dependencies. Instead you will need to fake these dependencies. Faking a database (also known as mocking) can be relatively straight forward but the version of Entity Framework released with .Net 3.5 SP1 has a number of implementation specifics which actually makes faking the existence of a database quite difficult. Faking Entity Framework As mentioned earlier, to effectively unit test you will need to fake/simulate Entity Framework calls to the database. There are many free open source mocking frameworks that can help you achieve this but it will require additional effort to overcome & workaround a number of limitations in those frameworks. Examples of these limitations include: Not able to fake calls to non virtual methods Not able to fake sealed classes Not able to fake LINQ to Entities queries (replace database calls with in-memory collection calls) There is a mocking framework which is flexible enough to handle limitations such as those above. The commercially available TypeMock Isolator can do the job for you with less code and ultimately more readable unit tests. I’m going to demonstrate tackling one of those limitations using MoQ as my mocking framework. Then I will tackle the same issue using TypeMock Isolator. Mocking Entity Framework with MoQ One basic need when faking Entity Framework is to fake the ObjectContext. This cannot be done by passing any connection string. You have to pass a correct Entity Framework connection string that specifies CSDL, SSDL and MSL locations along with a provider connection string. Assuming we are going to do that, we’ll explore another limitation. The limitation we are going to face now is related to not being able to fake calls to non-virtual/overridable members with MoQ. I have the following repository method that adds an EntityObject (instance of a Blog entity) to Blogs entity set in an ObjectContext. public override void Add(Blog blog) { if(BlogContext.Blogs.Any(b=>b.Name == blog.Name)) { throw new InvalidOperationException("Blog with same name already exists!"); } BlogContext.AddToBlogs(blog); } The method does a very simple check that the name of the new Blog entity instance doesn’t exist. This is done through the simple LINQ query above. If the blog doesn’t already exist it simply adds it to the current context to be saved when SaveChanges of the ObjectContext instance (e.g. BlogContext) is called. However, if a blog with the same name exits, and exception (InvalideOperationException) will be thrown. Let us now create a unit test for the Add method using MoQ. [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException_When_Blog_With_Same_Name_Already_Exits() { //(1) We shouldn't depend on configuration when doing unit tests! But, //its a workaround to fake the ObjectContext string connectionString = ConfigurationManager .ConnectionStrings["MyBlogConnString"] .ConnectionString; //(2) Arrange: Fake ObjectContext var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); //(3) Next Line will pass, as ObjectContext now can be faked with proper connection string var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); //(4) Create fake ObjectQuery<Blog>. Will be used to substitute MyBlogContext.Blogs property var fakeObjectQuery = new Mock<ObjectQuery<Blog>>("[Blogs]", fakeContext.Object); //(5) Arrange: Set Expectations //Next line will throw an exception by MoQ: //System.ArgumentException: Invalid setup on a non-overridable member fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); //Act repo.Add(new Blog { Name = "NewBlog" }); } This test method is checking to see if the correct exception ([ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))]) is thrown when a developer attempts to Add a blog with a name that’s already exists. On (1) a connection string is initialized from configuration file. To retrieve the full connection string. On (2) a fake ObjectContext is being created. The ObjectContext here is MyBlogContext and its being created using this var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); This way a fake context is being created using MoQ. On (3) a BlogRepository instance is created. BlogRepository has dependency on generate Entity Framework ObjectContext, MyObjectContext. And so the fake context is passed to the constructor. var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); On (4) a fake instance of ObjectQuery<Blog> is being created to use as a substitute to MyObjectContext.Blogs property as we will see in (5). On (5) setup an expectation for calling Blogs property of MyBlogContext and substitute the return result with the fake ObjectQuery<Blog> instance created on (4). When you run this test it will fail with MoQ throwing an exception because of this line: fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); This happens because the generate property MyBlogContext.Blogs is not virtual/overridable. And assuming it is virtual or you managed to make it virtual it will fail at the following line throwing the same exception: fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); This time the test will fail because the Any extension method is not virtual/overridable. You won’t be able to replace ObjectQuery<Blog> with fake in memory collection to test your LINQ to Entities queries. Now lets see how replacing MoQ with TypeMock Isolator can help. Mocking Entity Framework with TypeMock Isolator The following is the same test method we had above for MoQ but this time implemented using TypeMock Isolator: [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_New_Blog_That_Already_Exists_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException() { //(1) Create fake in memory collection of blogs var fakeInMemoryBlogs = new List<Blog> {new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}}; //(2) create fake context var fakeContext = Isolate.Fake.Instance<MyBlogContext>(); //(3) Setup expected call to MyBlogContext.Blogs property through the fake context Isolate.WhenCalled(() => fakeContext.Blogs) .WillReturnCollectionValuesOf(fakeInMemoryBlogs.AsQueryable()); //(4) Create new blog with a name that already exits in the fake in memory collection in (1) var blog = new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}; //(5) Instantiate instance of BlogRepository (Class under test) var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext); //(6) Acting by adding the newly created blog () repo.Add(blog); } When running the above test method it will pass as the Add method of BlogRepository is going to throw an InvalidOperationException which is the expected behaviour. Nothing prevents us from faking out the database interaction! Even faking ObjectContext  at (2) didn’t require a connection string. On (3) Isolator sets up a faking result for MyBlogContext.Blogs when its being called through the fake instance fakeContext created on (2). The faking result is just an in-memory collection declared an initialized on (1). Finally at (6) action we call the Add method of BlogRepository passing a new Blog instance that has a name that’s already exists in the fake in-memory collection which we set up at (1). As expected the test will pass because it will throw the expected exception defined on top of the test method - InvalidOperationException. TypeMock Isolator succeeded in faking Entity Framework with ease. Conclusion We explored how to write a simple unit test using TypeMock Isolator for code which is using Entity Framework. We also explored a few of the limitations of other mocking frameworks which TypeMock is successfully able to handle. There are workarounds that you can use to overcome limitations when using MoQ or Rhino Mock, however the workarounds will require you to write more code and your tests will likely be more complex. For a comparison between different mocking frameworks take a look at this document produced by TypeMock. You might also want to check out this open source project to compare mocking frameworks. I hope you enjoyed this post Muhammad Mosa http://mosesofegypt.net/ http://twitter.com/mosessaur Screencast of unit testing Entity Framework Related Links GuestPost: Introduction to Mocking GuesPost: Typemock Isolator – Much more than an Isolation framework

    Read the article

  • Bit by bit comparison of using Java or Python for unit testing frameworks and Selenium

    - by Anirudh
    Currently we are in the process of finalizing which language out of Java, Python should be used for Automation using selenium webdriver and a suitable unit testing frameworks. I have made use of Junit, TestNG and webdriver while using with Java and have designed frameworks without much fuss before. I am new to python though I came across pyhton's unit testing frameworks like unittest, pyunit, nose e.t.c but I have doubts if they would be as successful as testNG or Java. I would like to analyze point by point when used with selenium webdriver as below: 1)I have read that as Python is an interpreted language hence it's execution is slower, so say if I have to run 1000 test cases which take about 6 hours to run in Java, would python take considerably longer time for the same test cases like 8 hours? 2)Can the Python unit testing framework be as flexible as a Java unit testing framework like testNG in terms or Grouping the tests, parallel execution, skipping test. e.t.c 3)Also one point that I think of is that Python with selenium webdriver doeasn't have as big or learned community as we have for Java with webdriver, say if I run into trouble with something I am more likely to find an answer for Java as compared to python? 4)Somewhat related to point 3, is it safe to rely on tools, plugins or even webderiver's python's binding as a continuously well maintained? 5)One major drawback as I see while using python's unit testing framework is lack of boilerplate code or libraries for nicely illustrative HTML reports preferably historical reports with Pie charts, bar graphs and timelines as we have in case of Java like Allure, TestNG's default reports, reportNG or Junit reports with the help of ANT as shown below Allure Reports Junit Historical reports Also I would like to emphasize on the fact if there is a way for one to write the framework in java and make libraries or utilities according to out application in webdriver which can easily be called or integrated in with python code or modules? That would actually solve the problem for us as the client would be able to use the code we write in Java and make use of the same or call it from their python modules?

    Read the article

  • Introducing QuickUnit

    - by RoyOsherove
    A friend of mine, Ariel, just finished up his latest project, in the unit testing world – called QuickUnit. From the site: QuickUnit significantly reduces the time needed to design and generate high-quality unit tests. I see it as an interactive unit test generator with all the options for isolation included. give it a whirl

    Read the article

  • How do you handle measuring Code Coverage in JavaScript

    - by Dancrumb
    In order to measure Code Coverage for JavaScript unit tests, one needs to instrument the code, run the tests and then perform post-processing. My concern is that, as a result, you are unit testing code that will never be run in production. Since JavaScript isn't compiled, what you test should be precisely what you execute. So here's my question, how do you handle this? One thought I had was to run Unit Testing on the production code and use that for my pass fail. I would then create a shadow of my production code, with instrumentation and run my unit tests again; this would give me my code coverage stats. Has anyone come across a method that is a little more graceful than this?

    Read the article

  • Unit turning in navmesh-based pathfinding

    - by Haddayn
    I'm working on an RTS game, and I'm using navmeshes for unit pathfinding. I do know how to find a general path within a navmesh, but how do you determine if the unit have enough space to turn? I have units of different shapes (mostly rectangles with different dimensions), and with different turn radii. Additionally some of units can turn in place, and some can move in reverse. So, how to find a path which unit can follow, considering that it can not rotate easily?

    Read the article

  • Xcode Unit Testing - Accessing Resources from the application's bundle?

    - by Ben Scheirman
    I'm running into an issue and I wanted to confirm that I'm doing things the correct way. I can test simple things with my SenTestingKit tests, and that works okay. I've set up a Unit Test Bundle and set it as a dependency on the main application target. It successfully runs all tests whenever I press cmd+B. Here's where I'm running into issues. I have some XML files that I need to load from the resources folder as part of the application. Being a good unit tester, I want to write unit tests around this to make sure that they are loading properly. So I have some code that looks like this: NSString *filePath = [[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResource:@"foo" ofType:@"xml"]; This works when the application runs, but during a unit test, mainBundle points to the wrong bundle, so this line of code returns nil. So I changed it up to utilize a known class like this: NSString *filePath = [[NSBundle bundleForClass:[Config class]] pathForResource:@"foo" ofType:@"xml"]; This doesn't work either, because in order for the test to even compile code like this, it Config needs to be part of the Unit Test Target. If I add that, then the bundle for that class becomes the Unit Test bundle. (Ugh!) Am I approaching this the wrong way?

    Read the article

  • How best to organize projects folders for unit tests in .NET?

    - by Dan Bailiff
    So I'm trying to introduce unit testing to my group. I've successfully upgraded a VS'05 web site project to a VS'08 web application, and now have a solution with the web app project and a unit test project. The issue now is how to fit this back into the source repository such that we don't break the build system and the unit test projects are persisted as well. Right now we have something like this: c:\root c:\root\projectA c:\root\projectB c:\root\projectC where projectA contains the sln file and all other related files/folders for the project. Now I have this new solution that looks like this: c:\root\projectA (parent folder) c:\root\projectA\projectA (the production code project) c:\root\projectA\projectA_Test (the unit test project) c:\root\projectA\TestResults c:\root\projecta\projectA.sln How do I integrate this new structure back into the code repository? I'd really prefer to keep the production code folder where it was in the source repository for the sake of the build, but is this necessary? If I keep the production code project in its usual place then where do I keep my unit test projects and how do I connect them with a sln file? Is it better to use this new structure and adjust the build process? I'd love to hear how other people are dealing with this issue of upgrading legacy projects to unit testing.

    Read the article

  • Delphi Unit local variables - how to make each instance unique?

    - by Justin
    Ok, this, I'm sure is something simple that is easy to do. The problem : I've inherited scary spaghetti code and am slowly trying to better it when new features need adding - generally when a refactor makes adding the new feature neater. I've got a bunch of code I'm packing into a single unit which, in different places in the application, controls the same physical thing in the outside world. The control appears in several places in the application and operates slightly differently in each instance. What I've done is to create a unit with all of the features I need which I can simply drop, as a frame, into each form that requires it. Each form then uses the unit's interface methods to customise the behaviour for each instance. The problem within the problem : In the unit in question (the frame) I have a variable declared in the IMPLEMENTATION section - local to the unit. I also have a procedure, declared in the TYPE section which takes an argument and assigns that argument to the local variable in question - each form passes a unique variable to each instance of the frame/unit. What I want it to do is for each instance of the frame to keep its own version of that variable, different from the others, and use that to define how it operates. What seems to be happening, however, is that all instances are using the same value, even if I explicitly pass each instance a different variable. ie: Unit FlexibleUnit; interface uses //the uses stuff type TFlexibleUnit=class(TFrame) //declarations including procedure makeThisInstanceX(passMeTheVar:integer); private // public // end; implementation uses //the uses var myLocalVar; procedure makeThisInstanceX(passMeTheVar:integer); begin myLocalVar:=passMeTheVar; end; //other procedures using myLocalVar //etc to the end; Now somewhere in another Form I've dropped this Frame onto the Design pane, sometimes two of these frames on one Form, and have it declared in the proper places, etc. Each is unique in that : ThisFlexibleUnit : TFlexibleUnit; ThatFlexibleUnit : TFlexibleUnit; and when I do a: ThisFlexibleUnit.makeThisInstanceX(var1); //want to behave in way "var1" ThatFlexibleUnit.makeThisInstanceX(var2); //want to behave in way "var2" it seems that they both share the same variable "myLocalVar". Am I doing this wrong, in principle? If this is the correct method then it's a matter of debugging what I have (which is too huge to post) but if this is not correct in principle then is there a way to do what I am suggesting? Thanks in advance, Stack Overflow - you guys (and gals!) are legendary.

    Read the article

  • How to maintain the HTML semantics when HTML is used for drawing diagrams (like organizational chart

    - by Vijay
    I have created an organizational chart using ASP.NET on web page. The web page is using strict DOCTYPE and following W3C standards. The chart has a hierarchical layout decided by the manager field in the table that contains employees in the organization. The chart layout has nodes with employee image and other details like job title, department and contact details. Nodes are beautifully arranged and connected by lines (only horizontal or vertical or both). A lot of DIV elements are used (to avoid table) for connecting lines and arranging the chart properly. As suggested by my friend, using DIVs for connecting lines in the chart is semantically wrong. Is there a way by which I can make it semantically correct? Or, am I using HTML for the wrong purpose?

    Read the article

  • Perform Unit Conversions with the Windows 7 Calculator

    - by Matthew Guay
    Want to easily convert area, volume, temperature, and many other units?  With the Calculator in Windows 7, it’s easy to convert most any unit into another. The New Calculator in Windows 7 Calculator received a visual overhaul in Windows 7, but at first glance it doesn’t seem to have any new functionality.  Here’s Windows 7’s Calculator on the left, with Vista’s calculator on the right.   But, looks can be deceiving.  Window’s 7’s calculator has lots of new exciting features.  Let’s try them out.  Simply type Calculator in the start menu search. To uncover the new features, click the View menu.  Here you can select many different modes, including Unit Conversion mode which we will look at. When you select the Unit Conversion mode, the Calculator will expand with a form on the left side. This conversions pane has 3 drop-down menus.  From the top one, select the type of unit you want to convert. In the next two menus, select which values you wish to convert to and from.  For instance, here we selected Temperature in the first menu, Degrees Fahrenheit in the second menu, and Degrees Celsius in the third menu. Enter the value you wish to convert in the From box, and the conversion will automatically appear in the bottom box. The Calculator contains dozens of conversion values, including more uncommon ones.  So if you’ve ever wanted to know how many US gallons are in a UK gallon, or how many knots a supersonic jet travels in an hour, this is a great tool for you!   Conclusion Windows 7 is filled with little changes that give you an all-around better experience in Windows to help you work more efficiently and productively.  With the new features in the Calculator, you just might feel a little smarter, too! Similar Articles Productive Geek Tips Add Windows Calculator to the Excel 2007 Quick Launch ToolbarEnjoy Quick & Easy Unit Conversion with Convert for WindowsCalculate with Qalculate on LinuxDisable the Annoying “This device can perform faster” Balloon Message in Windows 7Get stats on your Ruby on Rails code TouchFreeze Alternative in AutoHotkey The Icy Undertow Desktop Windows Home Server – Backup to LAN The Clear & Clean Desktop Use This Bookmarklet to Easily Get Albums Use AutoHotkey to Assign a Hotkey to a Specific Window Latest Software Reviews Tinyhacker Random Tips DVDFab 6 Revo Uninstaller Pro Registry Mechanic 9 for Windows PC Tools Internet Security Suite 2010 Install, Remove and HIDE Fonts in Windows 7 Need Help with Your Home Network? Awesome Lyrics Finder for Winamp & Windows Media Player Download Videos from Hulu Pixels invade Manhattan Convert PDF files to ePub to read on your iPad

    Read the article

  • Achieving decoupling in Model classes

    - by Guven
    I am trying to test-drive (or at least write unit tests) my Model classes but I noticed that my classes end up being too coupled. Since I can't break this coupling, writing unit tests is becoming harder and harder. To be more specific: Model Classes: These are the classes that hold the data in my application. They resemble pretty much the POJO (plain old Java objects), but they also have some methods. The application is not too big so I have around 15 model classes. Coupling: Just to give an example, think of a simple case of Order Header - Order Item. The header knows the item and the item knows the header (needs some information from the header for performing certain operations). Then, let's say there is the relationship between Order Item - Item Report. The item report needs the item as well. At this point, imagine writing tests for Item Report; you need have a Order Header to carry out the tests. This is a simple case with 3 classes; things get more complicated with more classes. I can come up with decoupled classes when I design algorithms, persistence layers, UI interactions, etc... but with model classes, I can't think of a way to separate them. They currently sit as one big chunk of classes that depend on each other. Here are some workarounds that I can think of: Data Generators: I have a package that generates sample data for my model classes. For example, the OrderHeaderGenerator class creates OrderHeaders with some basic data in it. I use the OrderHeaderGenerator from my ItemReport unit-tests so that I get an instance to OrderHeader class. The problem is these generators get complicated pretty fast and then I also need to test these generators; defeating the purpose a little bit. Interfaces instead of dependencies: I can come up with interfaces to get rid of the hard dependencies. For example, the OrderItem class would depend on the IOrderHeader interface. So, in my unit tests, I can easily mock the behaviour of an OrderHeader with a FakeOrderHeader class that implements the IOrderHeader interface. The problem with this approach is the complexity that the Model classes would end up having. Would you have other ideas on how to break this coupling in the model classes? Or, how to make it easier to unit-test the model classes?

    Read the article

  • Does Python doctest remove the need for unit-tests?

    - by daniel
    Hi all, A fellow developer on a project I am on believes that doctests are as good as unit-tests, and that if a piece of code is doctested, it does not need to be unit-tested. I do not believe this to be the case. Can anyone provide some solid, ideally cited, examples either for or against the argument that doctests do not replace the need for unit-tests? Thank you -Daniel

    Read the article

  • Why should I bother with unit testing if I can just use integration tests?

    - by CodeGrue
    Ok, I know I am going out on a limb making a statement like that, so my question is for everyone to convince me I am wrong. Take this scenario: I have method A, which calls method B, and they are in different layers. So I unit test B, which delivers null as a result. So I test that null is returned, and the unit test passes. Nice. Then I unit test A, which expects an empty string to be returned from B. So I mock the layer B is in, an empty string is return, the test passes. Nice again. (Assume I don't realize the relationship of A and B, or that maybe two differente people are building these methods) My concern is that we don't find the real problem until we test A and B togther, i.e. Integration Testing. Since an integration test provides coverage over the unit test area, it seems like a waste of effort to build all these unit tests that really don't tell us anything (or very much) meaningful. Why am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • How do I display the validation which failed in my Rails unit test?

    - by JD
    Summary: Failed unit tests tell me which assert (file:line) failed, but not which validation resulted in the failure. More info: I have 11 validations in one of my models. Unit testing is great, whether I run `rake test:units --trace' or 'ruby -Itest test/unit/mymodel_test.rb'. However, despite the fact that it tells me exactly which assert() failed me, I am not told which validation failed. I must be missing something obvious, because I can't ask Google this question well enough to get an answer. Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • how often should the entire suite of a system's unit tests be run?

    - by gerryLowry
    Generally, I'm still very much a unit testing neophyte. BTW, you may also see this question on other forums like xUnit.net, et cetera, because it's an important question to me. I apoligize in advance for my cross posting; your opinions are very important to me and not everyone in this forum belongs to the other forums too. I was looking at a large decade old legacy system which has had over 700 unit tests written recently (700 is just a small beginning). The tests happen to be written in MSTest but this question applies to all testing frameworks AFAIK. When I ran, via vs2008 "ALL TESTS", the final count was only seven tests. That's about 1% of the total tests that have been written to date. MORE INFORMATION: The ASP.NET MVC 2 RTM source code, including its unit tests, is available on CodePlex; those unit tests are also written in MSTest even though (an irrelevant fact) Brad Wilson later joined the ASP.NET MVC team as its Senior Programmer. All 2000 plus tests get run, not just a few. QUESTION: given that AFAIK the purpose of unit tests is to identify breakages in the SUT, am I correct in thinking that the "best practice" is to always, or at least very frequently, run all of the tests? Thank you. Regards, Gerry (Lowry)

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >