Search Results

Search found 648 results on 26 pages for 'nunit mocks'.

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

• In Seam what's the difference between injected EntityManager and getEntityManager from EntityHome

  - by Navi

  I am testing a Seam application using the needle test API. In my code I am using the getEntityManager() method from EntityHome. When I run the unit tests against an in memory database I get the following exception: java.lang.IllegalStateException: No application context active at org.jboss.seam.Component.forName(Component.java:1945) at org.jboss.seam.Component.getInstance(Component.java:2005) at org.jboss.seam.Component.getInstance(Component.java:1983) at org.jboss.seam.Component.getInstance(Component.java:1977) at org.jboss.seam.Component.getInstance(Component.java:1972) at org.jboss.seam.framework.Controller.getComponentInstance(Controller.java:272) at org.jboss.seam.framework.PersistenceController.getPersistenceContext(PersistenceController.java:20) at org.jboss.seam.framework.EntityHome.getEntityManager(EntityHome.java:177) etc .. I can resolve some of these errors by injecting the EntityManager with @In EntityManager entityManager; Unfortunately the persist method of EntityHome also calls the getEntityManager. This means a lot of mocks or rewriting the code somehow. Is there any workaround and why is this exception thrown anyway? I am using Seam 2.2.0 GA by the way. There is nothing special about the components. They are generated by seam-gen. The test is performed with in memory database - I followed the examples in http://jbosscc-needle.sourceforge.net/jbosscc-needle/1.0/db-util.html.

  Read the article

• asp.net mvc - How to create fake test objects quickly and efficiently

  - by Simon G

  Hi, I'm currently testing the controller in my mvc app and I'm creating a fake repository for testing. However I seem to be writing more code and spending more time for the fakes than I do on the actual repositories. Is this right? The code I have is as follows: Controller public partial class SomeController : Controller { IRepository repository; public SomeController(IRepository rep) { repository = rep; } public virtaul ActionResult Index() { // Some logic var model = repository.GetSomething(); return View(model); } } IRepository public interface IRepository { Something GetSomething(); } Fake Repository public class FakeRepository : IRepository { private List<Something> somethingList; public FakeRepository(List<Something> somethings) { somthingList = somthings; } public Something GetSomething() { return somethingList; } } Fake Data class FakeSomethingData { public static List<Something> CreateSomethingData() { var somethings = new List<Something>(); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { somethings.Add(new Something { value1 = String.Format("value{0}", i), value2 = String.Format("value{0}", i), value3 = String.Format("value{0}", i) }); } return somethings; } } Actual Test [TestClass] public class SomethingControllerTest { SomethingController CreateSomethingController() { var testData = FakeSomethingData.CreateSomethingData(); var repository = new FakeSomethingRepository(testData); SomethingController controller = new SomethingController(repository); return controller; } [TestMethod] public void SomeTest() { // Arrange var controller = CreateSomethingController(); // Act // Some test here // Arrange } } All this seems to be a lot of extra code, especially as I have more than one repository. Is there a more efficient way of doing this? Maybe using mocks? Thanks

  Read the article

• Mocking inter-method dependencies

  - by Zecrates

  I've recently started using mock objects in my tests, but I'm still very inexperienced with them and unsure of how to use them in some cases. At the moment I'm struggling with how to mock inter-method dependencies (calling method A has an effect on the results of method B), and whether it should even be mocked (in the sense of using a mocking framework) at all? Take for example a Java Iterator? It is easy enough to mock the next() call to return the correct values, but how do I mock hasNext(), which depends on how many times next() has been called? Currently I'm using a List.Iterator as I could find no way to properly mock one. Does Martin Fowler's distinction between mocks and stubs come into play here? Should I rather write my own IteratorMock? Also consider the following example. The method to be tested calls mockObject.setX() and later on mockObject.getX(). Is there any way that I can create such a mock (without writing my own) which will allow the returned value of getX to depend on what was passed to setX?

  Read the article

• NMock2.0 - how to stub a non interface call?

  - by dferraro

  Hello, I have a class API which has full code coverage and uses DI to mock out all the logic in the main class function (Job.Run) which does all the work. I found a bug in production where we werent doing some validation on one of the data input fields. So, I added a stub function called ValidateFoo()... Wrote a unit test against this function to Expect a JobFailedException, ran the test - it failed obviously because that function was empty. I added the validation logic, and now the test passes. Great, now we know the validation works. Problem is - how do I write the test to make sure that ValidateFoo() is actually called inside Job.Run()? ValidateFoo() is a private method of the Job class - so it's not an interface... Is there anyway to do this with NMock2.0? I know TypeMock supports fakes of non interface types. But changing mock libs right now is not an option. At this point if NMock can't support it, I will simply just add the ValidateFoo() call to the Run() method and test things manually - which obviously I'd prefer not to do considering my Job.Run() method has 100% coverage right now. Any Advice? Thanks very much it is appreciated. EDIT: the other option I have in mind is to just create an integration test for my Job.Run functionality (injecting to it true implementations of the composite objects instead of mocks). I will give it a bad input value for that field and then validate that the job failed. This works and covers my test - but it's not really a unit test but instead an integration test that tests one unit of functionality.... hmm.. EDIT2: IS there any way to do tihs? Anyone have ideas? Maybe TypeMock - or a better design?

  Read the article

• Where do you take mocking - immediate dependencies, or do you grow the boundaries...?

  - by Peter Mounce

  So, I'm reasonably new to both unit testing and mocking in C# and .NET; I'm using xUnit.net and Rhino Mocks respectively. I'm a convert, and I'm focussing on writing behaviour specifications, I guess, instead of being purely TDD. Bah, semantics; I want an automated safety net to work above, essentially. A thought struck me though. I get programming against interfaces, and the benefits as far as breaking apart dependencies goes there. Sold. However, in my behaviour verification suite (aka unit tests ;-) ), I'm asserting behaviour one interface at a time. As in, one implementation of an interface at a time, with all of its dependencies mocked out and expectations set up. The approach seems to be that if we verify that a class behaves as it should against its collaborating dependencies, and in turn relies on each of those collaborating dependencies to have signed that same quality contract, we're golden. Seems reasonable enough. Back to the thought, though. Is there any value in semi-integration tests, where a test-fixture is asserting against a unit of concrete implementations that are wired together, and we're testing its internal behaviour against mocked dependencies? I just re-read that and I think I could probably have worded it better. Obviously, there's going to be a certain amount of "well, if it adds value for you, keep doing it", I suppose - but has anyone else thought about doing that, and reaped benefits from it outweighing the costs?

  Read the article

• Django Testing: Faking User Creation

  - by Ygam

  I want to better write this test: def test_profile_created(self): self.client.post(reverse('registration_register'), data={ 'username':'ygam', 'email':'[email protected]', 'password1':'ygam', 'password2':'ygam' }) """ Test if a profile is created on save """ user = User.objects.get(username='ygam') self.assertTrue(UserProfile.objects.filter(user=user).exists()) and I just came upon this code on django-registration tests that does not actually "create" the user: def test_registration_signal(self): def receiver(sender, **kwargs): self.failUnless('user' in kwargs) self.assertEqual(kwargs['user'].username, 'bob') self.failUnless('request' in kwargs) self.failUnless(isinstance(kwargs['request'], WSGIRequest)) received_signals.append(kwargs.get('signal')) received_signals = [] signals.user_registered.connect(receiver, sender=self.backend.__class__) self.backend.register(_mock_request(), username='bob', email='[email protected]', password1='secret') self.assertEqual(len(received_signals), 1) self.assertEqual(received_signals, [signals.user_registered]) However he used a custom function for this "_mock_request": class _MockRequestClient(Client): def request(self, **request): environ = { 'HTTP_COOKIE': self.cookies, 'PATH_INFO': '/', 'QUERY_STRING': '', 'REMOTE_ADDR': '127.0.0.1', 'REQUEST_METHOD': 'GET', 'SCRIPT_NAME': '', 'SERVER_NAME': 'testserver', 'SERVER_PORT': '80', 'SERVER_PROTOCOL': 'HTTP/1.1', 'wsgi.version': (1,0), 'wsgi.url_scheme': 'http', 'wsgi.errors': self.errors, 'wsgi.multiprocess':True, 'wsgi.multithread': False, 'wsgi.run_once': False, 'wsgi.input': None, } environ.update(self.defaults) environ.update(request) request = WSGIRequest(environ) # We have to manually add a session since we'll be bypassing # the middleware chain. session_middleware = SessionMiddleware() session_middleware.process_request(request) return request def _mock_request(): return _MockRequestClient().request() However, it may be too long of a function for my needs. I want to be able to somehow "fake" the account creation. I have not much experience on mocks and stubs so any help would do. Thanks!

  Read the article

• What is the best way to use Guice and JMock together?

  - by Yishai

  I have started using Guice to do some dependency injection on a project, primarily because I need to inject mocks (using JMock currently) a layer away from the unit test, which makes manual injection very awkward. My question is what is the best approach for introducing a mock? What I currently have is to make a new module in the unit test that satisfies the dependencies and bind them with a provider that looks like this: public class JMockProvider<T> implements Provider<T> { private T mock; public JMockProvider(T mock) { this.mock = mock; } public T get() { return mock; } } Passing the mock in the constructor, so a JMock setup might look like this: final CommunicationQueue queue = context.mock(CommunicationQueue.class); final TransactionRollBack trans = context.mock(TransactionRollBack.class); Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new AbstractModule() { @Override protected void configure() { bind(CommunicationQueue.class).toProvider(new JMockProvider<QuickBooksCommunicationQueue>(queue)); bind(TransactionRollBack.class).toProvider(new JMockProvider<TransactionRollBack>(trans)); } }); context.checking(new Expectations() {{ oneOf(queue).retrieve(with(any(int.class))); will(returnValue(null)); never(trans); }}); injector.getInstance(RunResponse.class).processResponseImpl(-1); Is there a better way? I know that AtUnit attempts to address this problem, although I'm missing how it auto-magically injects a mock that was created locally like the above, but I'm looking for either a compelling reason why AtUnit is the right answer here (other than its ability to change DI and mocking frameworks around without changing tests) or if there is a better solution to doing it by hand.

  Read the article

• How to keep your unit test Arrange step simple and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

  - by ian31

  DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

  Read the article

• How to keep your unit tests simple and isolated and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

  - by ian31

  DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

  Read the article

• C++ & proper TDD

  - by Kotti

  Hi! I recently tried developing a small-sized project in C# and during the whole project our team used the Test-Driven-Development (TDD) technique (xunit, moq). I really think this was awesome, because (when paired with C#) this approach allowed to relax when coding, relax when projecting and relax when refactoring. I suspect that all this TDD-stuff actually simplifies the coding process and, well, it allowed (eventually, for me) to get the same result with fewer brain cells working. Right after that I tried using TDD paired with C++ (I used Google Test and Google Mock libraries), and, I don't know why but I actually think that TDD here was a step back in terms of rapid application development. I had some moments when I had to spend huge amounts of time thinking of my tests, building proper mocks, rebuilding them and swearing at my monitor. And, well, I obviously can't ask something like "what I did wrong?" or "what was wrong in my approach?", because I don't know what to describe. But if there are any people who are used to TDD in C++ (and, probably C#) too, could you please advise me how to do this properly. Framework recommendations, architecture approaches, plain coding advices - if you are experienced in TDD & C++, please respond.

  Read the article

• mmap only needed pages of kernel buffer to user space

  - by axeoth

  See also this answer: http://stackoverflow.com/a/10770582/1284631 I need something similar, but without having to allocate a buffer: the buffer is large, in theory, but the user space program only needs to access some parts of it (it mocks some registers of a hardware). As I cannot allocate with vmalloc_user() such a large buffer (kernel 32 bit, in embedded environment, no swap...), I followed the same approach as in the quoted answer, trying to allocate only those pages that are really requested by the user space. So: I use a my_mmap() function for the device file (actually, is the .mmap field of a struct uio_info) to set up the fields of the vma, then, in the vm_area_struct's .fault field (also named my_fault()), I should return a page. except that: In the my_fault() method of vm_area_struct, I cannot obtain a page through: vmf->page=vmalloc_to_page(my_buf + (vmf->pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT)); since there is no allocated buffer: my_buf = vmalloc_user(MY_BUF_SIZE); fails with "allocation failed: out of vmalloc space - use vmalloc= to increase size." (and there is no room or swap to increase that vmalloc= parameter). So, I would need to get a page from the kernel and fill the vmf->page field. How to allocate a page (I assume that the offset of the page is known, as it is vm->pgoff). What base memory should I use instead of my_buf? PS: I also did set up the vma->flags |= VM_NORESERVE; (in the my_mmap()), but not sure if it helps. Is there any vmalloc_user_unreserved()-like function? (let's say, lazy allocation) Also, writing 1 to /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory and large values (eg 500) to /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_ratio before trying to my_buf=vmalloc_user(<large_size>) didn't work.

  Read the article

• Seeking suggestions on redesigning the interface

  - by ratkok

  As a part of maintaining large piece of legacy code, we need to change part of the design mainly to make it more testable (unit testing). One of the issues we need to resolve is the existing interface between components. The interface between two components is a class that contains static methods only. Simplified example: class ABInterface { static methodA(); static methodB(); ... static methodZ(); }; The interface is used by component A so that different methods can use ABInterface::methodA() in order to prepare some input data and then invoke appropriate functions within component B. Now we are trying to redesign this interface for various reasons: Extending our unit test coverage - we need to resolve this dependency between the components and stubs/mocks are to be introduced The interface between these components diverged from the original design (ie. a lots of newer functions, used for the inter-component i/f are created outside this interface class). The code is old, changed a lot over the time and needs to be refactored. The change should not be disruptive for the rest of the system. We try to limit leaving many test-required artifacts in the production code. Performance is very important and should be no (or very minimal) degradation after the redesign. Code is OO in C++. I am looking for some ideas what approach to take. Any suggestions on how to do this efficiently?

  Read the article

• Nested Resource testing RSpec

  - by Joseph DelCioppio

  I have two models: class Solution < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :owner, :class_name => "User", :foreign_key => :user_id end class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :solutions end with the following routing: map.resources :users, :has_many => :solutions and here is the SolutionsController: class SolutionsController < ApplicationController before_filter :load_user def index @solutions = @user.solutions end private def load_user @user = User.find(params[:user_id]) unless params[:user_id].nil? end end Can anybody help me with writing a test for the index action? So far I have tried the following but it doesn't work: describe SolutionsController do before(:each) do @user = Factory.create(:user) @solutions = 7.times{Factory.build(:solution, :owner => @user)} @user.stub!(:solutions).and_return(@solutions) end it "should find all of the solutions owned by a user" do @user.should_receive(:solutions) get :index, :user_id => @user.id end end And I get the following error: Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'SolutionsController GET index, when the user owns the software he is viewing should find all of the solutions owned by a user' #<User:0x000000041c53e0> expected :solutions with (any args) once, but received it 0 times Thanks in advance for all the help. Joe

  Read the article

• How can I spec out an authlogic sessions controller using using a stub?

  - by Dave

  I want to test my User Session Controller testing that a user session is first built then saved. My UserSession class looks like this: class UserSession < Authlogic::Session::Base end The create method of my UserSessionsController looks like this: def create @user_session = UserSession.new(params[:user_session]) if @user_session.save flash[:notice] = "Successfully logged in." redirect_back_or_default administer_home_page_url else render :new end end and my controller spec looks like this: describe UserSessionsController do it "should build a new user session" do UserSession.stub!(:new).with(:email, :password) UserSession.should_receive(:new).with(:email => "[email protected]", :password => "foobar") post :create, :user_session => { :email => "[email protected]", :password => "foobar" } end end I stub out the new method but I still get the following error when I run the test: Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'UserSessionsController should build a new user session' <UserSession (class)> received :new with unexpected arguments expected: ({:password=>"foobar", :email=>"[email protected]"}) got: ({:priority_record=>nil}, nil) It's although the new method is being called on UserSession before my controller code is getting called. Calling activate_authlogic makes no difference.

  Read the article

• Framework or tool for "distributed unit testing"?

  - by user262646

  Is there any tool or framework able to make it easier to test distributed software written in Java? My system under test is a peer-to-peer software, and I'd like to perform testing using something like PNUnit, but with Java instead of .Net. The system under test is a framework I'm developing to build P2P applications. It uses JXTA as a lower subsystem, trying to hide some complexities of it. It's currently an academic project, so I'm pursuing simplicity at this moment. In my test, I want to demonstrate that a peer (running in its own process, possibly with multiple threads) can discover another one (running in another process or even another machine) and that they can exchange a few messages. I'm not using mocks nor stubs because I need to see both sides working simultaneously. I realize that some kind of coordination mechanism is needed, and PNUnit seems to be able to do that. I've bumped into some initiatives like Pisces, which "aims to provide a distributed testing environment that extends JUnit, giving the developer/tester an ability to run remote JUnits and create complex test suites that are composed of several remote JUnit tests running in parallel or serially", but this project and a few others I have found seem to be long dead.

  Read the article

• Mocking non-virtual methods in C++ without editing production code?

  - by wk1989

  Hello, I am a fairly new software developer currently working adding unit tests to an existing C++ project that started years ago. Due to a non-technical reason, I'm not allowed to modify any existing code. The base class of all my modules has a bunch of methods for Setting/Getting data and communicating with other modules. Since I just want to unit testing each individual module, I want to be able to use canned values for all my inter-module communication methods. I.e. for a method Ping() which checks if another module is active, I want to have it return true or false based on what kind of test I'm doing. I've been looking into Google Test and Google Mock, and it does support mocking non-virtual methods. However the approach described (http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods) requires me to "templatize" the original methods to take in either real or mock objects. I can't go and templatize my methods in the base class due to the requirement mentioned earlier, so I need some other way of mocking these virtual methods Basically, the methods I want to mock are in some base class, the modules I want to unit test and create mocks of are derived classes of that base class. There are intermediate modules in between my base Module class and the modules that I want to test. I would appreciate any advise! Thanks, JW EDIT: A more concrete examples My base class is lets say rootModule, the module I want to test is leafModule. There is an intermediate module which inherits from rootModule, leafModule inherits from this intermediate module. In my leafModule, I want to test the doStuff() method, which calls the non virtual GetStatus(moduleName) defined in the rootModule class. I need to somehow make GetStatus() to return a chosen canned value. Mocking is new to me, so is using mock objects even the right approach?

  Read the article

• Angular JS pagination after data loaded

  - by Federico Bucchi

  do you have any example of Angular JS elements pagination loaded from I file? I found this example: http://jsfiddle.net/SAWsA/11/ Now, instead of having this: $scope.items = [ {"id":"1","name":"name 1","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 1","field4":"field4 1","field5 ":"field5 1"}, {"id":"2","name":"name 2","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 2","field4":"field4 2","field5 ":"field5 2"}, {"id":"3","name":"name 3","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 3","field4":"field4 3","field5 ":"field5 3"}, {"id":"4","name":"name 4","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 4","field4":"field4 4","field5 ":"field5 4"}, {"id":"5","name":"name 5","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 5","field4":"field4 5","field5 ":"field5 5"}, {"id":"6","name":"name 6","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 6","field4":"field4 6","field5 ":"field5 6"}, {"id":"7","name":"name 7","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 7","field4":"field4 7","field5 ":"field5 7"}, {"id":"8","name":"name 8","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 8","field4":"field4 8","field5 ":"field5 8"}, {"id":"9","name":"name 9","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 9","field4":"field4 9","field5 ":"field5 9"}, {"id":"10","name":"name 10","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 10","field4":"field4 10","field5 ":"field5 10"}, {"id":"11","name":"name 11","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 11","field4":"field4 11","field5 ":"field5 11"}, {"id":"12","name":"name 12","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 12","field4":"field4 12","field5 ":"field5 12"}, {"id":"13","name":"name 13","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 13","field4":"field4 13","field5 ":"field5 13"}, {"id":"14","name":"name 14","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 14","field4":"field4 14","field5 ":"field5 14"}, {"id":"15","name":"name 15","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 15","field4":"field4 15","field5 ":"field5 15"}, {"id":"16","name":"name 16","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 16","field4":"field4 16","field5 ":"field5 16"}, {"id":"17","name":"name 17","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 17","field4":"field4 17","field5 ":"field5 17"}, {"id":"18","name":"name 18","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 18","field4":"field4 18","field5 ":"field5 18"}, {"id":"19","name":"name 19","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 19","field4":"field4 19","field5 ":"field5 19"}, {"id":"20","name":"name 20","description":"description 1","field3":"field3 20","field4":"field4 20","field5 ":"field5 20"} ]; I have to use something generated by: $http.get('/json/mocks/apps/applications.json') .then(function (result) { $scope.items = result.data.applications; }); How would you create the pagination waiting for the data loaded from $http.get?

  Read the article

• How do I setup model associations in an RSpec test?

  - by Eric M.

  I've pastied the specs I've written for the posts/show.html.erb view in an application I'm writing as a means to learn RSpec. I am still learning about mocks and stubbing. This question is specific to the "should list all related comments" spec. What I want is to test that the show view displays a post's comments. But what I'm not sure about is how to setup this test and then have the test iterate through with should contain('xyz') statements. Any hints? Other suggestions are also appreciated! Thanks. ---Edit Some more information. I have a named_scope applied to comments in my view (I know, I did this a bit backwards in this case), so @post.comments.approved_is(true). The code pastied responds with the error "undefined method `approved_is' for #", which makes sense since I told it stub comments and return a comment. I'm still not sure, however, how to chain the stubs so that @post.comments.approved_is(true) will return an array of comments.

  Read the article

• Integration testing - can it be done right?

  - by Max

  I used TDD as a development style on some projects in the past two years, but I always get stuck on the same point: how can I test the integration of the various parts of my program? What I am currently doing is writing a testcase per class (this is my rule of thumb: a "unit" is a class, and each class has one or more testcases). I try to resolve dependencies by using mocks and stubs and this works really well as each class can be tested independently. After some coding, all important classes are tested. I then "wire" them together using an IoC container. And here I am stuck: How to test if the wiring was successfull and the objects interact the way I want? An example: Think of a web application. There is a controller class which takes an array of ids, uses a repository to fetch the records based on these ids and then iterates over the records and writes them as a string to an outfile. To make it simple, there would be three classes: Controller, Repository, OutfileWriter. Each of them is tested in isolation. What I would do in order to test the "real" application: making the http request (either manually or automated) with some ids from the database and then look in the filesystem if the file was written. Of course this process could be automated, but still: doesn´t that duplicate the test-logic? Is this what is called an "integration test"? In a book i recently read about Unit Testing it seemed to me that integration testing was more of an anti-pattern?

  Read the article

• April 14th Links: ASP.NET, ASP.NET MVC, ASP.NET Web API and Visual Studio

  - by ScottGu

  Here is the latest in my link-listing blog series: ASP.NET Easily overlooked features in VS 11 Express for Web: Good post by Scott Hanselman that highlights a bunch of easily overlooked improvements that are coming to VS 11 (and specifically the free express editions) for web development: unit testing, browser chooser/launcher, IIS Express, CSS Color Picker, Image Preview in Solution Explorer and more. Get Started with ASP.NET 4.5 Web Forms: Good 5-part tutorial that walks-through building an application using ASP.NET Web Forms and highlights some of the nice improvements coming with ASP.NET 4.5. What is New in Razor V2 and What Else is New in Razor V2: Great posts by Andrew Nurse, a dev on the ASP.NET team, about some of the new improvements coming with ASP.NET Razor v2. ASP.NET MVC 4 AllowAnonymous Attribute: Nice post from David Hayden that talks about the new [AllowAnonymous] filter introduced with ASP.NET MVC 4. Introduction to the ASP.NET Web API: Great tutorial by Stephen Walher that covers how to use the new ASP.NET Web API support built-into ASP.NET 4.5 and ASP.NET MVC 4. Comprehensive List of ASP.NET Web API Tutorials and Articles: Tugberk Ugurlu links to a huge collection of articles, tutorials, and samples about the new ASP.NET Web API capability. Async Mashups using ASP.NET Web API: Nice post by Henrik on how you can use the new async language support coming with .NET 4.5 to easily and efficiently make asynchronous network requests that do not block threads within ASP.NET. ASP.NET and Front-End Web Development Visual Studio 11 and Front End Web Development - JavaScript/HTML5/CSS3: Nice post by Scott Hanselman that highlights some of the great improvements coming with VS 11 (including the free express edition) for front-end web development. HTML5 Drag/Drop and Async Multi-file Upload with ASP.NET Web API: Great post by Filip W. that demonstrates how to implement an async file drag/drop uploader using HTML5 and ASP.NET Web API. Device Emulator Guide for Mobile Development with ASP.NET: Good post from Rachel Appel that covers how to use various device emulators with ASP.NET and VS to develop cross platform mobile sites. Fixing these jQuery: A Guide to Debugging: Great presentation by Adam Sontag on debugging with JavaScript and jQuery.  Some really good tips, tricks and gotchas that can save a lot of time. ASP.NET and Open Source Getting Started with ASP.NET Web Stack Source on CodePlex: Fantastic post by Henrik (an architect on the ASP.NET team) that provides step by step instructions on how to work with the ASP.NET source code we recently open sourced. Contributing to ASP.NET Web Stack Source on CodePlex: Follow-on to the post above (also by Henrik) that walks-through how you can submit a code contribution to the ASP.NET MVC, Web API and Razor projects. Overview of the WebApiContrib project: Nice post by Pedro Reys on the new open source WebApiContrib project that has been started to deliver cool extensions and libraries for use with ASP.NET Web API. Entity Framework Entity Framework 5 Performance Improvements and Performance Considerations for EF5:  Good articles that describes some of the big performance wins coming with EF5 (which will ship with both .NET 4.5 and ASP.NET MVC 4). Automatic compilation of LINQ queries will yield some significant performance wins (up to 600% faster). ASP.NET MVC 4 and EF Database Migrations: Good post by David Hayden that covers the new database migrations support within EF 4.3 which allows you to easily update your database schema during development - without losing any of the data within it. Visual Studio What's New in Visual Studio 11 Unit Testing: Nice post by Peter Provost (from the VS team) that talks about some of the great improvements coming to VS11 for unit testing - including built-in VS tooling support for a broad set of unit test frameworks (including NUnit, XUnit, Jasmine, QUnit and more) Hope this helps, Scott

  Read the article

• Unit Testing DateTime – The Crazy Way

  - by João Angelo

  We all know that the process of unit testing code that depends on DateTime, particularly the current time provided through the static properties (Now, UtcNow and Today), it’s a PITA. If you go ask how to unit test DateTime.Now on stackoverflow I’ll bet that you’ll get two kind of answers: Encapsulate the current time in your own interface and use a standard mocking framework; Pull out the big guns like Typemock Isolator, JustMock or Microsoft Moles/Fakes and mock the static property directly. Now each alternative has is pros and cons and I would have to say that I glean more to the second approach because the first adds a layer of abstraction just for the sake of testability. However, the second approach depends on commercial tools that not every shop wants to buy or in the not so friendly Microsoft Moles. (Sidenote: Moles is now named Fakes and it will ship with VS 2012) This tends to leave people without an acceptable and simple solution so after reading another of these types of questions in SO I came up with yet another alternative, one based on the first alternative that I presented here but tries really hard to not get in your way with yet another layer of abstraction. So, without further dues, I present you, the Tardis. The Tardis is single section of conditionally compiled code that overrides the meaning of the DateTime expression inside a single class. You still get the normal coding experience of using DateTime all over the place, but in a DEBUG compilation your tests will be able to mock every static method or property of the DateTime class. An example follows, while the full Tardis code can be downloaded from GitHub: using System; using NSubstitute; using NUnit.Framework; using Tardis; public class Example { public Example() : this(string.Empty) { } public Example(string title) { #if DEBUG this.DateTime = DateTimeProvider.Default; this.Initialize(title); } internal IDateTimeProvider DateTime { get; set; } internal Example(string title, IDateTimeProvider provider) { this.DateTime = provider; #endif this.Initialize(title); } private void Initialize(string title) { this.Title = title; this.CreatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow; } private string title; public string Title { get { return this.title; } set { this.title = value; this.UpdatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow; } } public DateTime CreatedAt { get; private set; } public DateTime UpdatedAt { get; private set; } } public class TExample { public void T001() { // Arrange var tardis = Substitute.For<IDateTimeProvider>(); tardis.UtcNow.Returns(new DateTime(2000, 1, 1, 6, 6, 6)); // Act var sut = new Example("Title", tardis); // Assert Assert.That(sut.CreatedAt, Is.EqualTo(tardis.UtcNow)); } public void T002() { // Arrange var tardis = Substitute.For<IDateTimeProvider>(); var sut = new Example("Title", tardis); tardis.UtcNow.Returns(new DateTime(2000, 1, 1, 6, 6, 6)); // Act sut.Title = "Updated"; // Assert Assert.That(sut.UpdatedAt, Is.EqualTo(tardis.UtcNow)); } } This approach is also suitable for other similar classes with commonly used static methods or properties like the ConfigurationManager class.

  Read the article

• What are some good questions (and good/bad answers) to ask at an interview to gauge the competency of the company/team?

  - by Wayne M

  I'm already familiar with the Joel Test, but it's been my experience that some of the questions there have the answers "massaged" to make the company seem better than it is. I've had several jobs in the past that, for instance, claimed they had a QA process and did unit testing, and what they really meant is "The programmers test the app, and test with the debugger and via trial-and-error."; they said they used SVN but they just lumped everything into one giant repository and had no concept of branching/merging or anything more complicated than updating and committing; said they can build in one step and what they really mean is it's "one step" to copy dozens of files by hand from the programmer's PC to the live server. How do you go about properly gauging a company's environment to make sure that it's a well-evolved company and not stuck on doing things a certain way because they've done it for years and they're ignorant of change? You can almost never ask to see their source code, so you're stuck trying to figure out if the interviewer's answer is accurate or BS to make the company seem good. Besides the Joel Test what are some other good questions to get the proper feel for a company, and more importantly what are some good and bad answers that could indicate a good or bad company? I mean something like (take at face value, please, it's all I could think of at short notice): Question: How does the software team apply the SOLID principles and Inversion of Control to their code? Good Answer: We adhere to SOLID wherever possible; we use TDD so it kind of forces us to write abstract, testable code. We use Ninject for our IoC container because it's fairly easy to configure - it was that or StructureMap but I find Ninject a bit more intuitive, and who doesn't like ninjas? You're not a pirate, are you? Bad Answer: Our code is pretty secure, yeah. And what's this Inversion of Control thing? I've never heard of it before. You see what I did there. The "good" answer uses facts to back it up and has a bit of "in crowd" humor; the bad answer shows complete ignorance of the question - not necessarily a bad thing if you are interviewing for a manger/director position, but a terrible answer and a huge red flag if you're interviewing as a developer and talking to a senior developer or manager! My biggest problem at the moment is being able to take a generic response and gauge whether it's the good or bad answer; more often than not it's the bad kind and I find myself frustrated almost from day one at the new job. I suppose I could name drop if I ask about specific things (e.g. "Do you write unit tests?" and if the answer is yes, ask if they use NUnit, MbUnit or something else; if they mention data access ask if they use a clean ORM like NHibernate or something more coupled like EF or Linq) but is there another way short of being resolute to actually call the interview on things (which will almost certainly result in not getting the job, but if they are skirting the question it's probably not a job I want).

  Read the article

• Dependency injection: How to sell it

  - by Mel

  Let it be known that I am a big fan of dependency injection (DI) and automated testing. I could talk all day about it. Background Recently, our team just got this big project that is to built from scratch. It is a strategic application with complex business requirements. Of course, I wanted it to be nice and clean, which for me meant: maintainable and testable. So I wanted to use DI. Resistance The problem was in our team, DI is taboo. It has been brought up a few times, but the gods do not approve. But that did not discourage me. My Move This may sound weird but third-party libraries are usually not approved by our architect team (think: "thou shalt not speak of Unity, Ninject, NHibernate, Moq or NUnit, lest I cut your finger"). So instead of using an established DI container, I wrote an extremely simple container. It basically wired up all your dependencies on startup, injects any dependencies (constructor/property) and disposed any disposable objects at the end of the web request. It was extremely lightweight and just did what we needed. And then I asked them to review it. The Response Well, to make it short. I was met with heavy resistance. The main argument was, "We don't need to add this layer of complexity to an already complex project". Also, "It's not like we will be plugging in different implementations of components". And "We want to keep it simple, if possible just stuff everything into one assembly. DI is an uneeded complexity with no benefit". Finally, My Question How would you handle my situation? I am not good in presenting my ideas, and I would like to know how people would present their argument. Of course, I am assuming that like me, you prefer to use DI. If you don't agree, please do say why so I can see the other side of the coin. It would be really interesting to see the point of view of someone who disagrees. Update Thank you for everyone's answers. It really puts things into perspective. It's nice enough to have another set of eyes to give you feedback, fifteen is really awesome! This are really great answers and helped me see the issue from different sides, but I can only choose one answer, so I will just pick the top voted one. Thanks everyone for taking the time to answer. I have decided that it is probably not the best time to implement DI, and we are not ready for it. Instead, I will concentrate my efforts on making the design testable and attempt to present automated unit testing. I am aware that writing tests is additional overhead and if ever it is decided that the additional overhead is not worth it, personally I would still see it as a win situation since the design is still testable. And if ever testing or DI is a choice in future, the design can easily handle it.

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection Introduction

  - by MarkPearl

  I recently was going over a great book called “Dependency Injection in .Net” by Mark Seeman. So far I have really enjoyed the book and would recommend anyone looking to get into DI to give it a read. Today I thought I would blog about the first example Mark gives in his book to illustrate some of the benefits that DI provides. The ones he lists are Late binding Extensibility Parallel Development Maintainability Testability To illustrate some of these benefits he gives a HelloWorld example using DI that illustrates some of the basic principles. It goes something like this… class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var writer = new ConsoleMessageWriter(); var salutation = new Salutation(writer); salutation.Exclaim(); Console.ReadLine(); } } public interface IMessageWriter { void Write(string message); } public class ConsoleMessageWriter : IMessageWriter { public void Write(string message) { Console.WriteLine(message); } } public class Salutation { private readonly IMessageWriter _writer; public Salutation(IMessageWriter writer) { _writer = writer; } public void Exclaim() { _writer.Write("Hello World"); } }   If you had asked me a few years ago if I had thought this was a good approach to solving the HelloWorld problem I would have resounded “No”. How could the above be better than the following…. class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Console.WriteLine("Hello World"); Console.ReadLine(); } }  Today, my mind-set has changed because of the pain of past programs. So often we can look at a small snippet of code and make judgements when we need to keep in mind that we will most probably be implementing these patterns in projects with hundreds of thousands of lines of code and in projects that we have tests that we don’t want to break and that’s where the first solution outshines the latter. Let’s see if the first example achieves some of the outcomes that were listed as benefits of DI. Could I test the first solution easily? Yes… We could write something like the following using NUnit and RhinoMocks… [TestFixture] public class SalutationTests { [Test] public void ExclaimWillWriteCorrectMessageToMessageWriter() { var writerMock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IMessageWriter>(); var sut = new Salutation(writerMock); sut.Exclaim(); writerMock.AssertWasCalled(x => x.Write("Hello World")); } }   This would test the existing code fine. Let’s say we then wanted to extend the original solution so that we had a secure message writer. We could write a class like the following… public class SecureMessageWriter : IMessageWriter { private readonly IMessageWriter _writer; private readonly string _secretPassword; public SecureMessageWriter(IMessageWriter writer, string secretPassword) { _writer = writer; _secretPassword = secretPassword; } public void Write(string message) { if (_secretPassword == "Mark") { _writer.Write(message); } else { _writer.Write("Unauthenticated"); } } }   And then extend our implementation of the program as follows… class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var writer = new SecureMessageWriter(new ConsoleMessageWriter(), "Mark"); var salutation = new Salutation(writer); salutation.Exclaim(); Console.ReadLine(); } }   Our application has now been successfully extended and yet we did very little code change. In addition, our existing tests did not break and we would just need add tests for the extended functionality. Would this approach allow parallel development? Well, I am in two camps on parallel development but with some planning ahead of time it would allow for it as you would simply need to decide on the interface signature and could then have teams develop different sections programming to that interface. So,this was really just a quick intro to some of the basic concepts of DI that Mark introduces very successfully in his book. I am hoping to blog about this further as I continue through the book to list some of the more complex implementations of containers.

  Read the article

• Using NSpec at various architectural layers

  - by nono

  Having read the quick start at nspec.org, I realized that NSpec might be a useful tool in a scenario which was becoming a bit cumbersome with NUnit alone. I'm adding an OAuth (or, DotNetOpenAuth) to a website and quickly made a mess of writing test methods such as [Test] public void UserIsLoggedInLocallyPriorToInvokingExternalLoginAndExternalLoginSucceedsAndExternalProviderIdIsNotAlreadyAssociatedWithUserAccount() { ... } ... and I wound up with maybe a dozen permutations of this theme, for the user already being logged in locally and not locally, the external login succeeding or failing, etc. Not only were the method names unwieldy, but every test needed a setup that contained parts in common with a different set of other tests. I realized that NSpec's incremental setup capabilities would work great for this, and for a while I was trucking a long wonderfully, with code like act = () => { actionResult = controller.ExternalLoginCallback(returnUrl); }; context["The user is already logged in"] = () => { before = () => identity.Setup(x => x.IsAuthenticated).Returns(true); context["The external login succeeds"] = () => { before = () => oauth.Setup(x => x.VerifyAuthentication(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(new AuthenticationResult(true, providerName, "provideruserid", "username", new Dictionary<string, string>())); context["External login already exists for current user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Should add 'login sucessful' alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("Login successful"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Success); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; context["External login already exists for another user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForAnyOtherUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Adds an error alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("The external login you requested is already associated with a different user account"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Error); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; This approach seemed to work magnificently until I prepared to write test code for my ApplicationServices layer, to which I delegate viewmodel manipulation from my MVC controllers, and which coordinates the operations of the lower data repository layer: public void CreateUserAccountFromExternalLogin(RegisterExternalLoginModel model) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void AssociateExternalLoginWithUser(string userName, string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public string GetLocalUserName(string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } I have no idea what in the world to name the test class, the test methods, or even if I should perhaps include the testing for this layer into the test class from my large code snippet above, so that a single feature or user action could be tested without regard to architectural layering. I can't find any tutorials or blog posts which cover more than simple examples, so I would appreciate any recommendations or pointing in the right direction. I would even welcome "your question is invalid"-type answers as long as some explanation is provided.

  Read the article

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