Search Results

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

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 22/2721 | < Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >

  • Perfom python unit tests via a web interface

    - by 47
    Is it possible to perform unittest tests via a web interface...and if so how? EDIT: For now I want the results...for the tests I want them to be automated...possibly every time I make a change to the code. Sorry I forgot to make this more clear

    Read the article

  • 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

  • Link To Work Item &ndash; Visual Studio extension to link changeset(s) to work item directly from VS history window

    - by Utkarsh Shigihalli
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/onlyutkarsh/archive/2014/08/11/link-to-work-item-ndash-visual-studio-extension-to-link.aspxBy linking work items and other objects, you can track related work, dependencies, and changes made over time. As the following illustration shows, specific link types are used to track specific work items and actions. (– via MSDN) While making a check-in, Visual Studio 2013 provides you a quick way to search and assign a work item via pending changes section in Team Explorer. However, if you forget to assign the work item during your check-in, things really get cumbersome as Visual Studio does not provide an easy way of assigning. For example, you usually have to open the work item and then link the changeset which involves approx. 7-8 mouse clicks. Now, you will really feel the difficulty if you have to assign work item to multiple changesets, you have to repeat the same steps again. Hence, I decided to develop a small Visual Studio extension to perform this action of linking work item to changeset bit easier. How to use the extension? First, download and install the extension from VS Gallery (Supports VS 2013 Professional and above). Once you install, you will see a new "Link To Work Item" menu item when you right click on a changeset in history window. Clicking Link To Work Item menu, will open a new dialog with which you can search for a work item. As you can see in below screenshot, this dialog displays the search result and also the type of the work item. You can also open work item from this dialog by right clicking on the work item and clicking 'Open'. Finally, clicking Save button, will actually link the work item to changeset. One feature which I think helpful, is you can select multiple changesets from history window and assign the work item to all those changesets.  To summarize the features Directly assign work items to changesets from history window Assign work item to multiple changesets Know the type of the work item before assigning. Open the work item from search results It also supports all default Visual Studio themes. Below is a small demo showcasing the working of this extension. Finally, if you like the extension, do not forget to rate and review the extension in VS Gallery. Also, do not hesitate to provide your suggestions, improvements and any issues you may encounter via github.

    Read the article

  • Does anyone work 10 hours shifts as a developer?

    - by dah
    I would like to switch from a 5 day week to a 4 day, but maintain a 40 hour working week. Would the 10 hour days affect your ability to be productive? I hate our public transit system so if I could reduce my transportation by 20% I would be glad. If other developers who work 10 hours shifts could be clear as the their experiences with it that would help me. I think my boss is flexible enough that he would be cool with it.

    Read the article

  • Is it best to try to work at a company where your software directly makes the company money?

    - by Ryan Hayes
    I was told once that the best place to work as a developer is a company where the software you write is what makes the company money, whether it be software production or software services like consulting. This is opposed to a company where the software you write is just to support some other part of the business that makes the money, like manufacturing or finance. I know there are always exceptions, but in general, are employees treated better if they are on the front lines of profit generation, as opposed to being just another cost center? cost center (n.) - A cost center is part of an organization that does not produce direct profit and adds to the cost of running a company. Examples of cost centers include research and development departments, marketing departments, help desks and customer service/contact centers.

    Read the article

  • Is How the Company Makes Its Money One of The Most Important Determining Factors in their work environment, culture, etc

    - by programmx10
    This is a viewpoint I've started to realize recently about some companies that I have worked for. They had their own software product that they developed in-house but most of the focus was on building an in-person sales team to push their product to businesses throughout the country. I figure that companies that are exclusively "online", meaning that their revenue source comes from online transactions where there is no "face" of the company to the customer would have a different work culture. Just curious if anyone has worked for both types of companies and notices a difference. I myself am hoping to get more into contract programming and figure that companies that don't have to employ a sales-force and things like that would be more focused on technology and maybe even willing to be flexible on partial telecommute, etc

    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 | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >