Search Results

Search found 5214 results on 209 pages for 'j unit 122'.

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 24/209 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • How can I unit test an Android Activity that acts on Accelerometer?

    - by Corey Sunwold
    I am starting with an Activity based off of this ShakeActivity and I want to write some unit tests for it. I have written some small unit tests for Android activities before but I'm not sure where to start here. I want to feed the accelerometer some different values and test how the activity responds to it. For now I'm keeping it simple and just updating a private int counter variable and a TextView when a "shake" event happens. So my question largely boils down to this: How can I send fake data to the accelerometer from a unit test?

    Read the article

  • Working effectively with unit tests / Anyone tried the in-assembly approach?

    - by CodingCrapper
    I'm trying to re-introduce unit testing into my team as our current coverage is very poor. Our system is quite large 40+ projects/assemblies. We current use a project named [SystemName].Test.csproj were all the test code is dumped and organised to represent the namespaces using folders. This approach is not very scalable and makes it difficult to find tests. I've been thinking about added a Tests folder to each project, this would put the unit tests "in the developers face" and make them easy to find. The downside is the Production release code would contain references to nunit, nmocks as well as the test code and test data.... Has anyone tried this approach? How is everyone else working with unit tests on large projects? Having a Tests project per "real" project/assembly would introduce too many new projs. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Does Ruby/Rails require more unit testing than say a PHP app?

    - by Blankman
    I don't find the unit testing push in the PHP market like I see/read in the ruby/rails arena. Could one just as easily NOT unit test in ruby/rails as in php, or is ruby just too bendable and breakable that it "more" recommended to test in ruby than in php? Meaning there are large code bases like vBulletin, and from what I can tell, they don't unit test. I hope you understand what I am asking here, not the pros/cons of testing, or whether one should test or not, but rather, does one language need to be tested more than another? maybe its easy to write buggy code, or break during refactoring etc.

    Read the article

  • NullPointerException with static variables

    - by tomekK
    I just hit very strange (to me) behaviour of java. I have following classes: public abstract class Unit { public static final Unit KM = KMUnit.INSTANCE; public static final Unit METERS = MeterUnit.INSTANCE; protected Unit() { } public abstract double getValueInUnit(double value, Unit unit); protected abstract double getValueInMeters(double value); } And: public class KMUnit extends Unit { public static final Unit INSTANCE = new KMUnit(); private KMUnit() { } //here are abstract methods overriden } public class MeterUnit extends Unit { public static final Unit INSTANCE = new MeterUnit(); private MeterUnit() { } ///abstract methods overriden } And my test case: public class TestMetricUnits extends TestCase { @Test public void testConversion() { System.out.println("Unit.METERS: " + Unit.METERS); System.out.println("Unit.KM: " + Unit.KM); double meters = Unit.KM.getValueInUnit(102.11, Unit.METERS); assertEquals(0.10211, meters, 0.00001); } } 1) MKUnit and MeterUnit are both singletons initialized statically, so during class loading. Constructors are private, so they can't be initialized anywhere else. 2) Unit class contains static final references to MKUnit.INSTANCE and MeterUnit.INSTANCE I would expect that: KMUnit class is loaded and instance is created. MeterUnit class is loaded and instance is created. Unit class is loaded and both KM and METERS variable are initialized, they are final so they cant be changed. But when I run my test case in console with maven my result is: T E S T S Running de.audi.echargingstations.tests.TestMetricUnits Unit.METERS: m Unit.KM: null Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.089 sec <<< FAILURE! - in de.audi.echargingstations.tests.TestMetricUnits testConversion(de.audi.echargingstations.tests.TestMetricUnits) Time elapsed: 0.011 sec <<< ERROR! java.lang.NullPointerException: null at de.audi.echargingstations.tests.TestMetricUnits.testConversion(TestMetricUnits.java:29) Results : Tests in error: TestMetricUnits.testConversion:29 NullPointer And the funny part is that, when I run this test from eclipse via JUnit runner everything is fine, I have no NullPointerException and in console I have: Unit.METERS: m Unit.KM: km So the question is: what can be the reason that KM variable in Unit is null (and in the same time METERS is not null)

    Read the article

  • KVM Guest with NAT + Bridged networking

    - by Daniel
    I currently have a few KVM Guests on a dedicated server with bridged networking (this works) and i can successfully ping the outside ips i assign via ifconfig (in the guest). However, due to the fact i only have 5 public ipv4 ip addresses, i would like to port forward services like so: hostip:port - kvm_guest:port UPDATE I found out KVM comes with a "default" NAT interface, so added the virtual NIC to the Guest virsh configuration then configured it in the Guest, it has the ip address: 192.168.122.112 I can successfully ping 192.168.122.112 and access all ports on 192.168.122.112 from the KVM Host, so i tried to port forward like so: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 5222 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.122.112:2521 iptables -I FORWARD -m state -d 192.168.122.0/24 --state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT telnet KVM_HOST_IP 5222 just hangs on "trying" telnet 192.168.122.112 2521 works [root@node1 ~]# tcpdump port 5222 tcpdump: WARNING: eth0: no IPv4 address assigned tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes 23:43:47.216181 IP 1.152.245.247.51183 > null.xmpp-client: Flags [S], seq 1183303931, win 65535, options [mss 1400,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 445777813 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 23:43:48.315747 IP 1.152.245.247.51183 > null.xmpp-client: Flags [S], seq 1183303931, win 65535, options [mss 1400,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 445778912 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 23:43:49.415606 IP 1.152.245.247.51183 > null.xmpp-client: Flags [S], seq 1183303931, win 65535, options [mss 1400,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 445780010 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 7 packets received by filter 0 packets dropped by kernel [root@node1 ~]# iptables -L Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere 192.168.122.0/24 state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination All help is appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Converting time period strings to value/unit pair

    - by randomtoor
    I need to parse the contents of a string that represents a time period. The format of the string is value/unit, e.g.: 1s, 60min, 24h. I would separate the actual value (an int) and unit (a str) to separated variables. At the moment I do it like this: def validate_time(time): binsize = time.strip() unit = re.sub('[0-9]','',binsize) if unit not in ['s','m','min','h','l']: print "Error: unit {0} is not valid".format(unit) sys.exit(2) tmp = re.sub('[^0-9]','',binsize) try: value = int(tmp) except ValueError: print "Error: {0} is not valid".format(time) sys.exit(2) return value,unit However, it is not ideal as things like 1m0 are also (wrongly) validated (value=10,unit=m). What is the best way to validate/parse this input?

    Read the article

  • TDD - Outside In vs Inside Out

    - by Songo
    What is the difference between building an application Outside In vs building it Inside Out using TDD? These are the books I read about TDD and unit testing: Test Driven Development: By Example Test-Driven Development: A Practical Guide: A Practical Guide Real-World Solutions for Developing High-Quality PHP Frameworks and Applications Test-Driven Development in Microsoft .NET xUnit Test Patterns: Refactoring Test Code The Art of Unit Testing: With Examples in .Net Growing Object-Oriented Software, Guided by Tests---This one was really hard to understand since JAVA isn't my primary language :) Almost all of them explained TDD basics and unit testing in general, but with little mention of the different ways the application can be constructed. Another thing I noticed is that most of these books (if not all) ignore the design phase when writing the application. They focus more on writing the test cases quickly and letting the design emerge by itself. However, I came across a paragraph in xUnit Test Patterns that discussed the ways people approach TDD. There are 2 schools out there Outside In vs Inside Out. Sadly the book doesn't elaborate more on this point. I wish to know what is the main difference between these 2 cases. When should I use each one of them? To a TDD beginner which one is easier to grasp? What is the drawbacks of each method? Is there any materials out there that discuss this topic specifically?

    Read the article

  • Code Behaviour via Unit Tests

    - by Dewald Galjaard
    Normal 0 false false false EN-ZA X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Some four months ago my car started acting up. Symptoms included a sputtering as my car’s computer switched between gears intermittently. Imagine building up speed, then when you reach 80km/h the car magically and mysteriously decide to switch back to third or even second gear. Clearly it was confused! I managed to track down a technician, an expert in his field to help me out. As he fitted his handheld computer to some hidden port under the dash, he started to explain “These cars are quite intelligent, you know. When they sense something is wrong they run in a restrictive program which probably account for how you managed to drive here in the first place...”  I was surprised and thought this was certainly going to be an interesting test drive. The car ran smoothly down the first couple of stretches as the technician ran through routine checks. Then he said “Ok, all looking good. We need to start testing aspects of the gearbox. Inside the gearbox there are a couple of sensors. One of them is a speed sensor which talks to the computer, which in turn will decide which gear to switch to. The restrictive program avoid these sensors altogether and allow the computer to obtain its input from other [non-affected] sources”. Then, as soon as he forced the speed sensor to come back online the symptoms and ill behaviour re-emerged... What an incredible analogy for getting into a discussion on unit testing software? Besides I should probably put my ill fortune to some good use, right? This example provide a lot of insight into how and why we should conduct unit tests when writing code. More importantly, it captures what is easily and unfortunately often the most overlooked goal of writing unit tests by those new to the art and those who oppose it alike - The goal of writing unit tests is to test the behaviour of our code under predefined conditions. Although it is very possible to test the intrinsic workings of each and every component in your code, writing several tests for each method in practise will soon prove to be an exhausting and ultimately fruitless exercise given the certain and ever changing nature of business requirements. Consequently it is true and quite possible whilst conducting proper unit tests, to call any single method several times as you examine and contemplate different scenarios. Let’s write some code to demonstrate what I mean. In my example I make use of the Moq framework and NUnit to create my tests. Truly you can use whatever you’re comfortable with. First we’ll create an ISpeedSensor interface. This is to represent the speed sensor located in the gearbox.  Then we’ll create a Gearbox class which we’ll pass to a constructor when we instantiate an object of type Computer. All three are described below.   ISpeedSensor.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {     public interface ISpeedSensor     {         int ReportCurrentSpeed();     } }   Gearbox.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {      public class Gearbox     {         private ISpeedSensor _speedSensor;           public Gearbox( ISpeedSensor gearboxSpeedSensor )         {             _speedSensor = gearboxSpeedSensor;         }         /// <summary>         /// This method obtain it's reading from the speed sensor.         /// </summary>         /// <returns></returns>         public int ReportCurrentSpeed()         {             return _speedSensor.ReportCurrentSpeed();         }     } } Computer.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {     public class Computer     {         private Gearbox _gearbox;         public Computer( Gearbox gearbox )         {                     }          public int GetCurrentSpeed()         {             return _gearbox.ReportCurrentSpeed( );         }     } } Since this post is about Unit testing, that is exactly what we’ll create next. Create a second project in your solution. I called mine AutomaticVehicleTests and I immediately referenced the respective nunit, moq and AutomaticVehicle dll’s. We’re going to write a test to examine what happens inside the Computer class. ComputerTests.cs namespace AutomaticVehicleTests {     [TestFixture]     public class ComputerTests     {         [Test]         public void Computer_Gearbox_SpeedSensor_DoesThrow()         {             // Mock ISpeedSensor in gearbox             Mock< ISpeedSensor > speedSensor = new Mock< ISpeedSensor >( );             speedSensor.Setup( n => n.ReportCurrentSpeed() ).Throws<Exception>();             Gearbox gearbox = new Gearbox( speedSensor.Object );               // Create Computer instance to test it's behaviour  towards an exception in gearbox             Computer carComputer = new Computer( gearbox );             // For simplicity let’s assume for now the car only travels at 60 km/h.             Assert.AreEqual( 60, carComputer.GetCurrentSpeed( ) );          }     } }   What is happening in this test? We have created a mocked object using the ISpeedsensor interface which we've passed to our Gearbox object. Notice that I created the mocked object using an interface, not the implementation. I’ll talk more about this in future posts but in short I do this to accentuate the fact that I'm not not really concerned with how SpeedSensor work internally at this particular point in time. Next I’ve gone ahead and created a scenario where I’ve declared the speed sensor in Gearbox to be faulty by forcing it to throw an exception should we ask Gearbox to report on its current speed. Sneaky, sneaky. This test is a simulation of how things may behave in the real world. Inevitability things break, whether it’s caused by mechanical failure, some logical error on your part or a fellow developer which didn’t consult the documentation (or the lack thereof ) - whether you’re calling a speed sensor, making a call to a database, calling a web service or just trying to write a file to disk. It’s a scenario I’ve created and this test is about how the code within the Computer instance will behave towards any such error as I’ve depicted. Now, if you’ve followed closely in my final assert method you would have noticed I did something quite unexpected. I might be getting ahead of myself now but I’m testing to see if the value returned is equal to what I expect it to be under perfect conditions – I’m not testing to see if an error has been thrown! Why is that? Well, in short this is TDD. Test Driven Development is about first writing your test to define the result we want, then to go back and change the implementation within your class to obtain the desired output (I need to make sure I can drive back to the repair shop. Remember? ) So let’s go ahead and run our test as is. It’s fails miserably... Good! Let’s go back to our Computer class and make a small change to the GetCurrentSpeed method.   Computer.cs public int GetCurrentSpeed() {   try   {     return _gearbox.ReportCurrentSpeed( );   }   catch   {     RunRestrictiveProgram( );   } }     This is a simple solution, I know, but it does provide a way to allow for different behaviour. You’re more than welcome to provide an implementation for RunRestrictiveProgram should you feel the need to. It's not within the scope of this post or related to the point I'm trying to make. What is important is to notice how the focus has shifted in our approach from how things can break - to how things behave when broken.   Happy coding!

    Read the article

  • How can I reduce the amount of time it takes to fully regression test an application ready for release?

    - by DrLazer
    An app I work on is being developed with a modified version of scrum. If you are not familiar with scrum, it's just an alternative approach to a more traditional watefall model, where a series of features are worked on for a set amount of time known as a sprint. The app is written in C# and makes use of WPF. We use Visual C# 2010 Express edition as an IDE. If we work on a sprint and add in a few new features, but do not plan to release until a further sprint is complete, then regression testing is not an issue as such. We just test the new features and give the app a good once over. However, if a release is planned that our customers can download - a full regression test is factored in. In the past this wasn't a big deal, it took 3 or 4 days and the devs simply fix up any bugs found in the regression phase, but now, as the app is getting larger and larger and incorporating more and more features, the regression is spanning out for weeks. I am interested in any methods that people know of or use that can decrease this time. At the moment the only ideas I have are to either start writing Unit Tests, which I have never fully tried out in a commercial environment, or to research the possibilty of any UI Automation API's or tools that would allow me to write a program to perform a series of batch tests. I know literally nothing about the possibilities of UI automation so any information would be valuable. I don't know that much about Unit testing either, how complicated can the tests be? Is it possible to get Unit tests to use the UI? Are there any other methods I should consider? Thanks for reading, and for any advice in advance. Edit: Thanks for the information. Does anybody know of any alternatives to what has been mentioned so far (NUnit, RhinoMocks and CodedUI)?

    Read the article

  • Should we test all our methods?

    - by Zenzen
    So today I had a talk with my teammate about unit testing. The whole thing started when he asked me "hey, where are the tests for that class, I see only one?". The whole class was a manager (or a service if you prefer to call it like that) and almost all the methods were simply delegating stuff to a DAO so it was similar to: SomeClass getSomething(parameters) { return myDao.findSomethingBySomething(parameters); } A kind of boilerplate with no logic (or at least I do not consider such simple delegation as logic) but a useful boilerplate in most cases (layer separation etc.). And we had a rather lengthy discussion whether or not I should unit test it (I think that it is worth mentioning that I did fully unit test the DAO). His main arguments being that it was not TDD (obviously) and that someone might want to see the test to check what this method does (I do not know how it could be more obvious) or that in the future someone might want to change the implementation and add new (or more like "any") logic to it (in which case I guess someone should simply test that logic). This made me think, though. Should we strive for the highest test coverage %? Or is it simply an art for art's sake then? I simply do not see any reason behind testing things like: getters and setters (unless they actually have some logic in them) "boilerplate" code Obviously a test for such a method (with mocks) would take me less than a minute but I guess that is still time wasted and a millisecond longer for every CI. Are there any rational/not "flammable" reasons to why one should test every single (or as many as he can) line of code?

    Read the article

  • How can I reduce the amount of time it takes to fully regression test an application ready for release?

    - by DrLazer
    An app I work on is being developed with a modified version of scrum. If you are not familiar with scrum, it's just an alternative approach to a more traditional watefall model, where a series of features are worked on for a set amount of time known as a sprint. The app is written in C# and makes use of WPF. We use Visual C# 2010 Express edition as an IDE. If we work on a sprint and add in a few new features, but do not plan to release until a further sprint is complete, then regression testing is not an issue as such. We just test the new features and give the app a good once over. However, if a release is planned that our customers can download - a full regression test is factored in. In the past this wasn't a big deal, it took 3 or 4 days and the devs simply fix up any bugs found in the regression phase, but now, as the app is getting larger and larger and incorporating more and more features, the regression is spanning out for weeks. I am interested in any methods that people know of or use that can decrease this time. At the moment the only ideas I have are to either start writing Unit Tests, which I have never fully tried out in a commercial environment, or to research the possibilty of any UI Automation API's or tools that would allow me to write a program to perform a series of batch tests. I know literally nothing about the possibilities of UI automation so any information would be valuable. I don't know that much about Unit testing either, how complicated can the tests be? Is it possible to get Unit tests to use the UI? Are there any other methods I should consider? Thanks for reading, and for any advice in advance.

    Read the article

  • Is there a better way to organize my module tests that avoids an explosion of new source files?

    - by luser droog
    I've got a neat (so I thought) way of having each of my modules produce a unit-test executable if compiled with the -DTESTMODULE flag. This flag guards a main() function that can access all static data and functions in the module, without #including a C file. From the README: -- Modules -- The various modules were written and tested separately before being coupled together to achieve the necessary basic functionality. Each module retains its unit-test, its main() function, guarded by #ifdef TESTMODULE. `make test` will compile and execute all the unit tests, producing copious output, but importantly exitting with an appropriate success or failure code, so the `make test` command will fail if any of the tests fail. Module TOC __________ test obj src header structures CONSTANTS ---- --- --- --- -------------------- m m.o m.c m.h mfile mtab TABSZ s s.o s.c s.h stack STACKSEGSZ v v.o v.c v.h saverec_ f.o f.c f.h file ob ob.o ob.c ob.h object ar ar.o ar.c ar.h array st st.o st.c st.h string di di.o di.c di.h dichead dictionary nm nm.o nm.c nm.h name gc gc.o gc.c gc.h garbage collector itp itp.c itp.h context osunix.o osunix.c osunix.h unix-dependent functions It's compile by a tricky bit of makefile, m:m.c ob.h ob.o err.o $(CORE) itp.o $(OP) cc $(CFLAGS) -DTESTMODULE $(LDLIBS) -o $@ $< err.o ob.o s.o ar.o st.o v.o di.o gc.o nm.o itp.o $(OP) f.o where the module is compiled with its own C file plus every other object file except itself. But it's creating difficulties for the kindly programmer who offered to write the Autotools files for me. So the obvious way to make it "less weird" would be to bust-out all the main functions into separate source files. But, but ... Do I gotta?

    Read the article

  • What are the design principles that promote testable code? (designing testable code vs driving design through tests)

    - by bot
    Most of the projects that I work on consider development and unit testing in isolation which makes writing unit tests at a later instance a nightmare. My objective is to keep testing in mind during the high level and low level design phases itself. I want to know if there are any well defined design principles that promote testable code. One such principle that I have come to understand recently is Dependency Inversion through Dependency injection and Inversion of Control. I have read that there is something known as SOLID. I want to understand if following the SOLID principles indirectly results in code that is easily testable? If not, are there any well-defined design principles that promote testable code? I am aware that there is something known as Test Driven Development. Although, I am more interested in designing code with testing in mind during the design phase itself rather than driving design through tests. I hope this makes sense. One more question related to this topic is whether it's alright to re-factor an existing product/project and make changes to code and design for the purpose of being able to write a unit test case for each module?

    Read the article

  • How to mock Request.Files[] in MVC unit test class?

    - by kapil
    I want to test a controller method in MVC unit test. For my controller method to test, I require a Request.Files[] collection with length one. I want to mock Request.Files[] as I have used a file upload control on my view rendered by controller method. Can anyone please suggest how can I mock request.file collection in my unit test. thanks, kapil

    Read the article

  • GWT: Best practice for unit testing / mocking JSNI methods?

    - by Epaga
    I have a class which uses JSNI to retrieve JSON data stored in the host page: protected native JsArray<JsonModel> getModels() /*-{ return $wnd.jsonData; }-*/; This method is called, and the data is then translated and process in a different method. How should I unit test this class, since I'm not able to instantiate (or seemingly mock?) JsArray? What is the best way to unit test JSNI methods at all?

    Read the article

  • How to get Eclipse + PyDev + App Engine + Unit testing to work?

    - by PEZ
    I want to run my unit tests for a Python Google App Engine project using Run As = Python unit-test But when I try that all my Model tests bail with the error message: BadArgumentError: app must not be empty. Anyone got this to work? NB: The tests runs fine using Nose --with-gae. But I want the PyDev integration with hyperlinking of resources and such.

    Read the article

  • Can I ensure all tests contain an assertion in test/unit?

    - by Andrew Grimm
    With test/unit, and minitest, is it possible to fail any test that doesn't contain an assertion, or would monkey-patching be required (for example, checking if the assertion count increased after each test was executed)? Background: I shouldn't write unit tests without assertions - at a minimum, I should use assert_nothing_raised if I'm smoke testing to indicate that I'm smoke testing. Usually I write tests that fail first, but I'm writing some regression tests. Alternatively, I could supply an incorrect expected value to see if the test is comparing the expected and actual value.

    Read the article

  • How can I get "Copy to Output Directory" to work with Unit Tests?

    - by spoon16
    When I build a unit test project before the tests are executed the test output is copied to a TestResults folder and then the tests are executed. The issue I'm having is that not all the files in the Debug/bin directory are copied to the TestResults project. How can I get a file that is copied to the Debug/bin directory to also be copied to the TestResults folder? EDIT: Here is a link to a similar question on another site (no answer there though), http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/aspnet/29316967/files-and-unit-testing-wi.aspx

    Read the article

  • How to unit test private methods in BDD / TDD?

    - by robert_d
    I am trying to program according to Behavior Driven Development, which states that no line of code should be written without writing failing unit test first. My question is, how to use BDD with private methods? How can I unit test private methods? Is there better solution than: - making private methods public first and then making them private when I write public method that uses those private methods; or - in C# making all private methods internal and using InternalsVisibleTo attribute. Robert

    Read the article

  • What is a really simple explanation of unit testing?

    - by ensnare
    I've never done any unit testing before, and would like to learn what it is and how it can be useful in my Python code. I've read through a few Python unit testing tutorials online but they're all so complicated and assume an extended programming background. I'm using Python with Pylons to create a simple web app. Any simple examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to know if your Unit Test is "right-sized"?

    - by leeand00
    One thing that I've always noticed with my unit tests is that they get to be kind of verbose; seeing as they could also be not verbose enough, how do you get a sense of when your unit tests are the right size? I know of a good quote for this and it's: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to remove." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

    Read the article

  • C++ - Is it possible to implement memory leak testing in a unit test?

    - by sevaxx
    I'm trying to implement unit testing for my code and I'm having a hard time doing it. Ideally I would like to test some classes not only for good functionality but also for proper memory allocation/deallocation. I wonder if this check can be done using a unit testing framework. I am using Visual Assert btw. I would love to see some sample code , if possible !

    Read the article

  • How do I mock/fake/replace/stub a base class at unit-test time in C#?

    - by MatthewMartin
    UPDATE: I've changed the wording of the question. Previously it was a yes/no question about if a base class could be changed at runtime. I may be working on mission impossible here, but I seem to be getting close. I want to extend a ASP.NET control, and I want my code to be unit testable. Also, I'd like to be able to fake behaviors of a real Label (namely things like ID generation, etc), which a real Label can't do in an nUnit host. Here a working example that makes assertions on something that depends on a real base class and something that doesn't-- in a more realistic unit test, the test would depend on both --i.e. an ID existing and some custom behavior. Anyhow the code says it better than I can: public class LabelWrapper : Label //Runtime //public class LabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } //Ugh, now I have to test FakeLabelWrapper public class FakeLabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } [TestFixture] public class UnitTest { [Test] public void Test() { //Wish this was LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(new FakeBase()) LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(); //FakeLabelWrapper label = new FakeLabelWrapper(); label.Text = "ToUpper"; Assert.AreEqual("TOUPPER",label.Text); StringWriter stringWriter = new StringWriter(); HtmlTextWriter writer = new HtmlTextWriter(stringWriter); label.RenderControl(writer); Assert.AreEqual(1,label.ID); Assert.AreEqual("<span>TOUPPER</span>", stringWriter.ToString()); } } public class FakeLabel { virtual public string Text { get; set; } public void RenderControl(TextWriter writer) { writer.Write("<span>" + Text + "</span>"); } } //System Under Test internal class LabelLogic { internal string ProcessGetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } internal string ProcessSetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } }

    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 | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >