Search Results

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

Page 24/2721 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • Use a Fake Http Channel to Unit Test with HttpClient

    - by Steve Michelotti
    Applications get data from lots of different sources. The most common is to get data from a database or a web service. Typically, we encapsulate calls to a database in a Repository object and we create some sort of IRepository interface as an abstraction to decouple between layers and enable easier unit testing by leveraging faking and mocking. This works great for database interaction. However, when consuming a RESTful web service, this is is not always the best approach. The WCF Web APIs that are available on CodePlex (current drop is Preview 3) provide a variety of features to make building HTTP REST services more robust. When you download the latest bits, you’ll also find a new HttpClient which has been updated for .NET 4.0 as compared to the one that shipped for 3.5 in the original REST Starter Kit. The HttpClient currently provides the best API for consuming REST services on the .NET platform and the WCF Web APIs provide a number of extension methods which extend HttpClient and make it even easier to use. Let’s say you have a client application that is consuming an HTTP service – this could be Silverlight, WPF, or any UI technology but for my example I’ll use an MVC application: 1: using System; 2: using System.Net.Http; 3: using System.Web.Mvc; 4: using FakeChannelExample.Models; 5: using Microsoft.Runtime.Serialization; 6:   7: namespace FakeChannelExample.Controllers 8: { 9: public class HomeController : Controller 10: { 11: private readonly HttpClient httpClient; 12:   13: public HomeController(HttpClient httpClient) 14: { 15: this.httpClient = httpClient; 16: } 17:   18: public ActionResult Index() 19: { 20: var response = httpClient.Get("Person(1)"); 21: var person = response.Content.ReadAsDataContract<Person>(); 22:   23: this.ViewBag.Message = person.FirstName + " " + person.LastName; 24: 25: return View(); 26: } 27: } 28: } On line #20 of the code above you can see I’m performing an HTTP GET request to a Person resource exposed by an HTTP service. On line #21, I use the ReadAsDataContract() extension method provided by the WCF Web APIs to serialize to a Person object. In this example, the HttpClient is being passed into the constructor by MVC’s dependency resolver – in this case, I’m using StructureMap as an IoC and my StructureMap initialization code looks like this: 1: using StructureMap; 2: using System.Net.Http; 3:   4: namespace FakeChannelExample 5: { 6: public static class IoC 7: { 8: public static IContainer Initialize() 9: { 10: ObjectFactory.Initialize(x => 11: { 12: x.For<HttpClient>().Use(() => new HttpClient("http://localhost:31614/")); 13: }); 14: return ObjectFactory.Container; 15: } 16: } 17: } My controller code currently depends on a concrete instance of the HttpClient. Now I *could* create some sort of interface and wrap the HttpClient in this interface and use that object inside my controller instead – however, there are a few why reasons that is not desirable: For one thing, the API provided by the HttpClient provides nice features for dealing with HTTP services. I don’t really *want* these to look like C# RPC method calls – when HTTP services have REST features, I may want to inspect HTTP response headers and hypermedia contained within the message so that I can make intelligent decisions as to what to do next in my workflow (although I don’t happen to be doing these things in my example above) – this type of workflow is common in hypermedia REST scenarios. If I just encapsulate HttpClient behind some IRepository interface and make it look like a C# RPC method call, it will become difficult to take advantage of these types of things. Second, it could get pretty mind-numbing to have to create interfaces all over the place just to wrap the HttpClient. Then you’re probably going to have to hard-code HTTP knowledge into your code to formulate requests rather than just “following the links” that the hypermedia in a message might provide. Third, at first glance it might appear that we need to create an interface to facilitate unit testing, but actually it’s unnecessary. Even though the code above is dependent on a concrete type, it’s actually very easy to fake the data in a unit test. The HttpClient provides a Channel property (of type HttpMessageChannel) which allows you to create a fake message channel which can be leveraged in unit testing. In this case, what I want is to be able to write a unit test that just returns fake data. I also want this to be as re-usable as possible for my unit testing. I want to be able to write a unit test that looks like this: 1: [TestClass] 2: public class HomeControllerTest 3: { 4: [TestMethod] 5: public void Index() 6: { 7: // Arrange 8: var httpClient = new HttpClient("http://foo.com"); 9: httpClient.Channel = new FakeHttpChannel<Person>(new Person { FirstName = "Joe", LastName = "Blow" }); 10:   11: HomeController controller = new HomeController(httpClient); 12:   13: // Act 14: ViewResult result = controller.Index() as ViewResult; 15:   16: // Assert 17: Assert.AreEqual("Joe Blow", result.ViewBag.Message); 18: } 19: } Notice on line #9, I’m setting the Channel property of the HttpClient to be a fake channel. I’m also specifying the fake object that I want to be in the response on my “fake” Http request. I don’t need to rely on any mocking frameworks to do this. All I need is my FakeHttpChannel. The code to do this is not complex: 1: using System; 2: using System.IO; 3: using System.Net.Http; 4: using System.Runtime.Serialization; 5: using System.Threading; 6: using FakeChannelExample.Models; 7:   8: namespace FakeChannelExample.Tests 9: { 10: public class FakeHttpChannel<T> : HttpClientChannel 11: { 12: private T responseObject; 13:   14: public FakeHttpChannel(T responseObject) 15: { 16: this.responseObject = responseObject; 17: } 18:   19: protected override HttpResponseMessage Send(HttpRequestMessage request, CancellationToken cancellationToken) 20: { 21: return new HttpResponseMessage() 22: { 23: RequestMessage = request, 24: Content = new StreamContent(this.GetContentStream()) 25: }; 26: } 27:   28: private Stream GetContentStream() 29: { 30: var serializer = new DataContractSerializer(typeof(T)); 31: Stream stream = new MemoryStream(); 32: serializer.WriteObject(stream, this.responseObject); 33: stream.Position = 0; 34: return stream; 35: } 36: } 37: } The HttpClientChannel provides a Send() method which you can override to return any HttpResponseMessage that you want. You can see I’m using the DataContractSerializer to serialize the object and write it to a stream. That’s all you need to do. In the example above, the only thing I’ve chosen to do is to provide a way to return different response objects. But there are many more features you could add to your own re-usable FakeHttpChannel. For example, you might want to provide the ability to add HTTP headers to the message. You might want to use a different serializer other than the DataContractSerializer. You might want to provide custom hypermedia in the response as well as just an object or set HTTP response codes. This list goes on. This is the just one example of the really cool features being added to the next version of WCF to enable various HTTP scenarios. The code sample for this post can be downloaded here.

    Read the article

  • NUnit doesn't work well with Assert.AreEqual

    - by stasal
    Hi! I'm new to unit-testing and NUit in particular. I'm just typing some examples from the book which refers to Java and JUnit. But I'm using C# instead. The problem is: I've got a class with overriden methods such as Equals() and GetHashCode(), but when I am trying to compare two objects of this class with Assert.AreEqual() my code is not called, so I get an exception. Assert.True(MyClass.Equals(MyClass2)) does work well. But I don't wanna use this construction instead of Assert.AreEqual(). Where the problem can be? Here is the class: public class Money { public int amount; protected string currency; public Money(int amount, string currency) { this.amount = amount; this.currency = currency; } public new bool Equals(object obj) { if (obj == null) return false; Money money = (Money)obj; return (amount == money.amount) && (Currency().Equals(money.Currency())); } public new int GetHashCode() { return (string.Format("{0}{1}", amount, currency)).GetHashCode(); } public static Money Dollar(int amount) { return new Money(amount, "USD"); } public static Money Franc(int amount) { return new Money(amount, "CHF"); } public Money Times(int multiplier) { return new Money(amount * multiplier, currency); } public string Currency() { return currency; } } And the test method itself: [TestFixture] public class DollarTest { [Test] public void TestMultiplication() { Money five = Money.Dollar(5); Assert.True(Money.Dollar(10).Equals(five.Times(2))); // ok Assert.AreEqual(Money.Dollar(10), five.Times(2)); // fails } } Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What should be tested in Javascript?

    - by Nathan Hoad
    At work, we've just started on a heavily Javascript based application (actually using Coffeescript, but still), of which I've been implementing an automated test system using JsTestDriver and fabric. We've never written something with this much Javascript, so up until now we've never done any Javascript testing. I'm unsure what exactly we should be testing in our unit tests. We've written JQuery plugins for various things, so it's quite obvious that they should be verified for correctness as much as possible with JsTestDriver, but everyone else in my team seems to think that we should be testing the page level Javascript as well. I don't think we should be testing page level Javascript as unit tests, but instead using a system like Selenium to verify everything works as expected. My main reasoning for this is that at the moment, page level Javascript tests are guaranteed to fail through JsTestDriver, because they're trying to access elements on the DOM that can't possibly exist. So, what should be unit tested in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • TestDriven.NET - Free unit test tool for Visual Studio

    - by Guilherme Cardoso
    Developers that use unit testing are familiar with Resharper and his plugin for Unit Testing. For those that like me, don't have a great pc hardware (Pentium 4, 3ghz, 1GB ram) the Resharper can be really slow, and affect the performance of pc. That's why i use TestDriven.NET TestDriven.NET is a freeware license tool (there are others licenses for this product) that gives us the possibility to run unit tests with this plugin, that's integrated with Visual Studio. You can check some screenshots here: http://www.testdriven.net/Screenshots.aspx It's compatible with: NUnit, MbUnit, MSTest, NCover, Reflector, TypeMock, dotTrace and MSBee. More information and free download here: http://www.testdriven.net

    Read the article

  • Next generation Three MiFi unit - call for questions to put to Three

    - by Liam Westley
    I've been invited to a preview of the next generation Three mobile Mi-Fi unit in their London offices this week. If you've got feedback on the current MiFi unit; niggles, wish list items or general feedback, or you've got any questions about what the next generation MiFi unit might be, drop me an e-mail or post a comment with your question on this blog. I'll be taking any questions from my blog or my twitter account @westleyl to Three, and if I get an answer I can publish, I'll add to this blog post with the details. Thanks Liam

    Read the article

  • Best approach for unit enemy "awareness" in RTS?

    - by Phil
    I'm using Unity3d to develop an RTS/TD hybrid prototype game. What is the best approach to have "awareness" between units and their enemies? Is it sane to have every unit check the distance to every enemy and engage if within range? The approach I'm going for right now is to have a trigger sphere on every unit. If an enemy enters the trigger, the unit becomes aware of the enemy and starts distance checking. I'm imagining that this would save some unnecessary checks? What's the best practice here (if there's such a thing)? Thanks for reading.

    Read the article

  • Resources for Test Driven Development in Web Applications?

    - by HorusKol
    I would like to try and implement some TDD in our web applications to reduce regressions and improve release quality, but I'm not convinced at how well automated testing can perform with something as fluffy as web applications. I've read about and tried TDD and unit testing, but the examples are 'solid' and rather simple functionalities like currency converters, and so on. Are there any resources that can help with unit testing content management and publication systems? How about unit testing a shopping cart/store (physical and online products)? AJAX? Googling for "Web Test Driven Development" just gets me old articles from several years ago either covering the same examples of calculator-like function or discussions about why TDD is better than anything (without any examples).

    Read the article

  • Platform for DS/Gameboy Dev - Managed Memory, Tools, and Unit Testing

    - by ashes999
    I'm interested in dabbling in Nintendo DS, 3DS, or GBA development. I would like to know what my (legal) options for development tools and IDEs are. In particular, I would not consider moving in this direction unless I can find: A programming language that has managed memory (garbage collection) A unit testing tool akin to JUnit, NUnit, etc. for unit tests I would also prefer if other tools exist, like code-coverage, etc. for that platform. But the main thing is managed memory and unit testing. What options are out there?

    Read the article

  • Making Separate Assemblies For Different Types Of Tests For The Same Component?

    - by sooprise
    I was told by a few members here that splitting up my unit tests into different assemblies for different components is the best way to structure unit tests. Now, I have a few questions about that idea. What are the advantages of this? Organization, and isolation of errors? Let's say I have a component named "calculator", and I create an assembly for the unit tests on "calculator". Would I create a separate assembly for the integration tests I want to run on "calculator"? Or is the definition of an integration test a test across multiple components, like "calculator" and whatever else, which would require a separate assembly to test both of them together? In that case, would I have one assembly to do all of the integration testing for every component combination?

    Read the article

  • Bug in Delphi XE RegularExpressions Unit

    - by Jan Goyvaerts
    Using the new RegularExpressions unit in Delphi XE, you can iterate over all the matches that a regex finds in a string like this: procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject); var RegEx: TRegEx; Match: TMatch; begin RegEx := TRegex.Create('\w+'); Match := RegEx.Match('One two three four'); while Match.Success do begin Memo1.Lines.Add(Match.Value); Match := Match.NextMatch; end end; Or you could save yourself two lines of code by using the static TRegEx.Match call: procedure TForm1.Button2Click(Sender: TObject); var Match: TMatch; begin Match := TRegEx.Match('One two three four', '\w+'); while Match.Success do begin Memo1.Lines.Add(Match.Value); Match := Match.NextMatch; end end; Unfortunately, due to a bug in the RegularExpressions unit, the static call doesn’t work. Depending on your exact code, you may get fewer matches or blank matches than you should, or your application may crash with an access violation. The RegularExpressions unit defines TRegEx and TMatch as records. That way you don’t have to explicitly create and destroy them. Internally, TRegEx uses TPerlRegEx to do the heavy lifting. TPerlRegEx is a class that needs to be created and destroyed like any other class. If you look at the TRegEx source code, you’ll notice that it uses an interface to destroy the TPerlRegEx instance when TRegEx goes out of scope. Interfaces are reference counted in Delphi, making them usable for automatic memory management. The bug is that TMatch and TGroupCollection also need the TPerlRegEx instance to do their work. TRegEx passes its TPerlRegEx instance to TMatch and TGroupCollection, but it does not pass the instance of the interface that is responsible for destroying TPerlRegEx. This is not a problem in our first code sample. TRegEx stays in scope until we’re done with TMatch. The interface is destroyed when Button1Click exits. In the second code sample, the static TRegEx.Match call creates a local variable of type TRegEx. This local variable goes out of scope when TRegEx.Match returns. Thus the reference count on the interface reaches zero and TPerlRegEx is destroyed when TRegEx.Match returns. When we call MatchAgain the TMatch record tries to use a TPerlRegEx instance that has already been destroyed. To fix this bug, delete or rename the two RegularExpressions.dcu files and copy RegularExpressions.pas into your source code folder. Make these changes to both the TMatch and TGroupCollection records in this unit: Declare FNotifier: IInterface; in the private section. Add the parameter ANotifier: IInterface; to the Create constructor. Assign FNotifier := ANotifier; in the constructor’s implementation. You also need to add the ANotifier: IInterface; parameter to the TMatchCollection.Create constructor. Now try to compile some code that uses the RegularExpressions unit. The compiler will flag all calls to TMatch.Create, TGroupCollection.Create and TMatchCollection.Create. Fix them by adding the ANotifier or FNotifier parameter, depending on whether ARegEx or FRegEx is being passed. With these fixes, the TPerlRegEx instance won’t be destroyed until the last TRegEx, TMatch, or TGroupCollection that uses it goes out of scope or is used with a different regular expression.

    Read the article

  • XAMPP localhost and 127.0.0.1 don't work but computer name does work

    - by Steven
    I am running on a vista. Localhost and 127.0.0.1 do not work anymore but my computer name still works. Localhost and 127.0.0.1 only show a blank page however using my computer name can access xampp homepage as well as my server files. I am assuming there is something wrong with my hosts file but when i checked it looks fine: 127.0.0.1 localhost is the only thing in there that is not commented out, which seems right according to what I've seen on the web so far. I had a trojan recently that I got rid of so I believe that definitely has something to do with it. It was msa.exe among potentially others but I think I got rid of it with Malwarebytes. This is the only issue that is left. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to create multiple Repository object inside a Repository class using Unit Of Work?

    - by Santosh
    I am newbie to MVC3 application development, currently, we need following Application technologies as requirement MVC3 framework IOC framework – Autofac to manage object creation dynamically Moq – Unit testing Entity Framework Repository and Unit Of Work Pattern of Model class I have gone through many article to explore an basic idea about the above points but still I am little bit confused on the “Repository and Unit Of Work Pattern “. Basically what I understand Unit Of Work is a pattern which will be followed along with Repository Pattern in order to share the single DB Context among all Repository object, So here is my design : IUnitOfWork.cs public interface IUnitOfWork : IDisposable { IPermitRepository Permit_Repository{ get; } IRebateRepository Rebate_Repository { get; } IBuildingTypeRepository BuildingType_Repository { get; } IEEProjectRepository EEProject_Repository { get; } IRebateLookupRepository RebateLookup_Repository { get; } IEEProjectTypeRepository EEProjectType_Repository { get; } void Save(); } UnitOfWork.cs public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork { #region Private Members private readonly CEEPMSEntities context = new CEEPMSEntities(); private IPermitRepository permit_Repository; private IRebateRepository rebate_Repository; private IBuildingTypeRepository buildingType_Repository; private IEEProjectRepository eeProject_Repository; private IRebateLookupRepository rebateLookup_Repository; private IEEProjectTypeRepository eeProjectType_Repository; #endregion #region IUnitOfWork Implemenation public IPermitRepository Permit_Repository { get { if (this.permit_Repository == null) { this.permit_Repository = new PermitRepository(context); } return permit_Repository; } } public IRebateRepository Rebate_Repository { get { if (this.rebate_Repository == null) { this.rebate_Repository = new RebateRepository(context); } return rebate_Repository; } } } PermitRepository .cs public class PermitRepository : IPermitRepository { #region Private Members private CEEPMSEntities objectContext = null; private IObjectSet<Permit> objectSet = null; #endregion #region Constructors public PermitRepository() { } public PermitRepository(CEEPMSEntities _objectContext) { this.objectContext = _objectContext; this.objectSet = objectContext.CreateObjectSet<Permit>(); } #endregion public IEnumerable<RebateViewModel> GetRebatesByPermitId(int _permitId) { // need to implment } } PermitController .cs public class PermitController : Controller { #region Private Members IUnitOfWork CEEPMSContext = null; #endregion #region Constructors public PermitController(IUnitOfWork _CEEPMSContext) { if (_CEEPMSContext == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("Object can not be null"); } CEEPMSContext = _CEEPMSContext; } #endregion } So here I am wondering how to generate a new Repository for example “TestRepository.cs” using same pattern where I can create more then one Repository object like RebateRepository rebateRepo = new RebateRepository () AddressRepository addressRepo = new AddressRepository() because , what ever Repository object I want to create I need an object of UnitOfWork first as implmented in the PermitController class. So if I would follow the same in each individual Repository class that would again break the priciple of Unit Of Work and create multiple instance of object context. So any idea or suggestion will be highly appreciated. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Image links work but show "broken image" in IE.

    - by Path
    I have a problem. I have made some image files for a menu. They work fine in Firefox, but IE (8, haven't tested with others) and Chrome show a broken image.. Image, on top. Even though the images work. The page is here: http://www.silkeborgmuseum.dk/udvikling/index.php This is a very old page of mine but I need to make it work. I have tried searching google and stackoverflow, but have not so far been able to find anyone else having this problem or what is causing it. Can anyone help? As a parting comment, I will say that I have only been developing websites for a few months, but wow, i already hate IE with a fiery passion.

    Read the article

  • How do I implement repository pattern and unit of work when dealing with multiple data stores?

    - by Jason
    I have a unique situation where I am building a DDD based system that needs to access both Active Directory and a SQL database as persistence. Initially this wasnt a problem because our design was setup where we had a unit of work that looked like this: public interface IUnitOfWork { void BeginTransaction() void Commit() } and our repositories looked like this: public interface IRepository<T> { T GetByID() void Save(T entity) void Delete(T entity) } In this setup our load and save would handle the mapping between both data stores because we wrote it ourselves. The unit of work would handle transactions and would contain the Linq To SQL data context that the repositories would use for persistence. The active directory part was handled by a domain service implemented in infrastructure and consumed by the repositories in each Save() method. Save() was responsible with interacting with the data context to do all the database operations. Now we are trying to adapt it to entity framework and take advantage of POCO. Ideally we would not need the Save() method because the domain objects are being tracked by the object context and we would just need to add a Save() method on the unit of work to have the object context save the changes, and a way to register new objects with the context. The new proposed design looks more like this: public interface IUnitOfWork { void BeginTransaction() void Save() void Commit() } public interface IRepository<T> { T GetByID() void Add(T entity) void Delete(T entity) } This solves the data access problem with entity framework, but does not solve the problem with our active directory integration. Before, it was in the Save() method on the repository, but now it has no home. The unit of work knows nothing other than the entity framework data context. Where should this logic go? I argue this design only works if you only have one data store using entity framework. Any ideas how to best approach this issue? Where should I put this logic?

    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 do I work with constructs in PHPUnit?

    - by Ben Dauphinee
    I am new into PHPUnit, and just digging through the manual. I cannot find a decent example of how to build a complete test from end to end though, and so, am left with questions. One of these is how can I prep my environment to properly test my code? I am trying to figure out how to properly pass various configuration values needed for both the test setup/teardown methods, and the configs for the class itself. // How can I set these variables on testing start? protected $_db = null; protected $_config = null; // So that this function runs properly? public function setUp(){ $this->_acl = new acl( $this->_db, // The database connection for the class passed // from whatever test construct $this->_config // Config values passed in from construct ); } // Can I just drop in a construct like this, and have it work properly? // And if so, how can I set the construct call properly? public function __construct( Zend_Db_Adapter_Abstract $db, $config = array(), $baselinedatabase = NULL, $databaseteardown = NULL ){ $this->_db = $db; $this->_config = $config; $this->_baselinedatabase = $baselinedatabase; $this->_databaseteardown = $databaseteardown; } // Or is the wrong idea to be pursuing?

    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

  • ASP.NET MVC - How to Unit Test boundaries in the Repository pattern?

    - by JK
    Given a basic repository interface: public interface IPersonRepository { void AddPerson(Person person); List<Person> GetAllPeople(); } With a basic implementation: public class PersonRepository: IPersonRepository { public void AddPerson(Person person) { ObjectContext.AddObject(person); } public List<Person> GetAllPeople() { return ObjectSet.AsQueryable().ToList(); } } How can you unit test this in a meaningful way? Since it crosses the boundary and physically updates and reads from the database, thats not a unit test, its an integration test. Or is it wrong to want to unit test this in the first place? Should I only have integration tests on the repository? I've been googling the subject and blogs often say to make a stub that implements the IRepository: public class PersonRepositoryTestStub: IPersonRepository { private List<Person> people = new List<Person>(); public void AddPerson(Person person) { people.Add(person); } public List<Person> GetAllPeople() { return people; } } But that doesnt unit test PersonRepository, it tests the implementation of PersonRepositoryTestStub (not very helpful).

    Read the article

  • Efficient algorithm to distribute work?

    - by Zwei Steinen
    It's a bit complicated to explain but here we go. We have problems like this (code is pseudo-code, and is only for illustrating the problem. Sorry it's in java. If you don't understand, I'd be glad to explain.). class Problem { final Set<Integer> allSectionIds = { 1,2,4,6,7,8,10 }; final Data data = //Some data } And a subproblem is: class SubProblem { final Set<Integer> targetedSectionIds; final Data data; SubProblem(Set<Integer> targetedSectionsIds, Data data){ this.targetedSectionIds = targetedSectionIds; this.data = data; } } Work will look like this, then. class Work implements Runnable { final Set<Section> subSections; final Data data; final Result result; Work(Set<Section> subSections, Data data) { this.sections = SubSections; this.data = data; } @Override public void run(){ for(Section section : subSections){ result.addUp(compute(data, section)); } } } Now we have instances of 'Worker', that have their own state sections I have. class Worker implements ExecutorService { final Map<Integer,Section> sectionsIHave; { sectionsIHave = {1:section1, 5:section5, 8:section8 }; } final ExecutorService executor = //some executor. @Override public void execute(SubProblem problem){ Set<Section> sectionsNeeded = fetchSections(problem.targetedSectionIds); super.execute(new Work(sectionsNeeded, problem.data); } } phew. So, we have a lot of Problems and Workers are constantly asking for more SubProblems. My task is to break up Problems into SubProblem and give it to them. The difficulty is however, that I have to later collect all the results for the SubProblems and merge (reduce) them into a Result for the whole Problem. This is however, costly, so I want to give the workers "chunks" that are as big as possible (has as many targetedSections as possible). It doesn't have to be perfect (mathematically as efficient as possible or something). I mean, I guess that it is impossible to have a perfect solution, because you can't predict how long each computation will take, etc.. But is there a good heuristic solution for this? Or maybe some resources I can read up before I go into designing? Any advice is highly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Workflow Activity Extensions, Activity Packs and Unit Testing Framework

    - by JoshReuben
    http://wf.codeplex.com/ contains a plethora of infrastructure code and new activities for extending Workflow Foundation 4. These are also available as Nuget packages. These include: Activity Extensions Security Activity Pack ADO.NET Activity Pack Azure Activity Pack Activity Unit Testing Framework   view my PowerPoint presentation on these and more here: http://www.slideshare.net/joshuareuben9/workflow-foundation-activity-packs-extensions-and-unit-testing

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Unit Testing with tSQLt

    When one considers the amount of time and effort that Unit Testing consumes for the Database Developer, is surprising how few good SQL Server Test frameworks are around. tSQLt , which is open source and free to use, is one of the frameworks that provide a simple way to populate a table with test data as part of the unit test, and check the results with what should be expected. Sebastian Meine and Dennis Lloyd, who created tSQLt, explain

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Unit Testing with tSQLt

    When one considers the amount of time and effort that Unit Testing consumes for the Database Developer, is surprising how few good SQL Server Test frameworks are around. tSQLt , which is open source and free to use, is one of the frameworks that provide a simple way to populate a table with test data as part of the unit test, and check the results with what should be expected. Sebastian and Dennis, who created tSQLt, explain.

    Read the article

  • How do you debug a unit test in Xcode 3?

    - by Dov
    I followed Apple's instructions to set up Unit Testing in my project. I followed the directions for making them dependent, so the tests run with every build of my main project. This works, and when my tests pass the application runs; when they don't, I get build errors on the lines of the unit tests that failed. I would like, however, to be able to step through my application code when the tests are failing, but can't get Xcode (3.2.5) configured properly. The project is a Mac project, not iOS. I tried the instructions here and here, but execution never stopped at the breakpoints I set, neither in the the unit test code or in my application code. After following the first set of instructions, the breakpoints I set turned yellow with blue outlines, and I don't know what that meant, either. What do I need to do to step through my tests?

    Read the article

  • What should be done first: Code reviews or Unit tests?

    - by goldenmean
    Hello, If a developer implements code for some module and wants to get it reviewed. What should be the order : *First unit test the module after designing test cases for the module, debugging and fixing the bugs and then give the modified code for peer code review (Pros- Code to be reviewed is 'clean' to a good extent. Reduces some avoidable review comments and rework. Cons- Developer might spend large time debugging/fixing a bug which could have pointed/anticipated in peer code reviews) Or *First do the code review with peers and then go for unit testing. What are your thoughts/experience on this? I believe this approach for unit testing, code reviewing should be programming language agnostic, but it would be interesting to know otherwise(if applicable) with specific examples. -AD

    Read the article

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