Search Results

Search found 12476 results on 500 pages for 'unit testing'.

Page 24/500 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

• Unit tests for deep cloning

  - by Will Dean

  Let's say I have a complex .NET class, with lots of arrays and other class object members. I need to be able to generate a deep clone of this object - so I write a Clone() method, and implement it with a simple BinaryFormatter serialize/deserialize - or perhaps I do the deep clone using some other technique which is more error prone and I'd like to make sure is tested. OK, so now (ok, I should have done it first) I'd like write tests which cover the cloning. All the members of the class are private, and my architecture is so good (!) that I haven't needed to write hundreds of public properties or other accessors. The class isn't IComparable or IEquatable, because that's not needed by the application. My unit tests are in a separate assembly to the production code. What approaches do people take to testing that the cloned object is a good copy? Do you write (or rewrite once you discover the need for the clone) all your unit tests for the class so that they can be invoked with either a 'virgin' object or with a clone of it? How would you test if part of the cloning wasn't deep enough - as this is just the kind of problem which can give hideous-to-find bugs later?

  Read the article

• Seam unit test can't connect to JBoss4.0.5GA

  - by user240423

  Does anybody know how to connect with JBoss4.0.5GA in Seam2.2.0GA unit test? I'm using Seam2.2.0GA with the embeded JBoss to run the unit test, the module needs to call old JBoss server (EJB2, because the vendor locked in JCA has to deploy on old JBoss). it's typical seam test case, and I can't get it connect to JBoss4.0.5GA by using jbossall-client.jar from JBoss4.0.5GA. so far I tested the embeded JBoss can only working with JBoss5.X server. with JBoss4.2.3GA, it report: [testng] java.rmi.MarshalException: Failed to communicate. Problem during marshalling/unmarshalling; nested exception is: [testng] java.net.SocketException: end of file [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.transport.socket.SocketClientInvoker.handleException(SocketClientInvoker.java:122) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.transport.socket.MicroSocketClientInvoker.transport(MicroSocketClientInvoker.java:679) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.MicroRemoteClientInvoker.invoke(MicroRemoteClientInvoker.java:122) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.Client.invoke(Client.java:1634) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.Client.invoke(Client.java:548) This is the best result I could get (JBoss5.1.0GA jbossall-client.jar call JBoss4.2.3GA server in the embeded JBoss env), here is the ant script: <testng classpathref="build.test.classpath" outputDir="${target.test-reports.dir}" haltOnfailure="true"> <jvmarg line="-Dsun.lang.ClassLoader.allowArraySyntax=true" /> <jvmarg line="-Dorg.jboss.j2ee.Serialization=true" /> <!-- <jvmarg line="-Djboss.remoting.pre_2_0_compatible=true" /> --> <jvmarg line="-Djboss.jndi.url=jnp://localhost:1099" /> <xmlfileset dir="src/test/java" includes="${ant.project.name}-testsuite.xml" /> </testng> Can anybody help?

  Read the article

• Unit testing with Mocks when SUT is leveraging Task Parallel Libaray

  - by StevenH

  I am trying to unit test / verify that a method is being called on a dependency, by the system under test. The depenedency is IFoo. The dependent class is IBar. IBar is implemented as Bar. Bar will call Start() on IFoo in a new (System.Threading.Tasks.)Task, when Start() is called on Bar instance. Unit Test (Moq): [Test] public void StartBar_ShouldCallStartOnAllFoo_WhenFoosExist() { //ARRANGE //Create a foo, and setup expectation var mockFoo0 = new Mock<IFoo>(); mockFoo0.Setup(foo => foo.Start()); var mockFoo1 = new Mock<IFoo>(); mockFoo1.Setup(foo => foo.Start()); //Add mockobjects to a collection var foos = new List<IFoo> { mockFoo0.Object, mockFoo1.Object }; IBar sutBar = new Bar(foos); //ACT sutBar.Start(); //Should call mockFoo.Start() //ASSERT mockFoo0.VerifyAll(); mockFoo1.VerifyAll(); } Implementation of IBar as Bar: class Bar : IBar { private IEnumerable<IFoo> Foos { get; set; } public Bar(IEnumerable<IFoo> foos) { Foos = foos; } public void Start() { foreach(var foo in Foos) { Task.Factory.StartNew( () => { foo.Start(); }); } } } I appears that the issue is obviously due to the fact that the call to "foo.Start()" is taking place on another thread (/task), and the mock (Moq framework) can't detect it. But I could be wrong. Thanks

  Read the article

• Unit testing and mocking email sender in Python with Google AppEngine

  - by CVertex

  I'm a newbie to python and the app engine. I have this code that sends an email based on request params after some auth logic. in my Unit tests (i'm using GAEUnit), how do I confirm an email with specific contents were sent? - i.e. how do I mock the emailer with a fake emailer to verify send was called? class EmailHandler(webapp.RequestHandler): def bad_input(self): self.response.set_status(400) self.response.headers['Content-Type'] = 'text/plain' self.response.out.write("<html><body>bad input </body></html>") def get(self): to_addr = self.request.get("to") subj = self.request.get("subject") msg = self.request.get("body") if not mail.is_email_valid(to_addr): # Return an error message... # self.bad_input() pass # authenticate here message = mail.EmailMessage() message.sender = "[email protected]" message.to = to_addr message.subject = subj message.body = msg message.send() self.response.headers['Content-Type'] = 'text/plain' self.response.out.write("<html><body>success!</body></html>") And the unit tests, import unittest from webtest import TestApp from google.appengine.ext import webapp from email import EmailHandler class SendingEmails(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.application = webapp.WSGIApplication([('/', EmailHandler)], debug=True) def test_success(self): app = TestApp(self.application) response = app.get('http://localhost:8080/[email protected]&body=blah_blah_blah&subject=mySubject') self.assertEqual('200 OK', response.status) self.assertTrue('success' in response) # somehow, assert email was sent

  Read the article

• MSTest unit test passes by itself, fails when other tests are run

  - by Sarah Vessels

  I'm having trouble with some MSTest unit tests that pass when I run them individually but fail when I run the entire unit test class. The tests test some code that SLaks helped me with earlier, and he warned me what I was doing wasn't thread-safe. However, now my code is more complicated and I don't know how to go about making it thread-safe. Here's what I have: public static class DLLConfig { private static string _domain; public static string Domain { get { return _domain = AlwaysReadFromFile ? readCredentialFromFile(DOMAIN_TAG) : _domain ?? readCredentialFromFile(DOMAIN_TAG); } } } And my test is simple: string expected = "the value I know exists in the file"; string actual = DLLConfig.Domain; Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); When I run this test by itself, it passes. When I run it alongside all the other tests in the test class (which perform similar checks on different properties), actual is null and the test fails. I note this is not a problem with a property whose type is a custom Enum type; maybe I'm having this problem with the Domain property because it is a string? Or maybe it's a multi-threaded issue with how MSTest works?

  Read the article

• N-tier architecture and unit tests (using Java)

  - by Alexandre FILLATRE

  Hi there, I'd like to have your expert explanations about an architectural question. Imagine a Spring MVC webapp, with validation API (JSR 303). So for a request, I have a controller that handles the request, then passes it to the service layer, which passes to the DAO one. Here's my question. At which layer should the validation occur, and how ? My though is that the controller has to handle basic validation (are mandatory fields empty ? Is the field length ok ? etc.). Then the service layer can do some tricker stuff, that involve other objets. The DAO does no validation at all. BUT, if I want to implement some unit testing (i.e. test layers below service, not the controllers), I'll end up with unexpected behavior because some validations should have been done in the Controller layer. As we don't use it for unit testing, there is a problem. What is the best way to deal with this ? I know there is no universal answer, but your personal experience is very welcomed. Thanks a lot. Regards.

  Read the article

• Automatic testing of GUI related private methods

  - by Stein G. Strindhaug

  When it comes to GUI programming (at least for web) I feel that often the only thing that would be useful to unit test is some of the private methods*. While unit testing makes perfect sense for back-end code, I feel it doesn't quite fit the GUI classes. What is the best way to add automatic testing of these? * Why I think the only methods useful to test is private: Often when I write GUI classes they don't even have any public methods except for the constructor. The public methods if any is trivial, and the constructor does most of the job calling private methods. They receive some data from server does a lot of trivial output and feeds data to the constructor of other classes contained inside it, adding listeners that calls a (more or less directly) calls the server... Most of it pretty trivial (the hardest part is the layout: css, IE, etc.) but sometimes I create some private method that does some advanced tricks, which I definitely do not want to be publicly visible (because it's closely coupled to the implementation of the layout, and likely to change), but is sufficiently complicated to break. These are often only called by the constructor or repeatedly by events in the code, not by any public methods at all. I'd like to have a way to test this type of methods, without making it public or resorting to reflection trickery. (BTW: I'm currently using GWT, but I feel this applies to most languages/frameworks I've used when coding for GUI)

  Read the article

• Testing subpackage modules in Python 3

  - by Mitchell Model

  I have been experimenting with various uses of hierarchies like this and the differences between absolute and relative imports, and can't figure out how to do routine things with the package, subpackages, and modules without simply putting everything on sys.path. I have a two-level package hierarchy: MyApp __init__.py Application __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... Domain __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... UI __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... I want to be able to do the following: Run test code in a Module's "if main" when the module imports from other modules in the same directory. Have one or more test code modules in each subpackage that runs unit tests on the modules in the subpackage. Have a set of unit tests that reside in someplace reasonable, but outside the subpackages, either in a sibling package, at the top-level package, or outside the top-level package (though all these might end up doing is running the tests in each subpackage) "Enter" the structure from any of the three subpackage levels, e.g. run code that just uses Domain modules, run code that just uses Application modules, but Application uses code from both Application and Domain modules, and run code from GUI uses code from both GUI and Application; for instance, Application test code would import Application modules but not Domain modules. After developing the bulk of the code without subpackages, continue developing and testing after organizing the modules into this hierarchy. I know how to use relative imports so that external code that puts MyApp on its sys.path can import MyApp, import any subpackages it wants, and import things from their modules, while the modules in each subpackage can import other modules from the same subpackage or from sibling packages. However, the development needs listed above seem incompatible with subpackage structuring -- in other words, I can't have it both ways: a well-structured multi-level package hierarchy used from the outside and also used from within, in particular for testing but also because modules from one design level (in particular the UI) should not import modules from a design level below the next one down. Sorry for the long essay, but I think it fairly represents the struggles a lot of people have been having adopting to the new relative import mechanisms.

  Read the article

• Unit testing a Grails custom taglib based on built-in Grails taglib

  - by dipess

  I've an app based on Grails 1.3.7. And I need to write a unit test for a custom taglib that is based on the built-in taglib, <g:select /> to be specific. I checked out the solution on this previous SO post but the solution stated is not working in my case (some properties are not being prooperly mocked up). The other solution that I found was this. Using this approach, I get most of the properties of FormTagLib mocked up except for the grailsApplication property that select requires. The actual error that I get is Cannot invoke method getArtefact() on null object. How can I properly write the unit test in such a case? Edit Here are my test class and the full stacktrace. Line #45 on the stacktrace is the call to the g.select from my custom taglib. My custom taglib is something like def clientSpecificQueues = {attrs-> def queueList = taskService.getClientSpecificQueues(session.clientName) def queueLabel = "Some String" if (queueList.size() > 0){ out << queueLabel else out << g.select(name:'queueId', from: queueList, optionKey: 'id', optionValue: 'name') }

  Read the article

• Passing a paramter/object to a ruby unit/test before running it using TestRunner

  - by Nahir Khan

  I'm building a tool that automates a process then runs some tests on it's own results then goes to do some other stuff. In trying to clean up my code I have created a separate file that just has the test cases class. Now before I can run these tests, I have to pass the class a couple of parameters/objects before they can be run. Now the problem is that I can't seem to find a way to pass a parameter/object to the test class. Right now I am thinking to generate a Yaml file and read it in the test class but it feels "wrong" to use a temporary file for this. If anyone has a nicer solution that would be great! *********Edit******* Example Code of what I am doing right now: #!/usr/bin/ruby require 'test/unit/ui/console/testrunner' require 'yaml' require 'TS_SampleTestSuite' automatingSomething() importantInfo = getImportantInfo() File.open('filename.yml', 'w') do |f| f.puts importantInfo.to_yaml end Test::Unit::UI::Console::TestRunner.run(TS_SampleTestSuite) Now in the example above TS_SampleTestSuite needs importantInfo, so the first "test case" is a method that just reads in the information from the Yaml file filname.yml. I hope that clears up some confusion.

  Read the article

• What is the purpose of unit testing an interface repository

  - by ahsteele

  I am unit testing an ICustomerRepository interface used for retrieving objects of type Customer. As a unit test what value am I gaining by testing the ICustomerRepository in this manner? Under what conditions would the below test fail? For tests of this nature is it advisable to do tests that I know should fail? i.e. look for id 4 when I know I've only placed 5 in the repository I am probably missing something obvious but it seems the integration tests of the class that implements ICustomerRepository will be of more value. [TestClass] public class CustomerTests : TestClassBase { private Customer SetUpCustomerForRepository() { return new Customer() { CustId = 5, DifId = "55", CustLookupName = "The Dude", LoginList = new[] { new Login { LoginCustId = 5, LoginName = "tdude" }, new Login { LoginCustId = 5, LoginName = "tdude2" } } }; } [TestMethod] public void CanGetCustomerById() { // arrange var customer = SetUpCustomerForRepository(); var repository = Stub<ICustomerRepository>(); // act repository.Stub(rep => rep.GetById(5)).Return(customer); // assert Assert.AreEqual(customer, repository.GetById(5)); } } Test Base Class public class TestClassBase { protected T Stub<T>() where T : class { return MockRepository.GenerateStub<T>(); } } ICustomerRepository and IRepository public interface ICustomerRepository : IRepository<Customer> { IList<Customer> FindCustomers(string q); Customer GetCustomerByDifID(string difId); Customer GetCustomerByLogin(string loginName); } public interface IRepository<T> { void Save(T entity); void Save(List<T> entity); bool Save(T entity, out string message); void Delete(T entity); T GetById(int id); ICollection<T> FindAll(); }

  Read the article

• ASP.NET MVC Unit Testing Controllers - Repositories

  - by Brian McCord

  This is more of an opinion seeking question, so there may not be a "right" answer, but I would welcome arguments as to why your answer is the "right" one. Given an MVC application that is using Entity Framework for the persistence engine, a repository layer, a service layer that basically defers to the repository, and a delete method on a controller that looks like this: public ActionResult Delete(State model) { try { if( model == null ) { return View( model ); } _stateService.Delete( model ); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } catch { return View( model ); } } I am looking for the proper way to Unit Test this. Currently, I have a fake repository that gets used in the service, and my unit test looks like this: [TestMethod] public void Delete_Post_Passes_With_State_4() { //Arrange var stateService = GetService(); var stateController = new StateController( stateService ); ViewResult result = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var model = (State)result.ViewData.Model; //Act RedirectToRouteResult redirectResult = stateController.Delete( model ) as RedirectToRouteResult; stateController = new StateController( stateService ); var newresult = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var newmodel = (State)newresult.ViewData.Model; //Assert Assert.AreEqual( redirectResult.RouteValues["action"], "Index" ); Assert.IsNull( newmodel ); } Is this overkill? Do I need to check to see if the record actually got deleted (as I already have Service and Repository tests that verify this)? Should I even use a fake repository here or would it make more sense just to mock the whole thing? The examples I'm looking at used this model of doing things, and I just copied it, but I'm really open to doing things in a "best practices" way. Thanks.

  Read the article

• How to unit test generic classes

  - by Rowland Shaw

  I'm trying to set up some unit tests for an existing compact framework class library. However, I've fallen at the first hurdle, where it appears that the test framework is unable to load the types involved (even though they're both in the class library being tested) Test method MyLibrary.Tests.MyGenericClassTest.MyMethodTest threw exception: System.MissingMethodException: Could not load type 'MyLibrary.MyType' from assembly 'MyLibrary, Version=1.0.3778.36113, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null'.. My code is loosely: public class MyGenericClass<T> : List<T> where T : MyType, new() { public bool MyMethod(T foo) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } With test methods: public void MyMethodTestHelper<T>() where T : MyType, new() { MyGenericClass<T> target = new MyGenericClass<T>(); foo = new T(); expected = true; actual = target.MyMethod(foo); Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); } [TestMethod()] public void MyMethodTest() { MyMethodTestHelper<MyType>(); } I'm a bit stumped though, as I can't even get it to break in the debugger to get to the inner exception, so what else do I check? EDIT this does seem to be something specific to the Compact Framework - recompiling the class libraries and the unit tests for the full framework, gives the expected output (i.e. the debugger stops when I'm going to throw a NotImplementedException).

  Read the article

• Unit Testing the Use of TransactionScope

  - by Randolpho

  The preamble: I have designed a strongly interfaced and fully mockable data layer class that expects the business layer to create a TransactionScope when multiple calls should be included in a single transaction. The problem: I would like to unit test that my business layer makes use of a TransactionScope object when I expect it to. Unfortunately, the standard pattern for using TransactionScope is a follows: using(var scope = new TransactionScope()) { // transactional methods datalayer.InsertFoo(); datalayer.InsertBar(); scope.Complete(); } While this is a really great pattern in terms of usability for the programmer, testing that it's done seems... unpossible to me. I cannot detect that a transient object has been instantiated, let alone mock it to determine that a method was called on it. Yet my goal for coverage implies that I must. The Question: How can I go about building unit tests that ensure TransactionScope is used appropriately according to the standard pattern? Final Thoughts: I've considered a solution that would certainly provide the coverage I need, but have rejected it as overly complex and not conforming to the standard TransactionScope pattern. It involves adding a CreateTransactionScope method on my data layer object that returns an instance of TransactionScope. But because TransactionScope contains constructor logic and non-virtual methods and is therefore difficult if not impossible to mock, CreateTransactionScope would return an instance of DataLayerTransactionScope which would be a mockable facade into TransactionScope. While this might do the job it's complex and I would prefer to use the standard pattern. Is there a better way?

  Read the article

• C++ and Dependency Injection in unit testing

  - by lhumongous

  Suppose I have a C++ class like so: class A { public: A() { } void SetNewB( const B& _b ) { m_B = _b; } private: B m_B; } In order to unit test something like this, I would have to break A's dependency on B. Since class A holds onto an actual object and not a pointer, I would have to refactor this code to take a pointer. Additionally, I would need to create a parent interface class for B so I can pass in my own fake of B when I test SetNewB. In this case, doesn't unit testing with dependency injection further complicate the existing code? If I make B a pointer, I'm now introducing heap allocation, and some piece of code is now responsible for cleaning it up (unless I use ref counted pointers). Additionally, if B is a rather trivial class with only a couple of member variables and functions, why introduce a whole new interface for it instead of just testing with an instance of B? I suppose you could make the argument that it would be easier to refactor A by using an interface. But are there some cases where two classes might need to be tightly coupled?

  Read the article

• Unit Testing Interfaces in Python

  - by Nicholas Mancuso

  I am currently learning python in preperation for a class over the summer and have gotten started by implementing different types of heaps and priority based data structures. I began to write a unit test suite for the project but ran into difficulties into creating a generic unit test that only tests the interface and is oblivious of the actual implementation. I am wondering if it is possible to do something like this.. suite = HeapTestSuite(BinaryHeap()) suite.run() suite = HeapTestSuite(BinomialHeap()) suite.run() What I am currently doing just feels... wrong (multiple inheritance? ACK!).. class TestHeap: def reset_heap(self): self.heap = None def test_insert(self): self.reset_heap() #test that insert doesnt throw an exception... for x in self.inseq: self.heap.insert(x) def test_delete(self): #assert we get the first value we put in self.reset_heap() self.heap.insert(5) self.assertEquals(5, self.heap.delete_min()) #harder test. put in sequence in and check that it comes out right self.reset_heap() for x in self.inseq: self.heap.insert(x) for x in xrange(len(self.inseq)): val = self.heap.delete_min() self.assertEquals(val, x) class BinaryHeapTest(TestHeap, unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.inseq = range(99, -1, -1) self.heap = BinaryHeap() def reset_heap(self): self.heap = BinaryHeap() class BinomialHeapTest(TestHeap, unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.inseq = range(99, -1, -1) self.heap = BinomialHeap() def reset_heap(self): self.heap = BinomialHeap() if __name__ == '__main__': unittest.main()

  Read the article

• Integration testing - can it be done right?

  - by Max

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

  Read the article

• Free Book from Microsoft - Testing for Continuous Delivery with Visual Studio 2012

  - by TATWORTH

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TATWORTH/archive/2013/10/16/free-book-from-microsoft---testing-for-continuous-delivery-with.aspxAt  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj159345.aspx, Microsoft have made available a free e-book - Testing for Continuous Delivery with Visual Studio 2012 "As more software projects adopt a continuous delivery cycle, testing threatens to be the bottleneck in the process. Agile development frequently revisits each part of the source code, but every change requires a re-test of the product. While the skills of the manual tester are vital, purely manual testing can't keep up. Visual Studio 2012 provides many features that remove roadblocks in the testing and debugging process and also help speed up and automate re-testing."

  Read the article

• What type of code is suitable for unit testing?

  - by RPK

  In Test Driven Development, what type of code is testable? I am using a Micro-ORM (PetaPoco) and I have several methods that interact with the database like: AddCustomer UpdateRecord etc. I want to know how to write a test for these methods. I searched YouTube for videos on writing a test for DAL, but I didn't find any. I want to know which method or class is testable and how to write a test before writing the code itself.

  Read the article

• Review: Backbone.js Testing

  - by george_v_reilly

  Title: Backbone.js Testing Author: Ryan Roemer Rating: $stars(4.5) Publisher: Packt Copyright: 2013 ISBN: 178216524X Pages: 168 Keywords: programming, testing, javascript, backbone, mocha, chai, sinon Reading period: October 2013 Backbone.js Testing is a short, dense introduction to testing JavaScript applications with three testing libraries, Mocha, Chai, and Sinon.JS. Although the author uses a sample application of a personal note manager written with Backbone.js throughout the book, much of the material would apply to any JavaScript client or server framework. Mocha is a test framework that can be executed in the browser or by Node.js, which runs your tests. Chai is a framework-agnostic TDD/BDD assertion library. Sinon.JS provides standalone test spies, stubs and mocks for JavaScript. They complement each other and the author does a good job of explaining when and how to use each. I've written a lot of tests in Python (unittest and mock, primarily) and C# (NUnit), but my experience with JavaScript unit testing was both limited and years out of date. The JavaScript ecosystem continues to evolve rapidly, with new browser frameworks and Node packages springing up everywhere. JavaScript has some particular challenges in testing—notably, asynchrony and callbacks. Mocha, Chai, and Sinon meet those challenges, though they can't take away all the pain. The author describes how to test Backbone models, views, and collections; dealing with asynchrony; provides useful testing heuristics, including isolating components to reduce dependencies; when to use stubs and mocks and fake servers; and test automation with PhantomJS. He does not, however, teach you Backbone.js itself; for that, you'll need another book. There are a few areas which I thought were dealt with too lightly. There's no real discussion of Test-driven_development or Behavior-driven_development, which provide the intellectual foundations of much of the book. Nor does he have much to say about testability and how to make legacy code more testable. The sample Notes app has plenty of testing seams (much of this falls naturally out of the architecture of Backbone); other apps are not so lucky. The chapter on automation is extremely terse—it could be expanded into a very large book!—but it does provide useful indicators to many areas for exploration. I learned a lot from this book and I have no hesitation in recommending it. Disclosure: Thanks to Ryan Roemer and Packt for a review copy of this book.

  Read the article

• Do you write common pre-conditions for a large number of unit test cases ?

  - by Vinoth Kumar

  I have heard/read writing common pre-conditions for a large number of test cases is a bad thing, since this dependency may cause large number of test cases to fail if something changes . What are your thoughts on it ? If this is so , then what exactly is the purpose of setUp() method in Junit that runs before each test case ? If the same code inside setUp() runs before each test case , why cant it run only once before running all the test cases together ?

  Read the article

• What if I can't make my unit test fail in "Red, Green, Refactor" of TDD?

  - by Joshua Harris

  So let's say that I have a test: @Test public void MoveY_MoveZero_DoesNotMove() { Point p = new Point(50.0, 50.0); p.MoveY(0.0); Assert.assertAreEqual(50.0, p.Y); } This test then causes me to create the class Point: public class Point { double X; double Y; public void MoveY(double yDisplace) { throw new NotYetImplementedException(); } } Ok. It fails. Good. Then I remove the exception and I get green. Great, but of course I need to test if it changes value. So I write a test that calls p.MoveY(10.0) and checks if p.Y is equal to 60.0. It fails, so then I change the function to look like so: public void MoveY(double yDisplace) { Y += yDisplace; } Great, now I have green again and I can move on. I've tested not moving and moving in the positive direction, so naturally I should test a negative value. The only problem with this test is that if I wrote the test correctly, then it doesn't fail at first. That means that I didn't fit the principle of "Red, Green, Refactor." Of course, This is a first-world problem of TDD, but getting a fail at first is helpful in that it shows that your test can fail. Otherwise this seemingly innocent test that is just passing for incorrect reasons could fail later because it was written wrong. That might not be a problem if it happened 5 minutes later, but what if it happens to the poor-sap that inheirited your code two years later. What he knows is that MoveY does not work with negative values because that is what the test is telling him. But, it really could work and just be a bug in the test. I don't think that would happen in this particular case because the code sample is so simple, but if it were a large complicated system that might not be the case. It seems crazy to say that I want to fail my tests, but that is an important step in TDD, for good reasons.

  Read the article

• What Exactly Does the Wattage Rating on a Power Supply Unit Mean?

  - by Jason Fitzpatrick

  Your PSU is rated 80 Plus Bronze and for 650 watts, but what exactly does that mean? Read on to see how wattage and power efficiency ratings translate to real world use. Today’s Question & Answer session comes to us courtesy of SuperUser—a subdivision of Stack Exchange, a community-drive grouping of Q&A web sites. How To Use USB Drives With the Nexus 7 and Other Android Devices Why Does 64-Bit Windows Need a Separate “Program Files (x86)” Folder? Why Your Android Phone Isn’t Getting Operating System Updates and What You Can Do About It

  Read the article

• Free E-Book - Testing for Continuous Delivery with Visual Studio 2012

  - by TATWORTH

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TATWORTH/archive/2013/11/05/free-e-book---testing-for-continuous-delivery-with-visual-studio.aspx At http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj159345.aspx, Microsoft Press are offering the free e-Book, Testing for Continuous Delivery with Visual Studio 2012. "As more software projects adopt a continuous delivery cycle, testing threatens to be the bottleneck in the process. Agile development frequently revisits each part of the source code, but every change requires a re-test of the product. While the skills of the manual tester are vital, purely manual testing can't keep up. Visual Studio 2012 provides many features that remove roadblocks in the testing and debugging process and also help speed up and automate re-testing. " (Please ignore the click to look inside!)

  Read the article

• How are design-by-contract and property-based testing (QuickCheck) related?

  - by Todd Owen

  Is their only similarity the fact that they are not xUnit (or more precisely, not based on enumerating specific test cases), or is it deeper than that? Property-based testing (using QuickCheck, ScalaCheck, etc) seem well-suited to a functional programming style where side-effects are avoided. On the other hand, Design by Contract (as implemented in Eiffel) is more suited to OOP languages: you can express post-conditions about the effects of methods, not just their return values. But both of them involve testing assertions that are true in general (rather than assertions that should be true for a specific test case). And both can be tested using randomly generated inputs (with QuickCheck this is the only way, whereas with Eiffel I believe it is an optional feature of the AutoTest tool). Is there an umbrella term to encompass both approaches? Or am I imagining a relationship that doesn't really exist.

  Read the article

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