Search Results

Search found 910 results on 37 pages for 'assert'.

Page 25/37 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

• Selenium RC: How to click buttons that use onclick window.location?

  - by Andrew

  I have a button (outside of a form) that redirects to another page using the onclick attribute that calls window.location to redirect the user to another page. This time I can't change the HTML. I am using Safari 4 for testing. How can I click a button that uses the onclick attribute and window.location to redirect using Safari 4 and Selenium RC PHPUnit Extension? Here's my HTML: <input type="button" onclick="window.location='/registrations/new'" value="Start a new registration" id="create"> Update: Alternatively, I'm thinking about doing something where I assert that a location is specified in the window.location='', store that location, and call the open() command using that location. Not sure if this is an acceptable approach to testing this.

  Read the article

• When is it appropriate to do interaction based testing as opposed to state based testing?

  - by Praneeth

  Hi, When I use Easymock(or a similar mocking framework) to implement my unit tests, I'm forced to do interaction-based testing (as I don't get to assert on the state of my dependencies. Or am I mistaken?). On the other hand if I use a hand written stub (instead of using easymock) I can implement state based testing. I'm quite unclear if I want to go with interaction based testing or state based testing. I'm biased and I want to use Easymock, but I'm not sure if there would be any side-effects that I may have to face in the future. Can anyone please throw some light on this? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Receive messages for derived types in MVVMLight

  - by Hrvoje

  Shouldn't this test pass: [TestMethod] public void derived_message_subscription() { bool handled = false; Messenger.Default.Register<GenericMessage<baseClass>>(this, true, (msg) => handled = true); Messenger.Default.Send(new GenericMessage<testClass>(new testClass())); Assert.IsTrue(handled); } public abstract class baseClass { } public class testClass : baseClass { } I have to receive all messages for classes that inherits from one base class. MVVMLight has bool property receiveDerivedMessagesToo in Register method, but it seems to me that it isn't working.

  Read the article

• How to free an Oracle Object-Type passed to an external procedure

  - by chila

  I'm using OTT to pass and load an Object Type from a C++ external procedure. The problem I have is that I don't know how to somehow mark the object for deallocation once extproc has done marshalling it. The object remains in extproc's memory forever making it grow in memory consumtion. Here's part of the code: void decodeFromBuffer(OCIExtProcContext *ctx, GPRS_GPRSCHARGINGRECORD *record, GPRS_GPRSCHARGINGRECORD_ind *recordInd, const unsigned char *buffer, int buffLen, OCIInd *bufferInd) { . . . assert(OCIExtProcGetEnv(ctx, &envh, &svch, &errh) == OCI_SUCCESS); recordInd->_atomic = OCI_IND_NOTNULL; // somehow I should mark the object for deallocation after extproc has done marshalling it // using OCINumberFromInt and OCIStringAssignText to load the object (this memory is never deallocated) . . . } How could I mark the object (and subobjects) for deallocation?

  Read the article

• How do I pass a function to NUnit Throws.Constraints?

  - by Serge Belov

  I'm trying to write some NUnit tests in F# and having trouble passing a function to the ThrowsConstraint. A distilled (non)working sample is below. open System.IO open NUnit.Framework [<TestFixture>] module Example = [<Test>] let foo() = let f = fun () -> File.GetAttributes("non-existing.file") Assert.That(f, Throws.TypeOf<FileNotFoundException>()) This compiles just fine but I get the following from the NUnit test runner: FsTest.Tests.Example.foo: System.ArgumentException : The actual value must be a TestDelegate but was f@11 Parameter name: actual While I'm able to work around the problem using ExpectedException attribute, my question is what is the correct way of using an F# function in this situation?

  Read the article

• Need a push in the write direction, to write my first functional test in Rails?

  - by Jason

  Hi, I've read quiet a bit of documentation over the last few days about testing in Rails, I'm sitting down to write my first real test and not 100% sure how to tie what I have learned together to achieve the following functional test (testing a controller) I need to send a GET request to a URL and pass 3 parameters (simple web-service), if the functionality works the keyword "true" is simply returned, otherwise the keyword "false" is returned - its in only value returned & not contained in any , or other tags. The test should assert that if "true" is returned the test is successful. This is probably very simple so apologies for such a non-challenging question. If anyone could point me in the write direction on how I can get started, particularly how I can test the response, I'd be very grateful! Thanks!

  Read the article

• C# Generics Casting

  - by Nippysaurus

  Visual sutdio 2008 has the ability to automatically create unit test stubs. I have used this to create some basic unit tests, but I am confused by something: private class bla : BaseStoreItem { // } /// <summary> ///A test for StoreData ///</summary> public void StoreDataTestHelper<T>() where T : BaseStoreItem { FileStore<T> target = new FileStore<T>(); // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value BaseStoreItem data = new bla(); target.StoreData(data); } [TestMethod()] public void StoreDataTest() { //Assert.Inconclusive("No appropriate type parameter is found to satisfies the type constraint(s) of T. " + // "Please call StoreDataTestHelper<T>() with appropriate type parameters."); StoreDataTestHelper<bla>(); } Why do I get "Error: Cannot convert type 'StorageUnitTests.FileStoreTest.bla' to 'T'" when T is type "bla"? I know "bla" is not a good function name, but its just an example.

  Read the article

• How does c# type safety affect the garbage collection?

  - by Indeera

  I'm dealing with code that handles large buffers ( 100MB) and manipulation of these is done in unsafe blocks. I'd like to refactor these to avoid unsafe code. I'm wondering about the likely memory performance gains (positive/negative/neutral) before I embark on that. I assert that if the compiler can verify types, it could possibly generate better code and that could also mean good GC performance. Is this a valid assertion? What is your experience? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Need a push in the right direction, to write my first functional test in Rails

  - by Jason

  I've read quiet a bit of documentation over the last few days about testing in Rails, I'm sitting down to write my first real test and not 100% sure how to tie what I have learned together to achieve the following functional test (testing a controller) I need to send a GET request to a URL and pass 3 parameters (simple web-service), if the functionality works the keyword true is simply returned, otherwise the keyword false is returned - its in only value returned & not contained in any <div>, <span> or other tags. The test should assert that if "true" is returned the test is successful. This is probably very simple so apologies for such a non-challenging question. If anyone could point me in the write direction on how I can get started, particularly how I can test the response, I'd be very grateful!

  Read the article

• What's the best way to avoid try...catch...finally... in my unit tests?

  - by Bruce Li

  I'm writing many unit tests in VS 2010 with Microsoft Test. In each test class I have many test methods similar to below: [TestMethod] public void This_is_a_Test() { try { // do some test here // assert } catch (Exception ex) { // test failed, log error message in my log file and make the test fail } finally { // do some cleanup with different parameters } } When each test method looks like this I fell it's kind of ugly. But so far I haven't found a good solution to make my test code more clean, especially the cleanup code in the finally block. Could someone here give me some advices on this? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• "Right" way to deallocate an std::vector object

  - by Jacob

  The first solution is: std::vector<int> *vec = new std::vector<int>; assert(vec != NULL); // ... delete vec; An alternative is: std::vector<int> v; //... vec.clear(); vec.swap(std::vector<int>(vec)); The second solution's a bit of a trick --- what's the "right" way to do it?

  Read the article

• testing controller action which returns RedirectToRouteResult

  - by csetzkorn

  Hi, I have an action in my controller: RedirectToRouteResult Create(UserDTO UserDTO) Which at some point decides with which HTML to respond after a post request by redirecting to an action: return ModelState.IsValid ? RedirectToAction("ThanksCreate") : RedirectToAction("Register"); In my unit tests I would like to get hold of the ‘views’ modelstate somehow like this: var modelState = result.ViewData.ModelState; Assert.IsFalse( modelState.IsValid ); where ‘result’ (ViewResult) is the result of the action ‘Create’ depending on the submitted DTO. My dilemma is that my action ‘returns’ a RedirectToRouteResult which I thought is quite nice but it might not be testable or is it? How could I get hold of the ModelState in my scenario? Thanks. Best wishes, Christian enter code here

  Read the article

• How to pass around event as parameter in c#

  - by Jerry Liu

  Am writing unit test for a multi-threading application, where I need to wait until a specific event triggered so that I know the asyn operation is done. E.g. When I call repository.add(something), I wait for event AfterChange before doing any assertion. So I write a util function to do that. public static void SyncAction(EventHandler event_, Action action_) { var signal = new object(); EventHandler callback = null; callback = new EventHandler((s, e) => { lock (signal) { Monitor.Pulse(signal); } event_ -= callback; }); event_ += callback; lock (signal) { action_(); Assert.IsTrue(Monitor.Wait(signal, 10000)); } } However, the compiler prevents from passing event out of the class. Is there a way to achieve that?

  Read the article

• C# string equality operator returns false, but I'm pretty sure it should be true... What?!

  - by Daniel Schaffer

  I'm trying to write a unit test for a piece of code that generates a large amount of text. I've run into an issue where the "expected" and "actual" strings appear to be equal, but Assert.AreEqual throws, and both the equality operator and Equals() return false. The result of GetHashCode() is different for both values as well. However, putting both strings into text files and comparing with DiffMerge tells me they're the same. Additionally, using Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes() on both values and then using SequenceEquals to compare the resulting byte arrays returns true. The values are 34KB each, so I'll hold off putting them here for now. Any ideas? I'm completely stumped.

  Read the article

• How to know who kills my threads

  - by mcabral

  I got a thread that is just banishing.. i'd like to know who is killing my thread and why. It occurs to me my thread is being killed by the OS, but i'd like to confirm this and if possible to know why it's killing it. As for the thread, i can assert it has at least 40 min of execution before dying, but it suddenly dies around 5 min. public void RunWorker() { Thread worker = new Thread(delegate() { DoSomethingForALongLongTime(); }); worker.IsBackground = true; worker.SetApartmentState(System.Threading.ApartmentState.STA); worker.Start(); }

  Read the article

• How to leave out some statements while executing java code?

  - by iamrohitbanga

  In C++ if we do not want some statements to compile into code that ships like assert function calls, we control their compilation through #ifndef preprocessor directives. How do we do this in Java? I have some System.out.println() statements for debugging which I would like to remove for the final code. one way is to make them execute conditionally under the affect of a boolean variable. Is there a better way of doing this? As I have a java swing application I can turn off the System.out.println statements without affecting the output. What is the method of doing this?

  Read the article

• created persisted computed columns when the user defined scalar function appears to be non-determini

  - by Ralph Shillington

  I have a scalar UDF that I know to be deterministic, however SQL doesn't. Is there a way to declare it as deterministic so that I can then use it in a persisted computed column definition? further clarification: The purpose of this exercise is that I need to harvest out specific values from an XML column on the row. I can't use the value method of the xml column in my computed column definition, but I can use it in a UDF. I know the xpath query in the value method will produce the same output give the same input so while I certainly understand that not all calls to value will be deterministic I want to assert that mine is.

  Read the article

• Is it possible to use the ScalaTest BDD syntax in a JUnit environment?

  - by ebruchez

  I would like to describe tests in BDD style e.g. with FlatSpec but keep JUnit as a test runner. The ScalaTest Quick Start does not seem to show any example of this: http://www.scalatest.org/getting_started_with_junit_4 I first tried naively to write tests within @Test methods, but that doesn't work and the assertion is never tested: @Test def foobarBDDStyle { "The first name control" must "be valid" in { assert(isValid("name·1")) } // etc. } Is there any way to achieve this? It would be even better if regular tests can be mixed and matched with BDD-style tests.

  Read the article

• Is there a Java unit-test framework that auto-tests getters and setters?

  - by Michael Easter

  There is a well-known debate in Java (and other communities, I'm sure) whether or not trivial getter/setter methods should be tested. Usually, this is with respect to code coverage. Let's agree that this is an open debate, and not try to answer it here. There have been several blog posts on using Java reflection to auto-test such methods. Does any framework (e.g. jUnit) provide such a feature? e.g. An annotation that says "this test T should auto-test all the getters/setters on class C, because I assert that they are standard". It seems to me that it would add value, and if it were configurable, the 'debate' would be left as an option to the user.

  Read the article

• How do I simplify these NUNit tests?

  - by Lucas Meijer

  These three tests are identical, except that they use a different static function to create a StartInfo instance. I have this pattern coming up all trough my testcode, and would love to be be able to simplify this using [TestCase], or any other way that reduces boilerplate code. To the best of my knowledge I'm not allowed to use a delegate as a [TestCase] argument, and I'm hoping people here have creative ideas on how to make the code below more terse. [Test] public void ResponseHeadersWorkinPlatform1() { DoResponseHeadersWorkTest(Platform1StartInfo.CreateOneRunning); } [Test] public void ResponseHeadersWorkinPlatform2() { DoResponseHeadersWorkTest(Platform2StartInfo.CreateOneRunning); } [Test] public void ResponseHeadersWorkinPlatform3() { DoResponseHeadersWorkTest(Platform3StartInfo.CreateOneRunning); } void DoResponseHeadersWorkTest(Func<ScriptResource,StartInfo> startInfoCreator) { ScriptResource sr = ScriptResource.Default; var process = startInfoCreator(sr).Start(); //assert some things here }

  Read the article

• Retrieving the MethodInfo of of the correct overload of a generic method

  - by Anne

  I have this type that contains two overloads of a generic method. I like to retrieve one of the overloads (with the Func<T> parameter) using reflection. The problem however is that I can't find the correct parameter type to supply the Type.GetMethod(string, Type[]) method with. Here is my class definition: public class Foo { public void Bar<T>(Func<T> f) { } public void Bar<T>(Action<T> a) { } } And this is what I've come up with, unfortunately without succes: [TestMethod] public void Test1() { Type parameterType = typeof(Func<>); var method = typeof(Foo).GetMethod("Bar", new Type[] { parameterType }); Assert.IsNotNull(method); // Fails } How can I get the MethodInfo of a generic method of which I know the parameters?

  Read the article

• Attempted to perform an unauthorized operation

  - by Lefteris Gkinis

  Now I use the following code: Public Function SetACL(ByVal filename As String, ByVal account As String, ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) As Boolean Try Dim rule As FileSystemAccessRule = New FileSystemAccessRule(account, FileSystemRights.Write, AccessControlType.Allow) Dim fp As PermissionSet = New PermissionSet(Permissions.PermissionState.Unrestricted) fp.AddPermission(New FileIOPermission(FileIOPermissionAccess.Read, filename)) fp.AddPermission(New FileIOPermission(FileIOPermissionAccess.Write, filename)) fp.AddPermission(New FileIOPermission(FileIOPermissionAccess.PathDiscovery, filename)) fp.Assert() Dim di As DirectoryInfo = New DirectoryInfo(Path.GetDirectoryName(filename)) SetACL = False Dim security As DirectorySecurity = di.GetAccessControl(AccessControlSections.Access) security.ModifyAccessRule(AccessControlModification.Add, rule, SetACL) di.SetAccessControl(security) Return SetACL Catch ex As Exception MessageBox.Show(ex.Message, "Set Security Sub", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Stop) Finalize() End Try End Function The Error of 'Attempted to perform an unauthorized operation' comes when i'm trying to execute the instraction Dim security As DirectorySecurity = di.GetAccessControl(AccessControlSections.Access) Please if anybody knows why that error comes here to respond

  Read the article

• How to look up an NHibernate entity's table mapping from the type of the entity?

  - by snicker

  Once I've mapped my domain in NHibernate, how can I reverse lookup those mappings somewhere else in my code? Example: The entity Pony is mapped to a table named "AAZF1203" for some reason. (Stupid legacy database table names!) I want to find out that table name from the NH mappings using only the typeof(Pony) because I have to write a query elsewhere. How can I make the following test pass? private const string LegacyPonyTableName = "AAZF1203"; [Test] public void MakeSureThatThePonyEntityIsMappedToCorrectTable() { string ponyTable = GetNHibernateTableMappingFor(typeof(Pony)); Assert.AreEqual(LegacyPonyTableName, ponyTable); } In other words, what does the GetNHibernateTableMappingFor(Type t) need to look like?

  Read the article

• How a web app identify if a click came from another web app via code?

  - by Diego

  Hi, we have a web application that users can take online reports from ou ERP system data... And we have another web application that is used by our teachers and employees. We can't change the ERP web app because its a closed DLL, in this case we made some extended functionality in our custom internal web app and we are willing to put this functionality on the "menu" of the ERP web app. I need to integrate the two applications in the following way: When I click in the menu of the ERP web app, I want that our internal web app assert that the click have come from our ERP web app and not typed in the URL, this is possible?

  Read the article

• Method parameters have incorrect values when using RowTest in VB.Net

  - by simon_bellis

  Hello, I have the following test method (VB.NET) <RowTest()> _ <Row(1, 2, 3)> _ Public Sub AddMultipleNumbers(ByVal number1 As Integer, ByVal number2 As Integer, ByVal result As Integer) Dim dvbc As VbClass = New VbClass() Dim actual As Integer = dvbc.Add(number1, number2) Assert.That(actual, [Is].SameAs(result)) End Sub My problem is that when the test runs, using TestDriven.Net, the three method parameters are 0 and not the values I am expecting. I have referenced the NUnit.Framework (v.2.5.3.9345) anf the NUnitExtension.RowTest (v.1.2.3.0).

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >