Search Results

Search found 4783 results on 192 pages for 'tests'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 25/192 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

  • I do not write tests. Am I stupid?

    - by Josh Stodola
    I've done a little bit of reading on unit testing and TDD, and I've never seriously considered writing tests to such a precise extent. Granted, I am not working on any projects that are ridiculously huge. If all I build are small apps, am I stupid for not writing tests? Edit: To clarify, when I say "small apps", I mean apps that are not going to control a persons life and/or their belongings. I generally build things that are supposed to make peoples lives easier and to make them more efficient.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to get code coverage data for a GWT web app running tests from the web browser?

    - by jeff
    I am not sure if this is possible but I would like some way to get code coverage information for tests that are written in Quick Test for our GWT based web app. It does not seem like there is any solution because the Quick Test Pro tests are testing against the GWT compiled app and not the original java code in which the app was written. I suppose I could get coverage data on the javascript that the GWT compiler creates, but there would be no way for me (that I know of) to map this information back to the original java code. Is there some way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Where to put my xUnit tests for an F# assembly?

    - by Benjol
    I'm working on my first 'real' F# assembly, and trying to do things right. I've managed to get xUnit working too, but currently my test module is inside the same assembly. This bothers me a bit, because it means I'll be shipping an assembly where nearly half the code (and 80% of the API) is test methods. What is the 'right' way to do this? If I put the tests in another assembly, I think that means I have to expose internals that I'd rather keep private. I know that in C# there is a friend mechanism for tests (if that's the right terminology), is there an equivalent in F#? Alternatively, can anyone point me to an example project where this is being done 'properly'?

    Read the article

  • using ruby test and selenium grid how can I keep the same browser window for multiple tests?

    - by George Horlacher
    Each of my tests start a new selenium client browser and tear it down so they can run stand alone with this code: def setup if $selenium @selenium = $selenium else @selenium = Selenium::SeleniumDriver.new("#$sell_server", 4444, "#$browser", "http://#$network.#$host:2086", 10000); @selenium.start end @selenium.set_context("test_login") end def teardown @selenium.stop unless $selenium assert_equal [], @verification_errors end What I'd like is to run a suite of tests that all use the same browser and don't keep opening and closing new browsers for every test. I've tried using $selenium as a global object / browser but each test still opens up a new browser and closes it. How should this be done?

    Read the article

  • When using Microsoft Test Manager 2010 with SfTS, how do QA engineers know what tests they have to run?

    - by MADCookie
    We are moving our projects to TFS 2010 using the SfTS v3 (Scrum for Team System) template. We need to understand how Microsoft Test Manager is supposed to be used in this Scrum process. Specific scenario & question: The QA manager uses Test Manager to create Acceptance Test Work Items (WIs). These new WIs are created and "assigned to" him. The manager doesn't run all the tests, instead he wants to give that responsibility to his staff. How is a QA engineer supposed to know that he has tests to run? Everything says it is assigned to the manager.

    Read the article

  • Rails - How do you dynamically call the request methods "get put destroy etc" at runtime in tests

    - by adam
    I'm always writing tests to check my controller restricts people from certain actions depending on their status i.e. logged in, admin? etc Regardless of whether its a get to :index or a puts to :create the code is always the same. I'm trying to refactor this so that i have one method such as should_redirect_unauthenticated_to_login_action(request, action) and call it like so should_redirect_unauthenticated_to_login_action(:get, :index) = get :index But not sure how to dynamically call the various response methods rails provides for functional tests which seem to live in the module ActionController I mucked around with module = Kernel.const_get("ActionController") module::TestProcess.get NoMethodError: undefined method `get' for ActionController::TestProcess:Module can anyone help (im very new to dynamic calling in ruby)

    Read the article

  • Is there any way to generate a set of JWebUnit tests from an apache rewrite config?

    - by robbbbbb
    Seems unlikely, but is there any way to generate a set of unit tests for the following rewrite rule: RewriteRule ^/(user|group|country)/([a-z]+)/(photos|videos)$ http:/whatever?type=$1&entity=$2&resource=$3 From this I'd like to generate a set of urls of the form: /user/foo/photos /user/bar/photos /group/baz/videos /country/bar/photos etc... The reason I don't want to just do this once by hand is that I'd like the bounded alternation groups (e.g. (user|group|country)) to be able to grow and maintain coverage without having the update the tests by hand. Is there a rewrite rule or regex parser that might be able to do this, or am I doing it by hand?

    Read the article

  • With which class to start Test Driven Development of card game application? And what would be the next 5 to 7 tests?

    - by Maxis
    I have started to write card game applications. Some model classes: CardSuit, CardValue, Card Deck, IDeckCreator, RegularDeckCreator, DoubleDeckCreator Board Hand and some game classes: Turn, TurnHandler IPlayer, ComputerPlayer, HumanPlayer IAttackStrategy, SimpleAttachStrategy, IDefenceStrategy, SimpleDefenceStrategy GameData, Game are already written. My idea is to create engine, where two computer players could play game and then later I could add UI part. Already for some time I'm reading about Test Driven Development (TDD) and I have idea to start writing application from scratch, as currently I have tendency to write not needed code, which seems usable in future. Also code doesn't have any tests and it is hard to add them now. Seems that TDD could improve all these issue - minimum of needed code, good test coverage and also could help to come to right application design. But I have one issue - I can't decide from where to start TDD? Should I start from bottom - Card related classes or somewhere on top - Game, TurnHandler, ... ? With which class you would start? And what would be the next 5 to 7 tests? (use the card game you know the best) I would like to start TDD with your help and then continue on my own!

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET Frameworks and Raw Throughput Performance

    - by Rick Strahl
    A few days ago I had a curious thought: With all these different technologies that the ASP.NET stack has to offer, what's the most efficient technology overall to return data for a server request? When I started this it was mere curiosity rather than a real practical need or result. Different tools are used for different problems and so performance differences are to be expected. But still I was curious to see how the various technologies performed relative to each just for raw throughput of the request getting to the endpoint and back out to the client with as little processing in the actual endpoint logic as possible (aka Hello World!). I want to clarify that this is merely an informal test for my own curiosity and I'm sharing the results and process here because I thought it was interesting. It's been a long while since I've done any sort of perf testing on ASP.NET, mainly because I've not had extremely heavy load requirements and because overall ASP.NET performs very well even for fairly high loads so that often it's not that critical to test load performance. This post is not meant to make a point  or even come to a conclusion which tech is better, but just to act as a reference to help understand some of the differences in perf and give a starting point to play around with this yourself. I've included the code for this simple project, so you can play with it and maybe add a few additional tests for different things if you like. Source Code on GitHub I looked at this data for these technologies: ASP.NET Web API ASP.NET MVC WebForms ASP.NET WebPages ASMX AJAX Services  (couldn't get AJAX/JSON to run on IIS8 ) WCF Rest Raw ASP.NET HttpHandlers It's quite a mixed bag, of course and the technologies target different types of development. What started out as mere curiosity turned into a bit of a head scratcher as the results were sometimes surprising. What I describe here is more to satisfy my curiosity more than anything and I thought it interesting enough to discuss on the blog :-) First test: Raw Throughput The first thing I did is test raw throughput for the various technologies. This is the least practical test of course since you're unlikely to ever create the equivalent of a 'Hello World' request in a real life application. The idea here is to measure how much time a 'NOP' request takes to return data to the client. So for this request I create the simplest Hello World request that I could come up for each tech. Http Handler The first is the lowest level approach which is an HTTP handler. public class Handler : IHttpHandler { public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { context.Response.ContentType = "text/plain"; context.Response.Write("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString()); } public bool IsReusable { get { return true; } } } WebForms Next I added a couple of ASPX pages - one using CodeBehind and one using only a markup page. The CodeBehind page simple does this in CodeBehind without any markup in the ASPX page: public partial class HelloWorld_CodeBehind : System.Web.UI.Page { protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { Response.Write("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString() ); Response.End(); } } while the Markup page only contains some static output via an expression:<%@ Page Language="C#" AutoEventWireup="false" CodeBehind="HelloWorld_Markup.aspx.cs" Inherits="AspNetFrameworksPerformance.HelloWorld_Markup" %> Hello World. Time is <%= DateTime.Now %> ASP.NET WebPages WebPages is the freestanding Razor implementation of ASP.NET. Here's the simple HelloWorld.cshtml page:Hello World @DateTime.Now WCF REST WCF REST was the token REST implementation for ASP.NET before WebAPI and the inbetween step from ASP.NET AJAX. I'd like to forget that this technology was ever considered for production use, but I'll include it here. Here's an OperationContract class: [ServiceContract(Namespace = "")] [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)] public class WcfService { [OperationContract] [WebGet] public Stream HelloWorld() { var data = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes("Hello World" + DateTime.Now.ToString()); var ms = new MemoryStream(data); // Add your operation implementation here return ms; } } WCF REST can return arbitrary results by returning a Stream object and a content type. The code above turns the string result into a stream and returns that back to the client. ASP.NET AJAX (ASMX Services) I also wanted to test ASP.NET AJAX services because prior to WebAPI this is probably still the most widely used AJAX technology for the ASP.NET stack today. Unfortunately I was completely unable to get this running on my Windows 8 machine. Visual Studio 2012  removed adding of ASP.NET AJAX services, and when I tried to manually add the service and configure the script handler references it simply did not work - I always got a SOAP response for GET and POST operations. No matter what I tried I always ended up getting XML results even when explicitly adding the ScriptHandler. So, I didn't test this (but the code is there - you might be able to test this on a Windows 7 box). ASP.NET MVC Next up is probably the most popular ASP.NET technology at the moment: MVC. Here's the small controller: public class MvcPerformanceController : Controller { public ActionResult Index() { return View(); } public ActionResult HelloWorldCode() { return new ContentResult() { Content = "Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString() }; } } ASP.NET WebAPI Next up is WebAPI which looks kind of similar to MVC. Except here I have to use a StringContent result to return the response: public class WebApiPerformanceController : ApiController { [HttpGet] public HttpResponseMessage HelloWorldCode() { return new HttpResponseMessage() { Content = new StringContent("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString(), Encoding.UTF8, "text/plain") }; } } Testing Take a minute to think about each of the technologies… and take a guess which you think is most efficient in raw throughput. The fastest should be pretty obvious, but the others - maybe not so much. The testing I did is pretty informal since it was mainly to satisfy my curiosity - here's how I did this: I used Apache Bench (ab.exe) from a full Apache HTTP installation to run and log the test results of hitting the server. ab.exe is a small executable that lets you hit a URL repeatedly and provides counter information about the number of requests, requests per second etc. ab.exe and the batch file are located in the \LoadTests folder of the project. An ab.exe command line  looks like this: ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorld which hits the specified URL 100,000 times with a load factor of 20 concurrent requests. This results in output like this:   It's a great way to get a quick and dirty performance summary. Run it a few times to make sure there's not a large amount of varience. You might also want to do an IISRESET to clear the Web Server. Just make sure you do a short test run to warm up the server first - otherwise your first run is likely to be skewed downwards. ab.exe also allows you to specify headers and provide POST data and many other things if you want to get a little more fancy. Here all tests are GET requests to keep it simple. I ran each test: 100,000 iterations Load factor of 20 concurrent connections IISReset before starting A short warm up run for API and MVC to make sure startup cost is mitigated Here is the batch file I used for the test: IISRESET REM make sure you add REM C:\Program Files (x86)\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.2\bin REM to your path so ab.exe can be found REM Warm up ab.exe -n100 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/MvcPerformance/HelloWorldJsonab.exe -n100 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorldJson ab.exe -n100 -c20 http://localhost/AspNetPerf/WcfService.svc/HelloWorld ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/handler.ashx > handler.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/HelloWorld_CodeBehind.aspx > AspxCodeBehind.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/HelloWorld_Markup.aspx > AspxMarkup.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/AspNetPerf/WcfService.svc/HelloWorld > Wcf.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/MvcPerformance/HelloWorldCode > Mvc.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorld > WebApi.txt I ran each of these tests 3 times and took the average score for Requests/second, with the machine otherwise idle. I did see a bit of variance when running many tests but the values used here are the medians. Part of this has to do with the fact I ran the tests on my local machine - result would probably more consistent running the load test on a separate machine hitting across the network. I ran these tests locally on my laptop which is a Dell XPS with quad core Sandibridge I7-2720QM @ 2.20ghz and a fast SSD drive on Windows 8. CPU load during tests ran to about 70% max across all 4 cores (IOW, it wasn't overloading the machine). Ideally you can try running these tests on a separate machine hitting the local machine. If I remember correctly IIS 7 and 8 on client OSs don't throttle so the performance here should be Results Ok, let's cut straight to the chase. Below are the results from the tests… It's not surprising that the handler was fastest. But it was a bit surprising to me that the next fastest was WebForms and especially Web Forms with markup over a CodeBehind page. WebPages also fared fairly well. MVC and WebAPI are a little slower and the slowest by far is WCF REST (which again I find surprising). As mentioned at the start the raw throughput tests are not overly practical as they don't test scripting performance for the HTML generation engines or serialization performances of the data engines. All it really does is give you an idea of the raw throughput for the technology from time of request to reaching the endpoint and returning minimal text data back to the client which indicates full round trip performance. But it's still interesting to see that Web Forms performs better in throughput than either MVC, WebAPI or WebPages. It'd be interesting to try this with a few pages that actually have some parsing logic on it, but that's beyond the scope of this throughput test. But what's also amazing about this test is the sheer amount of traffic that a laptop computer is handling. Even the slowest tech managed 5700 requests a second, which is one hell of a lot of requests if you extrapolate that out over a 24 hour period. Remember these are not static pages, but dynamic requests that are being served. Another test - JSON Data Service Results The second test I used a JSON result from several of the technologies. I didn't bother running WebForms and WebPages through this test since that doesn't make a ton of sense to return data from the them (OTOH, returning text from the APIs didn't make a ton of sense either :-) In these tests I have a small Person class that gets serialized and then returned to the client. The Person class looks like this: public class Person { public Person() { Id = 10; Name = "Rick"; Entered = DateTime.Now; } public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public DateTime Entered { get; set; } } Here are the updated handler classes that use Person: Handler public class Handler : IHttpHandler { public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { var action = context.Request.QueryString["action"]; if (action == "json") JsonRequest(context); else TextRequest(context); } public void TextRequest(HttpContext context) { context.Response.ContentType = "text/plain"; context.Response.Write("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString()); } public void JsonRequest(HttpContext context) { var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(new Person(), Formatting.None); context.Response.ContentType = "application/json"; context.Response.Write(json); } public bool IsReusable { get { return true; } } } This code adds a little logic to check for a action query string and route the request to an optional JSON result method. To generate JSON, I'm using the same JSON.NET serializer (JsonConvert.SerializeObject) used in Web API to create the JSON response. WCF REST   [ServiceContract(Namespace = "")] [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)] public class WcfService { [OperationContract] [WebGet] public Stream HelloWorld() { var data = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes("Hello World " + DateTime.Now.ToString()); var ms = new MemoryStream(data); // Add your operation implementation here return ms; } [OperationContract] [WebGet(ResponseFormat=WebMessageFormat.Json,BodyStyle=WebMessageBodyStyle.WrappedRequest)] public Person HelloWorldJson() { // Add your operation implementation here return new Person(); } } For WCF REST all I have to do is add a method with the Person result type.   ASP.NET MVC public class MvcPerformanceController : Controller { // // GET: /MvcPerformance/ public ActionResult Index() { return View(); } public ActionResult HelloWorldCode() { return new ContentResult() { Content = "Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString() }; } public JsonResult HelloWorldJson() { return Json(new Person(), JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet); } } For MVC all I have to do for a JSON response is return a JSON result. ASP.NET internally uses JavaScriptSerializer. ASP.NET WebAPI public class WebApiPerformanceController : ApiController { [HttpGet] public HttpResponseMessage HelloWorldCode() { return new HttpResponseMessage() { Content = new StringContent("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString(), Encoding.UTF8, "text/plain") }; } [HttpGet] public Person HelloWorldJson() { return new Person(); } [HttpGet] public HttpResponseMessage HelloWorldJson2() { var response = new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.OK); response.Content = new ObjectContent<Person>(new Person(), GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Formatters.JsonFormatter); return response; } } Testing and Results To run these data requests I used the following ab.exe commands:REM JSON RESPONSES ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/Handler.ashx?action=json > HandlerJson.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/MvcPerformance/HelloWorldJson > MvcJson.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorldJson > WebApiJson.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/AspNetPerf/WcfService.svc/HelloWorldJson > WcfJson.txt The results from this test run are a bit interesting in that the WebAPI test improved performance significantly over returning plain string content. Here are the results:   The performance for each technology drops a little bit except for WebAPI which is up quite a bit! From this test it appears that WebAPI is actually significantly better performing returning a JSON response, rather than a plain string response. Snag with Apache Benchmark and 'Length Failures' I ran into a little snag with Apache Benchmark, which was reporting failures for my Web API requests when serializing. As the graph shows performance improved significantly from with JSON results from 5580 to 6530 or so which is a 15% improvement (while all others slowed down by 3-8%). However, I was skeptical at first because the WebAPI test reports showed a bunch of errors on about 10% of the requests. Check out this report: Notice the Failed Request count. What the hey? Is WebAPI failing on roughly 10% of requests when sending JSON? Turns out: No it's not! But it took some sleuthing to figure out why it reports these failures. At first I thought that Web API was failing, and so to make sure I re-ran the test with Fiddler attached and runiisning the ab.exe test by using the -X switch: ab.exe -n100 -c10 -X localhost:8888 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorldJson which showed that indeed all requests where returning proper HTTP 200 results with full content. However ab.exe was reporting the errors. After some closer inspection it turned out that the dates varying in size altered the response length in dynamic output. For example: these two results: {"Id":10,"Name":"Rick","Entered":"2012-09-04T10:57:24.841926-10:00"} {"Id":10,"Name":"Rick","Entered":"2012-09-04T10:57:24.8519262-10:00"} are different in length for the number which results in 68 and 69 bytes respectively. The same URL produces different result lengths which is what ab.exe reports. I didn't notice at first bit the same is happening when running the ASHX handler with JSON.NET result since it uses the same serializer that varies the milliseconds. Moral: You can typically ignore Length failures in Apache Benchmark and when in doubt check the actual output with Fiddler. Note that the other failure values are accurate though. Another interesting Side Note: Perf drops over Time As I was running these tests repeatedly I was finding that performance steadily dropped from a startup peak to a 10-15% lower stable level. IOW, with Web API I'd start out with around 6500 req/sec and in subsequent runs it keeps dropping until it would stabalize somewhere around 5900 req/sec occasionally jumping lower. For these tests this is why I did the IIS RESET and warm up for individual tests. This is a little puzzling. Looking at Process Monitor while the test are running memory very quickly levels out as do handles and threads, on the first test run. Subsequent runs everything stays stable, but the performance starts going downwards. This applies to all the technologies - Handlers, Web Forms, MVC, Web API - curious to see if others test this and see similar results. Doing an IISRESET then resets everything and performance starts off at peak again… Summary As I stated at the outset, these were informal to satiate my curiosity not to prove that any technology is better or even faster than another. While there clearly are differences in performance the differences (other than WCF REST which was by far the slowest and the raw handler which was by far the highest) are relatively minor, so there is no need to feel that any one technology is a runaway standout in raw performance. Choosing a technology is about more than pure performance but also about the adequateness for the job and the easy of implementation. The strengths of each technology will make for any minor performance difference we see in these tests. However, to me it's important to get an occasional reality check and compare where new technologies are heading. Often times old stuff that's been optimized and designed for a time of less horse power can utterly blow the doors off newer tech and simple checks like this let you compare. Luckily we're seeing that much of the new stuff performs well even in V1.0 which is great. To me it was very interesting to see Web API perform relatively badly with plain string content, which originally led me to think that Web API might not be properly optimized just yet. For those that caught my Tweets late last week regarding WebAPI's slow responses was with String content which is in fact considerably slower. Luckily where it counts with serialized JSON and XML WebAPI actually performs better. But I do wonder what would make generic string content slower than serialized code? This stresses another point: Don't take a single test as the final gospel and don't extrapolate out from a single set of tests. Certainly Twitter can make you feel like a fool when you post something immediate that hasn't been fleshed out a little more <blush>. Egg on my face. As a result I ended up screwing around with this for a few hours today to compare different scenarios. Well worth the time… I hope you found this useful, if not for the results, maybe for the process of quickly testing a few requests for performance and charting out a comparison. Now onwards with more serious stuff… Resources Source Code on GitHub Apache HTTP Server Project (ab.exe is part of the binary distribution)© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in ASP.NET  Web Api   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • TDD - Red-Light-Green_Light:: A critical view

    - by Renso
    Subject: The concept of red-light-green-light for TDD/BDD style testing has been around since the dawn of time (well almost). Having written thousands of tests using this approach I find myself questioning the validity of the principle The issue: False positive or a valid test strategy that can be trusted? A critical view: I agree that the red-green-light concept has some validity, but who has ever written 2000 tests for a system that goes through a ton of chnages due to the organic nature fo the application and does not have to change, delete or restructure their existing tests? If you asnwer to the latter question is" "Yes I had a situation(s) where I had to refactor my code and it caused me to have to rewrite/change/delete my existing tests", read on, else press CTRL+ALT+Del :-) Once a test has been written, failed the test (red light), and then you comlpete your code and now get the green light for the last test, the test for that functionality is now in green light mode. It can never return to red light again as long as the test exists, even if the test itself is not changed, and only the code it tests is changed to fail the test. Why you ask? because the reason for the initial red-light when you created the test is not guaranteed to have triggered the initial red-light result for the same reasons it is now failing after a code change has been made. Furthermore, when the same test is changed to compile correctly in case of a compile-breaking code change, the green-light once again has been invalidated. Why? Because there is no guarantee that the test code fix is in the same green-light state as it was when it first ran successfully. To make matters worse, if you fix a compile-breaking test without going through the red-light-green-light test process, your test fix is essentially useless and very dangerous as it now provides you with a false-positive at best. Thinking your code has passed all tests and that it works correctly is far worse than not having any tests at all, well at least for that part of the system that the test-code represents. What to do? My recommendation is to delete the tests affected, and re-create them from scratch. I have to agree. Hard to do and justify if it has a significant impact on project deadlines. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Changing Your Design for Testability

    Sometimes I come across a way of putting something that it is pithy good, not Hallmark trite, but an impactful and concise way of clarifying a previously obscure concept. A recent one of these happy occurrences was when I was reading the excellent Art of Unit Testing by Roy Osherove. After going through the basics of why youd want to test code and how to do it, Roy confronts a frequent objection to having unit tests, that it ends up changing how you design your components: When we write unit tests for our code, we are adding another end user (the test) to the object model. That end user is just as important as the original one, but it has different goals when using the model.  The test has specific requirements from the object model that seem to defy the basic logic behind a couple of object-oriented principles, mainly encapsulation. [emphasis added by me] When I read this, something clicked for me. I used to find it persuasive that because unit tests caused you to change your design they were more disruptive than they were worth. The counter argument I heard is that the disruption was OK, because testable design was just obviously better. That argument was not convincing as it seemed like delusional arrogance to suggest that any one of type of design was just inherently better for the particular applications I was building. What was missing was that I was not thinking of unit tests as an additional and equal end user to my design. If I accepted that proposition, than it was indeed obvious that a testable design was better because now all users of my component would be satisfied. Have I accepted that proposition? Id phrase it slightly different. I find more and more that having unit tests helps me write better, less buggy code before it gets to production or QA. As I write more unit tests, it gets easier to see how to create testable components, so I dont feel like its taking me as much extra time up front. I pick and choose components that seem most likely to benefit from automated tests and it is working out nicely. If you already implement Test Driven Development, this whole post was probably a waste of your time <g> If you hate the idea of unit tests, well, probably not a great value prop for you either. However, if you are somewhere in between, at least take a minute and check out a sample chapter from Roys book at: http://www.manning.com/osherove/.Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Am I just not understanding TDD unit testing (Asp.Net MVC project)?

    - by KallDrexx
    I am trying to figure out how to correctly and efficiently unit test my Asp.net MVC project. When I started on this project I bought the Pro ASP.Net MVC, and with that book I learned about TDD and unit testing. After seeing the examples, and the fact that I work as a software engineer in QA in my current company, I was amazed at how awesome TDD seemed to be. So I started working on my project and went gun-ho writing unit tests for my database layer, business layer, and controllers. Everything got a unit test prior to implementation. At first I thought it was awesome, but then things started to go downhill. Here are the issues I started encountering: I ended up writing application code in order to make it possible for unit tests to be performed. I don't mean this in a good way as in my code was broken and I had to fix it so the unit test pass. I mean that abstracting out the database to a mock database is impossible due to the use of linq for data retrieval (using the generic repository pattern). The reason is that with linq-sql or linq-entities you can do joins just by doing: var objs = select p from _container.Projects select p.Objects; However, if you mock the database layer out, in order to have that linq pass the unit test you must change the linq to be var objs = select p from _container.Projects join o in _container.Objects on o.ProjectId equals p.Id select o; Not only does this mean you are changing your application logic just so you can unit test it, but you are making your code less efficient for the sole purpose of testability, and getting rid of a lot of advantages using an ORM has in the first place. Furthermore, since a lot of the IDs for my models are database generated, I proved to have to write additional code to handle the non-database tests since IDs were never generated and I had to still handle those cases for the unit tests to pass, yet they would never occur in real scenarios. Thus I ended up throwing out my database unit testing. Writing unit tests for controllers was easy as long as I was returning views. However, the major part of my application (and the one that would benefit most from unit testing) is a complicated ajax web application. For various reasons I decided to change the app from returning views to returning JSON with the data I needed. After this occurred my unit tests became extremely painful to write, as I have not found any good way to write unit tests for non-trivial json. After pounding my head and wasting a ton of time trying to find a good way to unit test the JSON, I gave up and deleted all of my controller unit tests (all controller actions are focused on this part of the app so far). So finally I was left with testing the Service layer (BLL). Right now I am using EF4, however I had this issue with linq-sql as well. I chose to do the EF4 model-first approach because to me, it makes sense to do it that way (define my business objects and let the framework figure out how to translate it into the sql backend). This was fine at the beginning but now it is becoming cumbersome due to relationships. For example say I have Project, User, and Object entities. One Object must be associated to a project, and a project must be associated to a user. This is not only a database specific rule, these are my business rules as well. However, say I want to do a unit test that I am able to save an object (for a simple example). I now have to do the following code just to make sure the save worked: User usr = new User { Name = "Me" }; _userService.SaveUser(usr); Project prj = new Project { Name = "Test Project", Owner = usr }; _projectService.SaveProject(prj); Object obj = new Object { Name = "Test Object" }; _objectService.SaveObject(obj); // Perform verifications There are many issues with having to do all this just to perform one unit test. There are several issues with this. For starters, if I add a new dependency, such as all projects must belong to a category, I must go into EVERY single unit test that references a project, add code to save the category then add code to add the category to the project. This can be a HUGE effort down the road for a very simple business logic change, and yet almost none of the unit tests I will be modifying for this requirement are actually meant to test that feature/requirement. If I then add verifications to my SaveProject method, so that projects cannot be saved unless they have a name with at least 5 characters, I then have to go through every Object and Project unit test to make sure that the new requirement doesn't make any unrelated unit tests fail. If there is an issue in the UserService.SaveUser() method it will cause all project, and object unit tests to fail and it the cause won't be immediately noticeable without having to dig through the exceptions. Thus I have removed all service layer unit tests from my project. I could go on and on, but so far I have not seen any way for unit testing to actually help me and not get in my way. I can see specific cases where I can, and probably will, implement unit tests, such as making sure my data verification methods work correctly, but those cases are few and far between. Some of my issues can probably be mitigated but not without adding extra layers to my application, and thus making more points of failure just so I can unit test. Thus I have no unit tests left in my code. Luckily I heavily use source control so I can get them back if I need but I just don't see the point. Everywhere on the internet I see people talking about how great TDD unit tests are, and I'm not just talking about the fanatical people. The few people who dismiss TDD/Unit tests give bad arguments claiming they are more efficient debugging by hand through the IDE, or that their coding skills are amazing that they don't need it. I recognize that both of those arguments are utter bullocks, especially for a project that needs to be maintainable by multiple developers, but any valid rebuttals to TDD seem to be few and far between. So the point of this post is to ask, am I just not understanding how to use TDD and automatic unit tests?

    Read the article

  • Are there any tests I can run on a network to simulate 100 heavy network users?

    - by marc.gayle
    I will be hosting a Ruby on Rails workshop at a small hotel in the near future, and while they have 'Wifi' everywhere on the property, and the property normally hosts 150 - 300 people, I am not 100% confident that they have hosted 150 tech people that tend to have heavy web surfing habits/needs. Their tech department is also 1 or 2 guys. Are there any automated tests I can download and run from my laptop, on the network, that would simulate 100 'heavy users' on the network at the same time? Their broadband pipe is a 15mbps cable connection. Would that suffice for the general surfing needs of 100 - 150 techies? I know all it takes is 1 or 2 bit torrenters to kill the entire network, but assuming we can at the very least block those ports or encourage the attendees not to file share on the network, would that speed suffice for general surfing needs? What are good resources online that would allow me to quickly get up to speed on the IT related issues, so that I can ask their sysadmins the right questions? Edit: Note that I am fairly technical, so assume I can get up to speed quickly even with technical manuals, etc.

    Read the article

  • Active Directory: trouble adding new DC

    - by ethrbunny
    I have a domain with 3 DCs. One is starting to fail so I brought up a new one. All are running Win 2003. Problem: there appear to be replication issues between the 4 machines but I can't figure out what's causing this. All are registered with the DNS as identically as I can make them. How do I know there is a problem? Nagios is telling me that the other 3 DCs are having KCCEvent errors and the new machine is reporting "failed connectivity" errors. Doing dcdiag on the new machine reports: the host could not be resolved to an IP address. This seems crazy as I log into it using the DNS name. I can ping it from the other three machines using this DNS name as well. repadmin /showreps from the new machine says its seeing the other 3 machines. Doing the same from one of the older machines doesn't show the new machine. I've tried netdiag /repair numerous times. No luck. There are no firewalls running on any of the machines. If I look at Domain info via MMC (on the new machine) it appears that all the information is current. Users, computers, DCs.. its all there. Im puzzled as to what step(s) I've missed in adding this new machine. Suggestions? EDIT: dcdiag from non-working: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator.BME>dcdiag Domain Controller Diagnosis Performing initial setup: Done gathering initial info. Doing initial required tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\YELLOW Starting test: Connectivity The host 312ce6ea-7909-4e15-aff6-45c3d1d9a0d9._msdcs.server.edu could not be resolved to an IP address. Check the DNS server, DHCP, server name, etc Although the Guid DNS name (312ce6ea-7909-4e15-aff6-45c3d1d9a0d9._msdcs.server.edu) couldn't be resolved, the server name (yellow.server.edu) resolved to the IP address (10.127.24.79) and was pingable. Check that the IP address is registered correctly with the DNS server. ......................... YELLOW failed test Connectivity Doing primary tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\YELLOW Skipping all tests, because server YELLOW is not responding to directory service requests Running partition tests on : Schema Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Schema passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Schema passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : Configuration Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Configuration passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Configuration passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : bme Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... bme passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... bme passed test CheckSDRefDom Running enterprise tests on : server.edu Starting test: Intersite ......................... server.edu passed test Intersite Starting test: FsmoCheck ......................... server.edu passed test FsmoCheck dcdiag from working: P:\>dcdiag Domain Controller Diagnosis Performing initial setup: Done gathering initial info. Doing initial required tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\AD1 Starting test: Connectivity ......................... AD1 passed test Connectivity Doing primary tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\AD1 Starting test: Replications ......................... AD1 passed test Replications Starting test: NCSecDesc ......................... AD1 passed test NCSecDesc Starting test: NetLogons ......................... AD1 passed test NetLogons Starting test: Advertising ......................... AD1 passed test Advertising Starting test: KnowsOfRoleHolders ......................... AD1 passed test KnowsOfRoleHolders Starting test: RidManager ......................... AD1 passed test RidManager Starting test: MachineAccount ......................... AD1 passed test MachineAccount Starting test: Services ......................... AD1 passed test Services Starting test: ObjectsReplicated ......................... AD1 passed test ObjectsReplicated Starting test: frssysvol ......................... AD1 passed test frssysvol Starting test: frsevent ......................... AD1 passed test frsevent Starting test: kccevent ......................... AD1 passed test kccevent Starting test: systemlog ......................... AD1 passed test systemlog Starting test: VerifyReferences ......................... AD1 passed test VerifyReferences Running partition tests on : Schema Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Schema passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Schema passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : Configuration Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Configuration passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Configuration passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : bme Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... bme passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... bme passed test CheckSDRefDom Running enterprise tests on : server.edu Starting test: Intersite ......................... server.edu passed test Intersite Starting test: FsmoCheck ......................... server.edu passed test FsmoCheck P:\>

    Read the article

  • Automating XNA Performance Testing?

    - by Grofit
    I was wondering what peoples approaches or thoughts were on automating performance testing in XNA. Currently I am looking at only working in 2d, but that poses many areas where performance can be improved with different implementations. An example would be if you had 2 different implementations of spatial partitioning, one may be faster than another but without doing some actual performance testing you wouldn't be able to tell which one for sure (unless you saw the code was blatantly slow in certain parts). You could write a unit test which for a given time frame kept adding/updating/removing entities for both implementations and see how many were made in each timeframe and the higher one would be the faster one (in this given example). Another higher level example would be if you wanted to see how many entities you can have on the screen roughly without going beneath 60fps. The problem with this is to automate it you would need to use the hidden form trick or some other thing to kick off a mock game and purely test which parts you care about and disable everything else. I know that this isnt a simple affair really as even if you can automate the tests, really it is up to a human to interpret if the results are performant enough, but as part of a build step you could have it run these tests and publish the results somewhere for comparison. This way if you go from version 1.1 to 1.2 but have changed a few underlying algorithms you may notice that generally the performance score would have gone up, meaning you have improved your overall performance of the application, and then from 1.2 to 1.3 you may notice that you have then dropped overall performance a bit. So has anyone automated this sort of thing in their projects, and if so how do you measure your performance comparisons at a high level and what frameworks do you use to test? As providing you have written your code so its testable/mockable for most parts you can just use your tests as a mechanism for getting some performance results... === Edit === Just for clarity, I am more interested in the best way to make use of automated tests within XNA to track your performance, not play testing or guessing by manually running your game on a machine. This is completely different to seeing if your game is playable on X hardware, it is more about tracking the change in performance as your game engine/framework changes. As mentioned in one of the comments you could easily test "how many nodes can I insert/remove/update within QuadTreeA within 2 seconds", but you have to physically look at these results every time to see if it has changed, which may be fine and is still better than just relying on playing it to see if you notice any difference between version. However if you were to put an Assert in to notify you of a fail if it goes lower than lets say 5000 in 2 seconds you have a brittle test as it is then contextual to the hardware, not just the implementation. Although that being said these sort of automated tests are only really any use if you are running your tests as some sort of build pipeline i.e: Checkout - Run Unit Tests - Run Integration Tests - Run Performance Tests - Package So then you can easily compare the stats from one build to another on the CI server as a report of some sort, and again this may not mean much to anyone if you are not used to Continuous Integration. The main crux of this question is to see how people manage this between builds and how they find it best to report upon. As I said it can be subjective but as knowledge will be gained from the answers it seems a worthwhile question.

    Read the article

  • What is the most idiomatic way to emulating Perl's Test::More::done_testing?

    - by DVK
    I have to build unit tests for in environment with a very old version of Test::More (perl5.8 with $Test::More::VERSION being '0.80') which predates the addition of done_testing(). Upgrading to newer Test::More is out of the question for practical reasons. And I am trying to avoid using no_tests - it's generally a bad idea not catching when your unit test exits prematurely - say due to some logic not executing when you expected it to. What is the most idiomatic way of running a configurable amount of tests, assuming no no_tests or done_testing() is used? Details: My unit tests usually take the form of: use Test::More; my @test_set = ( [ "Test #1", $param1, $param2, ... ] ,[ "Test #1", $param1, $param2, ... ] # ,... ); foreach my $test (@test_set) { run_test($test); } sub run_test { # $expected_tests += count_tests($test); ok(test1($test)) || diag("Test1 failed"); # ... } The standard approach of use Test::More tests => 23; or BEGIN {plan tests => 23} does not work since both are obviously executed before @tests is known. My current approach involves making @tests global and defining it in the BEGIN {} block as follows: use Test::More; BEGIN { our @test_set = (); # Same set of tests as above my $expected_tests = 0; foreach my $test (@tests) { my $expected_tests += count_tests($test); } plan tests = $expected_tests; } our @test_set; # Must do!!! Since first "our" was in BEGIN's scope :( foreach my $test (@test_set) { run_test($test); } # Same sub run_test {} # Same I feel this can be done more idiomatically but not certain how to improve. Chief among the smells is the duplicate our @test_test declarations - in BEGIN{} and after it. Another approach is to emulate done_testing() by calling Test::More->builder->plan(tests=>$total_tests_calculated). I'm not sure if it's any better idiomatically-wise.

    Read the article

  • Why can I run JUnit tests for my Spring project, but not a main method?

    - by FarmBoy
    I am using JDBC to connect to MySQL for a small application. In order to test without altering the real database, I'm using HSQL in memory for JUnit tests. I'm using Spring for DI and DAOs. Here is how I'm configuring my HSQL DataSource <bean id="mockDataSource" class="org.springframework.jdbc.datasource.SingleConnectionDataSource"> <property name="driverClassName" value="org.hsqldb.jdbcDriver"/> <property name="url" value="jdbc:hsqldb:mem:mockSeo"/> <property name="username" value="sa"/> </bean> This works fine for my JUnit tests which use the mock DB. But when I try to run a main method, I find the following error: Error creating bean with name 'mockDataSource' defined in class path resource [beans.xml]: Error setting property values; nested exception is org.springframework.beans.PropertyBatchUpdateException; nested PropertyAccessExceptions (1) are: PropertyAccessException 1: org.springframework.beans.MethodInvocationException: Property 'driverClassName' threw exception; nested exception is java.lang.IllegalStateException: Could not load JDBC driver class [org.hsqldb.jdbcDriver] I'm running from Eclipse, and I'm using the Maven plugin. Is there a reason why this would work as a Test, but not as a main()? I know that the main method itself is not the problem, because it works if I remove all references to the HSQL DataSource from my Spring Configuration file.

    Read the article

  • How should we setup up complex situations for tests?

    - by ShaneC
    I'm currently working on what I would call integration tests. I want to verify that if a WCF service is called it will do what I expect. Let's take a very simple scenario. Assume we have a contract object that we can put on hold or take off hold. Now writing the put on hold test is quite simple. You create a contract instance and execute the code that puts it on code. The question I have comes when we want to test the taking off hold service call. The problem is that putting a contract on hold can be actually quite complicated leading to various objects all be modified. So usually I would use the Builder pattern and do something like this.. var onHoldContract = new ContractBuilder().PutOnHold().Build(); The problem I have with this is now I have to pretty much replicate a large part of my put on hold service. Now when I change what putting something on hold means I have two places I have to modify. The other option that immediately jumps out at me is to just use the put on hold service as part of my test setup but now I'm coupling my test to the success of another piece of code which is something I don't like to do since it can lead to failures in one spot breaking unrelated tests elsewhere (if put on hold failed for example). Any other options I'm missing out here? or opinions on which method is preferable and why?

    Read the article

  • How can I run Ruby specs and/or tests in MacVim without locking up MacVim?

    - by Henry
    About 6 months ago I switched from TextMate to MacVim for all of my development work, which primarily consists of coding in Ruby, Ruby on Rails and JavaScript. With TextMate, whenever I needed to run a spec or a test, I could just command+R on the test or spec file and another window would open and the results would be displayed with the 'pretty' format applied. If the spec or test was a lengthy one, I could just continue working with the codebase since the test/spec was running in a separate process/window. After the test ran, I could click through the results directly to the corresponding line in the spec file. Tim Pope's excellent rails.vim plugin comes very close to emulating this behavior within the MacVim environment. Running :Rake when the current buffer is a test or spec runs the file then splits the buffer to display the results. You can navigate through the results and key through to the corresponding spot in the file. The problem with the rails.vim approach is that it locks up the MacVim window while the test runs. This can be an issue with big apps that might have a lot of setup/teardown built into the tests. Also, the visual red/green html results that TextMate displays (via --format pretty, I'm assuming) is a bit easier to scan than the split window. This guy came close about 18 mos ago: http://cassiomarques.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/running-rspec-files-from-vim-showing-the-results-in-firefox/ The script he has worked with a bit of hacking, but the tests still ran within MacVim and locked up the current window. Any ideas on how to fully replicate the TextMate behavior described above in MacVim? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What's the use of writing tests matching configuration-like code line by line?

    - by Pascal Van Hecke
    Hi, I have been wondering about the usefulness of writing tests that match code one-by-one. Just an example: in Rails, you can define 7 restful routes in one line in routes.rb using: resources :products BDD/TDD proscribes you test first and then write code. In order to test the full effect of this line, devs come up with macros e.g. for shoulda: http://kconrails.com/2010/01/27/route-testing-with-shoulda-in-ruby-on-rails/ class RoutingTest < ActionController::TestCase # simple should_map_resources :products end I'm not trying to pick on the guy that wrote the macros, this is just an example of a pattern that I see all over Rails. I'm just wondering what the use of it is... in the end you're just duplicating code and the only thing you test is that Rails works. You could as well write a tool that transforms your test macros into actual code... When I ask around, people answer me that: "the tests should document your code, so yes it makes sense to write them, even if it's just one line corresponding to one line" What are your thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Ant Junit tests are running much slower via ant than via IDE - what to look at?

    - by Alex B
    I am running my junit tests via ant and they are running substantially slower than via the IDE. My ant call is: <junit fork="yes" forkmode="once" printsummary="off"> <classpath refid="test.classpath"/> <formatter type="brief" usefile="false"/> <batchtest todir="${test.results.dir}/xml"> <formatter type="xml"/> <fileset dir="src" includes="**/*Test.java" /> </batchtest> </junit> The same test that runs in near instantaneously in my IDE (0.067s) takes 4.632s when run through Ant. In the past, I've been able to speed up test problems like this by using the junit fork parameter but this doesn't seem to be helping in this case. What properties or parameters can I look at to speed up these tests? More info: I am using the reported time from the IDE vs. the time that the junit task outputs. This is not the sum total time reported at the end of the ant run. So, bizarrely, this problem has resolved itself. What could have caused this problem? The system runs on a local disk so that is not the problem.

    Read the article

  • Are there any language agnostic unit testing frameworks?

    - by Bringer128
    I have always been skeptical of rewriting working code - porting code is no exception to this. However, with the advent of TDD and automated testing it is much more reasonable to rewrite and refactor code. Does anyone know if there is a TDD tool that can be used for porting old code? Ideally you could do the following: Write up language agnostic unit tests for the old code that pass (or fail if you find bugs!). Run unit tests on your other code base that fail. Write code in your new language that passes the tests without looking at the old code. The alternative would be to split step 1 into "Write up unit tests in language 1" and "Port unit tests to language 2", which significantly increases effort required and is difficult to justify if the old code base is going to stop being maintained after the port (that is, you don't get the benefit of continuous integration on this code base). EDIT: It's worth noting this question on StackOverflow.

    Read the article

  • How to set RAILS_ENV variable when running Rails tests?

    - by Jason
    In both my environment.rb and test_helper.rb files I have: ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = "development" I have one functional test written, however when I run it, the script tries to connect to my database using the "test" configuration settings which are in the database.ymal file & won't connect the the database. How can I run my tests using the "development" environment settings?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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