Search Results

Search found 7802 results on 313 pages for 'unit 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 25/313 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

  • Difficulty to start up with basic unit test (Sample from my book -- SportsStore)

    - by Richard77
    Hello, I'm really new in TDD and, actually, I'm trying to follow the sample from my book (SportsStore -- Pro ASP.NET MVC Framework/Steve Sanderson/APRESS). I'm on pages 103-105. Although there are more on this, as new to all of this, I'm concerned with the following statements. ProductsController controller = new ProductsController(repository); var result = controller.List(2); //... regarding the above statements, when I write this (as in the book), var products = result.ViewData.Model as IList<Product>; I get a compiler error "System.Web.MVC.ActionResult" does not contain a definition for ViewData ..." But, when I remove the List() from the statement, then the compiler error disapear. var result = controller.List(2);//Doesn't work var result = controller;//It works Is something wrong there? I checked Apress website for that book, but there is nothing listed as Errata or issue. So I'm really lost. Thanks for helping

    Read the article

  • Is there value in unit testing auto implemented properties

    - by ahsteele
    It seems exceptionally heavy handed but going by the rule anything publicly available should be tested should auto-implemented properties be tested? Customer Class public class Customer { public string EmailAddr { get; set; } } Tested by [TestClass] public class CustomerTests : TestClassBase { [TestMethod] public void CanSetCustomerEmailAddress() { //Arrange Customer customer = new Customer(); //Act customer.EmailAddr = "[email protected]"; //Assert Assert.AreEqual("[email protected]", customer.EmailAddr); } }

    Read the article

  • Why is django.test.client.Client not keeping me logged in.

    - by Mystic
    I'm using django.test.client.Client to test whether some text shows up when a user is logged in. However, I the Client object doesn't seem to be keeping me logged in. This test passes if done manually with Firefox but not when done with the Client object. class Test(TestCase): def test_view(self): user.set_password(password) user.save() client = self.client # I thought a more manual way would work, but no luck # client.post('/login', {'username':user.username, 'password':password}) login_successful = client.login(username=user.username, password=password) # this assert passes self.assertTrue(login_successful) response = client.get("/path", follow=True) #whether follow=True or not doesn't seem to work self.assertContains(response, "needle" ) When I print response it returns the login form that is hidden by: {% if not request.user.is_authenticated %} ... form ... {% endif %} This is confirmed when I run ipython manage.py shell. The problem seems to be that the Client object is not keeping the session authenticated.

    Read the article

  • How to unit test synchronized code

    - by gillJ
    Hi, I am new to Java and junit. I have the following peice of code that I want to test. Would appreciate if you could send your ideas about what's the best way to go about testing it. Basically, the following code is about electing a leader form a Cluster. The leader holds a lock on the shared cache and services of the leader get resumed and disposed if it somehow looses the lock on the cache. How can i make sure that a leader/thread still holds the lock on the cache and that another thread cannot get its services resumed while the first is in execution? public interface ContinuousService { public void resume(); public void pause(); } public abstract class ClusterServiceManager { private volatile boolean leader = false; private volatile boolean electable = true; private List<ContinuousService> services; protected synchronized void onElected() { if (!leader) { for (ContinuousService service : services) { service.resume(); } leader = true; } } protected synchronized void onDeposed() { if (leader) { for (ContinuousService service : services) { service.pause(); } leader = false; } } public void setServices(List<ContinuousService> services) { this.services = services; } @ManagedAttribute public boolean isElectable() { return electable; } @ManagedAttribute public boolean isLeader() { return leader; } public class TangosolLeaderElector extends ClusterServiceManager implements Runnable { private static final Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(TangosolLeaderElector.class); private String election; private long electionWaitTime= 5000L; private NamedCache cache; public void start() { log.info("Starting LeaderElector ({})",election); Thread t = new Thread(this, "LeaderElector ("+election+")"); t.setDaemon(true); t.start(); } public void run() { // Give the connection a chance to start itself up try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) {} boolean wasElectable = !isElectable(); while (true) { if (isElectable()) { if (!wasElectable) { log.info("Leadership requested on election: {}",election); wasElectable = isElectable(); } boolean elected = false; try { // Try and get the lock on the LeaderElectorCache for the current election if (!cache.lock(election, electionWaitTime)) { // We didn't get the lock. cycle round again. // This code to ensure we check the electable flag every now & then continue; } elected = true; log.info("Leadership taken on election: {}",election); onElected(); // Wait here until the services fail in some way. while (true) { try { Thread.sleep(electionWaitTime); } catch (InterruptedException e) {} if (!cache.lock(election, 0)) { log.warn("Cache lock no longer held for election: {}", election); break; } else if (!isElectable()) { log.warn("Node is no longer electable for election: {}", election); break; } // We're fine - loop round and go back to sleep. } } catch (Exception e) { if (log.isErrorEnabled()) { log.error("Leadership election " + election + " failed (try bfmq logs for details)", e); } } finally { if (elected) { cache.unlock(election); log.info("Leadership resigned on election: {}",election); onDeposed(); } // On deposition, do not try and get re-elected for at least the standard wait time. try { Thread.sleep(electionWaitTime); } catch (InterruptedException e) {} } } else { // Not electable - wait a bit and check again. if (wasElectable) { log.info("Leadership NOT requested on election ({}) - node not electable",election); wasElectable = isElectable(); } try { Thread.sleep(electionWaitTime); } catch (InterruptedException e) {} } } } public void setElection(String election) { this.election = election; } @ManagedAttribute public String getElection() { return election; } public void setNamedCache(NamedCache nc) { this.cache = nc; }

    Read the article

  • Visual studio 2008 unit test keeps failing

    - by Gerbrand
    I've create a method that calculates the harmonic mean based on a list of doubles. But when I'm running the test it keeps failing even thou the output result are the same. My harmonic mean method: public static double GetHarmonicMean(List<double> parameters) { var cumReciprocal = 0.0d; var countN = parameters.Count; foreach( var param in parameters) { cumReciprocal += 1.0d/param; } return 1.0d/(cumReciprocal/countN); } My test method: [TestMethod()] public void GetHarmonicMeanTest() { var parameters = new List<double> { 1.5d, 2.3d, 2.9d, 1.9d, 5.6d }; const double expected = 2.32432293165495; var actual = OwnFunctions.GetHarmonicMean(parameters); Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); } After running the test the following message is showing: Assert.AreEqual failed. Expected:<2.32432293165495. Actual:<2.32432293165495. For me that are both the same values. Can somebody explain this? Or am I doing something wrong?

    Read the article

  • Can Django flush its database(s) between every unit test

    - by mikem
    Django (1.2 beta) will reset the database(s) between every test that runs, meaning each test runs on an empty DB. However, the database(s) are not flushed. One of the effects of flushing the database is the auto_increment counters are reset. Consider a test which pulls data out of the database by primary key: class ChangeLogTest(django.test.TestCase): def test_one(self): do_something_which_creates_two_log_entries() log = LogEntry.objects.get(id=1) assert_log_entry_correct(log) log = LogEntry.objects.get(id=2) assert_log_entry_correct(log) This will pass because only two log entries were ever created. However, if another test is added to ChangeLogTest and it happens to run before test_one, the primary keys of the log entries are no longer 1 and 2, they might be 2 and 3. Now test_one fails. This is actually a two part question: Is it possible to force ./manage.py test to flush the database between each test case? Since Django doesn't flush the DB between each test by default, maybe there is a good reason. Does anyone know?

    Read the article

  • Why Create Mock Objects?

    - by Chris
    During a recent interview I was asked why one would want to create mock objects. My answer went something like, "Take a database--if you're writing test code, you may not want that test hooked up live to the production database where actual operations will be performed." Judging by response, my answer clearly was not what the interviewer was looking for. What's a better answer?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • GuestPost: Unit Testing Entity Framework (v1) Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator

    - by Eric Nelson
    Time for another guest post (check out others in the series), this time bringing together the world of mocking with the world of Entity Framework. A big thanks to Moses for agreeing to do this. Unit Testing Entity Framework Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator by Muhammad Mosa Introduction Unit testing data access code in my opinion is a challenging thing. Let us consider unit tests and integration tests. In integration tests you are allowed to have environmental dependencies such as a physical database connection to insert, update, delete or retrieve your data. However when performing unit tests it is often much more efficient and productive to remove environmental dependencies. Instead you will need to fake these dependencies. Faking a database (also known as mocking) can be relatively straight forward but the version of Entity Framework released with .Net 3.5 SP1 has a number of implementation specifics which actually makes faking the existence of a database quite difficult. Faking Entity Framework As mentioned earlier, to effectively unit test you will need to fake/simulate Entity Framework calls to the database. There are many free open source mocking frameworks that can help you achieve this but it will require additional effort to overcome & workaround a number of limitations in those frameworks. Examples of these limitations include: Not able to fake calls to non virtual methods Not able to fake sealed classes Not able to fake LINQ to Entities queries (replace database calls with in-memory collection calls) There is a mocking framework which is flexible enough to handle limitations such as those above. The commercially available TypeMock Isolator can do the job for you with less code and ultimately more readable unit tests. I’m going to demonstrate tackling one of those limitations using MoQ as my mocking framework. Then I will tackle the same issue using TypeMock Isolator. Mocking Entity Framework with MoQ One basic need when faking Entity Framework is to fake the ObjectContext. This cannot be done by passing any connection string. You have to pass a correct Entity Framework connection string that specifies CSDL, SSDL and MSL locations along with a provider connection string. Assuming we are going to do that, we’ll explore another limitation. The limitation we are going to face now is related to not being able to fake calls to non-virtual/overridable members with MoQ. I have the following repository method that adds an EntityObject (instance of a Blog entity) to Blogs entity set in an ObjectContext. public override void Add(Blog blog) { if(BlogContext.Blogs.Any(b=>b.Name == blog.Name)) { throw new InvalidOperationException("Blog with same name already exists!"); } BlogContext.AddToBlogs(blog); } The method does a very simple check that the name of the new Blog entity instance doesn’t exist. This is done through the simple LINQ query above. If the blog doesn’t already exist it simply adds it to the current context to be saved when SaveChanges of the ObjectContext instance (e.g. BlogContext) is called. However, if a blog with the same name exits, and exception (InvalideOperationException) will be thrown. Let us now create a unit test for the Add method using MoQ. [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException_When_Blog_With_Same_Name_Already_Exits() { //(1) We shouldn't depend on configuration when doing unit tests! But, //its a workaround to fake the ObjectContext string connectionString = ConfigurationManager .ConnectionStrings["MyBlogConnString"] .ConnectionString; //(2) Arrange: Fake ObjectContext var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); //(3) Next Line will pass, as ObjectContext now can be faked with proper connection string var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); //(4) Create fake ObjectQuery<Blog>. Will be used to substitute MyBlogContext.Blogs property var fakeObjectQuery = new Mock<ObjectQuery<Blog>>("[Blogs]", fakeContext.Object); //(5) Arrange: Set Expectations //Next line will throw an exception by MoQ: //System.ArgumentException: Invalid setup on a non-overridable member fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); //Act repo.Add(new Blog { Name = "NewBlog" }); } This test method is checking to see if the correct exception ([ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))]) is thrown when a developer attempts to Add a blog with a name that’s already exists. On (1) a connection string is initialized from configuration file. To retrieve the full connection string. On (2) a fake ObjectContext is being created. The ObjectContext here is MyBlogContext and its being created using this var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); This way a fake context is being created using MoQ. On (3) a BlogRepository instance is created. BlogRepository has dependency on generate Entity Framework ObjectContext, MyObjectContext. And so the fake context is passed to the constructor. var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); On (4) a fake instance of ObjectQuery<Blog> is being created to use as a substitute to MyObjectContext.Blogs property as we will see in (5). On (5) setup an expectation for calling Blogs property of MyBlogContext and substitute the return result with the fake ObjectQuery<Blog> instance created on (4). When you run this test it will fail with MoQ throwing an exception because of this line: fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); This happens because the generate property MyBlogContext.Blogs is not virtual/overridable. And assuming it is virtual or you managed to make it virtual it will fail at the following line throwing the same exception: fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); This time the test will fail because the Any extension method is not virtual/overridable. You won’t be able to replace ObjectQuery<Blog> with fake in memory collection to test your LINQ to Entities queries. Now lets see how replacing MoQ with TypeMock Isolator can help. Mocking Entity Framework with TypeMock Isolator The following is the same test method we had above for MoQ but this time implemented using TypeMock Isolator: [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_New_Blog_That_Already_Exists_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException() { //(1) Create fake in memory collection of blogs var fakeInMemoryBlogs = new List<Blog> {new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}}; //(2) create fake context var fakeContext = Isolate.Fake.Instance<MyBlogContext>(); //(3) Setup expected call to MyBlogContext.Blogs property through the fake context Isolate.WhenCalled(() => fakeContext.Blogs) .WillReturnCollectionValuesOf(fakeInMemoryBlogs.AsQueryable()); //(4) Create new blog with a name that already exits in the fake in memory collection in (1) var blog = new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}; //(5) Instantiate instance of BlogRepository (Class under test) var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext); //(6) Acting by adding the newly created blog () repo.Add(blog); } When running the above test method it will pass as the Add method of BlogRepository is going to throw an InvalidOperationException which is the expected behaviour. Nothing prevents us from faking out the database interaction! Even faking ObjectContext  at (2) didn’t require a connection string. On (3) Isolator sets up a faking result for MyBlogContext.Blogs when its being called through the fake instance fakeContext created on (2). The faking result is just an in-memory collection declared an initialized on (1). Finally at (6) action we call the Add method of BlogRepository passing a new Blog instance that has a name that’s already exists in the fake in-memory collection which we set up at (1). As expected the test will pass because it will throw the expected exception defined on top of the test method - InvalidOperationException. TypeMock Isolator succeeded in faking Entity Framework with ease. Conclusion We explored how to write a simple unit test using TypeMock Isolator for code which is using Entity Framework. We also explored a few of the limitations of other mocking frameworks which TypeMock is successfully able to handle. There are workarounds that you can use to overcome limitations when using MoQ or Rhino Mock, however the workarounds will require you to write more code and your tests will likely be more complex. For a comparison between different mocking frameworks take a look at this document produced by TypeMock. You might also want to check out this open source project to compare mocking frameworks. I hope you enjoyed this post Muhammad Mosa http://mosesofegypt.net/ http://twitter.com/mosessaur Screencast of unit testing Entity Framework Related Links GuestPost: Introduction to Mocking GuesPost: Typemock Isolator – Much more than an Isolation framework

    Read the article

  • Bit by bit comparison of using Java or Python for unit testing frameworks and Selenium

    - by Anirudh
    Currently we are in the process of finalizing which language out of Java, Python should be used for Automation using selenium webdriver and a suitable unit testing frameworks. I have made use of Junit, TestNG and webdriver while using with Java and have designed frameworks without much fuss before. I am new to python though I came across pyhton's unit testing frameworks like unittest, pyunit, nose e.t.c but I have doubts if they would be as successful as testNG or Java. I would like to analyze point by point when used with selenium webdriver as below: 1)I have read that as Python is an interpreted language hence it's execution is slower, so say if I have to run 1000 test cases which take about 6 hours to run in Java, would python take considerably longer time for the same test cases like 8 hours? 2)Can the Python unit testing framework be as flexible as a Java unit testing framework like testNG in terms or Grouping the tests, parallel execution, skipping test. e.t.c 3)Also one point that I think of is that Python with selenium webdriver doeasn't have as big or learned community as we have for Java with webdriver, say if I run into trouble with something I am more likely to find an answer for Java as compared to python? 4)Somewhat related to point 3, is it safe to rely on tools, plugins or even webderiver's python's binding as a continuously well maintained? 5)One major drawback as I see while using python's unit testing framework is lack of boilerplate code or libraries for nicely illustrative HTML reports preferably historical reports with Pie charts, bar graphs and timelines as we have in case of Java like Allure, TestNG's default reports, reportNG or Junit reports with the help of ANT as shown below Allure Reports Junit Historical reports Also I would like to emphasize on the fact if there is a way for one to write the framework in java and make libraries or utilities according to out application in webdriver which can easily be called or integrated in with python code or modules? That would actually solve the problem for us as the client would be able to use the code we write in Java and make use of the same or call it from their python modules?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing internal methods in a strongly named assembly/project

    - by Rohit Gupta
    If you need create Unit tests for internal methods within a assembly in Visual Studio 2005 or greater, then we need to add an entry in the AssemblyInfo.cs file of the assembly for which you are creating the units tests for. For e.g. if you need to create tests for a assembly named FincadFunctions.dll & this assembly contains internal/friend methods within which need to write unit tests for then we add a entry in the FincadFunctions.dll’s AssemblyInfo.cs file like so : 1: [assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.InternalsVisibleTo("FincadFunctionsTests")] where FincadFunctionsTests is the name of the Unit Test project which contains the Unit Tests. However if the FincadFunctions.dll is a strongly named assembly then you will the following error when compiling the FincadFunctions.dll assembly :      Friend assembly reference “FincadFunctionsTests” is invalid. Strong-name assemblies must specify a public key in their InternalsVisibleTo declarations. Thus to add a public key token to InternalsVisibleTo Declarations do the following: You need the .snk file that was used to strong-name the FincadFunctions.dll assembly. You can extract the public key from this .snk with the sn.exe tool from the .NET SDK. First we extract just the public key from the key pair (.snk) file into another .snk file. sn -p test.snk test.pub Then we ask for the value of that public key (note we need the long hex key not the short public key token): sn -tp test.pub We end up getting a super LONG string of hex, but that's just what we want, the public key value of this key pair. We add it to the strongly named project "FincadFunctions.dll" that we want to expose our internals from. Before what looked like: 1: [assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.InternalsVisibleTo("FincadFunctionsTests")] Now looks like. 1: [assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.InternalsVisibleTo("FincadFunctionsTests, 2: PublicKey=002400000480000094000000060200000024000052534131000400000100010011fdf2e48bb")] And we're done. hope this helps

    Read the article

  • Introducing QuickUnit

    - by RoyOsherove
    A friend of mine, Ariel, just finished up his latest project, in the unit testing world – called QuickUnit. From the site: QuickUnit significantly reduces the time needed to design and generate high-quality unit tests. I see it as an interactive unit test generator with all the options for isolation included. give it a whirl

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • How do you handle measuring Code Coverage in JavaScript

    - by Dancrumb
    In order to measure Code Coverage for JavaScript unit tests, one needs to instrument the code, run the tests and then perform post-processing. My concern is that, as a result, you are unit testing code that will never be run in production. Since JavaScript isn't compiled, what you test should be precisely what you execute. So here's my question, how do you handle this? One thought I had was to run Unit Testing on the production code and use that for my pass fail. I would then create a shadow of my production code, with instrumentation and run my unit tests again; this would give me my code coverage stats. Has anyone come across a method that is a little more graceful than this?

    Read the article

  • Benefits of Behavior Driven Development

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/07/26/benefits-of-behavior-driven-development.aspxContinuing my previous article on BDD, I wanted to point out some benefits of BDD and since BDD is an extension of Test Driven Development (TDD), you get those as well. I’ll add another article on some possible downsides of this approach. There are many articles about the benefits of TDD and they apply to BDD. I’ve pointed out some here and copied some of the main points for each article, but there are many more including the book The Art of Unit Testing by Roy Osherove. http://geekswithblogs.net/leesblog/archive/2008/04/30/the-benefits-of-test-driven-development.aspx (Lee Brandt) Stability Accountability Design Ability Separated Concerns Progress Indicator http://tddftw.com/benefits-of-tdd/ Help maintainers understand the intention behind the code Bring validation and proper data handling concerns to the forefront. Writing the tests first is fun. Better APIs come from writing testable code. TDD will make you a better developer. http://www.slideshare.net/dhelper/benefit-from-unit-testing-in-the-real-world (from Typemock). Take a look at the slides, especially the extra time required for TDD (slide 10) and the next one of the bugs avoided using TDD (slide 11). Less bugs (slide 11) about testing and development (13) Increase confidence in code (14) Fearlessly change your code (14) Document Requirements (14) also see http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2013/06/01/roc-rocks.aspx Discover usability issues early (14) All these points and articles are great and there are many more. The following are my additions to the benefits of BDD from using it in real projects for my company. July 2013 on MSDN - Behavior-Driven Design with SpecFlow Scott Allen did a very informative TDD and MVC module, but to me he is doing BDDCompile and Execute Requirements in Microsoft .NET ~ Video from TechEd 2012 Communication I was working through a complicated task that the decision tree kept growing. After writing out the Given, When, Then of the scenario, I was able tell QA what I had worked through for their initial test cases. They were able to add from there. It is also useful to use this language with other developers, managers, or clients to help make informed decisions on if it meets the requirements or if it can simplified to save time (money). Thinking through solutions, before starting to code This was the biggest benefit to me. I like to jump into coding to figure out the problem. Many times I don't understand my path well enough and have to do some parts over. A past supervisor told me several times during reviews that I need to get better at seeing "the forest for the trees". When I sit down and write out the behavior that I need to implement, I force myself to think things out further and catch scenarios before they get to QA. A co-worker that is new to BDD and we’ve been using it in our new project for the last 6 months, said “It really clarifies things”. It took him awhile to understand it all, but now he’s seeing the value of this approach (yes there are some downsides, but that is a different issue). Developers’ Confidence This is huge for me. With tests in place, my confidence grows that I won’t break code that I’m not directly changing. In the past, I’ve worked on projects with out tests and we would frequently find regression bugs (or worse the users would find them). That isn’t fun. We don’t catch all problems with the tests, but when QA catches one, I can write a test to make sure it doesn’t happen again. It’s also good for Releasing code, telling your manager that it’s good to go. As time goes on and the code gets older, how confident are you that checking in code won’t break something somewhere else? Merging code - pre release confidence If you’re merging code a lot, it’s nice to have the tests to help ensure you didn’t merge incorrectly. Interrupted work I had a task that I started and planned out, then was interrupted for a month because of different priorities. When I started it up again, and un-shelved my changes, I had the BDD specs and it helped me remember what I had figured out and what was left to do. It would have much more difficult without the specs and tests. Testing and verifying complicated scenarios Sometimes in the UI there are scenarios that get tricky, because there are a lot of steps involved (click here to open the dialog, enter the information, make sure it’s valid, when I click cancel it should do {x}, when I click ok it should close and do {y}, then do this, etc….). With BDD I can avoid some of the mouse clicking define the scenarios and have them re-run quickly, without using a mouse. UI testing is still needed, but this helps a bunch. The same can be true for tricky server logic. Documentation of Assumptions and Specifications The BDD spec tests (Jasmine or SpecFlow or other tool) also work as documentation and show what the original developer was trying to accomplish. It’s not a different Word document, so developers will keep this up to date, instead of letting it become obsolete. What happens if you leave the project (consulting, new job, etc) with no specs or at the least good comments in the code? Sometimes I think of a new scenario, so I add a failing spec and continue in the same stream of thought (don’t forget it because it was on a piece of paper or in a notepad). Then later I can come back and handle it and have it documented. Jasmine tests and JavaScript –> help deal with the non-typed system I like JavaScript, but I also dislike working with JavaScript. I miss C# telling me if a property doesn’t actually exist at build time. I like the idea of TypeScript and hope to use it more in the future. I also use KnockoutJs, which has observables that need to be called with ending (), since the observable is a function. It’s hard to remember when to use () or not and the Jasmine specs/tests help ensure the correct usage.   This should give you an idea of the benefits that I see in using the BDD approach. I’m sure there are more. It talks a lot of practice, investment and experimentation to figure out how to approach this and to get comfortable with it. I agree with Scott Allen in the video I linked above “Remember that TDD can take some practice. So if you're not doing test-driven design right now? You can start and practice and get better. And you'll reach a point where you'll never want to get back.”

    Read the article

  • Achieving decoupling in Model classes

    - by Guven
    I am trying to test-drive (or at least write unit tests) my Model classes but I noticed that my classes end up being too coupled. Since I can't break this coupling, writing unit tests is becoming harder and harder. To be more specific: Model Classes: These are the classes that hold the data in my application. They resemble pretty much the POJO (plain old Java objects), but they also have some methods. The application is not too big so I have around 15 model classes. Coupling: Just to give an example, think of a simple case of Order Header - Order Item. The header knows the item and the item knows the header (needs some information from the header for performing certain operations). Then, let's say there is the relationship between Order Item - Item Report. The item report needs the item as well. At this point, imagine writing tests for Item Report; you need have a Order Header to carry out the tests. This is a simple case with 3 classes; things get more complicated with more classes. I can come up with decoupled classes when I design algorithms, persistence layers, UI interactions, etc... but with model classes, I can't think of a way to separate them. They currently sit as one big chunk of classes that depend on each other. Here are some workarounds that I can think of: Data Generators: I have a package that generates sample data for my model classes. For example, the OrderHeaderGenerator class creates OrderHeaders with some basic data in it. I use the OrderHeaderGenerator from my ItemReport unit-tests so that I get an instance to OrderHeader class. The problem is these generators get complicated pretty fast and then I also need to test these generators; defeating the purpose a little bit. Interfaces instead of dependencies: I can come up with interfaces to get rid of the hard dependencies. For example, the OrderItem class would depend on the IOrderHeader interface. So, in my unit tests, I can easily mock the behaviour of an OrderHeader with a FakeOrderHeader class that implements the IOrderHeader interface. The problem with this approach is the complexity that the Model classes would end up having. Would you have other ideas on how to break this coupling in the model classes? Or, how to make it easier to unit-test the model classes?

    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 >