Search Results

Search found 38931 results on 1558 pages for 'database testing'.

Page 258/1558 | < Previous Page | 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265  | Next Page >

  • Mocking with Boost::Test

    - by Billy ONeal
    Hello everyone :) I'm using the Boost::Test library for unit testing, and I've in general been hacking up my own mocking solutions that look something like this: //In header for clients struct RealFindFirstFile { static HANDLE FindFirst(LPCWSTR lpFileName, LPWIN32_FIND_DATAW lpFindFileData) { return FindFirstFile(lpFileName, lpFindFileData); }; }; template <typename FirstFile_T = RealFindFirstFile> class DirectoryIterator { //.. Implementation } //In unit tests (cpp) #define THE_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_THE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING 42 struct FakeFindFirstFile { static HANDLE FindFirst(LPCWSTR lpFileName, LPWIN32_FIND_DATAW lpFindFileData) { return THE_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_THE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING; }; }; BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( MyTest ) { DirectoryIterator<FakeFindFirstFile> LookMaImMocked; //Test } I've grown frustrated with this because it requires that I implement almost everything as a template, and it is a lot of boilerplate code to achieve what I'm looking for. Is there a good method of mocking up code using Boost::Test over my Ad-hoc method? I've seen several people recommend Google Mock, but it requires a lot of ugly hacks if your functions are not virtual, which I would like to avoid. Oh: One last thing. I don't need assertions that a particular piece of code was called. I simply need to be able to inject data that would normally be returned by Windows API functions.

    Read the article

  • How to implement or emulate an "abstract" OCUnit test class?

    - by Quinn Taylor
    I have a number of Objective-C classes organized in an inheritance hierarchy. They all share a common parent which implements all the behaviors shared among the children. Each child class defines a few methods that make it work, and the parent class raises an exception for the methods designed to be implemented/overridden by its children. This effectively makes the parent a pseudo-abstract class (since it's useless on its own) even though Objective-C doesn't explicitly support abstract classes. The crux of this problem is that I'm unit testing this class hierarchy using OCUnit, and the tests are structured similarly: one test class that exercises the common behavior, with a subclass corresponding to each of the child classes under test. However, running the test cases on the (effectively abstract) parent class is problematic, since the unit tests will fail in spectacular fashion without the key methods. (The alternative of repeating the common tests across 5 test classes is not really an acceptable option.) The non-ideal solution I've been using is to check (in each test method) whether the instance is the parent test class, and bail out if it is. This leads to repeated code in every test method, a problem that becomes increasingly annoying if one's unit tests are highly granular. In addition, all such tests are still executed and reported as successes, skewing the number of meaningful tests that were actually run. What I'd prefer is a way to signal to OCUnit "Don't run any tests in this class, only run them in its child classes." To my knowledge, there isn't (yet) a way to do that, something similar to a +(BOOL)isAbstractTest method I can implement/override. Any ideas on a better way to solve this problem with minimal repetition? Does OCUnit have any ability to flag a test class in this way, or is it time to file a Radar? Edit: Here's a link to the test code in question. Notice the frequent repetition of if (...) return; to start a method, including use of the NonConcreteClass() macro for brevity.

    Read the article

  • Mocking View with RhinoMocks

    - by blu
    We are using MVP (Supervising Controller) for ASP.NET WebForms with 3.5 SP1. What is the preferred way to check the value of a view property that only has the a set operation with RhinoMocks? Here is what we have so far: var service = MockRepository.GenerateStub<IFooService>(); // stub some data for the method used in OnLoad in the presenter var view = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IFooView>(); var presenter = new FooPresenter(view, service); view.Raise(v => v.Load += null, this, EventArgs.Empty); Assert.IsTrue(view.Bars.Count == 10); // there is no get on Bars Should we use Expects or another way, any input would be great. Thanks Update based on Darin Dimitrov's reply. var bars = new List<Bar>() { new Bar() { BarId = 1 } }; var fooService = MockRepository.GenerateStub<IFooService>(); // this is called in OnLoad in the Presenter fooService.Stub(x => x.GetBars()).Return(bars); var view = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IFooView>(); var presenter = new FooPresenter(view, fooService); view.Raise(v => v.Load += null, this, EventArgs.Empty); view.AssertWasCalled(x => x.Bars = bars); // this does not pass This doesn't work. Should I be testing it this way or is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • How to mock the Request.ServerVariables using MOQ for ASP.NET MVC?

    - by melaos
    hi guys, i'm just learning to put in unit testing for my asp.net mvc when i came to learn about the mock and the different frameworks there is out there now. after checking SO, i found that MOQ seems to be the easiest to pick up. as of now i'm stuck trying to mock the Request.ServerVariables, as after reading this post, i've learned that it's better to abstract them into property. as such: /// <summary> /// Return the server port /// </summary> protected string ServerPort { get { return Request.ServerVariables.Get("SERVER_PORT"); } } But i'm having a hard time learning how to properly mock this. I have a home controller ActionResult function which grabs the user server information and proceed to create a form to grab the user's information. i tried to use hanselman's mvcmockhelpers class but i'm not sure how to use it. this is what i have so far... [Test] public void Create_Redirects_To_ProductAdded_On_Success() { FakeViewEngine engine = new FakeViewEngine(); HomeController controller = new HomeController(); controller.ViewEngine = engine; MvcMockHelpers.SetFakeControllerContext(controller); controller.Create(); var results = controller.Create(); var typedResults = results as RedirectToRouteResult; Assert.AreEqual("", typedResults.RouteValues["action"], "Wrong action"); Assert.AreEqual("", typedResults.RouteValues["controller"], "Wrong controller"); } Questions: As of now i'm still getting null exception error when i'm running the test. So what am i missing here? And if i use the mvcmockhelpers class, how can i still call the request.verifyall function to ensure all the mocking are properly setup?

    Read the article

  • Why is "rake tests" running an empty suite when I use shoulda?

    - by ryeguy
    So here is my test suite: class ReleaseTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase should_not_allow_values_for :title, '', 'blah', 'blah blah' should_allow_values_for :title, 'blah - bleh', 'blah blah - bleh bleh' def test_something assert true end end Shoulda's macros generate 5 tests, and then I have test_something below (just to see if that would matter), totalling 6 tests. They all pass as you can see below, but then it runs a 0-test suite. This happens even if I completely empty out ReleaseTest. This problem only exists if I have config.gem 'shoulda' in my environment.rb. If I explicitly do require 'shoulda' at the top of my tests, everything works fine. What would be causing this? /usr/bin/ruby -e STDOUT.sync=true;STDERR.sync=true;load($0=ARGV.shift) /var/lib/gems/1.9.1/bin/rake test Testing started at 6:58 PM ... (in /home/rlepidi/projects/rails/testproject) /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1 -I"lib:test" "/var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/unit/release_test.rb" Loaded suite /var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader Started ...... Finished in 0.029335778 seconds. 6 tests, 6 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 100% passed /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1 -I"lib:test" "/var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1 -I"lib:test" "/var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" Loaded suite /var/lib/gems/1.9.1/bin/rake Started Finished in 0.000106717 seconds. 0 tests, 0 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 0% passed Empty test suite.

    Read the article

  • Unit tests and Test Runner problems under .Net 4.0

    - by Brett Rigby
    Hi there, We're trying to migrate a .Net 3.5 solution into .Net 4.0, but are experiencing complications with the testing frameworks that can operate using an assembly that is built using version 4.0 of the .Net Framework. Previously, we used NUnit 2.4.3.0 and NCover 1.5.8.0 within our NAnt scripts, but NUnit 2.4.3.0 doesn't like .Net 4.0 projects. So, we upgraded to a newer version of the NUnit framework within the test project itself, but then found that NCover 1.5.8.0 doesn't support this version of NUnit. We get errors in the code saying words to the effect of the assembly was built using a newer version of the .Net Framework than is currently in use, as it's using .Net Framework 2.0 to run the tools. We then tried using Gallio's Icarus test runner GUI, but found that this and MbUnit only support up to version 3.5 of the .Net Frameword and the result is "the tests will be ignored". In terms of the coverage side of things (for reporting into CruiseControl.net), we have found that PartCover is a good candidate for substituting-out NCover, (as the newer version of NCover is quite dear, and PartCover is free), but this is a few steps down the line yet, as we can't get the test runners to work first!! Can any shed any light on a testnig framework that will run under .Net 4.0 in the same way as I've described above? If not, I fear we may have to revert back to using .Net 3.5 until the manufacturers of the tooling that we're currently using have a chance to upgrade to .Net 4.0. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How reliable is Verify() in Moq?

    - by matthewayinde
    I'm only new to Unit Testing and ASP.NET MVC. I've been trying to get my head into both using Steve Sanderson's "Pro ASP.NET MVC Framework". In the book there is this piece of code: public class AdminController : Controller { ... [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult Edit(Product product, HttpPostedFileBase image) { ... productsRepository.SaveProduct(product); TempData["message"] = product.Name + " has been saved."; return RedirectToAction("Index"); } } That he tests like so: [Test] public void Edit_Action_Saves_Product_To_Repository_And_Redirects_To_Index() { // Arrange AdminController controller = new AdminController(mockRepos.Object); Product newProduct = new Product(); // Act var result = (RedirectToRouteResult)controller.Edit(newProduct, null); // Assert: Saved product to repository and redirected mockRepos.Verify(x => x.SaveProduct(newProduct)); Assert.AreEqual("Index", result.RouteValues["action"]); } THE TEST PASSES. So I intensionally corrupt the code by adding "productsRepository.DeleteProduct(product);" after the "SaveProduct(product);" as in: ... productsRepository.SaveProduct(product); productsRepository.DeleteProduct(product); ... THE TEST PASSES.(i.e Condones a calamitous [hypnosis + intellisense]-induced typo :) ) Could this test be written better? Or is there something I should know? Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • Unittesting aspect-oriented features.

    - by Tomas Brambora
    Hi, I'd like to know what would you propose as the best way to unit test aspect-oriented application features (well, perhaps that's not the best name, but it's the best I was able to come up with :-) ) such as logging or security? These things are sort of omni-present in the application, so how to test them properly? E.g. say that I'm writing a Cherrypy web server in Python. I can use a decorator to check whether the logged-in user has the permission to access a given page. But then I'd need to write a test for every page to see whether it works oK (or more like to see that I had not forgotten to check security perms for that page). This could maybe (emphasis on maybe) be bearable if logging and/or security were implemented during the web server "normal business implementation". However, security and logging usually tend to be added to the app as an afterthough (or maybe that's just my experience, I'm usually given a server and then asked to implement security model :-) ). Any thoughts on this are very welcome. I have currently 'solved' this issue by, well - not testing this at all. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Rails performance tests "rake test:benchmark" and "rake test:profile" give me errors

    - by go minimal
    I'm trying to run a blank default performance test with Ruby 1.9 and Rails 2.3.5 and I just can't get it to work! What am I missing here??? rails testapp cd testapp script/generate scaffold User name:string rake db:migrate rake test:benchmark - /usr/local/bin/ruby19 -I"lib:test" "/usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/performance/browsing_test.rb" -- --benchmark Loaded suite /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader Started /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/activesupport-2.3.5/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:105:in `rescue in const_missing': uninitialized constant BrowsingTest::STARTED (NameError) from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/activesupport-2.3.5/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:94:in `const_missing' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/activesupport-2.3.5/lib/active_support/testing/performance.rb:38:in `run' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:415:in `block (2 levels) in run_test_suites' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:409:in `each' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:409:in `block in run_test_suites' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:408:in `each' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:408:in `run_test_suites' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:388:in `run' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:329:in `block in autorun' rake aborted! Command failed with status (1): [/usr/local/bin/ruby19 -I"lib:test" "/usr/l...]

    Read the article

  • PHPUnit - multiple stubs of same class

    - by keithjgrant
    I'm building unit tests for class Foo, and I'm fairly new to unit testing. A key component of my class is an instance of BarCollection which contains a number of Bar objects. One method in Foo iterates through the collection and calls a couple methods on each Bar object in the collection. I want to use stub objects to generate a series of responses for my test class. How do I make the Bar stub class return different values as I iterate? I'm trying to do something along these lines: $stubs = array(); foreach ($array as $value) { $barStub->expects($this->any()) ->method('GetValue')) ->will($this->returnValue($value)); $stubs[] = $barStub; } // populate stubs into `Foo` // assert results from `Foo->someMethod()` So Foo->someMethod() will produce data based on the results it receives from the Bar objects. But this gives me the following error whenever the array is longer than one: There was 1 failure: 1) testMyTest(FooTest) with data set #2 (array(0.5, 0.5)) Expectation failed for method name is equal to <string:GetValue> when invoked zero or more times. Mocked method does not exist. /usr/share/php/PHPUnit/Framework/MockObject/Mock.php(193) : eval()'d code:25 One thought I had was to use ->will($this->returnCallback()) to invoke a callback method, but I don't know how to indicate to the callback which Bar object is making the call (and consequently what response to give). Another idea is to use the onConsecutiveCalls() method, or something like it, to tell my stub to return 1 the first time, 2 the second time, etc, but I'm not sure exactly how to do this. I'm also concerned that if my class ever does anything other than ordered iteration on the collection, I won't have a way to test it.

    Read the article

  • With PascalMock how do I mock a method with an untyped out parameter and an open array parameter?

    - by Oliver Giesen
    I'm currently in the process of getting started with unit testing and mocking for good and I stumbled over the following method that I can't seem to fabricate a working mock implementation for: function GetInstance(const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID = CID_DEFAULT): Boolean; (TImplContextID is just an alias for Integer) I thought it would have to look something like this: function TImplementationProviderMock.GetInstance( const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID): Boolean; begin Result := AddCall('GetInstance') .WithParams([@AIID, AContextID]) .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) .ReturnValue; end; But the compiler complains about the .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) saying "Bad argument type in variable type array constructor.". Also I haven't found a way to specify the open array parameter AArgs at all. Also, is using the @-notation for the TGUID-typed parameter the right way to go? Is it possible to mock this method with the current version of PascalMock at all?

    Read the article

  • UI Automation Button Style Enabled

    - by Victor Gaspar
    Hi, I'm evaluating UI Automation for UI testing for that I have a WPF application with the following button defined: <Button Style="{DynamicResource ButtonStyle}" x:Name="MyBtn"/> when I need to visually disable the button I just change the style so the user is aware that the button is disabled (the colour changed) but still the button is internally enabled so I can still launch the OnClick event in order to show a message when the user clicks on a "disabled" button. Now the problem is that I don't know how to check from UI Automation the Style that its currently applied i.e. if the button is disabled or enabled. Do you know how can I do that? In a normal situation I should do something like that: Automation.Condition cEBtn = new PropertyCondition(AutomationElement.AutomationIdProperty, "MyBtn"); AutomationElement mybtnElement = appRegraceElement.FindFirst(TreeScope.Children, cEBtn); bool disMyBtn = (bool)mybtnElement .GetCurrentPropertyValue(AutomationElement.IsEnabledProperty); but in my case the button is always enabled therefore I need to check the Style applied to the button. Thank you very much. Best regards

    Read the article

  • Rhino Mocks and ordered test with unordered calls

    - by Shaddix
    I'm using Rhino.Mocks for testing the system. I'm going to check the order of calling .LoadConfig and .Backup methods. I need .LoadConfig to be the first. Currently the code is like this: var module1 = mocks.Stub<IBackupModule>(); var module2 = mocks.Stub<IBackupModule>(); module1.Expect(x => x.Name).Return("test"); module2.Expect(x => x.Name).Return("test2"); using (mocks.Ordered()) { module1.Expect(x => x.LoadConfig(null)); module2.Expect(x => x.LoadConfig(null)); module1.Expect(x => x.Backup()); module2.Expect(x => x.Backup()); } mocks.ReplayAll(); The problem is, that there's also a call to .Name property, and i'm not interesting when it'll be called: before .LoadConfig or after the .Backup - it just doesn't matter. And when I run this I'm getting Exception: Unordered method call! The expected call is: 'Ordered: { IConfigLoader.LoadConfig(null); }' but was: 'IIdentification.get_Name();' Is there a way to deal with this? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Handling learning curve for new developers

    - by pete the pagan-gerbil
    Our company likes to hire new developers, with no experience. We have a core set of skills that we try to get them up to speed with, like ASP.NET and WinForms - to teach basic programming, the .NET languages, and the things they'll need to maintain and write. We also try and mentor them through early projects, so they can learn from someone more experienced. Recently, we've been seeing the benefits of new frameworks like MVC and ideas like Unit Testing and TDD (by extension, dependancy injection and IoC), and we'd like to start using these in the team. However, this increases the time that a junior would have before they can get started on a new project - because doing something like unit tests wrong could cause major headaches months or years later in maintenance, especially if we believe unit tests to be comprehensive. How do you handle the huge amount of things that a junior will need to take on, acknowledging that the business wants them working independantly as soon as possible? Is it acceptable to tell them not to unit test till a while after they are independant (and give them small, simpler projects in the meantime) before taking them to 'level 2' of the core skills?

    Read the article

  • phpUnit - mock php extended exception object

    - by awongh
    I'm testing some legacy code that extends the default php exception object. This code prints out a custom HTML error message. I would like to mock this exception object in such a way that when the tested code generates an exception it will just echo the basic message instead of giving me the whole HTML message. I cannot figure out a way to do this. It seems like you can test for explicit exceptions, but you can't change in a general way the behavior of an exception, and you also can't mock up an object that extends a default php functionality. ( can't think of another example of this beyond exceptions... but it would seem to be the case ) I guess the problem is, where would you attach the mocked object?? It seems like you can't interfere with 'throw new' and this is the place that the object method is called.... Or if you could somehow use the existing phpunit exception functionality to change the exception behavior the way you want, in a general way for all your code... but this seems like it would be hacky and bad....

    Read the article

  • How do I work with constructs in PHPUnit?

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

    Read the article

  • JUnit Test method with randomized nature

    - by Peter
    Hey, I'm working on a small project for myself at the moment and I'm using it as an opportunity to get acquainted with unit testing and maintaining proper documentation. I have a Deck class with represents a deck of cards (it's very simple and, to be honest, I can be sure that it works without a unit test, but like I said I'm getting used to using unit tests) and it has a shuffle() method which changes the order of the cards in the deck. The implementation is very simple and will certainly work: public void shuffle() { Collections.shuffle(this.cards); } But, how could I implement a unit test for this method. My first thought was to check if the top card of the deck was different after calling shuffle() but there is of course the possibility that it would be the same. My second thought was to check if the entire order of cards has changed, but again they could possibly be in the same order. So, how could I write a test that ensures this method works in all cases? And, in general, how can you unit test methods for which the outcome depends on some randomness? Cheers, Pete

    Read the article

  • Code Coverage tool for BlackBerry

    - by Skrud
    I'm looking for a code coverage tool that I can use with a BlackBerry application. I'm using J2ME-Unit for Unit Testing and I want to see how much of my code is being covered by my tests. I've tried using Cobertura for J2ME but after days of wrestling with it I failed to get any results from it. (I believe that the instrumentation is un-done by the RAPC compilation). And despite this message, the project seems to be dead. I've looked at JInjector but the project seems very incomplete. There is little (if any) documentation and although it claims to be able to work with BlackBerry projects, I haven't seen any places where it has been used for that purpose. I've played with the project quite a bit but to no avail. I've also tried the "Coverage" view in the BlackBerry JDE, even though I use Eclipse for development. The view stays permanently blank, regardless of clicking "Refresh" and running the application from the JDE. I've looked at most of the tools on this SO thread, but they won't work with J2ME/BlackBerry projects. Has anyone had any success with any code coverage tools on the BlackBerry? If so, what tools have you used? How have you used them? If anyone has managed to get JInjector or Cobertura for J2ME to work with a BlackBerry project, what did you have to do to get it working?

    Read the article

  • What would be the light way to render a JSP page without an App/Web Server

    - by kolrie
    First, some background: I will have to work on code for a JSP that will demand a lot of code fixing and testing. This JSP will receive a structure of given objects, and render it according to a couple of rules. What I would like to do, is to write a "Test Server" that would read some mock data out of a fixtures file, and mock those objects into a factory that would be used by the JSP in question. The target App Server is WebSphere and I would like to code, change, code in order to test appropriate HTML rendering. I have done something similar on the past, but the JSP part was just calling a method on a rendering object, so I created an Ad Hoc HTTP server that would read the fixture files, parse it and render HTML. All I had to do was run it inside RAD, change the HTML code and hit F5. So question pretty much goes down to: Is there any stand alone library or lightweight server (I thought of Jetty) that would take a JSP, and given the correct contexts (Request, Response, Session, etc.) render the proper HTML?

    Read the article

  • How do I mock a method with an open array parameter in PascalMock?

    - by Oliver Giesen
    I'm currently in the process of getting started with unit testing and mocking for good and I stumbled over the following method that I can't seem to fabricate a working mock implementation for: function GetInstance(const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID = CID_DEFAULT): Boolean; (TImplContextID is just an alias for Integer) I thought it would have to look something like this: function TImplementationProviderMock.GetInstance( const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID): Boolean; begin Result := AddCall('GetInstance') .WithParams([@AIID, AContextID]) .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) .ReturnValue; end; But the compiler complains about the .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) saying "Bad argument type in variable type array constructor.". Also I haven't found a way to specify the open array parameter AArgs at all. Also, is using the @-notation for the TGUID-typed parameter the right way to go? Is it possible to mock this method with the current version of PascalMock at all? Update: I now realize I got the purpose of ReturnsOutParams completely wrong: It's intended to be used for populating the values to be returned when defining the expectations rather than for mocking the call itself. I now think the correct syntax for mocking the out parameter would probably have to look more like this: function TImplementationProviderMock.GetInstance( const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID): Boolean; var lCall: TMockMethod; begin lCall := AddCall('GetInstance').WithParams([@AIID, AContextID]); Pointer(AInstance) := lCall.OutParams[0]; Result := lCall.ReturnValue; end; The questions that remain are how to mock the open array parameter AArgs and whether passing the TGUID argument (i.e. a value type) by address will work out...

    Read the article

  • Optimal Eclipse CDT (C++) experience in March of 2010

    - by ahoffer
    I am a student who will be using C++ next quarter. I really enjoyed using the Galileo release of Eclipse with Java and I would like to continue using Eclipse for for C++ development. I am now experimenting with C++ development on Eclipse. I am running Eclipse 3.5 SR2 with CDT 6.02. My operating system is Windows 7 and I have installed MinGW-5.1.6. Version 6.3 of GDB is installed. I have it compiling and stepping through code. However, I have the suspicion that I'm just crawling along and have yet to "shift the car out of first gear". I've spent about a week poking around on the Web to learn what constitutes and "optimal" C++ Eclipse experience. In particular, I'm interested in round-tripping with UML and unit testing. My exploration of the Web became an archeological dig. I turned up how-to articles from 2003, alternative MinGW distros, references to plugins, dead-links, more references to plugins, passionate discussions on gdb bugs, and more references to plugins. I no longer have any idea what might constitute an optimal C++ Eclipse environment. Would members of the community like to weigh-in on what they consider to be the current optimal experience for C++ development using Eclipse?

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with accessing DBI directly?

    - by canavanin
    Hi everyone! I'm currently reading Effective Perl Programming (2nd edition). I have come across a piece of code which was described as being poorly written, but I don't yet understand what's so bad about it, or how it should be improved. It would be great if someone could explain the matter to me. Here's the code in question: sub sum_values_per_key { my ( $class, $dsn, $user, $password, $parameters ) = @_; my %results; my $dbh = DBI->connect( $dsn, $user, $password, $parameters ); my $sth = $dbh->prepare( 'select key, calculate(value) from my_table'); $sth->execute(); # ... fill %results ... $sth->finish(); $dbh->disconnect(); return \%results; } The example comes from the chapter on testing your code (p. 324/325). The sentence that has left me wondering about how to improve the code is the following: Since the code was poorly written and accesses DBI directly, you'll have to create a fake DBI object to stand in for the real thing. I have probably not understood a lot of what the book has so far been trying to teach me, or I have skipped the section relevant for understanding what's bad practice about the above code... Well, thanks in advance for your help!

    Read the article

  • Seeking suggestions on redesigning the interface

    - by ratkok
    As a part of maintaining large piece of legacy code, we need to change part of the design mainly to make it more testable (unit testing). One of the issues we need to resolve is the existing interface between components. The interface between two components is a class that contains static methods only. Simplified example: class ABInterface { static methodA(); static methodB(); ... static methodZ(); }; The interface is used by component A so that different methods can use ABInterface::methodA() in order to prepare some input data and then invoke appropriate functions within component B. Now we are trying to redesign this interface for various reasons: Extending our unit test coverage - we need to resolve this dependency between the components and stubs/mocks are to be introduced The interface between these components diverged from the original design (ie. a lots of newer functions, used for the inter-component i/f are created outside this interface class). The code is old, changed a lot over the time and needs to be refactored. The change should not be disruptive for the rest of the system. We try to limit leaving many test-required artifacts in the production code. Performance is very important and should be no (or very minimal) degradation after the redesign. Code is OO in C++. I am looking for some ideas what approach to take. Any suggestions on how to do this efficiently?

    Read the article

  • NUnit doesn't work well with Assert.AreEqual

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

    Read the article

  • Configuring TeamCity + NUnit unit tests so files can be loaded properly

    - by Dave
    In a nutshell, I have a solution that builds fine in the IDE, and the unit tests all run fine with the NUnit GUI (via the NUnitit VS2008 plugin). However, when I execute my TeamCity build runner, all unit tests that require file access (e.g. for running tests against specific XML files), I just get System.IO.DirectoryNotFoundExceptions. The reason for this is clear: it's looking for those supporting XML files loaded by various unit tests in the wrong folder. The way my unit tests are structured looks like this: +-- project folder +-- unit tests folder +-- test.xml +-- test.cs +-- project file.xaml +-- project file.xaml.cs All of my projects own their own UnitTests folder, which contains the .cs file and any XML files, XML Schemas, etc that are necessary to run the tests. So when I write my test.cs, I have it look for "test.xml" in the code because they are in the same folder (actually, I do something like ....\unit tests\test.xml, but that's kind of silly). As I said before, the tests run great in NUnit. But that's because the unit tests are part of the project. When running the unit tests from TeamCity, I am executing them against the assemblies that get copied to the main app's output folder. These unit test XML files should not be copied willy-nilly to the output folder just to make the tests pass. Can anyone suggest a better method of organizing my unit tests in each project (which are dependencies for the main app), such that I can execute the unit tests from NUnit and from the TeamCity build runner? The only other option I can come up with is to just put the testing XML data in code, rather than loading it from a file. I would rather not do this.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265  | Next Page >