Search Results

Search found 5214 results on 209 pages for 'j unit 122'.

Page 26/209 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

• How to fake Azure Table Storage in .NET for Unit Testing?

  - by Erick T

  I am working on a system that uses Azure Table Storage. In other systems (e.g., SQL, File based, etc), I can write a fake that allows me to test my data persistence logic. However, I can't see an easy way to create a fake for the Azure Table Service. I could create a new IIS project that behaves the same way, but that isn't a good way to write a unit test, it is more of an integration test. Any thoughts on how to unit test data access code that uses the Azure Table Storage client? Thanks, Erick

  Read the article

• Unit Testing and Code Coverage Frameworks for Objective-C?

  - by Roman Kagan

  I'm planning to write couple applications for iPhone and wonder if there are any Unit Testing and Code Coverage Frameworks for Objective-C?

  Read the article

• Should a Unit-test replicate functionality or Test output?

  - by Daniel Beardsley

  I've run into this dilemma several times. Should my unit-tests duplicate the functionality of the method they are testing to verify it's integrity? OR Should unit tests strive to test the method with numerous manually created instances of inputs and expected outputs? I'm mainly asking the question for situations where the method you are testing is reasonably simple and it's proper operation can be verified by glancing at the code for a minute. Simplified example (in ruby): def concat_strings(str1, str2) return str1 + " AND " + str2 end Simplified functionality-replicating test for the above method: def test_concat_strings 10.times do str1 = random_string_generator str2 = random_string_generator assert_equal (str1 + " AND " + str2), concat_strings(str1, str2) end end I understand that most times the method you are testing won't be simple enough to justify doing it this way. But my question remains; is this a valid methodology in some circumstances (why or why not)?

  Read the article

• Determining which classes would benefit most from unit testing?

  - by benoit

  I am working on a project where we have only 13% of code coverage with our unit tests. I would like to come up with a plan to improve that but by focusing first on the areas where increasing coverage would bring the greatest value. This project is in C#, we're using VS 2008 and TFS 2008 and out unit tests are written using MSTest. What methodology should I use to determine which classes we should tackle first? Which metrics (code or usage) should I be looking at (and how can I get those metrics if this is not obvious)?

  Read the article

• Pro's and Con's of unit testing after the fact.

  - by scope-creep

  I have a largish complex app around 27k lines. Its essentially a rule drive multithreaded processing engine, without giving too much away Its been partially tested as it's been built, certain components. Question I have, is what is the pro's and con's of doing unit testing on after the fact, so to speak, after its been implemented. It is clear that traditional testing is going to take 2-3+ months to test every facet, and it all needs to work, and that time is not available really. I've done a fair bit of unit testing in the past, but generally it's been on desktop automation or LOB apps, which are fairly simple. The app is itself is highly componentized internally, interface driven really. I've not decided on what particular framework to use. Any advice would be appreciated. What say you.

  Read the article

• Unit Testing User Interface. What is an effective way ?

  - by pierocampanelli

  I have an accounting & payroll client/server application where there are several input form with complex data validation rules. I am finding an effective way to perform unit testing of user interface. For complex validation rules I mean: "Disable button X if I Insert a value in textfield Y" "Enable a combobox if I insert a value in a textfield" ...... ...... Most promising pattern i have found is suggested by M. Fowler (http://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/ModelViewPresenter.html). Have you any experience about Unit Testing of User Interface? As technology stack I am using: .NET 3.5 & Windows Forms Widget Library.

  Read the article

• Getting Assert to work in Visual C++ Unit Tests?

  - by garsh0p

  I'm using Visual Studio 2008's built in testing framework in my Visual C++ project. I'm adding a new Test Project, then a new Unit Test. However, I can't use any of the functions provided by Assert. Assert shows up in the Intellisense, but I can't do anything with it. I've done unit tests fine in Visual C#. Am I forgetting to do anything? EDIT: There isn't much code because everything I'm doing is auto-generated by Visual Studio 2008. Here are the steps I'm doing: File - New Project - Visual C++ - General - Empty Project Right click solution in Solution Explorer - Add - New Project... Visual C++ - Test - Test Project Open UnitTest1.cpp (auto-generated) Go to TestMethod1() From here, when I try to use the Assert class (like Assert.AreEqual), I can't do it. If I do the same in a Visual C# project, it works fine.

  Read the article

• How to disable translations during unit tests in django?

  - by Denilson Sá

  I'm using Django Internationalization tools to translate some strings from my application. The code looks like this: from django.utils.translation import ugettext as _ def my_view(request): output = _("Welcome to my site.") return HttpResponse(output) Then, I'm writing unit tests using the Django test client. These tests make a request to the view and compare the returned contents. How can I disable the translations while running the unit tests? I'm aiming to do this: class FoobarTestCase(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): # Do something here to disable the string translation. But what? # I've already tried this, but it didn't work: django.utils.translation.deactivate_all() def testFoobar(self): c = Client() response = c.get("/foobar") # I want to compare to the original string without translations. self.assertEquals(response.content.strip(), "Welcome to my site.")

  Read the article

• What is the meaning of "Unit of Work" concept in NHibernate and other ORMs?

  - by masoud ramezani

  What is the meaning of "Unit of Work" concept in NHibernate and other ORMs?

  Read the article

• Are multiple asserts bad in a unit test? Even if chaining?

  - by Michael Haren

  Is there anything wrong with checking so many things in this unit test?: ActualModel = ActualResult.AssertViewRendered() // check 1 .ForView("Index") // check 2 .WithViewData<List<Page>>(); // check 3 CollectionAssert.AreEqual(Expected, ActualModel); // check 4 The primary goals of this test are to verify the right view is returned (check 2) and it contains the right data (check 4). Would I gain anything by splitting this into multiple tests? I'm all about doing things right, but I'm not going to split things up if it doesn't have practical value. I'm pretty new to unit testing, so be gentle.

  Read the article

• C#: How to unit test a method that relies on another method within the same class?

  - by michael paul

  I have a class similar to the following: public class MyProxy : ClientBase<IService>, IService { public MyProxy(String endpointConfiguration) : base(endpointConfiguration) { } public int DoSomething(int x) { int result = DoSomethingToX(x); //This passes unit testing int result2 = ((IService)this).DoWork(x) //do I have to extract this part into a separate method just //to test it even though it's only a couple of lines? //Do something on result2 int result3 = result2 ... return result3; } int IService.DoWork(int x) { return base.Channel.DoWork(x); } } The problem lies in the fact that when testing I don't know how to mock the result2 item without extracting the part that gets result3 using result2 into a separate method. And, because it is unit testing I don't want to go that deep as to test what result2 comes back as... I'd rather mock the data somehow... like, be able to call the function and replace just that one call.

  Read the article

• Unit testing of static library that involves NSDocumentDirectory and other iOS App specific calls.

  - by Shiun

  Hi, I'm attempting to run unit tests for a static library that attempts to create/write/read a file in the document directory. Since this is a static library and not an application for the iOS, attempts to reference the NSDocumentDirectory is returning me directory for the form "/Users//Library/Application Support/iPhone Simulator/Documents" This directory does not exist. When attempting to access a directory from an actual application, the NSDocumentDirectory returns something of the form: "/Users//Library/Application Support/iPhone Simulator/4.2/FEDBEF5F-1326-4383-A087-CDA1B865E61A/Documents" (Please note the simulator version as well as application ID as part of the path) How can I overcome this shortcoming in the unit test framework for static libraries that implement tests that require iOS app specific calls? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• How do I inherit abstract unit tests in Ruby?

  - by Graeme Moss

  I have two unit tests that should share a lot of common tests with slightly different setup methods. If I write something like class Abstract < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @field = create end def test_1 ... end end class Concrete1 < Abstract def create SomeClass1.new end end class Concrete2 < Abstract def create SomeClass2.new end end then Concrete1 does not seem to inherit the tests from Abstract. Or at least I cannot get them to run in eclipse. If I choose "Run all TestCases" for the file that contains Concrete1 then Abstract is run even though I do not want it to be. If I specify Concrete1 then it does not run any tests at all! If I specify test_1 in Concrete1 then it complains it cannot find it ("uncaught throw :invalid_test (ArgumentError)"). I'm new to Ruby. What am I missing here?

  Read the article

• How to write an unit test for WCF behaviors?

  - by katie77

  I am new to unit testing. How do I write a unit test for a method when I am extending a WCF behavior. Since I am not sure of when the class is being instantiated, or I can not change the method signature. In the behavior implementation, I am getting the header and looking up a value in the config. public class IncomingValidator : IDispatchMessageInspector { public object AfterReceiveRequest(ref Message request, IClientChannel channel, InstanceContext instanceContext) { // Grab the header and see if one of the particular values(read from config) is there. } public void BeforeSendReply(ref Message reply, object correlationState) { } }

  Read the article

• Django's self.client.login(...) does not work in unit tests

  - by thebossman

  I have created users for my unit tests in two ways: 1) Create a fixture for "auth.user" that looks roughly like this: { "pk": 1, "model": "auth.user", "fields": { "username": "homer", "is_active": 1, "password": "sha1$72cd3$4935449e2cd7efb8b3723fb9958fe3bb100a30f2", ... } } I've left out the seemingly unimportant parts. 2) Use 'create_user' in the setUp function (although I'd rather keep everything in my fixtures class): def setUp(self): User.objects.create_user('homer', '[email protected]', 'simpson') Note that the password is simpson in both cases. I've verified that this info is correctly being loaded into the test database time and time again. I can grab the User object using User.objects.get. I can verify the password is correct using 'check_password.' The user is active. Yet, invariably, self.client.login(username='homer', password='simpson') FAILS. I'm baffled as to why. I think I've read every single Internet discussion pertaining to this. Can anybody help? The login code in my unit test looks like this: login = self.client.login(username='homer', password='simpson') self.assertTrue(login) Thanks.

  Read the article

• How do I unit test controllers for an asp.net mvc site that uses StructureMap and NHibernate?

  - by Jim Geurts

  I have an asp.net mvc2 application that is using StructureMap 2.6 and NHibernate 3.x. I would like to add unit tests to the application but am sort of at a loss for how to accomplish it. Say I have a basic controller called Posts that has an action called Index. The controller looks something like: public class PostsController : Controller { private readonly IPostService _postService; public PostsController(IPostService postService) { _postService = postService; } public ActionResult Index() { return View(_postService.QueryOver<Post>().Future()); } } If I wanted to create an nunit test that would verify that the index action is returning all of the posts, how do I go about that? If mocking is recommended, do you just assume that interaction with the database will work? Sorry for asking such a broad question, but my web searches haven't turned up anything decent for how to unit test asp.net mvc actions that use StructureMap (or any other IOC) and NHibernate. btw, if you don't like that I return a QueryOver object from my post service, pretend it is an IQueryable object. I'm using it essentially in the same way.

  Read the article

• How can "today's date" be varied for unit testing purposes?

  - by ck

  I use VS2008 targetting .NET 2.0 Framework, and, just in case, no I can't change this :) I have a DateCalculator class. Its method GetNextExpirationDate attempts to determine the next expiration, internally using DateTime.Today as a baseline date. As I was writing unit tests, I realized that I wanted to test GetNextExpirationDate for different 'today' dates. What's the best way to do this? Here are some alternatives I've considered: Expose a property/overloaded method with argument baselineDate and only use it from the unit test. In actual client code, disregard the property/overloaded method in favour of the method that defaults baselineDate to DateTime.Today. I'm reluctant to do this as it makes the public interface of the DateCalculator class awkward. Create a protected field called baselineDate that is internally set to DateTime.Today. When testing, derive a DateCalculatorForTesting from DateCalculator and set baslineDate via the constructor. It keeps the public interface clean, but still isn't great - baselineDate was made protected and a derived class is required, both solely for testing. Use extension methods. I tried this after adding the ExtensionAttribute, then realized it wouldn't work because extension methods can't access private/protected variables. I initially thought this was really quite an elegant solution. :( I'd be interested in hearing what others think.

  Read the article

• ClassCleanup in MSTest is static, but the build server uses nunit to run the unit tests. How can i a

  - by Kettenbach

  Hi All, MSTest has a [ClassCleanup()] attribute, which needs to be static as far as I can tell. I like to run through after my unit tests have run,and clean up my database. This all works great, however when I go to our build server and use our Nant build script, it seems like the unit tests are run with NUnit. NUnit doesn't seem to like the cleanup method to be static. It therefore ignores my tests in that class. What can I do to remedy this? I prefer to not use [TestCleanUp()] as that is run after each test. Does anyone have any suggestions? I know [TestCleanup()] aids in decoupling, but I really prefer the [ClassCleanup()] in this situation. Here is some example code. ////Use ClassCleanup to run code after all tests have run [ClassCleanup()] public static void MyFacadeTestCleanup() { UpdateCleanup(); } private static void UpdateCleanup() { DbCommand dbCommand; Database db; try { db = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase(TestConstants.DB_NAME); int rowsAffected; dbCommand = db.GetSqlStringCommand("DELETE FROM tblA WHERE biID=@biID"); db.AddInParameter(dbCommand, "biID", DbType.Int64, biToDelete); rowsAffected = db.ExecuteNonQuery(dbCommand); Debug.WriteLineIf(rowsAffected == TestConstants.ONE_ROW, string.Format("biId '{0}' was successfully deleted.", biToDelete)); } catch (SqlException ex) { } finally { dbCommand = null; db = null; biDelete = 0; } } Thanks for any pointers and yes i realize I'm not catching anything. I need to get passed this hurdle first. Cheers, ~ck in San Diego

  Read the article

• How can I unit test a PHP class method that executes a command-line program?

  - by acoulton

  For a PHP application I'm developing, I need to read the current git revision SHA which of course I can get easily by using shell_exec or backticks to execute the git command line client. I have obviously put this call into a method of its very own, so that I can easily isolate and mock this for the rest of my unit tests. So my class looks a bit like this: class Task_Bundle { public function execute() { // Do things $revision = $this->git_sha(); // Do more things } protected function git_sha() { return `git rev-parse --short HEAD`; } } Of course, although I can test most of the class by mocking git_sha, I'm struggling to see how to test the actual git_sha() method because I don't see a way to create a known state for it. I don't think there's any real value in a unit test that also calls git rev-parse to compare the results? I was wondering about at least asserting that the command had been run, but I can't see any way to get a history of shell commands executed by PHP - even if I specify that PHP should use BASH rather than SH the history list comes up empty, I presume because the separate backticks executions are separate terminal sessions. I'd love to hear any suggestions for how I might test this, or is it OK to just leave that method untested and be careful with it when the app is being maintained in future?

  Read the article

• What's the state of PHP unit testing frameworks in 2010?

  - by Pekka

  As far as I can see, PHPUnit is the only serious product in the field at the moment. It is widely used, is integrated into Continuous Integration suites like phpUnderControl, and well regarded. The thing is, I don't really like working with PHPUnit. I find it hard to set up (PEAR is the only officially supported installation method, and I hate PEAR), sometimes complicated to work with and, correct me if I'm wrong, lacking executability from a web page context (i.e. no CLI, which would really be nice when developing a web app.) The only competition to I can see is Simpletest, which looks very nice but hasn't seen a new release for almost two years, which tends to rule it out for me - Unit Testing is quite a static field, true, but as I will be deploying those tests alongside web applications, I would like to see active development on the project, at least for security updates and such. There is a SO question that pretty much confirms what I'm saying: Simple test vs PHPunit Seeing that that is almost two years old as well, though, I think it's time to ask again: Does anybody know any other serious feature-complete unit testing frameworks? Am I wrong in my criticism of PHPUnit? Is there still development going on for SimpleTest?

  Read the article

• How do you unit test new code that uses a bunch of classes that cannot be instantiated in a test har

  - by trendl

  I'm writing a messaging layer that should handle communication with a third party API. The API has a bunch of classes that cannot be easily (if at all) instantiated in a test harness. I decided to wrap each class that I need in my unit tests with an adapter/wrapper and expose the members I need through this adapter class. Often I need to expose the wrapped type as well which I do by exposing it as an object. I have also provided an interface for for each or the adapter classes to be able to use them with a mocking framework. This way I can substitute the classes in test for whatever I need. The downside is that I have a bunch of adapter classes that so far server no other reason but testing. For me this is a good reason by itself but others may find this not enough. Possibly, when I write an implementation for another third party vendor's API, I may be able to reuse much of my code and only provide the adapters specific to the vendor's API. However, this is a bit of a long shot and I'm not actually sure it will work. What do you think? Is this approach viable or am I writing unnecessary code that serves no real purpose? Let me say that I do want to write unit tests for my messaging layer and I do now know how to do it otherwise.

  Read the article

• How to setup and teardown temporary django db for unit testing?

  - by blokeley

  I would like to have a python module containing some unit tests that I can pass to hg bisect --command. The unit tests are testing some functionality of a django app, but I don't think I can use hg bisect --command manage.py test mytestapp because mytestapp would have to be enabled in settings.py, and the edits to settings.py would be clobbered when hg bisect updates the working directory. Therefore, I would like to know if something like the following is the best way to go: import functools, os, sys, unittest sys.path.append(path_to_myproject) os.environ['DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE'] = 'myapp.settings' def with_test_db(func): """Decorator to setup and teardown test db.""" @functools.wraps def wrapper(*args, **kwargs): try: # Set up temporary django db func(*args, **kwargs) finally: # Tear down temporary django db class TestCase(unittest.TestCase): @with_test_db def test(self): # Do some tests using the temporary django db self.fail('Mark this revision as bad.') if '__main__' == __name__: unittest.main() I should be most grateful if you could advise either: If there is a simpler way, perhaps subclassing django.test.TestCase but not editing settings.py or, if not; What the lines above that say "Set up temporary django db" and "Tear down temporary django db" should be?

  Read the article

• InvalidProgramException Running Unit Test (Bug Closed)

  - by Anthony Trudeau

  In a previous post I reported an InvalidProgramException that occurs in a certain circumstance with unit tests involving accessors on a private generic method.  It turns out that Bug #635093 reported through Microsoft Connect will not be fixed. The reason cited is that private accessors have been discontinued.  And why have private accessors been discontinued?  They don't have time is the reason listed in the blog post titled "Generation of Private Accessors (Publicize) and Code Generation for Visual Studio 2010". In my opinion, it's a piss poor decision to discontinue support for a feature that they're still using within automatically generated unit tests against private classes and methods.  But, I think what is worse is the lack of guidance cited in the aforementioned blog post.  Their advice?  Use the PrivateObject to help, but develop your own framework. At the end of the day what Microsoft is saying is, "I know you spent a lot of money for this product.  I know that you don't have time to develop a framework to deal with this.  We don't have time and that is all that's important."

  Read the article

• Step by Step screencasts to do Behavior Driven Development on WCF and UI using xUnit

  - by oazabir

  I am trying to encourage my team to get into Behavior Driven Development (BDD). So, I made two quick video tutorials to show how BDD can be done from early requirement collection stage to late integration tests. It explains breaking user stories into behaviors, and then developers and test engineers taking the behavior specs and writing a WCF service and unit test for it, in parallel, and then eventually integrating the WCF service and doing the integration tests. It introduces how mocking is done using the Moq library. Moreover, it shows a way how you can write test once and do both unit and integration tests at the flip of a config setting. Watch the screencast here: Doing BDD with xUnit, Subspec and on a WCF Service  Warning: you might hear some noise in the audio in some places. Something wrong with audio bit rate. I suggest you let the video download for a while and then play it. If you still get noise, go back couple of seconds earlier and then resume play. It eliminates the noise.  The next video tutorial is about doing BDD to do automated UI tests. It shows how test engineers can take behaviors and then write tests that tests a prototype UI in isolation (just like Service Contract) in order to ensure the prototype conforms to the expected behaviors, while developers can write the real code and build the real product in parallel. When the real stuff is done, the same test can test the real stuff and ensure the agreed behaviors are satisfied. I have used WatiN to automate UI and test UI for expected behaviors. Doing BDD with xUnit and WatiN on a ASP.NET webform Hope you like it!

  Read the article

• Unit testing ASP.NET Web API controllers that rely on the UrlHelper

  - by cibrax

  UrlHelper is the class you can use in ASP.NET Web API to automatically infer links from the routing table without hardcoding anything. For example, the following code uses the helper to infer the location url for a new resource,public HttpResponseMessage Post(User model) { var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, user); var link = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = id, controller = "Users" }); response.Headers.Location = new Uri(link); return response; } That code uses a previously defined route “DefaultApi”, which you might configure in the HttpConfiguration object (This is the route generated by default when you create a new Web API project). The problem with UrlHelper is that it requires from some initialization code before you can invoking it from a unit test (for testing the Post method in this example). If you don’t initialize the HttpConfiguration and Request instances associated to the controller from the unit test, it will fail miserably. After digging into the ASP.NET Web API source code a little bit, I could figure out what the requirements for using the UrlHelper are. It relies on the routing table configuration, and a few properties you need to add to the HttpRequestMessage. The following code illustrates what’s needed,var controller = new UserController(); controller.Configuration = new HttpConfiguration(); var route = controller.Configuration.Routes.MapHttpRoute( name: "DefaultApi", routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{id}", defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional } ); var routeData = new HttpRouteData(route, new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "id", "1" }, { "controller", "Users" } } ); controller.Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost:9091/"); controller.Request.Properties.Add(HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, controller.Configuration); controller.Request.Properties.Add(HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, routeData);  The HttpRouteData instance should be initialized with the route values you will use in the controller method (“id” and “controller” in this example). Once you have correctly setup all those properties, you shouldn’t have any problem to use the UrlHelper. There is no need to mock anything else. Enjoy!!.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >