Search Results

Search found 68011 results on 2721 pages for 'unit of work'.

Page 26/2721 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • How to get Eclipse + PyDev + App Engine + Unit testing to work?

    - by PEZ
    I want to run my unit tests for a Python Google App Engine project using Run As = Python unit-test But when I try that all my Model tests bail with the error message: BadArgumentError: app must not be empty. Anyone got this to work? NB: The tests runs fine using Nose --with-gae. But I want the PyDev integration with hyperlinking of resources and such.

    Read the article

  • Can I ensure all tests contain an assertion in test/unit?

    - by Andrew Grimm
    With test/unit, and minitest, is it possible to fail any test that doesn't contain an assertion, or would monkey-patching be required (for example, checking if the assertion count increased after each test was executed)? Background: I shouldn't write unit tests without assertions - at a minimum, I should use assert_nothing_raised if I'm smoke testing to indicate that I'm smoke testing. Usually I write tests that fail first, but I'm writing some regression tests. Alternatively, I could supply an incorrect expected value to see if the test is comparing the expected and actual value.

    Read the article

  • How can I get "Copy to Output Directory" to work with Unit Tests?

    - by spoon16
    When I build a unit test project before the tests are executed the test output is copied to a TestResults folder and then the tests are executed. The issue I'm having is that not all the files in the Debug/bin directory are copied to the TestResults project. How can I get a file that is copied to the Debug/bin directory to also be copied to the TestResults folder? EDIT: Here is a link to a similar question on another site (no answer there though), http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/aspnet/29316967/files-and-unit-testing-wi.aspx

    Read the article

  • How to unit test private methods in BDD / TDD?

    - by robert_d
    I am trying to program according to Behavior Driven Development, which states that no line of code should be written without writing failing unit test first. My question is, how to use BDD with private methods? How can I unit test private methods? Is there better solution than: - making private methods public first and then making them private when I write public method that uses those private methods; or - in C# making all private methods internal and using InternalsVisibleTo attribute. Robert

    Read the article

  • What is a really simple explanation of unit testing?

    - by ensnare
    I've never done any unit testing before, and would like to learn what it is and how it can be useful in my Python code. I've read through a few Python unit testing tutorials online but they're all so complicated and assume an extended programming background. I'm using Python with Pylons to create a simple web app. Any simple examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to know if your Unit Test is "right-sized"?

    - by leeand00
    One thing that I've always noticed with my unit tests is that they get to be kind of verbose; seeing as they could also be not verbose enough, how do you get a sense of when your unit tests are the right size? I know of a good quote for this and it's: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to remove." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

    Read the article

  • C++ - Is it possible to implement memory leak testing in a unit test?

    - by sevaxx
    I'm trying to implement unit testing for my code and I'm having a hard time doing it. Ideally I would like to test some classes not only for good functionality but also for proper memory allocation/deallocation. I wonder if this check can be done using a unit testing framework. I am using Visual Assert btw. I would love to see some sample code , if possible !

    Read the article

  • How do I mock/fake/replace/stub a base class at unit-test time in C#?

    - by MatthewMartin
    UPDATE: I've changed the wording of the question. Previously it was a yes/no question about if a base class could be changed at runtime. I may be working on mission impossible here, but I seem to be getting close. I want to extend a ASP.NET control, and I want my code to be unit testable. Also, I'd like to be able to fake behaviors of a real Label (namely things like ID generation, etc), which a real Label can't do in an nUnit host. Here a working example that makes assertions on something that depends on a real base class and something that doesn't-- in a more realistic unit test, the test would depend on both --i.e. an ID existing and some custom behavior. Anyhow the code says it better than I can: public class LabelWrapper : Label //Runtime //public class LabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } //Ugh, now I have to test FakeLabelWrapper public class FakeLabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } [TestFixture] public class UnitTest { [Test] public void Test() { //Wish this was LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(new FakeBase()) LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(); //FakeLabelWrapper label = new FakeLabelWrapper(); label.Text = "ToUpper"; Assert.AreEqual("TOUPPER",label.Text); StringWriter stringWriter = new StringWriter(); HtmlTextWriter writer = new HtmlTextWriter(stringWriter); label.RenderControl(writer); Assert.AreEqual(1,label.ID); Assert.AreEqual("<span>TOUPPER</span>", stringWriter.ToString()); } } public class FakeLabel { virtual public string Text { get; set; } public void RenderControl(TextWriter writer) { writer.Write("<span>" + Text + "</span>"); } } //System Under Test internal class LabelLogic { internal string ProcessGetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } internal string ProcessSetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } }

    Read the article

  • Measure work perfomance

    - by Neir0
    Does anyone know utility which can measure work intensity. For example - keystrokes\mouse clicks per second, time spent in IDE\other developer tools, total lines of code per hour...etc.

    Read the article

  • Sneak peek at next generation Three MiFi unit – Huawei E585

    - by Liam Westley
    Last Wednesday I was fortunate to be invited to a sneak preview of the next generation Three MiFi unit, the Huawei E585. Many thanks to all those who posted questions both via this blog or via @westleyl on Twitter. I think I made sure I asked every question posed to the MiFi product manager from Three UK, and so here's the answers you were after. What is a MiFi? For those who are wondering, a MiFi unit is a 3G broadband modem combined with a WiFi access point, providing 3G broadband data access to up to five devices simultaneously via standard WiFi connections. What is different? It appears the prime task of enhancing the MiFi was to improve the user experience and user interface, both in terms of the device hardware and within the management software to configure the device.  I think this was a very sensible decision as these areas had substantial room for improvement. Single button operation to switch on, enable WiFi and connect to 3G Improved OELD display (see below), replacing the multi coloured LEDs; including signal strength, SMS notifications, the number of connected clients and data usage Management is via a web based dashboard accessible from any web browser. This is a big win for those running Linux, Mac OS/X, iPad users and, for me, as I can now configure the device from Windows 7 64-bit Charging is via micro USB, the new standard for small USB devices; you cannot use your old charger for the new MiFi unit Automatic reconnection when regaining a signal Improved charging time, which should allow recharging of the device when in use Although subjective, the black and silver design does look more classy than the silver and white plastic of the original MiFi What is the same? Virtually the same size and weight The battery is the same unit as the original MiFi so you’ll have a handy spare if you upgrade Data plans remain the same as the current MiFi, so cheapest price for upgraders will be £49 pay as you go Still only works on 3G networks, with no fallback to GPRS or EDGE There is no specific upgrade path for existing three customers, either from dongle or from the original MiFi My opinion I think three have concentrated on the correct areas of usability and user experience rather than trying to add new whizz bang technology features which aren’t of interest to mainstream users. The one button operation and the improved device display will make it much easier to use when out and about. If the automatic reconnection proves reliable that will remove a major bugbear that I experienced the previous evening when travelling on the First Great Western line from Paddington to Didcot Parkway.  The signal was repeatedly lost as we sped through tunnels and cuttings, and without automatic reconnection is was a real pain to keep pressing the data button on the MiFi to re-establish my data connection. And finally, the web based dashboard will mean I no longer need to resort to my XP based netbook to configure the SSID and password. My everyday laptop runs Windows 7 64-bit which appears to confuse the older 3 WiFi manager which cannot locate the MiFi when connected. Links to other sites, and other images of the device Good first impressions from Ben Smith, http://thereallymobileproject.com/2010/06/3uk-announce-a-new-mifi-with-a-screen/ Also, a round up of other sneak preview posts, http://www.3mobilebuzz.com/2010/06/11/mifi-round-two-your-view/ Pictures Here is a comparison of the old MiFi device next to the new device, complete with OLED display and the Huawei logo now being a prominent feature on the front of the device. One of my fellow bloggers had a Linux based netbook, showing off the web based dashboard complete with Text messages panel to manage SMS. And finally, I never thought that my blog sub title would ever end up printed onto a cup cake, ... and here's some of the other cup cakes ...

    Read the article

  • Where can work-at-home coders go to find other coders to real-time chat with and get support like they were on a large team at an established company?

    - by cypherblue
    I used to work in an office surrounded by a large team of programmers where we all used the same languages and had different expertises. Now that I am on my own forming a startup at home, my productivity is suffering because I miss having people I can talk to for specific help, inspiration and reality checks when working on a coding problem. I don't have access to business incubators or shared (co-working) office spaces for startups so I need to chat with people virtually. Where can I go for real-time chat with other programmers and developers (currently I'm looking for people developing for the web, javascript and python) for live debugging and problem-solving of the tasks I am working on? And what other resources can I use to get fellow programmer support?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing.... a data provider ?

    - by TomTom
    Given problem: I like unit tests. I develop connectivity software to external systems that pretty much and often use a C++ library The return of this systems is nonndeterministic. Data is received while running, but making sure it is all correctly interpreted is hard. How can I test this properly? I can run a unit test that does a connect. Sadly, it will then process a life data stream. I can say I run the test for 30 or 60 seconds before disconnecting, but getting code ccoverage is impossible - I simply dont even comeclose to get all code paths EVERY ONCE PER DAY (error code paths are rarely run). I also can not really assert every result. Depending on the time of the day we talk of 20.000 data callbacks per second - all of which are not relly determined good enough to validate each of them for consistency. Mocking? Well, that would leave me testing an empty shell of myself because the code handling the events basically is the to be tested case, and in many cases we talk here of a COMPLEX c level structure - hard to have mocking frameworks that integrate from Csharp to C++ Anyone any idea? I am short on giving up using unit tests for this part of the application.

    Read the article

  • Bad linking in Qt unit test -- missing the link to the moc file?

    - by dwj
    I'm trying to unit test a class that inherits QObject; the class itself is located up one level in my directory structure. When I build the unit test I get the standard unresolved errors if a class' MOC file cannot be found: test.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "public: virtual void * __thiscall UnitToTest::qt_metacast(char const *)" (?qt_metacast@UnitToTest@@UAEPAXPBD@Z) + 2 missing functions The MOC file is created but appears to not be linking. I've been poking around SO, the web, and Qt's docs for quite a while and have hit a wall. How do I get the unit test to include the MOC file in the link? ==== My project file is dead simple: TEMPLATE = app TARGET = test DESTDIR = . CONFIG += qtestlib INCLUDEPATH += . .. DEPENDPATH += . HEADERS += test.h SOURCES += test.cpp ../UnitToTest.cpp stubs.cpp DEFINES += UNIT_TEST My directory structure and files: C:. | UnitToTest.cpp | UnitToTest.h | \---test | test.cpp (Makefiles removed for clarity) | test.h | test.pro | stubs.cpp | +---debug | UnitToTest.obj | test.obj | test.pdb | moc_test.cpp | moc_test.obj | stubs.obj Edit: Additional information The generated Makefile.Debug shows the moc file missing: SOURCES = test.cpp \ ..\test.cpp \ stubs.cpp debug\moc_test.cpp OBJECTS = debug\test.obj \ debug\UnitToTest.obj \ debug\stubs.obj \ debug\moc_test.obj

    Read the article

  • Modify Build Failure Work Item in TFS 2010 Build

    - by Jakob Ehn
    The default behaviour in TFS Team Build (all versions) is to create a bug work item when a build fails. This main benefit of this is that you get a work item for something that needs to be done, namely to fix the build!. When the developer responsible for the build failure has fixed the problem, he/she can associated that check-in with the work item that was created from the previous build failure. In TFS 2005/2008 you could modify the information in the created work item by changing some predefined properties in the TFSBuild.proj file:   <!-- WorkItemType The type of the work item created on a build failure. --> <WorkItemType>Bug</WorkItemType> <!-- WorkItemFieldValues Fields and values of the work item created on a build failure. Note: Use reference names for fields if you want the build to be resistant to field name changes. Reference names are language independent while friendly names are changed depending on the installed language. For example, "System.Reason" is the reference name for the "Reason" field. --> <WorkItemFieldValues>System.Reason=Build Failure;System.Description=Start the build using Team Build</WorkItemFieldValues> <!-- WorkItemTitle Title of the work item created on build failure. --> <WorkItemTitle>Build failure in build:</WorkItemTitle> <!-- DescriptionText History comment of the work item created on a build failure. --> <DescriptionText>This work item was created by Team Build on a build failure.</DescriptionText> <!-- BuildLogText Additional comment text for the work item created on a build failure. --> <BuildlogText>The build log file is at:</BuildlogText> <!-- ErrorWarningLogText Additional comment text for the work item created on a build failure. This text will only be added if there were errors or warnings. --> <ErrorWarningLogText>The errors/warnings log file is at:</ErrorWarningLogText>   In TFS 2010, with Windows Workflow, you change this by modifying the properties on the OpenWorkItem activity. The hardest part of this is to actually find where this activity is located in the build process workflow. If you open the build definition in XAML you can just search for OpenWorkItem. If you use the designer you need to click your way down to the Catch section of the Try to Compile the Project sequence: To change the default values of the created work item, select the Created Work Item activity and look at the Properties window: Note the CustomFields property which is a dictionary with key (work item field name) and value. If you add custom fields to your work item you can add a value for it here by adding a new entry in the dictionary.

    Read the article

  • Is your test method self-validating ?

    - by mehfuzh
    Writing state of art unit tests that can validate your every part of the framework is challenging and interesting at the same time, its like becoming a samurai. One of the key concept in this is to keep our test synced all the time as underlying code changes and thus breaking them to the furthest unit as possible.  This also means, we should avoid  multiple conditions embedded in a single test. Let’s consider the following example of transfer funds. [Fact] public void ShouldAssertTranserFunds() {     var currencyService = Mock.Create<ICurrencyService>();     //// current rate     Mock.Arrange(() => currencyService.GetConversionRate("AUS", "CAD")).Returns(0.88f);       Account to = new Account { Currency = "AUS", Balance = 120 };     Account from = new Account { Currency = "CAD" };       AccountService accService = new AccountService(currencyService);       Assert.Throws<InvalidOperationException>(() => accService.TranferFunds(to, from, 200f));       accService.TranferFunds(to, from, 100f);       Assert.Equal(from.Balance, 88);     Assert.Equal(20, to.Balance); } At first look,  it seems ok but as you look more closely , it is actually doing two tasks in one test. At line# 10 it is trying to validate the exception for invalid fund transfer and finally it is asserting if the currency conversion is successfully made. Here, the name of the test itself is pretty vague. The first rule for writing unit test should always reflect to inner working of the target code, where just by looking at their names it is self explanatory. Having a obscure name for a test method not only increase the chances of cluttering the test code, but it also gives the opportunity to add multiple paths into it and eventually makes things messy as possible. I would rater have two test methods that explicitly describes its intent and are more self-validating. ShouldThrowExceptionForInvalidTransferOperation ShouldAssertTransferForExpectedConversionRate Having, this type of breakdown also helps us pin-point reported bugs easily rather wasting any time on debugging for something more general and can minimize confusion among team members. Finally, we should always make our test F.I.R.S.T ( Fast.Independent.Repeatable.Self-validating.Timely) [ Bob martin – Clean Code]. Only this will be enough to ensure, our test is as simple and clean as possible.   Hope that helps

    Read the article

  • Gradual approaches to dependency injection

    - by JW01
    I'm working on making my classes unit-testable, using dependency injection. But some of these classes have a lot of clients, and I'm not ready to refactor all of them to start passing in the dependencies yet. So I'm trying to do it gradually; keeping the default dependencies for now, but allowing them to be overridden for testing. One approach I'm conisdering is just moving all the "new" calls into their own methods, e.g.: public MyObject createMyObject(args) { return new MyObject(args); } Then in my unit tests, I can just subclass this class, and override the create functions, so they create fake objects instead. Is this a good approach? Are there any disadvantages? More generally, is it okay to have hard-coded dependencies, as long as you can replace them for testing? I know the preferred approach is to explicitly require them in the constructor, and I'd like to get there eventually. But I'm wondering if this is a good first step.

    Read the article

  • Differences between software testing processes and techniques?

    - by Aptos
    I get confused between these terms. For examples, should Unit testing be listed as a software testing process or technique? I think unit testing is a software testing technique. And how about Test driven development? Can you give me some examples for software testing processes and techniques? In my opinion, software testing process is a part of the software development life cycle. For example, if we use V-Model, the software testing process will be System test, Acceptance test, Integration Test... Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Submitting Java Code with Junit unit test

    - by LivingThing
    I have mostly work on simple java programs and compiled and run it with eclipse on Windows. So, i have no experience of using command prompt for compiling Java projects and do not have much info about what actually happens beneath the play button in Eclipse. Now i have to submit a Java application which will have basic operation on XML. My project also will have (JUnit) Unit Test. My question is related to submission of this Project. Which files would be necessary to submit the code. So, it executes properly? Does chosing eclipse as an IDE or junit as a unit testing framweork produces any dependenices i.e the executor of the program should have eclipse/libraries to execute the program on his machine?

    Read the article

  • Basic WCF Unit Testing

    - by Brian
    Coming from someone who loves the KISS method, I was surprised to find that I was making something entirely too complicated. I know, shocker right? Now I'm no unit testing ninja, and not really a WCF ninja either, but had a desire to test service calls without a) going to a database, or b) making sure that the entire WCF infrastructure was tip top. Who does? It's not the environment I want to test, just the logic I’ve written to ensure there aren't any side effects. So, for the K.I.S.S. method: Assuming that you're using a WCF service library (you are using service libraries correct?), it's really as easy as referencing the service library, then building out some stubs for bunking up data. The service contract We’ll use a very basic service contract, just for getting and updating an entity. I’ve used the default “CompositeType” that is in the template, handy only for examples like this. I’ve added an Id property and overridden ToString and Equals. [ServiceContract] public interface IMyService { [OperationContract] CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id); [OperationContract] CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item); [OperationContract] CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes(); } The implementation When I implement the service, I want to be able to send known data into it so I don’t have to fuss around with database access or the like. To do this, I first have to create an interface for my data access: public interface IMyServiceDataManager { CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id); CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item); CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes(); } For the purposes of this we can ignore our implementation of the IMyServiceDataManager interface inside of the service. Pretend it uses LINQ to Entities to map its data, or maybe it goes old school and uses EntLib to talk to SQL. Maybe it talks to a tape spool on a mainframe on the third floor. It really doesn’t matter. That’s the point. So here’s what our service looks like in its most basic form: public CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id) { //sanity checks if (id == 0) throw new ArgumentException("id cannot be zero."); return _dataManager.GetCompositeType(id); } public CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item) { return _dataManager.SaveCompositeType(item); } public CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes() { return _dataManager.GetAllCompositeTypes(); } But what about the datamanager? The constructor takes care of that. I don’t want to expose any testing ability in release (or the ability for someone to swap out my datamanager) so this is what we get: IMyServiceDataManager _dataManager; public MyService() { _dataManager = new MyServiceDataManager(); } #if DEBUG public MyService(IMyServiceDataManager dataManager) { _dataManager = dataManager; } #endif The Stub Now it’s time for the rubber to meet the road… Like most guys that ever talk about unit testing here’s a sample that is painting in *very* broad strokes. The important part however is that within the test project, I’ve created a bunk (unit testing purists would say stub I believe) object that implements my IMyServiceDataManager so that I can deal with known data. Here it is: internal class FakeMyServiceDataManager : IMyServiceDataManager { internal FakeMyServiceDataManager() { Collection = new CompositeTypeCollection(); Collection.AddRange(new CompositeTypeCollection { new CompositeType { Id = 1, BoolValue = true, StringValue = "foo 1", }, new CompositeType { Id = 2, BoolValue = false, StringValue = "foo 2", }, new CompositeType { Id = 3, BoolValue = true, StringValue = "foo 3", }, }); } CompositeTypeCollection Collection { get; set; } #region IMyServiceDataManager Members public CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id) { if (id <= 0) return null; return Collection.SingleOrDefault(m => m.Id == id); } public CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item) { var existing = Collection.SingleOrDefault(m => m.Id == item.Id); if (null != existing) { Collection.Remove(existing); } if (item.Id == 0) { item.Id = Collection.Count > 0 ? Collection.Max(m => m.Id) + 1 : 1; } Collection.Add(item); return item; } public CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes() { return Collection; } #endregion } So it’s tough to see in this example why any of this is necessary, but in a real world application you would/should/could be applying much more logic within your service implementation. This all serves to ensure that between refactorings etc, that it doesn’t send sparking cogs all about or let the blue smoke out. Here’s a simple test that brings it all home, remember, broad strokes: [TestMethod] public void MyService_GetCompositeType_ExpectedValues() { FakeMyServiceDataManager fake = new FakeMyServiceDataManager(); MyService service = new MyService(fake); CompositeType expected = fake.GetCompositeType(1); CompositeType actual = service.GetCompositeType(2); Assert.AreEqual<CompositeType>(expected, actual, "Objects are not equal. Expected: {0}; Actual: {1};", expected, actual); } Summary That’s really all there is to it. You could use software x or framework y to do the exact same thing, but in my case I just didn’t really feel like it. This speaks volumes to my not yet ninja unit testing prowess.

    Read the article

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