Search Results

Search found 7802 results on 313 pages for 'unit tests'.

Page 26/313 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • Unit turning in navmesh-based pathfinding

    - by Haddayn
    I'm working on an RTS game, and I'm using navmeshes for unit pathfinding. I do know how to find a general path within a navmesh, but how do you determine if the unit have enough space to turn? I have units of different shapes (mostly rectangles with different dimensions), and with different turn radii. Additionally some of units can turn in place, and some can move in reverse. So, how to find a path which unit can follow, considering that it can not rotate easily?

    Read the article

  • sorl-thumbnail unit tests fail by 1 pixel (!)

    - by stevejalim
    Hi I'm using sorl-thumbnail in a Django 1.2 (currently 1.2 RC) project and getting a surprising failure of four of sorl's built-in unit tests. Essentially, the resized images are all 1px shorter than the unit tests expect them to be. See below for details I'm developing on OSX 10.5.8 (not Snow Leopard) with Python 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Feb 6 2009, 19:02:12) and PIL 1.1.6. Any thoughts what might be up? Cheers Steve ====================================================================== FAIL: test_extension (sorl.thumbnail.tests.fields.FieldTest) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/django/myprojectnamehere/lib/sorl/thumbnail/tests/fields.py", line 66, in test_extension self.verify_thumbnail((50, 37), thumb, expected_filename) File "/usr/local/django/myprojectnamehere/lib/sorl/thumbnail/tests/base.py", line 92, in verify_thumbnail self.assertEqual(image.size, expected_size) AssertionError: (50, 38) != (50, 37) ====================================================================== FAIL: test_thumbnail (sorl.thumbnail.tests.fields.ImageWithThumbnailsFieldTest) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/django/myprojectnamehere/lib/sorl/thumbnail/tests/fields.py", line 111, in test_thumbnail self.verify_thumbnail((50, 37), thumb, expected_filename) File "/usr/local/django/myprojectnamehere/lib/sorl/thumbnail/tests/base.py", line 92, in verify_thumbnail self.assertEqual(image.size, expected_size) AssertionError: (50, 38) != (50, 37) ====================================================================== FAIL: testTag (sorl.thumbnail.tests.templatetags.ThumbnailTagTest) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/django/myprojectnamehere/lib/sorl/thumbnail/tests/templatetags.py", line 118, in testTag self.verify_thumbnail((90, 67), expected_filename=expected_fn) File "/usr/local/django/myprojectnamehere/lib/sorl/thumbnail/tests/base.py", line 92, in verify_thumbnail self.assertEqual(image.size, expected_size) AssertionError: (90, 68) != (90, 67)

    Read the article

  • Xcode Unit Testing - Accessing Resources from the application's bundle?

    - by Ben Scheirman
    I'm running into an issue and I wanted to confirm that I'm doing things the correct way. I can test simple things with my SenTestingKit tests, and that works okay. I've set up a Unit Test Bundle and set it as a dependency on the main application target. It successfully runs all tests whenever I press cmd+B. Here's where I'm running into issues. I have some XML files that I need to load from the resources folder as part of the application. Being a good unit tester, I want to write unit tests around this to make sure that they are loading properly. So I have some code that looks like this: NSString *filePath = [[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResource:@"foo" ofType:@"xml"]; This works when the application runs, but during a unit test, mainBundle points to the wrong bundle, so this line of code returns nil. So I changed it up to utilize a known class like this: NSString *filePath = [[NSBundle bundleForClass:[Config class]] pathForResource:@"foo" ofType:@"xml"]; This doesn't work either, because in order for the test to even compile code like this, it Config needs to be part of the Unit Test Target. If I add that, then the bundle for that class becomes the Unit Test bundle. (Ugh!) Am I approaching this the wrong way?

    Read the article

  • [News] Tests robotis?s avec Selenium et xUnit

    Dans ce billet, joel abrahamsson illustre un cas concret d'utilisation de l'outil de tests d'IHM, Selenium, avec C# : "I have really enjoyed playing around with Selenium and I?m quite sure that I will start using it at work as well. I?m also quite happy with how my tests work and how I handle starting Selenium Server and I hope that this post will prove useful to others as well"

    Read the article

  • Binding Data to Web Performance Tests

    Web Performance Tests provide a simple means of ensuring correct and performant responses are being returned from your web application. Testing a wide variety of inputs can be tedious without a way to separate test recording and input selection. Data binding provides a convenient and simple way to try an unlimited number of different inputs as part of your web performance tests using Visual Studio 2010.

    Read the article

  • Delphi Unit local variables - how to make each instance unique?

    - by Justin
    Ok, this, I'm sure is something simple that is easy to do. The problem : I've inherited scary spaghetti code and am slowly trying to better it when new features need adding - generally when a refactor makes adding the new feature neater. I've got a bunch of code I'm packing into a single unit which, in different places in the application, controls the same physical thing in the outside world. The control appears in several places in the application and operates slightly differently in each instance. What I've done is to create a unit with all of the features I need which I can simply drop, as a frame, into each form that requires it. Each form then uses the unit's interface methods to customise the behaviour for each instance. The problem within the problem : In the unit in question (the frame) I have a variable declared in the IMPLEMENTATION section - local to the unit. I also have a procedure, declared in the TYPE section which takes an argument and assigns that argument to the local variable in question - each form passes a unique variable to each instance of the frame/unit. What I want it to do is for each instance of the frame to keep its own version of that variable, different from the others, and use that to define how it operates. What seems to be happening, however, is that all instances are using the same value, even if I explicitly pass each instance a different variable. ie: Unit FlexibleUnit; interface uses //the uses stuff type TFlexibleUnit=class(TFrame) //declarations including procedure makeThisInstanceX(passMeTheVar:integer); private // public // end; implementation uses //the uses var myLocalVar; procedure makeThisInstanceX(passMeTheVar:integer); begin myLocalVar:=passMeTheVar; end; //other procedures using myLocalVar //etc to the end; Now somewhere in another Form I've dropped this Frame onto the Design pane, sometimes two of these frames on one Form, and have it declared in the proper places, etc. Each is unique in that : ThisFlexibleUnit : TFlexibleUnit; ThatFlexibleUnit : TFlexibleUnit; and when I do a: ThisFlexibleUnit.makeThisInstanceX(var1); //want to behave in way "var1" ThatFlexibleUnit.makeThisInstanceX(var2); //want to behave in way "var2" it seems that they both share the same variable "myLocalVar". Am I doing this wrong, in principle? If this is the correct method then it's a matter of debugging what I have (which is too huge to post) but if this is not correct in principle then is there a way to do what I am suggesting? Thanks in advance, Stack Overflow - you guys (and gals!) are legendary.

    Read the article

  • Does Python doctest remove the need for unit-tests?

    - by daniel
    Hi all, A fellow developer on a project I am on believes that doctests are as good as unit-tests, and that if a piece of code is doctested, it does not need to be unit-tested. I do not believe this to be the case. Can anyone provide some solid, ideally cited, examples either for or against the argument that doctests do not replace the need for unit-tests? Thank you -Daniel

    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

  • Why should I bother with unit testing if I can just use integration tests?

    - by CodeGrue
    Ok, I know I am going out on a limb making a statement like that, so my question is for everyone to convince me I am wrong. Take this scenario: I have method A, which calls method B, and they are in different layers. So I unit test B, which delivers null as a result. So I test that null is returned, and the unit test passes. Nice. Then I unit test A, which expects an empty string to be returned from B. So I mock the layer B is in, an empty string is return, the test passes. Nice again. (Assume I don't realize the relationship of A and B, or that maybe two differente people are building these methods) My concern is that we don't find the real problem until we test A and B togther, i.e. Integration Testing. Since an integration test provides coverage over the unit test area, it seems like a waste of effort to build all these unit tests that really don't tell us anything (or very much) meaningful. Why am I wrong?

    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

  • Is it possible to profile memory usage of unit tests?

    - by Rowland Shaw
    I'm looking at building some unit tests to ascertain if resources are leaking (or not) using the unit testing framework that comes with Visual Studio. At present, I'm evaluating the latest version of ANTS Profiler, but I can't quite work out if it allows me to force a snapshot from code (so that I can take a snapshot, run a unit test a few hundred times, force a garbage collection, and take another snapshot, and save the results out for later analysis). Is this possible to do with ANTS/Visual Studio or should I be exploring options with other profilers?

    Read the article

  • What could cause Django to start failing its own tests after an OS and Django reinstall?

    - by Macha
    I had to reinstall my OS, and so, I reinstalled django 1.1. Since reinstalling, when I run tests in my app, I get several failures from django.contrib.auth. Logs: http://dpaste.com/178153/ I asked on #django, and no one is too sure what the cause of the errors are. Some of my own code fails its tests, because it's not fully written yet, but that shouldn't cause django to fail it's core tests... I have included django.contrib.admin, which was mentioned as a possible cause.

    Read the article

  • What could cause Django to start failing it's own tests after an OS and Django reinstall?

    - by Macha
    I had to reinstall my OS, and so, I reinstalled django. Since reinstalling, when I run tests in my app, I get several failures from django.contrib.auth. Logs: http://dpaste.com/178153/ I asked on #django, and no one is too sure what the cause of the errors are. Some of my own code fails its tests, because it's not fully written yet, but that shouldn't cause django to fail it's core tests...

    Read the article

  • why do you write tests and what is a unit test and how does it differ other types of testing ?

    - by dfafa
    im curious as to know, why tests are written? why would bother writing it ? why not just compile and run the code or view it in your browser, click around and test out stuff. i mean i can understand, a crawler that checks your web app's functions....but why is tests written, maintained and treated as important as the main feature codes ? is it crucial to always write and use tests ?

    Read the article

  • In TDD, should tests be written by the person who implemented the feature under test?

    - by martin
    We run a project in which we want to solve with test driven development. I thought about some questions that came up when initiating the project. One question was: Who should write the unit-test for a feature? Should the unit-test be written by the feature-implementing programmer? Or should the unit test be written by another programmer, who defines what a method should do and the feature-implementing programmer implements the method until the tests runs? If I understand the concept of TDD in the right way, the feature-implementing programmer has to write the test by himself, because TDD is procedure with mini-iterations. So it would be too complex to have the tests written by another programmer? What would you say? Should the tests in TDD be written by the programmer himself or should another programmer write the tests that describes what a method can do?

    Read the article

  • how to interpret testng console log message for passing tests?

    - by Kunal Cholera
    I ran testng tests for my test classes, I get the following three types of log output when I run the passing tests. I am using org.testng.AssertJUnit.assertTrue() methods in my tests. [testng] PASSED: testMethod1 on null(test.foo.bar.Class1) [testng] PASSED: testMethod2 on Default test name(test.foo.bar.jar.Class2) [testng] PASSED: testMethod3 Can any one please tell me why for some tests it says "on null" for some it says "on Default test name ... " and for some it does not say anything on the console output. Specifically I want to make it consistent message. Environment : linux Testng framework : 6.3.2beta please advise. thanks.

    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

  • Code Contracts: Unit testing contracted code

    - by DigiMortal
    Code contracts and unit tests are not replacements for each other. They both have different purpose and different nature. It does not matter if you are using code contracts or not – you still have to write tests for your code. In this posting I will show you how to unit test code with contracts. In my previous posting about code contracts I showed how to avoid ContractExceptions that are defined in code contracts runtime and that are not accessible for us in design time. This was one step further to make my randomizer testable. In this posting I will complete the mission. Problems with current code This is my current code. public class Randomizer {     public static int GetRandomFromRangeContracted(int min, int max)     {         Contract.Requires<ArgumentOutOfRangeException>(             min < max,             "Min must be less than max"         );           Contract.Ensures(             Contract.Result<int>() >= min &&             Contract.Result<int>() <= max,             "Return value is out of range"         );           var rnd = new Random();         return rnd.Next(min, max);     } } As you can see this code has some problems: randomizer class is static and cannot be instantiated. We cannot move this class between components if we need to, GetRandomFromRangeContracted() is not fully testable because we cannot currently affect random number generator output and therefore we cannot test post-contract. Now let’s solve these problems. Making randomizer testable As a first thing I made Randomizer to be class that must be instantiated. This is simple thing to do. Now let’s solve the problem with Random class. To make Randomizer testable I define IRandomGenerator interface and RandomGenerator class. The public constructor of Randomizer accepts IRandomGenerator as argument. public interface IRandomGenerator {     int Next(int min, int max); }   public class RandomGenerator : IRandomGenerator {     private Random _random = new Random();       public int Next(int min, int max)     {         return _random.Next(min, max);     } } And here is our Randomizer after total make-over. public class Randomizer {     private IRandomGenerator _generator;       private Randomizer()     {         _generator = new RandomGenerator();     }       public Randomizer(IRandomGenerator generator)     {         _generator = generator;     }       public int GetRandomFromRangeContracted(int min, int max)     {         Contract.Requires<ArgumentOutOfRangeException>(             min < max,             "Min must be less than max"         );           Contract.Ensures(             Contract.Result<int>() >= min &&             Contract.Result<int>() <= max,             "Return value is out of range"         );           return _generator.Next(min, max);     } } It seems to be inconvenient to instantiate Randomizer now but you can always use DI/IoC containers and break compiled dependencies between the components of your system. Writing tests for randomizer IRandomGenerator solved problem with testing post-condition. Now it is time to write tests for Randomizer class. Writing tests for contracted code is not easy. The main problem is still ContractException that we are not able to access. Still it is the main exception we get as soon as contracts fail. Although pre-conditions are able to throw exceptions with type we want we cannot do much when post-conditions will fail. We have to use Contract.ContractFailed event and this event is called for every contract failure. This way we find ourselves in situation where supporting well input interface makes it impossible to support output interface well and vice versa. ContractFailed is nasty hack and it works pretty weird way. Although documentation sais that ContractFailed is good choice for testing contracts it is still pretty painful. As a last chance I got tests working almost normally when I wrapped them up. Can you remember similar solution from the times of Visual Studio 2008 unit tests? Cannot understand how Microsoft was able to mess up testing again. [TestClass] public class RandomizerTest {     private Mock<IRandomGenerator> _randomMock;     private Randomizer _randomizer;     private string _lastContractError;       public TestContext TestContext { get; set; }       public RandomizerTest()     {         Contract.ContractFailed += (sender, e) =>         {             e.SetHandled();             e.SetUnwind();               throw new Exception(e.FailureKind + ": " + e.Message);         };     }       [TestInitialize()]     public void RandomizerTestInitialize()     {         _randomMock = new Mock<IRandomGenerator>();         _randomizer = new Randomizer(_randomMock.Object);         _lastContractError = string.Empty;     }       #region InputInterfaceTests     [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_min_is_not_less_than_max()     {         try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(100, 10);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }     }       [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_min_is_equal_to_max()     {         try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(10, 10);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }     }       [TestMethod]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_work_when_min_is_less_than_max()     {         int minValue = 10;         int maxValue = 100;         int returnValue = 50;           _randomMock.Setup(r => r.Next(minValue, maxValue))             .Returns(returnValue)             .Verifiable();           var result = _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(minValue, maxValue);           _randomMock.Verify();         Assert.AreEqual<int>(returnValue, result);     }     #endregion       #region OutputInterfaceTests     [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_return_value_is_less_than_min()     {         int minValue = 10;         int maxValue = 100;         int returnValue = 7;           _randomMock.Setup(r => r.Next(10, 100))             .Returns(returnValue)             .Verifiable();           try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(minValue, maxValue);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }           _randomMock.Verify();     }       [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_return_value_is_more_than_max()     {         int minValue = 10;         int maxValue = 100;         int returnValue = 102;           _randomMock.Setup(r => r.Next(10, 100))             .Returns(returnValue)             .Verifiable();           try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(minValue, maxValue);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }           _randomMock.Verify();     }     #endregion        } Although these tests are pretty awful and contain hacks we are at least able now to make sure that our code works as expected. Here is the test list after running these tests. Conclusion Code contracts are very new stuff in Visual Studio world and as young technology it has some problems – like all other new bits and bytes in the world. As you saw then making our contracted code testable is easy only to the point when pre-conditions are considered. When we start dealing with post-conditions we will end up with hacked tests. I hope that future versions of code contracts will solve error handling issues the way that testing of contracted code will be easier than it is right now.

    Read the article

  • TDD/Tests too much an overhead/maintenance burden?

    - by MeshMan
    So you've heard it many times from those who do not truly understand the values of testing. Just to start things out, I'm a follower of Agile and Testing... I recently had a discussion about performing TDD on a product re-write where the current team does not practice unit testing on any level, and probably have never heard of the dependency injection technique or test patterns/design etc (we won't even get on to clean code). Now, I am fully responsible for the rewrite of this product and I'm told that attempting it in the fashion of TDD, will merely make it a maintenance nightmare and impossible for the team maintain. Furthermore, as it's a front-end application (not web-based), adding tests is pointless, as the business drive changes (by changes they mean improvements of course), the tests will become out of date, other developers who come on to the project in the future will not maintain them and become more of a burden for them to fix etc. I can understand that TDD in a team that does not currently hold any testing experience doesn't sound good, but my argument in this case is that I can teach my practice to those around me, but further more, I know that TDD makes BETTER software. Even if I was to produce the software using TDD, and throw all the tests away on handing it over to a maintenance team, it surely would be a better approach than not using TDD at all from the start? I've been shot down as I've mentioned doing TDD on most projects for a team that have never heard of it. The thought of "interfaces" and strange looking DI constructors scares them off... Can anyone please help me in what is normally a very short conversation of trying to sell TDD and my approach to people? I usually have a very short window of argument before falling at the knees to the company/team.

    Read the article

  • Should mock objects for tests be created at a high or low level

    - by Danack
    When creating unit tests for those other objects, what is the best way to create mock objects that provide data to other objects. Should they be created at a 'high level' and intercept the calls as soon as possible, or should they be done at a 'low level' and so make as much as the real code still be called? e.g. I'm writing a test for some code that requires a NoteMapper object that allows Notes to be loaded from the DB. class NoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { // Create an SQL query from $sqlQueryFactory // Run that SQL // if null // return null // else // return new Note($dataFromSQLQuery) } } I could either mock this object at a high level by creating a mock NoteMapper object, so that there are no calls to the SQL at all e.g. class MockNoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { //$mockData = {'Test Note title', "Test note text" } // return new Note($mockData); } } Or I could do it at a very low level, by creating a MockSQLQueryFactory that instead of actually querying the database just provides mock data back, and passing that to the current NoteMapper object. It seems that creating mocks at a high level would be easier in the short term, but that in the long term doing it at a low level would be more powerful and possibly allow more automation of tests e.g. by recording data in an out of a DB and then replaying that data for tests. Is there a recommended way of creating mocks? Are there any hard and fast rules about which are better, or should they both be used where appropriate?

    Read the article

  • Code Behaviour via Unit Tests

    - by Dewald Galjaard
    Normal 0 false false false EN-ZA X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Some four months ago my car started acting up. Symptoms included a sputtering as my car’s computer switched between gears intermittently. Imagine building up speed, then when you reach 80km/h the car magically and mysteriously decide to switch back to third or even second gear. Clearly it was confused! I managed to track down a technician, an expert in his field to help me out. As he fitted his handheld computer to some hidden port under the dash, he started to explain “These cars are quite intelligent, you know. When they sense something is wrong they run in a restrictive program which probably account for how you managed to drive here in the first place...”  I was surprised and thought this was certainly going to be an interesting test drive. The car ran smoothly down the first couple of stretches as the technician ran through routine checks. Then he said “Ok, all looking good. We need to start testing aspects of the gearbox. Inside the gearbox there are a couple of sensors. One of them is a speed sensor which talks to the computer, which in turn will decide which gear to switch to. The restrictive program avoid these sensors altogether and allow the computer to obtain its input from other [non-affected] sources”. Then, as soon as he forced the speed sensor to come back online the symptoms and ill behaviour re-emerged... What an incredible analogy for getting into a discussion on unit testing software? Besides I should probably put my ill fortune to some good use, right? This example provide a lot of insight into how and why we should conduct unit tests when writing code. More importantly, it captures what is easily and unfortunately often the most overlooked goal of writing unit tests by those new to the art and those who oppose it alike - The goal of writing unit tests is to test the behaviour of our code under predefined conditions. Although it is very possible to test the intrinsic workings of each and every component in your code, writing several tests for each method in practise will soon prove to be an exhausting and ultimately fruitless exercise given the certain and ever changing nature of business requirements. Consequently it is true and quite possible whilst conducting proper unit tests, to call any single method several times as you examine and contemplate different scenarios. Let’s write some code to demonstrate what I mean. In my example I make use of the Moq framework and NUnit to create my tests. Truly you can use whatever you’re comfortable with. First we’ll create an ISpeedSensor interface. This is to represent the speed sensor located in the gearbox.  Then we’ll create a Gearbox class which we’ll pass to a constructor when we instantiate an object of type Computer. All three are described below.   ISpeedSensor.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {     public interface ISpeedSensor     {         int ReportCurrentSpeed();     } }   Gearbox.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {      public class Gearbox     {         private ISpeedSensor _speedSensor;           public Gearbox( ISpeedSensor gearboxSpeedSensor )         {             _speedSensor = gearboxSpeedSensor;         }         /// <summary>         /// This method obtain it's reading from the speed sensor.         /// </summary>         /// <returns></returns>         public int ReportCurrentSpeed()         {             return _speedSensor.ReportCurrentSpeed();         }     } } Computer.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {     public class Computer     {         private Gearbox _gearbox;         public Computer( Gearbox gearbox )         {                     }          public int GetCurrentSpeed()         {             return _gearbox.ReportCurrentSpeed( );         }     } } Since this post is about Unit testing, that is exactly what we’ll create next. Create a second project in your solution. I called mine AutomaticVehicleTests and I immediately referenced the respective nunit, moq and AutomaticVehicle dll’s. We’re going to write a test to examine what happens inside the Computer class. ComputerTests.cs namespace AutomaticVehicleTests {     [TestFixture]     public class ComputerTests     {         [Test]         public void Computer_Gearbox_SpeedSensor_DoesThrow()         {             // Mock ISpeedSensor in gearbox             Mock< ISpeedSensor > speedSensor = new Mock< ISpeedSensor >( );             speedSensor.Setup( n => n.ReportCurrentSpeed() ).Throws<Exception>();             Gearbox gearbox = new Gearbox( speedSensor.Object );               // Create Computer instance to test it's behaviour  towards an exception in gearbox             Computer carComputer = new Computer( gearbox );             // For simplicity let’s assume for now the car only travels at 60 km/h.             Assert.AreEqual( 60, carComputer.GetCurrentSpeed( ) );          }     } }   What is happening in this test? We have created a mocked object using the ISpeedsensor interface which we've passed to our Gearbox object. Notice that I created the mocked object using an interface, not the implementation. I’ll talk more about this in future posts but in short I do this to accentuate the fact that I'm not not really concerned with how SpeedSensor work internally at this particular point in time. Next I’ve gone ahead and created a scenario where I’ve declared the speed sensor in Gearbox to be faulty by forcing it to throw an exception should we ask Gearbox to report on its current speed. Sneaky, sneaky. This test is a simulation of how things may behave in the real world. Inevitability things break, whether it’s caused by mechanical failure, some logical error on your part or a fellow developer which didn’t consult the documentation (or the lack thereof ) - whether you’re calling a speed sensor, making a call to a database, calling a web service or just trying to write a file to disk. It’s a scenario I’ve created and this test is about how the code within the Computer instance will behave towards any such error as I’ve depicted. Now, if you’ve followed closely in my final assert method you would have noticed I did something quite unexpected. I might be getting ahead of myself now but I’m testing to see if the value returned is equal to what I expect it to be under perfect conditions – I’m not testing to see if an error has been thrown! Why is that? Well, in short this is TDD. Test Driven Development is about first writing your test to define the result we want, then to go back and change the implementation within your class to obtain the desired output (I need to make sure I can drive back to the repair shop. Remember? ) So let’s go ahead and run our test as is. It’s fails miserably... Good! Let’s go back to our Computer class and make a small change to the GetCurrentSpeed method.   Computer.cs public int GetCurrentSpeed() {   try   {     return _gearbox.ReportCurrentSpeed( );   }   catch   {     RunRestrictiveProgram( );   } }     This is a simple solution, I know, but it does provide a way to allow for different behaviour. You’re more than welcome to provide an implementation for RunRestrictiveProgram should you feel the need to. It's not within the scope of this post or related to the point I'm trying to make. What is important is to notice how the focus has shifted in our approach from how things can break - to how things behave when broken.   Happy coding!

    Read the article

  • Executing NUnit Tests using the Visual Studio 2012 Test Runner

    - by David Paquette
    At a recent Visual Studio 2012 event at the Calgary .NET User Group, I was told that I could run my NUnit tests directly in the Visual Studio 2012 without any special plugins.  Naturally, I was very excited and I immediately tried running my NUnit tests. I was somewhat disappointed to see that the Test Runner did not discover any of my NUnit tests.  Apparently, you do still need to install an extension that supports NUnit.  Microsoft has completely re-written the Test Runner in Visual Studio 2012 and opened it up for anyone to write Test Adapters for any unit test framework (not just MSTest).  Once the correct test adapters are installed, everything works great.  Luckily, there are a good number of adapters already written. Here are some Test Adapters that you might find useful: NUnit Test Adapter – This one is still in beta, but tit does work with the official Visual Studio 2012 release xUnit.net Test Adapter Silverlight Unit Test Adapter Chutzpah Test Adapter Overall, I still prefer the unit test runner in ReSharper, but this is a great new feature for those who might not have a ReSharper license.

    Read the article

  • Automated Acceptance tests under specific contraints

    - by HH_
    This is a follow up to my previous question, which was a bit general, so I'll be asking for a more precise situation. I want to automate acceptance testing on a web application. Briefly, this application allows the user to create contracts for subscribers with the two constraints: You cannot create more than one contract for a subscriber. Once a contract is created, it cannot be deleted (from the UI) Let's say TestCreate is a test case with tests for the normal creation of a contract. The constraints have introduced complexities to the testing process, mainly dependencies between test cases and test executions. Before we run TestCreate we need to make sure that the application is in a suitable state (the subscriber has no contract) If we run TestCreate twice, the second run will fail since the state of the application will have changed. So we need to revert back to the initial state (i.e. delete the contract), which is impossible to do from the UI. More generally, after each test case we should guarantee that the state is reverted back. And since, in this case, it is impossible to do it from the UI, how do you handle this? Possible solution: I thought about doing a backup of the database in the state that I desire, and after each test case, run a script which deletes the db and restores the backup. However, I find that to be too heavy to do for each single test case. In addition, what if some information are stored in files? or in multiple or unaccessible databases? My question: In this situation, what would an experienced tester do to write automated and maintanable tests. Thank you. More info: I'm trying to integrate tests into a BDD framework, which I find to be a neat solution for test documentation and communication, but it does not solve this particular problem (it even makes it harder)

    Read the article

  • Perform Unit Conversions with the Windows 7 Calculator

    - by Matthew Guay
    Want to easily convert area, volume, temperature, and many other units?  With the Calculator in Windows 7, it’s easy to convert most any unit into another. The New Calculator in Windows 7 Calculator received a visual overhaul in Windows 7, but at first glance it doesn’t seem to have any new functionality.  Here’s Windows 7’s Calculator on the left, with Vista’s calculator on the right.   But, looks can be deceiving.  Window’s 7’s calculator has lots of new exciting features.  Let’s try them out.  Simply type Calculator in the start menu search. To uncover the new features, click the View menu.  Here you can select many different modes, including Unit Conversion mode which we will look at. When you select the Unit Conversion mode, the Calculator will expand with a form on the left side. This conversions pane has 3 drop-down menus.  From the top one, select the type of unit you want to convert. In the next two menus, select which values you wish to convert to and from.  For instance, here we selected Temperature in the first menu, Degrees Fahrenheit in the second menu, and Degrees Celsius in the third menu. Enter the value you wish to convert in the From box, and the conversion will automatically appear in the bottom box. The Calculator contains dozens of conversion values, including more uncommon ones.  So if you’ve ever wanted to know how many US gallons are in a UK gallon, or how many knots a supersonic jet travels in an hour, this is a great tool for you!   Conclusion Windows 7 is filled with little changes that give you an all-around better experience in Windows to help you work more efficiently and productively.  With the new features in the Calculator, you just might feel a little smarter, too! Similar Articles Productive Geek Tips Add Windows Calculator to the Excel 2007 Quick Launch ToolbarEnjoy Quick & Easy Unit Conversion with Convert for WindowsCalculate with Qalculate on LinuxDisable the Annoying “This device can perform faster” Balloon Message in Windows 7Get stats on your Ruby on Rails code TouchFreeze Alternative in AutoHotkey The Icy Undertow Desktop Windows Home Server – Backup to LAN The Clear & Clean Desktop Use This Bookmarklet to Easily Get Albums Use AutoHotkey to Assign a Hotkey to a Specific Window Latest Software Reviews Tinyhacker Random Tips DVDFab 6 Revo Uninstaller Pro Registry Mechanic 9 for Windows PC Tools Internet Security Suite 2010 Install, Remove and HIDE Fonts in Windows 7 Need Help with Your Home Network? Awesome Lyrics Finder for Winamp & Windows Media Player Download Videos from Hulu Pixels invade Manhattan Convert PDF files to ePub to read on your iPad

    Read the article

  • 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

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