Search Results

Search found 5783 results on 232 pages for 'translation unit'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 28/232 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • Tip #15: How To Debug Unit Tests During Maven Builds

    - by ByronNevins
    It must be really really hard to step through unit tests in a debugger during a maven build.  Right? Wrong! Here is how i do it: 1) Set up these environmental variables: MAVEN_OPTS=-Xmx1024m -Xms256m -XX:MaxPermSize=512mMAVEN_OPTS_DEBUG=-Xmx1024m -Xms256m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m  -Xdebug (no line break here!!)  -Xrunjdwp:transport=dt_socket,server=y,suspend=y,address=9999MAVEN_OPTS_REG=-Xmx1024m -Xms256m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m 2) create 2 scripts or aliases like so:  maveny.bat: set MAVEN_OPTS=%MAVEN_OPTS_DEBUG% mavenn.bat: set MAVEN_OPTS=%MAVEN_OPTS_REG%    To debug do this: run maveny.bat run mvn install attach your debugger to port 9999 (set breakpoints of course) When maven gets to the unit test phase it will hit your breakpoint and wait for you. When done debugging simply run mavenn.bat Notes If it takes a while to do the build then you don't really need to set the suspend=y flag. If you set the suspend=n flag then you can just leave it -- but only one maven build can run at a time because of the debug port conflict.

    Read the article

  • InvalidProgramException Running Unit Test

    - by Anthony Trudeau
    There is a bug in the unit testing framework in Visual Studio 2010 with unit testing.  The bug appears in a very special circumstance involving an internal generic type. The bug causes the following exception to be thrown: System.InvalidProgramException: JIT Compiler encountered an internal limitation. This occurs under the following circumstances: Type being tested is internal or private Method being tested is generic  Method being tested has an out parameter Type accessor functionality used to access the internal type The exception is not thrown if the InternalsVisibleToAttribute is assigned to the source assembly and the accessor type is not used; nor is it thrown if the method is not a generic method. Bug #635093 has been added through Microsoft Connect

    Read the article

  • Is a yobibit really a meaningful unit? [closed]

    - by Joe
    Wikipedia helpfully explains: The yobibit is a multiple of the bit, a unit of digital information storage, prefixed by the standards-based multiplier yobi (symbol Yi), a binary prefix meaning 2^80. The unit symbol of the yobibit is Yibit or Yib.1[2] 1 yobibit = 2^80 bits = 1208925819614629174706176 bits = 1024 zebibits[3] The zebi and yobi prefixes were originally not part of the system of binary prefixes, but were added by the International Electrotechnical Commission in August 2005.[4] Now, what in the world actually takes up 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 bits? The information content of the known universe? I guess this is forward thinking -- maybe astrophyics or nanotech, or even DNA analysis really will require these orders of magnitude. How far off do you think all this is? Are these really meaningful units?

    Read the article

  • Who should respond to collision: Unit or projectile?

    - by aleguna
    In an RTS if a projectile hits a unit. Who should handle the collision? If projectile handles the collision, it must be aware of all possible types of units, to know what damage to inflict. For example a bullet will likely kill a human, but it will do nothing to a tank. The same goes if unit handles a collision. So either way one of them should be aware of all possible types of the other. Of course the 'true' way would be to do full physics simulation, but that's not an option for an RTS with 1000s of units and projectiles... So what are the common practicies in this regards?

    Read the article

  • What is the most appropriate testing method in this scenario?

    - by Daniel Bruce
    I'm writing some Objective-C apps (for OS X/iOS) and I'm currently implementing a service to be shared across them. The service is intended to be fairly self-contained. For the current functionality I'm envisioning there will be only one method that clients will call to do a fairly complicated series of steps both using private methods on the class, and passing data through a bunch of "data mangling classes" to arrive at an end result. The gist of the code is to fetch a log of changes, stored in a service-internal data store, that has occurred since a particular time, simplify the log to only include the last applicable change for each object, attach the serialized values for the affected objects and return this all to the client. My question then is, how do I unit-test this entry point method? Obviously, each class would have thorough unit tests to ensure that their functionality works as expected, but the entry point seems harder to "disconnect" from the rest of the world. I would rather not send in each of these internal classes IoC-style, because they're small and are only made classes to satisfy the single-responsibility principle. I see a couple possibilities: Create a "private" interface header for the tests with methods that call the internal classes and test each of these methods separately. Then, to test the entry point, make a partial mock of the service class with these private methods mocked out and just test that the methods are called with the right arguments. Write a series of fatter tests for the entry point without mocking out anything, testing the entire functionality in one go. This looks, to me, more like "integration testing" and seems brittle, but it does satisfy the "only test via the public interface" principle. Write a factory that returns these internal services and take that in the initializer, then write a factory that returns mocked versions of them to use in tests. This has the downside of making the construction of the service annoying, and leaks internal details to the client. Write a "private" initializer that take these services as extra parameters, use that to provide mocked services, and have the public initializer back-end to this one. This would ensure that the client code still sees the easy/pretty initializer and no internals are leaked. I'm sure there's more ways to solve this problem that I haven't thought of yet, but my question is: what's the most appropriate approach according to unit testing best practices? Especially considering I would prefer to write this test-first, meaning I should preferably only create these services as the code indicates a need for them.

    Read the article

  • Why not write all tests at once when doing TDD?

    - by RichK
    The Red - Green - Refactor cycle for TDD is well established and accepted. We write one failing unit test and make it pass as simply as possible. What are the benefits to this approach over writing many failing unit tests for a class and make them all pass in one go. The test suite still protects you against writing incorrect code or making mistakes in the refactoring stage, so what's the harm? Sometimes it's easier to write all the tests first as a form of 'brain dump' to quickly write down all the expected behavior in one go.

    Read the article

  • What does well written, readable tests look like?

    - by Industrial
    Doing unit testing for the first time at a large scale, I find myself writing a lot of repetitive unit tests for my business logic. Sure, to create complete test suites I need to test all possibilities but readability feels compromised doing what I do - as shown in the psuedocode below. How would a well written, readable test suit look like? describe "UserEntity" -> it "valid name validates" ... it "invalid name doesnt validate" ... it "valid list of followers validate" ..

    Read the article

  • Convert project without introducing bugs

    - by didietexas
    I have the C++ code of a exe which contains a UI and some process. My goal is to remove the UI so that I only have the process and to convert the exe into a dll. In order to do that, I am thinking of generating unit test before touching any code and then to do my modification and make sure the tests are not failing. The problem is that I am not sure if this is the best approach and if it is, is there a way to automatically generate unit test. BTW, I am using VS 2012. Do you have any guidance for me?

    Read the article

  • My teammate does not allow me to write unit tests... help?

    - by Nazgob
    Hello, I've moved from one team to another in same company. In old team (hardcore c++) we did lots of unit testing. In my new team (also c++) they do functional testing instead. During review they reject my code because of unit tests. Most of the team is interested in learning sth new but not the guy who is VIP and has legacy developer approach. He has to accept code before commit. He resists the change. Advice?

    Read the article

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >