Search Results

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

Page 28/313 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • What should be done first: Code reviews or Unit tests?

    - by goldenmean
    Hello, If a developer implements code for some module and wants to get it reviewed. What should be the order : *First unit test the module after designing test cases for the module, debugging and fixing the bugs and then give the modified code for peer code review (Pros- Code to be reviewed is 'clean' to a good extent. Reduces some avoidable review comments and rework. Cons- Developer might spend large time debugging/fixing a bug which could have pointed/anticipated in peer code reviews) Or *First do the code review with peers and then go for unit testing. What are your thoughts/experience on this? I believe this approach for unit testing, code reviewing should be programming language agnostic, but it would be interesting to know otherwise(if applicable) with specific examples. -AD

    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 should be tested in Javascript?

    - by Nathan Hoad
    At work, we've just started on a heavily Javascript based application (actually using Coffeescript, but still), of which I've been implementing an automated test system using JsTestDriver and fabric. We've never written something with this much Javascript, so up until now we've never done any Javascript testing. I'm unsure what exactly we should be testing in our unit tests. We've written JQuery plugins for various things, so it's quite obvious that they should be verified for correctness as much as possible with JsTestDriver, but everyone else in my team seems to think that we should be testing the page level Javascript as well. I don't think we should be testing page level Javascript as unit tests, but instead using a system like Selenium to verify everything works as expected. My main reasoning for this is that at the moment, page level Javascript tests are guaranteed to fail through JsTestDriver, because they're trying to access elements on the DOM that can't possibly exist. So, what should be unit tested in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • TestDriven.NET - Free unit test tool for Visual Studio

    - by Guilherme Cardoso
    Developers that use unit testing are familiar with Resharper and his plugin for Unit Testing. For those that like me, don't have a great pc hardware (Pentium 4, 3ghz, 1GB ram) the Resharper can be really slow, and affect the performance of pc. That's why i use TestDriven.NET TestDriven.NET is a freeware license tool (there are others licenses for this product) that gives us the possibility to run unit tests with this plugin, that's integrated with Visual Studio. You can check some screenshots here: http://www.testdriven.net/Screenshots.aspx It's compatible with: NUnit, MbUnit, MSTest, NCover, Reflector, TypeMock, dotTrace and MSBee. More information and free download here: http://www.testdriven.net

    Read the article

  • Next generation Three MiFi unit - call for questions to put to Three

    - by Liam Westley
    I've been invited to a preview of the next generation Three mobile Mi-Fi unit in their London offices this week. If you've got feedback on the current MiFi unit; niggles, wish list items or general feedback, or you've got any questions about what the next generation MiFi unit might be, drop me an e-mail or post a comment with your question on this blog. I'll be taking any questions from my blog or my twitter account @westleyl to Three, and if I get an answer I can publish, I'll add to this blog post with the details. Thanks Liam

    Read the article

  • Best approach for unit enemy "awareness" in RTS?

    - by Phil
    I'm using Unity3d to develop an RTS/TD hybrid prototype game. What is the best approach to have "awareness" between units and their enemies? Is it sane to have every unit check the distance to every enemy and engage if within range? The approach I'm going for right now is to have a trigger sphere on every unit. If an enemy enters the trigger, the unit becomes aware of the enemy and starts distance checking. I'm imagining that this would save some unnecessary checks? What's the best practice here (if there's such a thing)? Thanks for reading.

    Read the article

  • Resources for Test Driven Development in Web Applications?

    - by HorusKol
    I would like to try and implement some TDD in our web applications to reduce regressions and improve release quality, but I'm not convinced at how well automated testing can perform with something as fluffy as web applications. I've read about and tried TDD and unit testing, but the examples are 'solid' and rather simple functionalities like currency converters, and so on. Are there any resources that can help with unit testing content management and publication systems? How about unit testing a shopping cart/store (physical and online products)? AJAX? Googling for "Web Test Driven Development" just gets me old articles from several years ago either covering the same examples of calculator-like function or discussions about why TDD is better than anything (without any examples).

    Read the article

  • How does TDD address interaction between objects?

    - by Gigi
    TDD proponents claim that it results in better design and decoupled objects. I can understand that writing tests first enforces the use of things like dependency injection, resulting in loosely coupled objects. However, TDD is based on unit tests - which test individual methods and not the integration between objects. And yet, TDD expects design to evolve from the tests themselves. So how can TDD possibly result in a better design at the integration (i.e. inter-object) level when the granularity it addresses is finer than that (individual methods)?

    Read the article

  • Platform for DS/Gameboy Dev - Managed Memory, Tools, and Unit Testing

    - by ashes999
    I'm interested in dabbling in Nintendo DS, 3DS, or GBA development. I would like to know what my (legal) options for development tools and IDEs are. In particular, I would not consider moving in this direction unless I can find: A programming language that has managed memory (garbage collection) A unit testing tool akin to JUnit, NUnit, etc. for unit tests I would also prefer if other tools exist, like code-coverage, etc. for that platform. But the main thing is managed memory and unit testing. What options are out there?

    Read the article

  • How to organize unit/integration test in BDD

    - by whatf
    So finally after reading a lot, I have understood that the difference between BDD and TDD is between T & B. But coming from basic TDD background, what I used to was, first write unittest for database models write test for views (at this point start with integration test as well, along with unittests) write more integration tests for testing UI stuff. What would be a correct way to approach BDD. Say I have a simple blog application. Given : When a user logs in. He should be shown list of all his posts. But for this, I need a model with a row user, another row blog posts. So how do we go about writing tests? when do we create fixtures? When do we write integration (selenium) tests?

    Read the article

  • Run Your Tests With Any NUnit Version

    - by Alois Kraus
    I always thought that the NUnit test runners and the test assemblies need to reference the same NUnit.Framework version. I wanted to be able to run my test assemblies with the newest GUI runner (currently 2.5.3). Ok so all I need to do is to reference both NUnit versions the newest one and the official for the current project. There is a nice article form Kent Bogart online how to reference the same assembly multiple times with different versions. The magic works by referencing one NUnit assembly with an alias which does prefix all types inside it. Then I could decorate my tests with the TestFixture and Test attribute from both NUnit versions and everything worked fine except that this was ugly. After playing a little bit around to make it simpler I found that I did not need to reference both NUnit.Framework assemblies. The test runners do not require the TestFixture and Test attribute in their specific version. That is really neat since the test runners are instructed by attributes what to do in a declarative way there is really no need to tie the runners to a specific version. At its core NUnit has this little method hidden to find matching TestFixtures and Tests   public bool CanBuildFrom(Type type) {     if (!(!type.IsAbstract || type.IsSealed))     {         return false;     }     return (((Reflect.HasAttribute(type,           "NUnit.Framework.TestFixtureAttribute", true) ||               Reflect.HasMethodWithAttribute(type, "NUnit.Framework.TestAttribute"       , true)) ||               Reflect.HasMethodWithAttribute(type, "NUnit.Framework.TestCaseAttribute"   , true)) ||               Reflect.HasMethodWithAttribute(type, "NUnit.Framework.TheoryAttribute"     , true)); } That is versioning and backwards compatibility at its best. I tell NUnit what to do by decorating my tests classes with NUnit Attributes and the runner executes my intent without the need to bind me to a specific version. The contract between NUnit versions is actually a bit more complex (think of AssertExceptions) but this is also handled nicely by using not the concrete type but simply to check for the catched exception type by string. What can we learn from this? Versioning can be easy if the contract is small and the users of your library use it in a declarative way (Attributes). Everything beyond it will force you to reference several versions of the same assembly with all its consequences. Type equality is lost between versions so none of your casts will work. That means that you cannot simply use IBigInterface in two versions. You will need a wrapper to call the correct versioned one. To get out of this mess you can use one (and only one) version agnostic driver to encapsulate your business logic from the concrete versions. This is of course more work but as NUnit shows it can be easy. Simplicity is therefore not a nice thing to have but also requirement number one if you intend to make things more complex in version two and want to support any version (older and newer). Any interaction model above easy will not be maintainable. There are different approached to versioning. Below are my own personal observations how versioning works within the  .NET Framwork and NUnit.   Versioning Models 1. Bug Fixing and New Isolated Features When you only need to fix bugs there is no need to break anything. This is especially true when you have a big API surface. Microsoft did this with the .NET Framework 3.0 which did leave the CLR as is but delivered new assemblies for the features WPF, WCF and Windows Workflow Foundations. Their basic model was that the .NET 2.0 assemblies were declared as red assemblies which must not change (well mostly but each change was carefully reviewed to minimize the risk of breaking changes as much as possible) whereas the new green assemblies of .NET 3,3.5 did not have such obligations since they did implement new unrelated features which did not have any impact on the red assemblies. This is versioning strategy aimed at maximum compatibility and the delivery of new unrelated features. If you have a big API surface you should strive hard to do the same or you will break your customers code with every release. 2. New Breaking Features There are times when really new things need to be added to an existing product. The .NET Framework 4.0 did change the CLR in many ways which caused subtle different behavior although the API´s remained largely unchanged. Sometimes it is possible to simply recompile an application to make it work (e.g. changed method signature void Func() –> bool Func()) but behavioral changes need much more thought and cannot be automated. To minimize the impact .NET 2.0,3.0,3.5 applications will not automatically use the .NET 4.0 runtime when installed but they will keep using the “old” one. What is interesting is that a side by side execution model of both CLR versions (2 and 4) within one process is possible. Key to success was total isolation. You will have 2 GCs, 2 JIT compilers, 2 finalizer threads within one process. The two .NET runtimes cannot talk  (except via the usual IPC mechanisms) to each other. Both runtimes share nothing and run independently within the same process. This enables Explorer plugins written for the CLR 2.0 to work even when a CLR 4 plugin is already running inside the Explorer process. The price for isolation is an increased memory footprint because everything is loaded and running two times.   3. New Non Breaking Features It really depends where you break things. NUnit has evolved and many different Assert, Expect… methods have been added. These changes are all localized in the NUnit.Framework assembly which can be easily extended. As long as the test execution contract (TestFixture, Test, AssertException) remains stable it is possible to write test executors which can run tests written for NUnit 10 because the execution contract has not changed. It is possible to write software which executes other components in a version independent way but this is only feasible if the interaction model is relatively simple.   Versioning software is hard and it looks like it will remain hard since you suddenly work in a severely constrained environment when you try to innovate and to keep everything backwards compatible at the same time. These are contradicting goals and do not play well together. The easiest way out of this is to carefully watch what your customers are doing with your software. Minimizing the impact is much easier when you do not need to guess how many people will be broken when this or that is removed.

    Read the article

  • Bug in Delphi XE RegularExpressions Unit

    - by Jan Goyvaerts
    Using the new RegularExpressions unit in Delphi XE, you can iterate over all the matches that a regex finds in a string like this: procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject); var RegEx: TRegEx; Match: TMatch; begin RegEx := TRegex.Create('\w+'); Match := RegEx.Match('One two three four'); while Match.Success do begin Memo1.Lines.Add(Match.Value); Match := Match.NextMatch; end end; Or you could save yourself two lines of code by using the static TRegEx.Match call: procedure TForm1.Button2Click(Sender: TObject); var Match: TMatch; begin Match := TRegEx.Match('One two three four', '\w+'); while Match.Success do begin Memo1.Lines.Add(Match.Value); Match := Match.NextMatch; end end; Unfortunately, due to a bug in the RegularExpressions unit, the static call doesn’t work. Depending on your exact code, you may get fewer matches or blank matches than you should, or your application may crash with an access violation. The RegularExpressions unit defines TRegEx and TMatch as records. That way you don’t have to explicitly create and destroy them. Internally, TRegEx uses TPerlRegEx to do the heavy lifting. TPerlRegEx is a class that needs to be created and destroyed like any other class. If you look at the TRegEx source code, you’ll notice that it uses an interface to destroy the TPerlRegEx instance when TRegEx goes out of scope. Interfaces are reference counted in Delphi, making them usable for automatic memory management. The bug is that TMatch and TGroupCollection also need the TPerlRegEx instance to do their work. TRegEx passes its TPerlRegEx instance to TMatch and TGroupCollection, but it does not pass the instance of the interface that is responsible for destroying TPerlRegEx. This is not a problem in our first code sample. TRegEx stays in scope until we’re done with TMatch. The interface is destroyed when Button1Click exits. In the second code sample, the static TRegEx.Match call creates a local variable of type TRegEx. This local variable goes out of scope when TRegEx.Match returns. Thus the reference count on the interface reaches zero and TPerlRegEx is destroyed when TRegEx.Match returns. When we call MatchAgain the TMatch record tries to use a TPerlRegEx instance that has already been destroyed. To fix this bug, delete or rename the two RegularExpressions.dcu files and copy RegularExpressions.pas into your source code folder. Make these changes to both the TMatch and TGroupCollection records in this unit: Declare FNotifier: IInterface; in the private section. Add the parameter ANotifier: IInterface; to the Create constructor. Assign FNotifier := ANotifier; in the constructor’s implementation. You also need to add the ANotifier: IInterface; parameter to the TMatchCollection.Create constructor. Now try to compile some code that uses the RegularExpressions unit. The compiler will flag all calls to TMatch.Create, TGroupCollection.Create and TMatchCollection.Create. Fix them by adding the ANotifier or FNotifier parameter, depending on whether ARegEx or FRegEx is being passed. With these fixes, the TPerlRegEx instance won’t be destroyed until the last TRegEx, TMatch, or TGroupCollection that uses it goes out of scope or is used with a different regular expression.

    Read the article

  • Getting uninitialized constant error when trying to run tests

    - by Ethan
    I just updated all my gems and I'm finding that I'm getting errors when trying to run Test::Unit tests. I'm getting the error copied below. That comes from creating new, empty Rails project, scaffolding a simple model, and running rake test. Tried Googling "uninitialized constant" and TestResultFailureSupport. The only thing I found was this bug report from 2007. I'm using OS X. These are the gems that I updated right before the tests stopped working: $ sudo gem outdated Password: RedCloth (4.2.1 < 4.2.2) RubyInline (3.8.1 < 3.8.2) ZenTest (4.1.1 < 4.1.3) bluecloth (2.0.4 < 2.0.5) capistrano (2.5.5 < 2.5.8) haml (2.0.9 < 2.2.1) hoe (2.2.0 < 2.3.2) json (1.1.6 < 1.1.7) mocha (0.9.5 < 0.9.7) rest-client (1.0.2 < 1.0.3) thoughtbot-factory_girl (1.2.1 < 1.2.2) thoughtbot-shoulda (2.10.1 < 2.10.2) Has anyone else seen this issue? Any troubleshooting suggestions? UPDATE On a hunch I downgraded ZenTest from 4.1.3 back to 4.1.1 and now everything works again. Still curious to know if anyone else has seen this or has any interesting comments or insights. $ rake test (in /Users/me/foo) /usr/local/bin/ruby -I"lib:test" "/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/unit/helpers/users_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/user_test.rb" /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.2/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:105:in `const_missing': uninitialized constant Test::Unit::TestResult::TestResultFailureSupport (NameError) from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/test-unit-2.0.2/lib/test/unit/testresult.rb:28 from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `gem_original_require' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `require' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.2/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:158:in `require' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/test-unit-2.0.2/lib/test/unit/ui/testrunnermediator.rb:9 from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `gem_original_require' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `require' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.2/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:158:in `require' ... 6 levels... from /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/test/unit/autorunner.rb:214:in `run' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/test/unit/autorunner.rb:12:in `run' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/test/unit.rb:278 from /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb:5 /usr/local/bin/ruby -I"lib:test" "/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/functional/users_controller_test.rb"

    Read the article

  • How to create multiple Repository object inside a Repository class using Unit Of Work?

    - by Santosh
    I am newbie to MVC3 application development, currently, we need following Application technologies as requirement MVC3 framework IOC framework – Autofac to manage object creation dynamically Moq – Unit testing Entity Framework Repository and Unit Of Work Pattern of Model class I have gone through many article to explore an basic idea about the above points but still I am little bit confused on the “Repository and Unit Of Work Pattern “. Basically what I understand Unit Of Work is a pattern which will be followed along with Repository Pattern in order to share the single DB Context among all Repository object, So here is my design : IUnitOfWork.cs public interface IUnitOfWork : IDisposable { IPermitRepository Permit_Repository{ get; } IRebateRepository Rebate_Repository { get; } IBuildingTypeRepository BuildingType_Repository { get; } IEEProjectRepository EEProject_Repository { get; } IRebateLookupRepository RebateLookup_Repository { get; } IEEProjectTypeRepository EEProjectType_Repository { get; } void Save(); } UnitOfWork.cs public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork { #region Private Members private readonly CEEPMSEntities context = new CEEPMSEntities(); private IPermitRepository permit_Repository; private IRebateRepository rebate_Repository; private IBuildingTypeRepository buildingType_Repository; private IEEProjectRepository eeProject_Repository; private IRebateLookupRepository rebateLookup_Repository; private IEEProjectTypeRepository eeProjectType_Repository; #endregion #region IUnitOfWork Implemenation public IPermitRepository Permit_Repository { get { if (this.permit_Repository == null) { this.permit_Repository = new PermitRepository(context); } return permit_Repository; } } public IRebateRepository Rebate_Repository { get { if (this.rebate_Repository == null) { this.rebate_Repository = new RebateRepository(context); } return rebate_Repository; } } } PermitRepository .cs public class PermitRepository : IPermitRepository { #region Private Members private CEEPMSEntities objectContext = null; private IObjectSet<Permit> objectSet = null; #endregion #region Constructors public PermitRepository() { } public PermitRepository(CEEPMSEntities _objectContext) { this.objectContext = _objectContext; this.objectSet = objectContext.CreateObjectSet<Permit>(); } #endregion public IEnumerable<RebateViewModel> GetRebatesByPermitId(int _permitId) { // need to implment } } PermitController .cs public class PermitController : Controller { #region Private Members IUnitOfWork CEEPMSContext = null; #endregion #region Constructors public PermitController(IUnitOfWork _CEEPMSContext) { if (_CEEPMSContext == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("Object can not be null"); } CEEPMSContext = _CEEPMSContext; } #endregion } So here I am wondering how to generate a new Repository for example “TestRepository.cs” using same pattern where I can create more then one Repository object like RebateRepository rebateRepo = new RebateRepository () AddressRepository addressRepo = new AddressRepository() because , what ever Repository object I want to create I need an object of UnitOfWork first as implmented in the PermitController class. So if I would follow the same in each individual Repository class that would again break the priciple of Unit Of Work and create multiple instance of object context. So any idea or suggestion will be highly appreciated. Thank you

    Read the article

  • How can I decide what to test manually, and what to trust to automated tests?

    - by bhazzard
    We have a ton of developers and only a few QA folks. The developers have been getting more involved in qa throughout the development process by writing automated tests, but our QA practices are mostly manual. What I'd love is if our development practices were BDD and TDD and we grew a robust test suite. The question is: While building such a testing suite, how can we decide what we can trust to the tests, and what we should continue testing manually?

    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

  • Unit Testing using InternalsVisibleToAttribute requires compiling with /out:filename.ext?

    - by Will Marcouiller
    In my most recent question: Unit Testing Best Practice? / C# InternalsVisibleTo() attribute for VBNET 2.0 while testing?, I was asking about InternalsVisibleToAttribute. I have read the documentation on how to use it, and everything is fine and understood. However, I can't instantiate my class Groupe from my Testing project. I want to be able to instantiate my internal class in my wrapper assembly, from my testing assembly. Any help is appreciated! EDIT #1 Here's the compile-time error I get when I do try to instantiate my type: Erreur 2 'Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Groupe' n'est pas accessible dans ce contexte, car il est 'Private'. C:\Open\Projects\Exemples\Src\Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory\Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Tests\GroupeTests.vb 9 18 Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Tests (This says that my type is not accessible in this context, because it is private.) But it's Friend (internal)! EDIT #2 Here's a piece of code as suggested for the Groupe class implementing the Public interface IGroupe: #Region "Importations" Imports System.DirectoryServices Imports System.Runtime.CompilerServices #End Region <Assembly: InternalsVisibleTo("Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Tests")> Friend Class Groupe Implements IGroupe #Region "Membres privés" Private _classe As String = "group" Private _domaine As String Private _membres As CustomSet(Of IUtilisateur) Private _groupeNatif As DirectoryEntry #End Region #Region "Constructeurs" Friend Sub New() _membres = New CustomSet(Of IUtilisateur)() _groupeNatif = New DirectoryEntry() End Sub Friend Sub New(ByVal domaine As String) If (String.IsNullOrEmpty(domaine)) Then Throw New ArgumentNullException() _domaine = domaine _membres = New CustomSet(Of IUtilisateur)() _groupeNatif = New DirectoryEntry(domaine) End Sub Friend Sub New(ByVal groupeNatif As DirectoryEntry) _groupeNatif = groupeNatif _domaine = _groupeNatif.Path _membres = New CustomSet(Of IUtilisateur)() End Sub #End Region And the code trying to use it: #Region "Importations" Imports NUnit.Framework Imports Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Tests #End Region <TestFixture()> _ Public Class GroupeTests <Test()> _ Public Sub CreerDefaut() Dim g As Groupe = New Groupe() Assert.IsNotNull(g) Assert.IsInstanceOf(Groupe, g) End Sub End Class EDIT #3 Damn! I have just noticed that I wasn't importing the assembly in my importation region. Nope, didn't solve anything =( Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How do I implement repository pattern and unit of work when dealing with multiple data stores?

    - by Jason
    I have a unique situation where I am building a DDD based system that needs to access both Active Directory and a SQL database as persistence. Initially this wasnt a problem because our design was setup where we had a unit of work that looked like this: public interface IUnitOfWork { void BeginTransaction() void Commit() } and our repositories looked like this: public interface IRepository<T> { T GetByID() void Save(T entity) void Delete(T entity) } In this setup our load and save would handle the mapping between both data stores because we wrote it ourselves. The unit of work would handle transactions and would contain the Linq To SQL data context that the repositories would use for persistence. The active directory part was handled by a domain service implemented in infrastructure and consumed by the repositories in each Save() method. Save() was responsible with interacting with the data context to do all the database operations. Now we are trying to adapt it to entity framework and take advantage of POCO. Ideally we would not need the Save() method because the domain objects are being tracked by the object context and we would just need to add a Save() method on the unit of work to have the object context save the changes, and a way to register new objects with the context. The new proposed design looks more like this: public interface IUnitOfWork { void BeginTransaction() void Save() void Commit() } public interface IRepository<T> { T GetByID() void Add(T entity) void Delete(T entity) } This solves the data access problem with entity framework, but does not solve the problem with our active directory integration. Before, it was in the Save() method on the repository, but now it has no home. The unit of work knows nothing other than the entity framework data context. Where should this logic go? I argue this design only works if you only have one data store using entity framework. Any ideas how to best approach this issue? Where should I put this logic?

    Read the article

  • How to keep your unit test Arrange step simple and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

    - by ian31
    DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC - How to Unit Test boundaries in the Repository pattern?

    - by JK
    Given a basic repository interface: public interface IPersonRepository { void AddPerson(Person person); List<Person> GetAllPeople(); } With a basic implementation: public class PersonRepository: IPersonRepository { public void AddPerson(Person person) { ObjectContext.AddObject(person); } public List<Person> GetAllPeople() { return ObjectSet.AsQueryable().ToList(); } } How can you unit test this in a meaningful way? Since it crosses the boundary and physically updates and reads from the database, thats not a unit test, its an integration test. Or is it wrong to want to unit test this in the first place? Should I only have integration tests on the repository? I've been googling the subject and blogs often say to make a stub that implements the IRepository: public class PersonRepositoryTestStub: IPersonRepository { private List<Person> people = new List<Person>(); public void AddPerson(Person person) { people.Add(person); } public List<Person> GetAllPeople() { return people; } } But that doesnt unit test PersonRepository, it tests the implementation of PersonRepositoryTestStub (not very helpful).

    Read the article

  • smartctl not actually running self tests?

    - by canzar
    I want to run the smartctl self tests to check the health of the drives in my RAID array (PERC 5/i). The array is on sda and comprises six drives. I can check the status using sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -a And I see that SMART is available and enabled on all the drives. I have tried to run self tests using sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -t short and sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -t long I have also tried it on all of the drives 0-5. No matter what I try, when I run: sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -l selftest I always get the same result, which seems to always report that I have never run a self test. /dev/sda [megaraid_disk_00] [SAT]: Device open changed type from 'megaraid' to 'sat' ===START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 No self-tests have been logged. [To run self-tests, use: smartctl -t] From what I read, I should have no problem running the short and long self tests on the array while it is mounted. Does anyone else have experience running these tests on a PERC 5/i raid array who could lend some insight into what is causing the problem? (smartmontools release 5.40 dated 2009-12-09 at 21:00:32 UTC)

    Read the article

  • Doing unit and integration tests with the Web API HttpClient

    - by cibrax
    One of the nice things about the new HttpClient in System.Net.Http is the support for mocking responses or handling requests in a http server hosted in-memory. While the first option is useful for scenarios in which we want to test our client code in isolation (unit tests for example), the second one enables more complete integration testing scenarios that could include some more components in the stack such as model binders or message handlers for example.   The HttpClient can receive a HttpMessageHandler as argument in one of its constructors. public class HttpClient : HttpMessageInvoker { public HttpClient(); public HttpClient(HttpMessageHandler handler); public HttpClient(HttpMessageHandler handler, bool disposeHandler); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } For the first scenario, you can create a new HttpMessageHandler that fakes the response, which you can use in your unit test. The only requirement is that you somehow inject an HttpClient with this custom handler in the client code. public class FakeHttpMessageHandler : HttpMessageHandler { HttpResponseMessage response; public FakeHttpMessageHandler(HttpResponseMessage response) { this.response = response; } protected override Task<HttpResponseMessage> SendAsync(HttpRequestMessage request, System.Threading.CancellationToken cancellationToken) { var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<HttpResponseMessage>(); tcs.SetResult(response); return tcs.Task; } } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } In an unit test, you can do something like this. var fakeResponse = new HttpResponse(); var fakeHandler = new FakeHttpMessageHandler(fakeResponse); var httpClient = new HttpClient(fakeHandler); var customerService = new CustomerService(httpClient); // Do something // Asserts .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } CustomerService in this case is the class under test, and the one that receives an HttpClient initialized with our fake handler. For the second scenario in integration tests, there is a In-Memory host “System.Web.Http.HttpServer” that also derives from HttpMessageHandler and you can use with a HttpClient instance in your test. This has been discussed already in these two great posts from Pedro and Filip. 

    Read the article

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