Search Results

Search found 32072 results on 1283 pages for 'catch unit test'.

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 29/1283 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • Implementing a Stack using Test-Driven Development

    - by devoured elysium
    I am doing my first steps with TDD. The problem is (as probably with everyone starting with TDD), I never know very well what kind of unit tests to do when I start working in my projects. Let's assume I want to write a Stack class with the following methods(I choose it as it's an easy example): Stack<T> - Push(element : T) - Pop() : T - Seek() : T - Count : int - IsEmpty : boolean How would you approch this? I never understood if the idea is to test a few corner cases for each method of the Stack class or start by doing a few "use cases" with the class, like adding 10 elements and removing them. What is the idea? To make code that uses the Stack as close as possible to what I'll use in my real code? Or just make simple "add one element" unit tests where I test if IsEmpty and Count were changed by adding that element? How am I supposed to start with this?

    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

  • What is the role of asserts in C++ programs that have unit tests?

    - by lhumongous
    Greetings, I've been adding unit tests to some legacy C++ code, and I've run into many scenarios where an assert inside a function will get tripped during a unit test run. A common idiom that I've run across is functions that take pointer arguments and immediately assert if the argument is NULL. I could easily get around this by disabling asserts when I'm unit testing. But I'm starting to wonder if unit tests are supposed to alleviate the need for runtime asserts. Is this a correct assessment? Are unit tests supposed to replace runtime asserts by happening sooner in the pipeline (ie: the error is caught in a failing test instead of when the program is running). On the other hand, I don't like adding soft fails to code (eg: if(param == NULL) return false;). A runtime assert at least makes it easier to debug a problem in case a unit test missed a bug. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to Unit Test HtmlHelper similar to using(Html.BeginForm()){ }

    - by DaveDev
    Can somebody please suggest how I could write a Unit Test with Moq for following HtmlHelper method? public static HtmlTagBase GenerateTag<T>(this HtmlHelper htmlHelper , object elementData , object attributes) where T : HtmlTagBase { return (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T) , htmlHelper.ViewContext , elementData , attributes); } which you would use as follows (please note the using statement - this is causing me confusion): <%--Model is a type of ShareClass--%> <% using (Html.GenerateTag<DivTag>(Model)) { %> My Div <% } %> using this method, if you specify T as type DivTag, where ShareClass is defined as public class ShareClass { public string Name { get; set; } public string Type { get; set; } public IEnumerable<Fund> Funds { get; set; } public ShareClass(string name, string shareClassType) { this.Name = name; this.Type = shareClassType; } } the following html will be rendered: <div class="ShareClass" shareclass-type="ShareClass_A" shareclass-name="MyShareClass">My Div</div>

    Read the article

  • starting and stopping hsqldb from unit tests

    - by Casey
    I'm trying to create integration tests using hsqldb in an in memory mode. At the moment, I have to start the hsqldb server from the command line before running the unit tests. I would like to be able to be able to control the hsqldb server from my integration tests. I can't seem to get this to all work out though from code. Thanks, Casey Update: This appears to work along with having a hibernate.cfg.xml file in the classpath: org.hsqldb.Server.main(new String[]{}); and in my hibernate.cfg.xml file: <property name="connection.driver_class">org.hsqldb.jdbcDriver</property> <property name="connection.url">jdbc:hsqldb:mem:ww</property> <property name="connection.username">sa</property> <property name="connection.password"></property> <property name="connection.pool_size">1</property> <property name="dialect">org.hibernate.dialect.HSQLDialect</property> <property name="current_session_context_class">thread</property> <property name="cache.provider_class">org.hibernate.cache.NoCacheProvider</property> <property name="hbm2ddl.auto">update</property>

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Refcounted Critical Section Class

    - by BillyONeal
    Hello all :) I'm looking at a simple class I have to manage critical sections and locks, and I'd like to cover this with test cases. Does this make sense, and how would one go about doing it? It's difficult because the only way to verify the class works is to setup very complicated threading scenarios, and even then there's not a good way to test for a leak of a Critical Section in Win32. Is there a more direct way to make sure it's working correctly? Here's the code: CriticalSection.hpp: #pragma once #include <windows.h> namespace WindowsAPI { namespace Threading { class CriticalSection; class CriticalLock { std::size_t *instanceCount; CRITICAL_SECTION * criticalStructure; bool lockValid; friend class CriticalSection; CriticalLock(std::size_t *, CRITICAL_SECTION *, bool); public: bool IsValid() { return lockValid; }; void Unlock(); ~CriticalLock() { Unlock(); }; }; class CriticalSection { std::size_t *instanceCount; CRITICAL_SECTION * criticalStructure; public: CriticalSection(); CriticalSection(const CriticalSection&); CriticalSection& operator=(const CriticalSection&); CriticalSection& swap(CriticalSection&); ~CriticalSection(); CriticalLock Enter(); CriticalLock TryEnter(); }; }} CriticalSection.cpp: #include "CriticalSection.hpp" namespace WindowsAPI { namespace Threading { CriticalSection::CriticalSection() { criticalStructure = new CRITICAL_SECTION; instanceCount = new std::size_t; *instanceCount = 1; InitializeCriticalSection(criticalStructure); } CriticalSection::CriticalSection(const CriticalSection& other) { criticalStructure = other.criticalStructure; instanceCount = other.instanceCount; instanceCount++; } CriticalSection& CriticalSection::operator=(const CriticalSection& other) { CriticalSection copyOfOther(other); swap(copyOfOther); return *this; } CriticalSection& CriticalSection::swap(CriticalSection& other) { std::swap(other.instanceCount, instanceCount); std::swap(other.criticalStructure, other.criticalStructure); return *this; } CriticalSection::~CriticalSection() { if (!--(*instanceCount)) { DeleteCriticalSection(criticalStructure); delete criticalStructure; delete instanceCount; } } CriticalLock CriticalSection::Enter() { EnterCriticalSection(criticalStructure); (*instanceCount)++; return CriticalLock(instanceCount, criticalStructure, true); } CriticalLock CriticalSection::TryEnter() { bool lockAquired; if (TryEnterCriticalSection(criticalStructure)) { (*instanceCount)++; lockAquired = true; } else lockAquired = false; return CriticalLock(instanceCount, criticalStructure, lockAquired); } void CriticalLock::Unlock() { if (!lockValid) return; LeaveCriticalSection(criticalStructure); lockValid = false; if (!--(*instanceCount)) { DeleteCriticalSection(criticalStructure); delete criticalStructure; delete instanceCount; } } }}

    Read the article

  • Problem with Unit testing of ASP.NET project (NullReferenceException when running the test)

    - by Alex
    Hi, I'm trying to create a bunch of MS visual studio unit tests for my n-tiered web app but for some reason I can't run those tests and I get the following error - "Object reference not set to an instance of an object" What I'm trying to do is testing of my data access layer where I use LINQ data context class to execute a certain function and return a result,however during the debugging process I found out that all the tests fail as soon as they get to the LINQ data context class and it has something to do with the connection string but I cant figure out what is the problem. The debugging of tests fails here(the second line): public EICDataClassesDataContext() : base(global::System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["EICDatabaseConnectionString"].ConnectionString, mappingSource) { OnCreated(); } And my test is as follows: TestMethod()] public void OnGetCustomerIDTest() { FrontLineStaffDataAccess target = new FrontLineStaffDataAccess(); // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value string regNo = "jonh"; // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value int expected = 10; // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value int actual; actual = target.OnGetCustomerID(regNo); Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); } The method which I call from DAL is: public int OnGetCustomerID(string regNo) { using (LINQDataAccess.EICDataClassesDataContext dataContext = new LINQDataAccess.EICDataClassesDataContext()) { IEnumerable<LINQDataAccess.GetCustomerIDResult> sProcCustomerIDResult = dataContext.GetCustomerID(regNo); int customerID = sProcCustomerIDResult.First().CustomerID; return customerID; } } So basically everything fails after it reaches the 1st line of DA layer method and when it tries to instantiate the LINQ data access class... I've spent around 10 hours trying to troubleshoot the problem but no result...I would really appreciate any help! UPDATE: Finally I've fixed this!!!!:) I dont know why but for some reasons in the app.config file the connection to my database was as follows: AttachDbFilename=|DataDirectory|\EICDatabase.MDF So what I did is I just changed the path and instead of |DataDirectory| I put the actual path where my MDF file sits,i.e C:\Users\1\Documents\Visual Studio 2008\Projects\EICWebSystem\EICWebSystem\App_Data\EICDatabase.mdf After I had done that it worked out!But still it's a bit not clear what was the problem...probably incorrect path to the database?My web.config of ASP.NET project contains the |DataDirectory|\EICDatabase.MDF path though..

    Read the article

  • Unit testing that an event is raised in C#, using reflection

    - by Thomas
    I want to test that setting a certain property (or more generally, executing some code) raises a certain event on my object. In that respect my problem is similar to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/248989/unit-testing-that-an-event-is-raised-in-c, but I need a lot of these tests and I hate boilerplate. So I'm looking for a more general solution, using reflection. Ideally, I would like to do something like this: [TestMethod] public void TestWidth() { MyClass myObject = new MyClass(); AssertRaisesEvent(() => { myObject.Width = 42; }, myObject, "WidthChanged"); } For the implementation of the AssertRaisesEvent, I've come this far: private void AssertRaisesEvent(Action action, object obj, string eventName) { EventInfo eventInfo = obj.GetType().GetEvent(eventName); int raisedCount = 0; Action incrementer = () => { ++raisedCount; }; Delegate handler = /* what goes here? */; eventInfo.AddEventHandler(obj, handler); action.Invoke(); eventInfo.RemoveEventHandler(obj, handler); Assert.AreEqual(1, raisedCount); } As you can see, my problem lies in creating a Delegate of the appropriate type for this event. The delegate should do nothing except invoke incrementer. Because of all the syntactic syrup in C#, my notion of how delegates and events really work is a bit hazy. How to do this?

    Read the article

  • Visual C++ overrides/mock objects for unit testing?

    - by Mark
    When I'm running unit tests, I want to be able to "stub out" or create a mock object, but I'm running into DLL Hell. For example: There are two DLL libraries built: A.dll and B.dll -- Classes in A.dll have calls to classes in B.dll so when A.dll was built, the link line was using B.lib for the defintions. My test driver (Foo.exe) is testing classes in A.dll, so it links against A.lib. However, I want to "stub out" some of the calls A.dll makes to B.dll with simple versions (return basic value, no DB look up, etc). I can't build an Override.dll that just overrides the needed methods (not entire classes) and replace B.dll because Foo.exe will A) complain that B.dll is missing if I just remove it and put Override.dll in it's place or B) if I rename Override.dll to B.dll, Foo.exe complains that there are unresolved symbols because Override.dll is not a complete implementation of B.dll. Is there a way to do this? Is there a way to statically link Foo.exe with A.lib, B.lib and Override.lib such that it will work without having to completely rebuild A.lib and B.lib to remove the __delcspec(dllexport)? Is there another option?

    Read the article

  • Unit test approach for generic classes/methods

    - by Greg
    Hi, What's the recommended way to cover off unit testing of generic classes/methods? For example (referring to my example code below). Would it be a case of have 2 or 3 times the tests to cover testing the methods with a few different types of TKey, TNode classes? Or is just one class enough? public class TopologyBase<TKey, TNode, TRelationship> where TNode : NodeBase<TKey>, new() where TRelationship : RelationshipBase<TKey>, new() { // Properties public Dictionary<TKey, NodeBase<TKey>> Nodes { get; private set; } public List<RelationshipBase<TKey>> Relationships { get; private set; } // Constructors protected TopologyBase() { Nodes = new Dictionary<TKey, NodeBase<TKey>>(); Relationships = new List<RelationshipBase<TKey>>(); } // Methods public TNode CreateNode(TKey key) { var node = new TNode {Key = key}; Nodes.Add(node.Key, node); return node; } public void CreateRelationship(NodeBase<TKey> parent, NodeBase<TKey> child) { . . .

    Read the article

  • Rx framework: How to wait for an event to be triggered in silverlight test

    - by user324255
    Hi, I have a ViewModel that starts loading the Model async in the constructor, and triggers an event when the Model is loaded. I got a test working with the silverlight unit test framework, like this : bool done = false; [TestMethod] [Asynchronous] public void Test_NoCustomerSelected() { ProjectListViewModel viewModel = null; EnqueueCallback(() => viewModel = new ProjectListViewModel()); EnqueueCallback(() => viewModel.ModelLoaded += new EventHandler<EventArgs>(viewModel_ModelLoaded)); EnqueueConditional(() => done); EnqueueCallback(() => Assert.IsNotNull(viewModel.FilteredProjectList)); EnqueueCallback(() => Assert.AreEqual(4, viewModel.FilteredProjectList.Count)); EnqueueTestComplete(); } void viewModel_ModelLoaded(object sender, EventArgs e) { done = true; } But I'm beginning playing with Rx Framework, and trying to get my test to work, but so far I have no luck. Here's 2 attempts : public void Test_NoCustomerSelected2() { ProjectListViewModel viewModel = null; viewModel = new ProjectListViewModel(eventAggregatorMock.Object, moduleManagerMock.Object); IObservable<IEvent<EventArgs>> eventAsObservable = Observable.FromEvent<EventArgs>( ev => viewModel.ModelLoaded += ev, ev => viewModel.ModelLoaded -= ev); eventAsObservable.Subscribe(args => viewModel_ModelLoaded(args.Sender, args.EventArgs)); eventAsObservable.First(); Assert.IsNotNull(viewModel.Model); Assert.AreEqual(4, viewModel.Model.Count); } [TestMethod] public void Test_NoCustomerSelected3() { ProjectListViewModel viewModel = null; var o = Observable.Start(() => viewModel = new ProjectListViewModel(eventAggregatorMock.Object, moduleManagerMock.Object)); IObservable<IEvent<EventArgs>> eventAsObservable = Observable.FromEvent<EventArgs>( ev => viewModel.ModelLoaded += ev, ev => viewModel.ModelLoaded -= ev); o.TakeUntil(eventAsObservable) .First(); Assert.IsNotNull(viewModel.Model); Assert.AreEqual(4, viewModel.Model.Count); } The first test goes in waiting forever, the second doesn't work because the viewModel is null when it does the FromEvent. Anyone has a clue on how to do this properly?

    Read the article

  • Running a JUnit4 test - from a java program

    - by markovuksanovic
    I was wondering how to run some JUnit4 test inside a java program. Basically - depending on some conditions during runtime I need to decide which test runner to use. Using Junit3 I could override runTest method from TestCase class - but in JUnit4 tests do not extend TestCase class so I have nothing to override... Is there maybe some method that I need to implement... or sth else...

    Read the article

  • junit4 test runner

    - by lamisse
    hello how could we uses junir related methods? could we launch setuponce from each java test? if in my test I launch the appli by calling setuponce, is it correct ?

    Read the article

  • XCode missing inline test results

    - by Vegar
    Everywhere there are pretty pictures of failing tests shown inline in the code editor, like in Peepcodes Objective-C for Rubyist screencast and in apples own technical documentation: When I build my test-target, all I get is a little red icon down in the right corner, stating something went wrong. When clicking on it, I get the Build Results, where I can start to hunt for test results. Do anyone have a clue on what´s wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to test onLowMemory conditions?

    - by Samuh
    I have put some instructions in onLowMemory() callback and want to test the same. Is there a "direct" way to test onLowMemory function of the application subclass? Or will I have to just overload the phone by starting many apps and doing memory intensive tasks? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Rails - How do you test ActionMailer sent a specific email in tests

    - by adam
    Currently in my tests I do something like this to test if an email is queued to be sent assert_difference('ActionMailer::Base.deliveries.size', 1) do get :create_from_spreedly, {:user_id => @logged_in_user.id} end but if i a controller action can send two different emails i.e. one to the user if sign up goes fine or a notification to admin if something went wrong - how can i test which one actually got sent. The code above would pass regardless.

    Read the article

  • Any special assertion to test if the resulting integer lies within a range

    - by barerd
    I would like to test if an instance variable lies in a range of numbers. I solved the problem by using assert_in_delta but would like to know if there is a formal assertion for this. #part of the tested class def initialize(value = 70 + rand(30)) @value = value end #test_value.rb class ValueTestCase < Test::Unit::TestCase def test_if_value_in_range assert_in_delta(85, p.value, 15) end end

    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 | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >