Search Results

Search found 4724 results on 189 pages for 's unit'.

Page 29/189 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • Django unit testing: South-migrated DB works in MySQL, throws duplicate PK error in PostGreSQL. Am I

    - by unclaimedbaggage
    Hi folks, (Worth starting off with a disclaimer: I'm very new to PostGreSQL) I have a django site which involves a standard app/tests.py testing file. If I migrate the DB to MySQL (through South),, the tests all pass. However in PostGresQL, I'm getting the following error: IntegrityError: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "business_contact_pkey" Note this happens while unit testing only - the actual page runs fine in both MySQL & PostGresql. Really having a heckuva time figuring this one out. Anyone have ideas? Below are the Postgresql "\d business_contact" & offending tests.py method if they help. No changes made to either DB except the (same) South migrations Thanks first_name | character varying(200) | not null mobile_phone | character varying(100) | surname | character varying(200) | not null business_id | integer | not null created | timestamp with time zone | not null deleted | boolean | not null default false updated | timestamp with time zone | not null slug | character varying(150) | not null phone | character varying(100) | email | character varying(75) | id | integer | not null default nextval('business_contact_id_seq'::regclass) Indexes: "business_contact_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id) "business_contact_slug_key" UNIQUE, btree (slug) "business_contact_business_id" btree (business_id) Foreign-key constraints: "business_id_refs_id_772cc1b7b40f4b36" FOREIGN KEY (business_id) REFERENCES business(id) DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED Referenced by: TABLE "business" CONSTRAINT "primary_contact_id_refs_id_dfaf59c4041c850" FOREIGN KEY (primary_contact_id) REFERENCES business_contact(id) DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED TEST DEF: def test_add_business_contact(self): """ Add a business contact """ contact_slug = 'test-new-contact-added-new-adf' business_id = 1 business = Business.objects.get(id=business_id) postdata = { 'first_name': 'Test', 'surname': 'User', 'business': '1', 'slug': contact_slug, 'email': '[email protected]', 'phone': '12345678', 'mobile_phone': '9823452', 'business': 1, 'business_id': 1, } #Test to ensure contacts that should not exist are not returned contact_not_exists = Contact.objects.filter(slug=contact_slug) self.assertFalse(contact_not_exists) #Add the contact and ensure it is present in the DB afterwards """ contact_add_url = '%s%s/contact/add/' % (settings.BUSINESS_URL, business.slug) self.client.post(contact_add_url, postdata) added_contact = Contact.objects.filter(slug=contact_slug) print added_contact try: self.assertTrue(added_contact) except: formset = ContactForm(postdata) print formset.errors self.assertFalse(True, "Contact not found in the database - most likely, the post values in the test didn't validate against the form")

    Read the article

  • Why does this asp.net mvc unit test fail?

    - by Brian McCord
    I have this unit test: [TestMethod] public void Delete_Post_Passes_With_State_4() { //Arrange ViewResult result = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var model = (State)result.ViewData.Model; //Act RedirectToRouteResult redirectResult = stateController.Delete( model ) as RedirectToRouteResult; var newresult = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var newmodel = (State)newresult.ViewData.Model; //Assert Assert.AreEqual( redirectResult.RouteValues["action"], "Index" ); Assert.IsNull( newmodel ); } Here are the two controller actions that handle deleting: // // GET: /State/Delete/5 public ActionResult Delete(int id) { var x = _stateService.GetById( id ); return View(x); } // // POST: /State/Delete/5 [HttpPost] public ActionResult Delete(State model) { try { if( model == null ) { return View( model ); } _stateService.Delete( model ); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } catch { return View( model ); } } What I can't figure out is why this test fails. I have verified that the record actually gets deleted from the list. If I set a break point in the Delete method on the line: var x = _stateService.GetById( id ); The GetById does indeed return a null just as it should, but when it gets back to the newresult variable in the test, the ViewData.Model is the deleted model. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • What are the best practices for unit testing properties with code in the setter?

    - by nportelli
    I'm fairly new to unit testing and we are actually attempting to use it on a project. There is a property like this. public TimeSpan CountDown { get { return _countDown; } set { long fraction = value.Ticks % 10000000; value -= TimeSpan.FromTicks(fraction); if(fraction > 5000000) value += TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1); if(_countDown != value) { _countDown = value; NotifyChanged("CountDown"); } } } My test looks like this. [TestMethod] public void CountDownTest_GetSet_PropChangedShouldFire() { ManualRafflePresenter target = new ManualRafflePresenter(); bool fired = false; string name = null; target.PropertyChanged += new PropertyChangedEventHandler((o, a) => { fired = true; name = a.PropertyName; }); TimeSpan expected = new TimeSpan(0, 1, 25); TimeSpan actual; target.CountDown = expected; actual = target.CountDown; Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); Assert.IsTrue(fired); Assert.AreEqual("CountDown", name); } The question is how do I test the code in the setter? Do I break it out into a method? If I do it would probably be private since no one else needs to use this. But they say not to test private methods. Do make a class if this is the only case? would two uses of this code make a class worthwhile? What is wrong with this code from a design standpoint. What is correct?

    Read the article

  • Code excavations, wishful invocations, perimeters and domain specific unit test frameworks

    One of the talks I did at QCON London was about a subject that Ive come across fairly recently , when I was building SilverUnit a pure unit test framework for silverlight objects that depend on the silverlight runtime to run. It is the concept of cogs in the machine when your piece of code needs to run inside a host framework or runtime that you have little or no control over for testability related matters. Examples of such cogs and machines can be: your custom control running inside silverlight...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Telerik Introduces New Developer Tool Designed to Simplify Unit Test Mocking

    JustMock extends Teleriks commitment to providing Visual Studio developer productivity Waltham, MA, April 13, 2010 Telerik, the leading vendor of development tools and user interface components for .NET, today announced the introduction of JustMock, a productivity add-in for Microsoft? Visual Studio 2008 and 2010. JustMock helps developers easily create object mockings in unit tests, saving time and improving the quality of software testing. JustMock is being introduced as a Beta and is scheduled...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Testing loses its effectiveness if all programmers don't use them

    - by Jeff O
    Let's assume you are convinced that the extra time spent unit testing has merit and improves production. Does that still hold up when everyone working on the same code doesn't use them? This question makes me wonder if fixing tests that everyone doesn't use is a waste of time. If you correct a test so the new code will pass, you're assuming the new code is correct. The person updating the test better have a firm understanding of the reasoning behind the code change and decide if the test or the new code needs to be fixed. This much inconsistency in a team when it comes to testing is probably an indication of other problems as well. There is a certain amount of risk involved that someone else on the team will alter code that is covered by testing. Is this the point where testing becomes counter-productive?

    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

  • Returning JsonResult From ASP.NET MVC 2.0 Controller and Unit Testing

    This post will show how to return a simple Json result from an ASP.NET MVC 2.0 web project.  It will show how to test that result inside a unit test and essentially pick apart the Json, just... This site is a resource for asp.net web programming. It has examples by Peter Kellner of techniques for high performance programming...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to find a python google app engine coach?

    - by David Haddad
    i'm a software engineer and have been building Google App Engine apps with Python for about a year. I have a pretty good familiarity with the main concepts: web app framework, modeling, queues, memcache, django templates, etc. Where I think I'm lacking is in methodology. Architecting the app, using git for versioning, designing an writing unit tests. I'm totally convinced to incorporate these practices in my development style, and have started reading up on them. However I've learned that I'm a much faster learner when I have someone experienced to ask questions to and interact with. IRC channels and forums like stack overflow are great. But sometimes you want something more dynamic that produces results faster. So my question is how can a person find an experienced engineer that is familiar with the technologies he uses and that is willing to give them a couple of hours of Skype coaching sessions per week in return for an hourly fee...

    Read the article

  • How can I test a parser for a bespoke XML schema?

    - by Greg B
    I'm parsing a bespoke XML format into an object graph using .NET 4.0. My parser is using the System.XML namespace internally, I'm then interrogating the relevant properties of XmlNodes to create my object graph. I've got a first cut of the parser working on a basic input file and I want to put some unit tests around this before I progress on to more complex input files. Is there a pattern for how to test a parser such as this? When I started looking at this, my first move was to new up and XmlDocument, XmlNamespaceManager and create an XmlElement. But it occurs to me that this is quite lengthy and prone to human error. My parser is quite recursive as you can imagine and this might lead to testing the full system rather than the individual units (methods) of the system. So a second question might be What refactoring might make a recursive parser more testable?

    Read the article

  • What are best practices for testing programs with stochastic behavior?

    - by John Doucette
    Doing R&D work, I often find myself writing programs that have some large degree of randomness in their behavior. For example, when I work in Genetic Programming, I often write programs that generate and execute arbitrary random source code. A problem with testing such code is that bugs are often intermittent and can be very hard to reproduce. This goes beyond just setting a random seed to the same value and starting execution over. For instance, code might read a message from the kernal ring buffer, and then make conditional jumps on the message contents. Naturally, the ring buffer's state will have changed when one later attempts to reproduce the issue. Even though this behavior is a feature it can trigger other code in unexpected ways, and thus often reveals bugs that unit tests (or human testers) don't find. Are there established best practices for testing systems of this sort? If so, some references would be very helpful. If not, any other suggestions are welcome!

    Read the article

  • Test driven development - convince me!

    - by Casebash
    I know some people are massive proponents of test driven development. I have used unit tests in the past, but only to test operations that can be tested easily or which I believe will quite possibly be correct. Complete or near complete code coverage sounds like it would take a lot of time. What projects do you use test-driven development for? Do you only use it for projects above a certain size? Should I be using it or not? Convince me!

    Read the article

  • migrating product and team from startup race to quality development

    - by thevikas
    This is year 3 and product is selling good enough. Now we need to enforce good software development practices. The goal is to monitor incoming bug reports and reduce them, allow never ending features and get ready for scaling 10x. The phrases "test-driven-development" and "continuous-integration" are not even understood by the team cause they were all in the first 2 year product race. Tech team size is 5. The question is how to sell/convince team and management about TDD/unit testing/coding standards/documentation - with economics. train the team to do more than just feature coding and start writing test units along - which looks like more work, means needs more time! how to plan for creating units for all backlog production code

    Read the article

  • Test Doubles : Do they go in "source packages" or "test packages"?

    - by sbrattla
    I've got a couple of data access objects (DefaultPersonServices.class, DefaultAddressServices.class) which is responsible for various CRUD operations in a database. A few different classes use these services, but as the services requires that a connection is established with a database I can't really use them in unit tests as they take too long. Thus, I'd like to create a test doubles for them and simply do FakePersonServices.class and FakeAddressService.class implementations which I can use throughout testing. Now, this is all good (I assume)...but my question relates to where I put the test doubles. Should I keep them along with the default implementations (aka "real" implementations) or should I keep them in a corresponding test package. The default implementations are found in Source Packages : com.company.data.services. Should I keep the test doubles here too, or should the test doubles rather be in Test Packages : com.company.data.services?

    Read the article

  • How do I check that my tests were not removed by other developers?

    - by parxier
    I've just came across an interesting collaborative coding issue at work. I've written some unit/functional/integration tests and implemented new functionality into application that's got ~20 developers working on it. All tests passed and I checked in the code. Next day I updated my project and noticed (by chance) that some of my test methods were deleted by other developers (merging problems on their end). New application code was not touched. How can I detect such problem automatically? I mean, I write tests to automatically check that my code still works (or was not deleted), how do I do the same for tests? We're using Java, JUnit, Selenium, SVN and Hudson CI if it matters.

    Read the article

  • matrix to transform unit cube to space defined by 8 arbitrary points

    - by aadster
    I asked a question relating to similar to this already, but I think this is a clearer objective of what Im trying to achieve.. or whether its possible at all! Im trying to find a transformation (matrix ideally) which would transform the 8 points of a 3d unit cube to 8 arbitrary points in space. The 8 target points have no known structure. e.g: My gut feeling is that a matrix is unable to provide this xform since the cube faces vertices can be concave.. but are there any other methods of transformation? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Should I pass an object into a constructor, or instantiate in class?

    - by Prisoner
    Consider these two examples: Passing an object to a constructor class ExampleA { private $config; public function __construct($config) { $this->config = $config; } } $config = new Config; $exampleA = new ExampleA($config); Instantiating a class class ExampleB { private $config; public function __construct() { $this->config = new Config; } } $exampleA = new ExampleA(); Which is the correct way to handle adding an object as a property? When should I use one over the other? Does unit testing affect what I should use?

    Read the article

  • Advise how to write a simple test for this javascript snippet?

    - by resting
    I'm trying to start unit testing (not using any testing frameworks) for my javascripts. Here's one example of it. var obj = {}; obj.disableBtn = function ($btn, style) { $btn.attr('disabled','disabled').addClass('disabled').removeClass(style); }; The use case is as such: obj.disableBtn($('.submit'), 'btn-blue'); What it does is simply add the disabled attribute, add the disabled class, and remove the btn-blue style. Please advise how would a typical test case look like in this case. I have a little knowledge on testing using assert(), but have no idea how to go about it when it involves verifying the result on HTML elements.

    Read the article

  • Junit (3.8.1) testing that an exception is thrown (works in unit test, fails when added to a testSui

    - by Mike Cargal
    I'm trying to test that I'm throwing an exception when appropriate. In my test class I have a method similar to the following: public void testParseException() { try { ClientEntitySingleton.getInstance(); fail("should have thrown exception."); } catch (RuntimeException re) { assertEquals( "<exception message>", re.getMessage()); } } This works fine (green bar) whenever I run that single unitTest class. However, when I add that test to a testSuite, I get a red bar Unit test failure reported on the exception. One more thing... it works in the testSuite, if it's the first test in the suite. Actually, I'm doing two of these tests and just figured out that if I make them the first two tests in the suite, all is good, but I get this failure if a "regular" test precedes it. So I have a work-around, but no real answer. Any ideas? Heres'a stack trace of the "failure" java.lang.RuntimeException: ProcEntity client dn="Xxxxxx/Xxxx/XXX" is defined multiple times. at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.addClientEntity(ClientEntitySingleton.java:247) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.startElement(ClientEntitySingleton.java:264) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.AbstractSAXParser.startElement(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl.scanStartElement(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl$FragmentContentDispatcher.dispatch(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl.scanDocument(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XML11Configuration.parse(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XML11Configuration.parse(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XMLParser.parse(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.AbstractSAXParser.parse(Unknown Source) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.parse(ClientEntitySingleton.java:216) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.reload(ClientEntitySingleton.java:303) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.setInputSourceProvider(ClientEntitySingleton.java:88) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.test.TestClientBase.setUp(TestClientBase.java:17) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.test.TestClientEntityDup.setUp(TestClientEntityDup.java:8) at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:125) at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106) at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124) at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109) at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118) at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:208) at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203) at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:208) at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:128) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:460) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:673) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:386) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:196)

    Read the article

  • Lessons from rewriting POP Forums for MVC, open source-like

    - by Jeff
    It has been a ton of work, interrupted over the last two years by unemployment, moving, a baby, failing to sell houses and other life events, but it's really exciting to see POP Forums v9 coming together. I'm not even sure when I decided to really commit to it as an open source project, but working on the same team as the CodePlex folks probably had something to do with it. Moving along the roadmap I set for myself, the app is now running on a quasi-production site... we launched MouseZoom last weekend. (That's a post-beta 1 build of the forum. There's also some nifty Silverlight DeepZoom goodness on that site.)I have to make a point to illustrate just how important starting over was for me. I started this forum thing for my sites in old ASP more than ten years ago. What a mess that stuff was, including SQL injection vulnerabilities and all kinds of crap. It went to ASP.NET in 2002, but even then, it felt a little too much like script. More than a year later, in 2003, I did an honest to goodness rewrite. If you've been in this business of writing code for any amount of time, you know how much you hate what you wrote a month ago, so just imagine that with seven years in between. The subsequent versions still carried a fair amount of crap, and that's why I had to start over, to make a clean break. Mind you, much of that crap is still running on some of my production sites in a stable manner, but it's a pain in the ass to maintain.So with that clean break, there is much that I have learned. These are a few of those lessons, in no particular order...Avoid shiny object syndromeOver the years, I've embraced new things without bothering to ask myself why. I remember spending the better part of a year trying to adapt this app to use the membership and profile API's in ASP.NET, just because they were there. They didn't solve any known problem. Early on in this version, I dabbled in exotic ORM's, even though I already had the fundamental SQL that I knew worked. I bloated up the client side code with all kinds of jQuery UI and plugins just because, and it got in the way. All the new shiny can be distracting, and I've come to realize that I've allowed it to be a distraction most of my professional life.Just query what you needI've spent a lot of time over-thinking how to query data. In the SQL world, this means exotic joins, special caches, the read-update-commit loop of ORM's, etc. There are times when you have to remind yourself that you aren't Facebook, you'll never be Facebook, and that databases are in fact intended to serve data. In a lot of projects, back in the day, I used to have these big, rich data objects and pass them all over the place, through various application tiers, when in reality, all I needed was some ID from the entity. I try to be mindful of how many queries hit the database on a given request, but I don't obsess over it. I just get what I need.Don't spend too much time worrying about your unit testsIf you've looked at any of the tests for POP Forums, you might offer an audible WTF. That's OK. There's a whole lot of mocking going on. In some cases, it points out where you're doing too much, and that's good for improving your design. In other cases it shows where your design sucks. But the biggest trap of unit testing is that you worry it should be prettier. That's a waste of time. When you write a test, in many cases before the production code, the important part is that you're testing the right thing. If you have to mock up a bunch of stuff to test the outcome, so be it, but it's not wasted time. You're still doing up the typical arrange-action-assert deal, and you'll be able to read that later if you need to.Get back to your HTTP rootsASP.NET Webforms did a reasonably decent job at abstracting us away from the stateless nature of the Web. A lot of people criticize it, but I think it all worked pretty well. These days, with MVC, jQuery, REST services, and what not, we've gone back to thinking about the wire. The nuts and bolts passing between our Web browser and server matters. This doesn't make things harder, in my opinion, it makes them easier. There is something incredibly freeing about how we approach development of Web apps now. HTTP is a really simple protocol, and the stuff we push through it, in particular HTML and JSON, are pretty simple too. The debugging points are really easy to trap and trace.Premature optimization is prematureI'll go back to the data thing for a moment. I've been known to look at a particular action or use case and stress about the number of calls that are made to the database. I'm not suggesting that it's a bad thing to keep these in mind, but if you worry about it outside of the context of the actual impact, you're wasting time. For example, I query the database for last read times in a forum separately of the user and the list of forums. The impact on performance barely exists. If I put it under load, exceeding the kind of load I expect, it still barely has an impact. Then consider it only counts for logged in users. The context of this "inefficient" action is that it doesn't matter. Did I mention I won't be Facebook?Solve your own problems firstThis is another trap I've fallen into. I've often thought about what other people might need for some feature or aspect of the app. In other words, I was willing to make design decisions based on non-existent data. How stupid is that? When I decided to truly open source this thing, building for myself first was a stated design goal. This app has to server the audiences of CoasterBuzz, MouseZoom and other sites first. In this development scenario, you don't have access to mountains of usability studies or user focus groups. You have to start with what you know.I'm sure there are other points I could make too. It has been a lot of fun to work on, and I look forward to evolving the UI as time goes on. That's where I hope to see more magic in the future.

    Read the article

  • Benefits of Behavior Driven Development

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/07/26/benefits-of-behavior-driven-development.aspxContinuing my previous article on BDD, I wanted to point out some benefits of BDD and since BDD is an extension of Test Driven Development (TDD), you get those as well. I’ll add another article on some possible downsides of this approach. There are many articles about the benefits of TDD and they apply to BDD. I’ve pointed out some here and copied some of the main points for each article, but there are many more including the book The Art of Unit Testing by Roy Osherove. http://geekswithblogs.net/leesblog/archive/2008/04/30/the-benefits-of-test-driven-development.aspx (Lee Brandt) Stability Accountability Design Ability Separated Concerns Progress Indicator http://tddftw.com/benefits-of-tdd/ Help maintainers understand the intention behind the code Bring validation and proper data handling concerns to the forefront. Writing the tests first is fun. Better APIs come from writing testable code. TDD will make you a better developer. http://www.slideshare.net/dhelper/benefit-from-unit-testing-in-the-real-world (from Typemock). Take a look at the slides, especially the extra time required for TDD (slide 10) and the next one of the bugs avoided using TDD (slide 11). Less bugs (slide 11) about testing and development (13) Increase confidence in code (14) Fearlessly change your code (14) Document Requirements (14) also see http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2013/06/01/roc-rocks.aspx Discover usability issues early (14) All these points and articles are great and there are many more. The following are my additions to the benefits of BDD from using it in real projects for my company. July 2013 on MSDN - Behavior-Driven Design with SpecFlow Scott Allen did a very informative TDD and MVC module, but to me he is doing BDDCompile and Execute Requirements in Microsoft .NET ~ Video from TechEd 2012 Communication I was working through a complicated task that the decision tree kept growing. After writing out the Given, When, Then of the scenario, I was able tell QA what I had worked through for their initial test cases. They were able to add from there. It is also useful to use this language with other developers, managers, or clients to help make informed decisions on if it meets the requirements or if it can simplified to save time (money). Thinking through solutions, before starting to code This was the biggest benefit to me. I like to jump into coding to figure out the problem. Many times I don't understand my path well enough and have to do some parts over. A past supervisor told me several times during reviews that I need to get better at seeing "the forest for the trees". When I sit down and write out the behavior that I need to implement, I force myself to think things out further and catch scenarios before they get to QA. A co-worker that is new to BDD and we’ve been using it in our new project for the last 6 months, said “It really clarifies things”. It took him awhile to understand it all, but now he’s seeing the value of this approach (yes there are some downsides, but that is a different issue). Developers’ Confidence This is huge for me. With tests in place, my confidence grows that I won’t break code that I’m not directly changing. In the past, I’ve worked on projects with out tests and we would frequently find regression bugs (or worse the users would find them). That isn’t fun. We don’t catch all problems with the tests, but when QA catches one, I can write a test to make sure it doesn’t happen again. It’s also good for Releasing code, telling your manager that it’s good to go. As time goes on and the code gets older, how confident are you that checking in code won’t break something somewhere else? Merging code - pre release confidence If you’re merging code a lot, it’s nice to have the tests to help ensure you didn’t merge incorrectly. Interrupted work I had a task that I started and planned out, then was interrupted for a month because of different priorities. When I started it up again, and un-shelved my changes, I had the BDD specs and it helped me remember what I had figured out and what was left to do. It would have much more difficult without the specs and tests. Testing and verifying complicated scenarios Sometimes in the UI there are scenarios that get tricky, because there are a lot of steps involved (click here to open the dialog, enter the information, make sure it’s valid, when I click cancel it should do {x}, when I click ok it should close and do {y}, then do this, etc….). With BDD I can avoid some of the mouse clicking define the scenarios and have them re-run quickly, without using a mouse. UI testing is still needed, but this helps a bunch. The same can be true for tricky server logic. Documentation of Assumptions and Specifications The BDD spec tests (Jasmine or SpecFlow or other tool) also work as documentation and show what the original developer was trying to accomplish. It’s not a different Word document, so developers will keep this up to date, instead of letting it become obsolete. What happens if you leave the project (consulting, new job, etc) with no specs or at the least good comments in the code? Sometimes I think of a new scenario, so I add a failing spec and continue in the same stream of thought (don’t forget it because it was on a piece of paper or in a notepad). Then later I can come back and handle it and have it documented. Jasmine tests and JavaScript –> help deal with the non-typed system I like JavaScript, but I also dislike working with JavaScript. I miss C# telling me if a property doesn’t actually exist at build time. I like the idea of TypeScript and hope to use it more in the future. I also use KnockoutJs, which has observables that need to be called with ending (), since the observable is a function. It’s hard to remember when to use () or not and the Jasmine specs/tests help ensure the correct usage.   This should give you an idea of the benefits that I see in using the BDD approach. I’m sure there are more. It talks a lot of practice, investment and experimentation to figure out how to approach this and to get comfortable with it. I agree with Scott Allen in the video I linked above “Remember that TDD can take some practice. So if you're not doing test-driven design right now? You can start and practice and get better. And you'll reach a point where you'll never want to get back.”

    Read the article

  • Execute JavaScript from within a C# assembly

    - by ScottKoon
    I'd like to execute JavaScript code from within a C# assembly and have the results of the JavaScript code returned to the calling C# code. It's easier to define things that I'm not trying to do: I'm not trying to call a JavaScript function on a web page from my code behind. I'm not trying to load a WebBrowser control. I don't want to have the JavaScript perform an AJAX call to a server. What I want to do is write unit tests in JavaScript and have then unit tests output JSON, even plain text would be fine. Then I want to have a generic C# class/executible that can load the file containing the JS, run the JS unit tests, scrap/load the results, and return a pass/fail with details during a post-build task. I think it's possible using the old ActiveX ScriptControl, but it seems like there ought to be a .NET way to do this without using SilverLight, the DLR, or anything else that hasn't shipped yet. Anyone have any ideas? update: From Brad Abrams blog namespace Microsoft.JScript.Vsa { [Obsolete("There is no replacement for this feature. Please see the ICodeCompiler documentation for additional help. http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=14202")] Clarification: We have unit tests for our JavaScript functions that are written in JavaScript using the JSUnit framework. Right now during our build process, we have to manually load a web page and click a button to ensure that all of the JavaScript unit tests pass. I'd like to be able to execute the tests during the post-build process when our automated C# unit tests are run and report the success/failure alongside of out C# unit tests and use them as an indicator as to whether or not the build is broken.

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection: what belongs in the constructor?

    - by Adam Backstrom
    I'm evaluating my current PHP practices in an effort to write more testable code. Generally speaking, I'm fishing for opinions on what types of actions belong in the constructor. Should I limit things to dependency injection? If I do have some data to populate, should that happen via a factory rather than as constructor arguments? (Here, I'm thinking about my User class that takes a user ID and populates user data from the database during construction, which obviously needs to change in some way.) I've heard it said that "initialization" methods are bad, but I'm sure that depends on what exactly is being done during initialization. At the risk of getting too specific, I'll also piggyback a more detailed example onto my question. For a previous project, I built a FormField class (which handled field value setting, validation, and output as HTML) and a Model class to contain these fields and do a bit of magic to ease working with fields. FormField had some prebuilt subclasses, e.g. FormText (<input type="text">) and FormSelect (<select>). Model would be subclassed so that a specific implementation (say, a Widget) had its own fields, such as a name and date of manufacture: class Widget extends Model { public function __construct( $data = null ) { $this->name = new FormField('length=20&label=Name:'); $this->manufactured = new FormDate; parent::__construct( $data ); // set above fields using incoming array } } Now, this does violate some rules that I have read, such as "avoid new in the constructor," but to my eyes this does not seem untestable. These are properties of the object, not some black box data generator reading from an external source. Unit tests would progressively build up to any test of Widget-specific functionality, so I could be confident that the underlying FormFields were working correctly during the Widget test. In theory I could provide the Model with a FieldFactory() which could supply custom field objects, but I don't believe I would gain anything from this approach. Is this a poor assumption?

    Read the article

  • Finally! Entity Framework working in fully disconnected N-tier web app

    - by oazabir
    Entity Framework was supposed to solve the problem of Linq to SQL, which requires endless hacks to make it work in n-tier world. Not only did Entity Framework solve none of the L2S problems, but also it made it even more difficult to use and hack it for n-tier scenarios. It’s somehow half way between a fully disconnected ORM and a fully connected ORM like Linq to SQL. Some useful features of Linq to SQL are gone – like automatic deferred loading. If you try to do simple select with join, insert, update, delete in a disconnected architecture, you will realize not only you need to make fundamental changes from the top layer to the very bottom layer, but also endless hacks in basic CRUD operations. I will show you in this article how I have  added custom CRUD functions on top of EF’s ObjectContext to make it finally work well in a fully disconnected N-tier web application (my open source Web 2.0 AJAX portal – Dropthings) and how I have produced a 100% unit testable fully n-tier compliant data access layerfollowing the repository pattern. http://www.codeproject.com/KB/linq/ef.aspx In .NET 4.0, most of the problems are solved, but not all. So, you should read this article even if you are coding in .NET 4.0. Moreover, there’s enough insight here to help you troubleshoot EF related problems. You might think “Why bother using EF when Linq to SQL is doing good enough for me.” Linq to SQL is not going to get any innovation from Microsoft anymore. Entity Framework is the future of persistence layer in .NET framework. All the innovations are happening in EF world only, which is frustrating. There’s a big jump on EF 4.0. So, you should plan to migrate your L2S projects to EF soon.

    Read the article

  • Mocking concrete class - Not recommended

    - by Mik378
    I've just read an excerpt of "Growing Object-Oriented Software" book which explains some reasons why mocking concrete class is not recommended. Here some sample code of a unit-test for the MusicCentre class: public class MusicCentreTest { @Test public void startsCdPlayerAtTimeRequested() { final MutableTime scheduledTime = new MutableTime(); CdPlayer player = new CdPlayer() { @Override public void scheduleToStartAt(Time startTime) { scheduledTime.set(startTime); } } MusicCentre centre = new MusicCentre(player); centre.startMediaAt(LATER); assertEquals(LATER, scheduledTime.get()); } } And his first explanation: The problem with this approach is that it leaves the relationship between the objects implicit. I hope we've made clear by now that the intention of Test-Driven Development with Mock Objects is to discover relationships between objects. If I subclass, there's nothing in the domain code to make such a relationship visible, just methods on an object. This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I can't figure out exactly what he means when he says: This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I understand that the service corresponds to MusicCentre's method called startMediaAt. What does he mean by "elsewhere"? The complete excerpt is here: http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-mocking-concrete-classes.html

    Read the article

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