Search Results

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

Page 3/232 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• How to use the unit of work and repository patterns in a service oriented enviroment

  - by A. Karimi

  I've created an application framework using the unit of work and repository patterns for it's data layer. Data consumer layers such as presentation depend on the data layer design. For example a CRUD abstract form has a dependency to a repository (IRepository). This architecture works like a charm in client/server environments (Ex. a WPF application and a SQL Server). But I'm looking for a good pattern to change or reuse this architecture for a service oriented environment. Of course I have some ideas: Idea 1: The "Adapter" design pattern Keep the current architecture and create a new unit of work and repository implementation which can work with a service instead of the ORM. Data layer consumers are loosely coupled to the data layer so it's possible but the problem is about the unit of work; I have to create a context which tracks the objects state at the client side and sends the changes to the server side on calling the "Commit" (Something that I think the RIA has done for Silverlight). Here the diagram: ----------- CLIENT----------- | ------------------ SERVER ---------------------- [ UI ] -> [ UoW/Repository ] ---> [ Web Services ] -> [ UoW/Repository ] -> [DB] Idea 2: Add another layer Add another layer (let say "local services" or "data provider"), then put it between the data layer (unit of work and repository) and the data consumer layers (like UI). Then I have to rewrite the consumer classes (CRUD and other classes which are dependent to IRepository) to depend on another interface. And the diagram: ----------------- CLIENT ------------------ | ------------------- SERVER --------------------- [ UI ] -> [ Local Services/Data Provider ] ---> [ Web Services ] -> [ UoW/Repository ] -> [DB] Please note that I have the local services layer on the current architecture but it doesn't expose the data layer functionality. In another word the UI layer can communicate with both of the data and local services layers whereas the local services layer also uses the data layer. | | | | | | | | ---> | Local Services | ---> | | | UI | | | | Data | | | | | | | ----------------------------> | |

  Read the article

• Is this method of writing Unit Tests correct?

  - by aspdotnetuser

  I have created a small C# project to help me learn how to write good unit tests. I know that one important rule of unit testing is to test the smallest 'unit' of code possible so that if it fails you know exactly what part of the code needs to fixed. I need help with the following before I continue to implement more unit tests for the project: If I have a Car class, for example, that creates a new Car object which has various attributes that are calculated when its' constructor method is called, would the two following tests be considered as overkill? Should there be one test that tests all calculated attributes of the Car object instead? [Test] public void CarEngineCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.GreaterOrEqual(car.Engine, 1); } [Test] public void CarNameCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.IsNotNull(car.Name); } Should I have the above two test methods to test these things or should I have one test method that asserts the Car object has first been created and then test these things in the same test method?

  Read the article

• Unit testing and Test Driven Development questions

  - by Theomax

  I'm working on an ASP.NET MVC website which performs relatively complex calculations as one of its functions. This functionality was developed some time ago (before I started working on the website) and defects have occurred whereby the calculations are not being calculated properly (basically these calculations are applied to each user which has certain flags on their record etc). Note; these defects have only been observed by users thus far, and not yet investigated in code while debugging. My questions are: Because the existing unit tests all pass and therefore do not indicate that the defects that have been reported exist; does this suggest the original code that was implemented is incorrect? i.e either the requirements were incorrect and were coded accordingly or just not coded as they were supposed to be coded? If I use the TDD approach, would I disgregard the existing unit tests as they don't show there are any problems with the calculations functionality - and I start by making some failing unit tests which test/prove there are these problems occuring, and then add code to make them pass? Note; if it's simply a bug that is occurring that can be found while debugging the code, do the unit tests need to be updated since they are already passing?

  Read the article

• About unit testing a function in the zend framework and unit testing in general

  - by sanders

  Hello people, I am diving into the world of unit testing. And i am sort of lost. I learned today that unit testing is testing if a function works. I wanted to test the following function: public function getEventById($id) { return $this->getResource('Event')->getEventById($id); } So i wanted to test this function as follows: public function test_Event_Get_Event_By_Id_Returns_Event_Item() { $p = $this->_model->getEventById(42); $this->assertEquals(42, EventManager_Resource_Event_Item_Interface); $this->assertType('EventManager_Resource_Event_Item_Interface', $p); } But then I got the error: 1) EventTest::test_Event_Get_Event_By_Id_Returns_Event_Item Zend_Db_Table_Exception: No adapter found for EventManager_Resource_Event /home/user/Public/ZendFramework-1.10.1/library/SF/Model/Abstract.php:101 /var/www/nrka2/application/modules/eventManager/models/Event.php:25 But then someone told me that i am currently unit testing and not doing an integration test. So i figured that i have to test the function getEventById on a different way. But I don't understand how. What this function does it just cals a resource and returns the event by id.

  Read the article

• Unit test and Code Coverage of Ant build scripts

  - by pablaasmo

  In our development environment We have more and more build scripts for ant to perform the build tasks for several different build jobs. These build scripts sometimes become large and do a lot of things and basically is source code in and of itself. So in a "TDD-world" we should have unit tests and coverage reports for the source code. I found AntUnit and BuildFileTest.java for doing unit tests. But it would also be interesting to know the code coverage of those unit tests. I have been searching google, but have not found anything. Does anyone know of a code coverage tool for Ant build scripts?

  Read the article

• How and when to use UNIT testing properly

  - by Zebs

  I am an iOS developer. I have read about unit testing and how it is used to test specific pieces of your code. A very quick example has to do with processing JSON data onto a database. The unit test reads a file from the project bundle and executes the method that is in charge of processing JSON data. But I dont get how this is different from actually running the app and testing with the server. So my question might be a bit general, but I honestly dont understand the proper use of unit testing, or even how it is useful; I hope the experienced programmers that surf around StackOverflow can help me. Any help is very much appreciated!

  Read the article

• Is unit testing or test-driven development worthwhile?

  - by Owen Johnson

  My team at work is moving to Scrum and other teams are starting to do test-driven development using unit tests and user acceptance tests. I like the UATs, but I'm not sold on unit testing for test-driven development or test-driven development in general. It seems like writing tests is extra work, gives people a crutch when they write the real code, and might not be effective very often. I understand how unit tests work and how to write them, but can anyone make the case that it's really a good idea and worth the effort and time? Also, is there anything that makes TDD especially good for Scrum?

  Read the article

• design pattern for unit testing? [duplicate]

  - by Maddy.Shik

  This question already has an answer here: Unit testing best practices for a unit testing newbie 4 answers I am beginner in developing test cases, and want to follow good patterns for developing test cases rather than following some person or company's specific ideas. Some people don't make test cases and just develop the way their senior have done in their projects. I am facing lot problems like object dependencies (when want to test method which persist A object i have to first persist B object since A is child of B). Please suggest some good books or sites preferably for learning design pattern for unit test cases. Or reference to some good source code or some discussion for Dos and Donts will do wonder. So that i can avoid doing mistakes be learning from experience of others.

  Read the article

• Unit testing - getting started

  - by higgenkreuz

  I am just getting started with unit testing but I am not sure if I really understand the point of it all. I read tutorials and books on it all, but I just have two quick questions: I thought the purpose of unit testing is to test code we actually wrote. However, to me it seems that in order to just be able to run the test, we have to alter the original code, at which point we are not really testing the code we wrote but rather the code we wrote for testing. Most of our codes rely on external sources. Upon refactoring our code however, even it would break the original code, our tests still would run just fine, since the external sources are just muck-ups inside our test cases. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of unit testing? Sorry if I sound dumb here, but I thought someone could enlighten me a bit. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Translatability Guidelines for Usability Professionals

  - by ultan o'broin

  There is a clearly a demand for translatability guidelines aimed at usability professionals working in the enterprise applications space, judging by Google Analytics and the interest generated in the Twitterverse by my previous post on the subject. So let's continue the conversation. I'll flesh out each of the original points a bit more in posts over the coming weeks. Bear in mind that large-scale enterprise translation is a process. It needs to be scalable, repeatable, maintainable, and above meet the requirements of automation. That doesn't mean the user experience needs to suffer, however. So, stay tuned for some translatability best practices for usability professionals....

  Read the article

• Looking for a very subtle unit testing example

  - by Stéphane Bruckert

  In the context of Continuous Integration, I need to teach unit testing to a 20-people audience of programmers. Everything will be all right, but I am still trying to find the perfect unit testing example. More than writing tests like a robot, I want to show that unit testing can help prevent very subtle errors. I am thinking of the following scenario to happen when doing a live TDD demo: the test cases would already be written, we would have to write methods together, most of us would naturally have forgotten to handle a specific case for a method, everyone would then be surprised, when seeing that all tests don't pass, the failing test would make us think more and realize that we forgot an important case. My question will probably finish as "too broad" or "not clear what you are asking", but we never know, one of you might have a great idea. Your answer can use Java and JUnit, though any other language will be fine since only the idea will matter.

  Read the article

• How to unit test image processing code?

  - by rold2007

  I'm working in image processing (mainly OCR) and I wonder how I should integrate unit tests in my development. I'm already using unit tests for more "common" type of code but when dealing with image processing code I'm not sure how to deal with it. This kind of code always need some image data input/output and mocking this is not obvious. For now I'm mostly doing integration tests but they take a while to run and I would like some ideas on how to break down this kind of code into unit tests so that I can run them more quickly.

  Read the article

• Are unit tests really used as documentation?

  - by stijn

  I cannot count the number of times I read statements in the vein of 'unit tests are a very important source of documentation of the code under test'. I do not deny they are true. But personally I haven't found myself using them as documentation, ever. For the typical frameworks I use, the method declarations document their behaviour and that's all I need. And I assume the unit tests backup everything stated in that documentation, plus likely some more internal stuff, so on one side it duplicates the ducumentation while on the other it might add some more that is irrelevant. So the question is: when are unit tests used as documentation? When the comments do not cover everything? By developpers extending the source? And what do they expose that can be useful and relevant that the documentation itself cannot expose?

  Read the article

• Is static universally "evil" for unit testing and if so why does resharper recommend it?

  - by Vaccano

  I have found that there are only 3 ways to unit test (mock/stub) dependencies that are static in C#.NET: Moles TypeMock JustMock Given that two of these are not free and one has not hit release 1.0, mocking static stuff is not too easy. Does that make static methods and such "evil" (in the unit testing sense)? And if so, why does resharper want me to make anything that can be static, static? (Assuming resharper is not also "evil".) Clarification: I am talking about the scenario when you want to unit test a method and that method calls a static method in a different unit/class. By most definitions of unit testing, if you just let the method under test call the static method in the other unit/class then you are not unit testing, you are integration testing. (Useful, but not a unit test.)

  Read the article

• What is the value to checking in broken unit tests?

  - by Adam W.

  While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in broken unit tests? I will use a simple example. Case sensitivity. The current code is Case Sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests has found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

  Read the article

• What is the value of checking in failing unit tests?

  - by Adam W.

  While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in failing unit tests? I will use a simple example: Case Sensitivity. The current code is case sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests have found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

  Read the article

• What is the value of checking in failing unit tests?

  - by user20194

  While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in failing unit tests? I will use a simple example: Case Sensitivity. The current code is case sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests have found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

  Read the article

• Mock Objects for Unit Testing

  - by user9009

  Hello How often QA engineers are responsible for developing Mock Objects for Unit Testing. So dealing with Mock Objects is just developer job ?. The reason i ask is i'm interested in QA as my career and am learning tools like JUnit , TestNG and couple of frameworks. I just want to know until what level of unit testing is done by developer and from what point QA engineer takes over testing for better test coverage ? Thanks

  Read the article

• Quality of Code in unit tests?

  - by m3th0dman

  Is it worth to spend time when writing unit tests in order that the code written there has good quality and is very easy to read? When writing this kinds of tests I break very often the Law of Demeter, for faster writing and not using so many variables. Technically, unit tests are not reused directly - are strictly bound to the code so I do not see any reason for spending much time on them; they only need to be functionaly.

  Read the article

• How have Guava unit tests been generated automatically?

  - by dzieciou

  Guava has unit test cases automatically generated: Guava has staggering numbers of unit tests: as of July 2012, the guava-tests package includes over 286,000 individual test cases. Most of these are automatically generated, not written by hand, but Guava's test coverage is extremely thorough, especially for com.google.common.collect. How they were generated? What techniques and technologies were used to design and generate them?

  Read the article

• Unit-testing code that relies on untestable 3rd party code

  - by DudeOnRock

  Sometimes, especially when working with third party code, I write unit-test specific code in my production code. This happens when third party code uses singletons, relies on constants, accesses the file-system/a resource I don't want to access in a test situation, or overuses inheritance. The form my unit-test specific code takes is usually the following: if (accessing or importing a certain resource fails) I assume this is a test case and load a mock object Is this poor form, and if it is, what is normally done when writing tests for code that uses untestable third party code?

  Read the article

• Text Expansion Awareness for UX Designers: Points to Consider

  - by ultan o'broin

  Awareness of translated text expansion dynamics is important for enterprise applications UX designers (I am assuming all source text for translation is in English, though apps development can takes place in other natural languages too). This consideration goes beyond the standard 'character multiplication' rule and must take into account the avoidance of other layout tricks that a designer might be tempted to try. Follow these guidelines. For general text expansion, remember the simple rule that the shorter the word is in the English, the longer it will need to be in English. See the examples provided by Richard Ishida of the W3C and you'll get the idea. So, forget the 30 percent or one inch minimum expansion rule of the old Forms days. Unfortunately remembering convoluted text expansion rules, based as a percentage of the US English character count can be tough going. Try these: Up to 10 characters: 100 to 200% 11 to 20 characters: 80 to 100% 21 to 30 characters: 60 to 80% 31 to 50 characters: 40 to 60% 51 to 70 characters: 31 to 40% Over 70 characters: 30% (Source: IBM) So it might be easier to remember a rule that if your English text is less than 20 characters then allow it to double in length (200 percent), and then after that assume an increase by half the length of the text (50%). (Bear in mind that ADF can apply truncation rules on some components in English too). (If your text is stored in a database, developers must make sure the table column widths can accommodate the expansion of your text when translated based on byte size for the translated character and not numbers of characters. Use Unicode. One character does not equal one byte in the multilingual enterprise apps world.) Rely on a graceful transformation of translated text. Let all pages to resize dynamically so the text wraps and flow naturally. ADF pages supports this already. Think websites. Don't hard-code alignments. Use Start and End properties on components and not Left or Right. Don't force alignments of components on the page by using texts of a certain length as spacers. Use proper label positioning and anchoring in ADF components or other technologies. Remember that an increase in text length means an increase in vertical space too when pages are resized. So don't hard-code vertical heights for any text areas. Don't be tempted to manually create text or printed reports this way either. They cannot be translated successfully, and are very difficult to maintain in English. Use XML, HTML, RTF and so on. Check out what Oracle BI Publisher offers. Don't force wrapping by using tricks such as /n or /t characters or HTML BR tags or forced page breaks. Once the text is translated the alignment will be destroyed. The position of the breaking character or tag would need to be moved anyway, or even removed. When creating tables, then use table components. Don't use manually created tables that reply on word length to maintain column and row alignment. For example, don't use codeblock elements in HTML; use the proper table elements instead. Once translated, the alignment of manually formatted tabular data is destroyed. Finally, if there is a space restriction, then don't use made-up acronyms, abbreviations or some form of daft text speak to save space. Besides being incomprehensible in English, they may need full translations of the shortened words, even if they can be figured out. Use approved or industry standard acronyms according to the UX style rules, not as a space-saving device. Restricted Real Estate on Mobile Devices On mobile devices real estate is limited. Using shortened text is fine once it is comprehensible. Users in the mobile space prefer brevity too, as they are on the go, performing three-minute tasks, with no time to read lengthy texts. Using fragments and lightning up on unnecessary articles and getting straight to the point with imperative forms of verbs makes sense both on real estate and user experience grounds.

  Read the article

• unit/integration testing web service proxy client

  - by cori

  I'm rewriting a PHP client/proxy library that provides an interface to a SOAP-based .Net webservice, and in the process I want to add some unit and integration tests so future modifications are less risky. The work the library I'm working on performs is to marshall the calls to the web service and do a little reorganizing of the responses to present a slightly more -object-oriented interface to the underlying service. Since this library is little else than a thin layer on top of web service calls, my basic assumption is that I'll really be writing integration tests more than unit tests - for example, I don't see any reason to mock away the web service - the work that's performed by the code I'm working on is very light; it's almost passing the response from the service right back to its consumer. Most of the calls are basic CRUD operations: CreateRole(), CreateUser(), DeleteUser(), FindUser(), &ct. I'll be starting from a known database state - the system I'm using for these tests is isolated for testing purposes, so the results will be more or less predictable. My question is this: is it natural to use web service calls to confirm the results of operations within the tests and to reset the state of the application within the scope of each test? Here's an example: One test might be createUserReturnsValidUserId() and might go like this: public function createUserReturnsValidUserId() { // we're assuming a global connection to the service $newUserId = $client->CreateUser("user1"); assertNotNull($newUserId); assertNotNull($client->FindUser($newUserId); $client->deleteUser($newUserId); } So I'm creating a user, making sure I get an ID back and that it represents a user in the system, and then cleaning up after myself (so that later tests don't rely on the success or failure of this test w/r/t the number of users in the system, for example). However this still seems pretty fragile - lots of dependencies and opportunities for tests to fail and effect the results of later tests, which I definitely want to avoid. Am I missing some options of ways to decouple these tests from the system under test, or is this really the best I can do? I think this is a fairly general unit/integration testing question, but if it matters I'm using PHPUnit for the testing framework.

  Read the article

• how to architect this to make it unit testable

  - by SOfanatic

  I'm currently working on a project where I'm receiving an object via web service (WSDL). The overall process is the following: Receive object - add/delete/update parts (or all) of it - and return the object with the changes made. The thing is that sometimes these changes are complicated and there is some logic involved, other databases, other web services, etc. so to facilitate this I'm creating a custom object that mimics the original one but has some enhanced functionality to make some things easier. So I'm trying to have this process: Receive original object - convert/copy it to custom object - add/delete/update - convert/copy it back to original object - return original object. Example: public class Row { public List<Field> Fields { get; set; } public string RowId { get; set; } public Row() { this.Fields = new List<Field>(); } } public class Field { public string Number { get; set; } public string Value { get; set; } } So for example, one of the "actions" to perform on this would be to find all Fields in a Row that match a Value equal to something, and update them with some other value. I have a CustomRow class that represents the Row class, how can I make this class unit testable? Do I have to create an interface ICustomRow to mock it in the unit test? If one of the actions is to sum all of the Values in the Fields that have a Number equal to 10, like this function, how can design the custom class to facilitate unit tests. Sample function: public int Sum(FieldNumber number) { return row.Fields.Where(x => x.FieldNumber.Equals(number)).Sum(x => x.FieldValue); } Am I approaching this the wrong way?

  Read the article

• GH-Unit for unit testing Objective-C code, why am I getting linking errors?

  - by djhworld

  Hi there, I'm trying to dive into the quite frankly terrible world of unit testing using Xcode (such a convoluted process it seems.) Basically I have this test class, attempting to test my Show.h class #import <GHUnit/GHUnit.h> #import "Show.h" @interface ShowTest : GHTestCase { } @end @implementation ShowTest - (void)testShowCreate { Show *s = [[Show alloc] init]; GHAssertNotNil(s,@"Was nil."); } @end However when I try to build and run my tests it moans with this error: - Undefined symbols: "_OBJC_CLASS_$_Show", referenced from: __objc_classrefs__DATA@0 in ShowTest.o ld: symbol(s) not found collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Now I'm presuming this is a linking error. I tried following every step in the instructions located here: - http://github.com/gabriel/gh-unit/blob/master/README.md And step 2 of these instructions confused me: - In the Target 'Tests' Info window, General tab: Add a linked library, under Mac OS X 10.5 SDK section, select GHUnit.framework Add a linked library, select your project. Add a direct dependency, and select your project. (This will cause your application or framework to build before the test target.) How am I supposed to add my project to the linked library list when all it accepts it .dylib, .framework and .o files. I'm confused! Thanks for any help that is received.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >