Search Results

Search found 12476 results on 500 pages for 'unit testing'.

Page 3/500 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Automate Testing on future only items business rules

  - by Titan

  I currently have a business object with a validation business rule, which is it can only be created for the future, tomorrow onwards, and I cannot create new items for today. I have a process, which runs the non-future business objects through some steps.. Because I have to set things up today, and test tomorrow, and when it fails, I can only create a new object tomorrow and test the following day. Are there any easy ways to automate this process in any testing frameworks? I think our testers are using the visual studio 2010 test manager. How do you guys manage situations like this? Cheers

  Read the article

• Does unit testing lead to premature generalization (specifically in the context of C++)?

  - by Martin

  Preliminary notes I'll not go into the distinction of the different kinds of test there are, there are already a few questions on these sites regarding that. I'll take what's there and that says: unit testing in the sense of "testing the smallest isolatable unit of an application" from which this question actually derives The isolation problem What is the smallest isolatable unit of a program. Well, as I see it, it (highly?) depends on what language you are coding in. Micheal Feathers talks about the concept of a seam: [WEwLC, p31] A seam is a place where you can alter behavior in your program without editing in that place. And without going into the details, I understand a seam -- in the context of unit testing -- to be a place in a program where your "test" can interface with your "unit". Examples Unit test -- especially in C++ -- require from the code under test to add more seams that would be strictly called for for a given problem. Example: Adding a virtual interface where non-virtual implementation would have been sufficient Splitting -- generalizing(?) -- a (smallish) class further "just" to facilitate adding a test. Splitting a single-executable project into seemingly "independent" libs, "just" to facilitate compiling them independently for the tests. The question I'll try a few versions that hopefully ask about the same point: Is the way that Unit Tests require one to structure an application's code "only" beneficial for the unit tests or is it actually beneficial to the applications structure. Is the generalization code need to exhibit to be unit-testable useful for anything but the unit tests? Does adding unit tests force one to generalize unnecessarily? Is the shape unit tests force on code "always" also a good shape for the code in general as seen from the problem domain? I remember a rule of thumb that said don't generalize until you need to / until there's a second place that uses the code. With Unit Tests, there's always a second place that uses the code -- namely the unit test. So is this reason enough to generalize?

  Read the article

• Rails testing authlogic

  - by pepernik

  I just started using tests. I try to test the login like this require 'test_helper' class UserFlowsTest < ActionController::IntegrationTest fixtures :all # Replace this with your real tests. test "login and browse" do https! get "/users/new" assert_response :success post "/user_sessions", :email => '[email protected]', :password => 'aaaa' follow_redirect! assert_equal root_path, path end end I use authlogic gem in my rails app. What is wrong with this test? It breaks at 'follow_redirect!' saying it is not a redirection but login through a browser works. Thx!

  Read the article

• Why is testing MVC Views frowned upon?

  - by Peter Bernier

  I'm currently setting the groundwork for an ASP.Net MVC application and I'm looking into what sort of unit-tests I should be prepared to write. I've seen in multiple places people essentially saying 'don't bother testing your views, there's no logic and it's trivial and will be covered by an integration test'. I don't understand how this has become the accepted wisdom. Integration tests serve an entirely different purpose than unit tests. If I break something, I don't want to know a half-hour later when my integration tests break, I want to know immediately. Sample Scenario : Lets say we're dealing with a standard CRUD app with a Customer entity. The customer has a name and an address. At each level of testing, I want to verify that the Customer retrieval logic gets both the name and the address properly. To unit-test the repository, I write an integration test to hit the database. To unit-test the business rules, I mock out the repository, feed the business rules appropriate data, and verify my expected results are returned. What I'd like to do : To unit-test the UI, I mock out the business rules, setup my expected customer instance, render the view, and verify that the view contains the appropriate values for the instance I specified. What I'm stuck doing : To unit-test the repository, I write an integration test, setup an appropriate login, create the required data in the database, open a browser, navigate to the customer, and verify the resulting page contains the appropriate values for the instance I specified. I realize that there is overlap between the two scenarios discussed above, but the key difference it time and effort required to setup and execute the tests. If I (or another dev) removes the address field from the view, I don't want to wait for the integration test to discover this. I want is discovered and flagged in a unit-test that gets multiple times daily. I get the feeling that I'm just not grasping some key concept. Can someone explain why wanting immediate test feedback on the validity of an MVC view is a bad thing? (or if not bad, then not the expected way to get said feedback)

  Read the article

• SharePoint Unit Testing and Load Testing Finally?

  - by Kit Ong

  It has always been a real pain to incorporate extensive SharePoint Unit Testing and Load Testing in a project, could Visual Studio 2012 finally make this easier? It certaining looks like it, here's a brief overview on SharePoint support in Visual Studio 2012. Load testing – We now support load testing for SharePoint out of the box. This is more involved than you might imagine due to how dynamic SharePoint is. You can’t just record a script and play it back – it won’t work because SharePoint generates and expects dynamic data (like GUIDs). We’ve built the extensions to our load testing solution to parse the dynamic SharePoint data and include it appropriately in subsequent requests. So now you can record a script and play it back and we will dynamically adjust it to match what SharePoint expects.Unit testing – One of the big problems with unit testing SharePoint is that most code requires SharePoint to be running and trying to run tests against a live SharePoint instance is a pain. So we’ve built a SharePoint “emulator” using our new VS 2012 Fakes & Stubs capability. This will make unit testing of SharePoint components WAY easier.Read more in the link belowhttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/bharry/archive/2012/09/12/visual-studio-update-this-fall.aspx

  Read the article

• How to unit test models in MVC / MVR app?

  - by BBnyc

  I'm building a node.js web app and am trying to do so for the first time in a test driven fashion. I'm using nodeunit for testing, which I find allows me to write tests quickly and painlessly. In this particular app, the heavy lifting primarily involves translating SQL data into complex Javascript object and serving them to the front-end via json. Likewise, the app also spends a great deal of code validating and translating complex, multidimensional Javascript objects it receives from the front-end into SQL rows. Hence I have used a fat model design for the app -- most of the real code resides in the models, where the data translation happens. What's the best approach to test such models with unit tests? I mean in particular the methods that have create javascript objects from the SQL rows and serve them to the front-end. Right now what I'm doing is making particular requests of my models with the unit tests and checking the returned data for all of the fields that should be there. However I have a suspicion that this is not the most robust kind of testing I could be doing. My current testing design also means I have to package my app code with some dummy data so that my tests can anticipate the kind of data that the app should be returning when tests run.

  Read the article

• What Are Some Tips For Writing A Large Number of Unit Tests?

  - by joshin4colours

  I've recently been tasked with testing some COM objects of the desktop app I work on. What this means in practice is writing a large number (100) unit tests to test different but related methods and objects. While the unit tests themselves are fairly straight forward (usually one or two Assert()-type checks per test), I'm struggling to figure out the best way to write these tests in a coherent, organized manner. What I have found is that copy and Paste coding should be avoided. It creates more problems than it's worth, and it's even worse than copy-and-paste code in production code because test code has to be more frequently updated and modified. I'm leaning toward trying an OO-approach using but again, the sheer number makes even this approach daunting from an organizational standpoint due to concern with maintenance. It also doesn't help that the tests are currently written in C++, which adds some complexity with memory management issues. Any thoughts or suggestions?

  Read the article

• CppUnit for unit-testing executable files?

  - by hagubear

  I am not sure if anyone has done it. I am trying to do something that is in general, uncommon i.e. unit-testing executable (Windows) or ELFs (Linux). I know that CppUnit provides a good unit testing facility, but I have never used it for unit-testing (used UnitTest++). I hear rumours that you can unit-test executables too. Does anyone have the experience in this? A relevant post regarding the philosophy of it was here

  Read the article

• Performance Testing Versus Unit Testing

  - by Mystagogue

  I'm reading Osherove's "The Art of Unit Testing," and though I've not yet seen him say anything about performance testing, two thoughts still cross my mind: Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance tests generally need to run for long periods of time. Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance issues too often manifest at an integration or system level (or at least the logic of a single unit test needed to re-create the performance of the integration environment would be too involved to be a unit test). Particularly for the first reason stated above, I doubt it makes sense for performance tests to be handled by a unit testing framework (such as NUnit). My question is: do my findings / leanings correspond with the thoughts of the community?

  Read the article

• Multiple Condition Coverage Testing

  - by David Relihan

  Hi Folks, When using the White Box method of testing called Multiple Condition Coverage, do we take all conditional statements or just the ones with multiple conditions? Now maybe the clues in the name but I'm not sure. So if I have the following method void someMethod() { if(a && b && (c || (d && e)) ) //Conditional A { } if(z && q) // Conditional B { } } Do I generate the truth table for just "Conditional A", or do I also do Conditional B? Thanks,

  Read the article

• What is the difference between debugging and testing?

  - by persepolis

  Introduction To Software Testing (Ammann & Offutt) mentions on p.32 a 5-level testing maturity model: Level 0 There’s no difference between testing and debugging. Level 1 The purpose of testing is to show that the software works. Level 2 The purpose of testing is to show that the software doesn’t work. Level 3 The purpose of testing is not to prove anything specific, but to reduce the risk of using the software. Level 4 Testing is a mental discipline that helps all IT professionals develop higher quality software. Although they don't go into much further detail. What are the differences between debugging and testing?

  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

• What kind of code would Kent Beck avoid unit testing?

  - by tieTYT

  I've been watching a few of the Is TDD Dead? talks on youtube, and one of the things that surprised me is Kent Beck seems to acknowledge that there are just some kinds of programs that aren't worth unit testing. For example, right here DHH says that Kent Beck is ... very happy to say "Well, TDD doesn't fit in this case, I'm just going to bail" It's frustrating to me that Kent Beck seems to acknowledge this, but nobody asks him to elaborate on it or give concrete examples. I'd like to know the situations where Kent Beck thinks TDD is a bad fit. Nobody can read his mind or speak for him, but I'm hoping he's been transparent enough through his books/tweets/whatever for someone to be able to answer. I'm not necessarily going to take what he says as gospel, but it would be useful to know that the times I've tried TDD and it just felt impossible/useless are situations that he would have bailed on it himself. Or, if it turned out he would have tested that code it'd suggest to me that I was approaching the process very wrong. I also think it would be enlightening to understand why he would bail on such projects. My opinion on why this is not a duplicate of "When is it appropriate to not unit test?" After skimming those answers I'm not satisfied. For example, look at UncleBob's answer. He doesn't even acknowledge that such a situation exists. I really think there's value in understanding Kent Beck's position, not just a general, "What's your opinion?" type of question. After all, he's the father of TDD.

  Read the article

• Should I demand unit-testing from programmers?

  - by Morten

  I work at a place, where we buy a lot of IT-projects. We are currently producing a standard for systems-requirements for the requisition of future projects. In that process, We are discussing whether or not we can demand automated unit testing from our suppliers. I firmly believe, that proper automated unit-testing is the only way to document the quality and stability of the code. Everyone else seems to think that unit-testing is an optional method that concerns the supplier alone. Thus, we will make no demands of automated unit-testing, continous testing, coverage-reports, inspections of unit-tests or any of the kind. I find this policy extremely frustrating. Am I totally out of line here? Please provide me with arguments for any of the oppinions.

  Read the article

• Do you enjoy 'Unit testing' ? [closed]

  - by jibin

  Possible Duplicate: How have you made unit testing more enjoyable ? i mean we all are developers & we love coding.I love learning new stuff(languages, frameworks, even new domains like mobile/Tablet development). But Testing ? As a newbie to the corporate environment,I just can't digest it.(We follow 'write-then-manually-test pattern').is it unit testing ?.Usually a single developer handles a module(From design to code & unit testing).So is it practical ? Somebody tell me how to make unit testing fun ? Or just How to do it properly?Do we try all possibilities manually.Say unit test for a webpage with lot of 'javascript validations'. PS:projects are all web applications.

  Read the article

• How to populate a private container for unit test?

  - by Sardathrion

  I have a class that defines a private (well, __container to be exact since it is python) container. I am using the information within said container as part of the logic of what the class does and have the ability to add/delete the elements of said container. For unit tests, I need to populate this container with some data. That date depends on the test done and thus putting it all in setUp() would be impractical and bloated -- plus it could add unwanted side effects. Since the data is private, I can only add things via the public interface of the object. This run codes that need not be run during a unit test and in some case is just a copy and paste from another test. Currently, I am mocking the whole container but somehow it does not feel that elegant a solution. Due to Python mocking frame work (mock), this requires the container to be public -- so I can use patch.dict(). I would rather keep that data private. What pattern can one use to still populate the containers without excising the public method so I have data to test with? Is there a way to do this with mock' patch.dict() that I missed?

  Read the article

• Term for unit testing that separates test logic from test result data

  - by mario

  So I'm not doing any unit testing. But I've had an idea to make it more appropriate for my field of use. Yet it's not clear if something like this exists, and if, how it would possibly be called. Ordinary unit tests combine the test logic and the expected outcome. In essence the testing framework only checks for booleans (did this match, did the expected result result). To generalize, the test code itself references the audited functions, and also explicites the result values like so: unit::assert( test_me() == 17 ) What I'm looking for is a separation of concerns. The test itself should only contain the tested logic. The outcome and result data should be handled by the unit testing or assertion framework. As example: unit::probe( test_me() ) Here the probe actually doubles as collector in the first run, and afterwards as verification method. The expected 17 is not mentioned in the test code, but stored or managed elsewhere. How is this scheme called? Or how would you call it? I hope I can find some actual implementations with the proper terminology. Obviously such a pattern is unfit for TDD. It's strictly for regression testing. Also obviously, it cannot be used for all cases. Only the simpler test subjects can be analyzed that way, for anything else the ordinary unit test setup and assertion steps are required. And yes, this could be manually accomplished by crafting a ResultWhateverObject, but that would still require hardwiring that to the test logic. Also keep in mind that I'm inquiring for use with scripting languages, and not about Java. I'm aware that the xUnit pattern originates there, and why it's hence as elaborate as it is. Btw, I've discovered one test execution framework which allows for shortening simple test notations to: test_me(); // 17 While thus the result data is no longer coded in (it's a comment), that's still not a complete separation and of course would work only for scalar results.

  Read the article

• Unit Testing And Starting MongoDb Server

  - by azamsharp

  I am running some unit test that persist documents into the MongoDb database. For this unit test to succeed the MongoDb server must be started. I perform this by using Process.Start("mongod.exe"). It works but sometimes it takes time to start and before it even starts the unit test tries to run and FAILS. Unit test fails and complains that the mongodb server is not running. What to do in such situation?

  Read the article

• Development processes, the use of version control, and unit-testing

  - by ct01

  Preface I've worked at quite a few "flat" organizations in my time. Most of the version control policy/process has been "only commit after it's been tested". We were constantly committing at each place to "trunk" (cvs/svn). The same was true with unit-testing - it's always been a "we need to do this" mentality but it never really materializes in a substantive form b/c there is no institutional knowledge base to do it - no mentorship. Version Control The emphasis for version control management at one place was a very strict protocol for commit messages (format & content). The other places let employees just do "whatever". The branching, tagging, committing, rolling back, and merging aspect of things was always ill defined and almost never used. This sort of seems to leave the version control system in the position of being a fancy file-storage mechanism with a meta-data component that never really gets accessed/utilized. (The same was true for unit testing and committing code to the source tree) Unit tests It seems there's a prevailing "we must/should do this" mentality in most places I've worked. As a policy or standard operating procedure it never gets implemented because there seems to be a very ill-defined understanding about what that means, what is going to be tested, and how to do it. Summary It seems most places I've been to think version control and unit testing is "important" b/c the trendy trade journals say it is but, if there's very little mentorship to use these tools or any real business policies, then the full power of version control/unit testing is never really expressed. So grunts, like myself, never really have a complete understanding of the point beyond that "it's a good thing" and "we should do it". Question I was wondering if there are blogs, books, white-papers, or online journals about what one could call the business process or "standard operating procedures" or uses cases for version control and unit testing? I want to know more than the trade journals tell me and get serious about doing these things. PS: @Henrik Hansen had a great comment about the lack of definition for the question. I'm not interested in a specific unit-testing/versioning product or methodology (like, XP) - my interest is more about work-flow at the individual team/developer level than evangelism. This is more-or-less a by product of the management situation I've operated under more than a lack of reading software engineering books or magazines about development processes. A lot of what I've seen/read is more marketing oriented material than any specifically enumerated description of "well, this is how our shop operates".

  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

• Are there any language agnostic unit testing frameworks?

  - by Bringer128

  I have always been skeptical of rewriting working code - porting code is no exception to this. However, with the advent of TDD and automated testing it is much more reasonable to rewrite and refactor code. Does anyone know if there is a TDD tool that can be used for porting old code? Ideally you could do the following: Write up language agnostic unit tests for the old code that pass (or fail if you find bugs!). Run unit tests on your other code base that fail. Write code in your new language that passes the tests without looking at the old code. The alternative would be to split step 1 into "Write up unit tests in language 1" and "Port unit tests to language 2", which significantly increases effort required and is difficult to justify if the old code base is going to stop being maintained after the port (that is, you don't get the benefit of continuous integration on this code base). EDIT: It's worth noting this question on StackOverflow.

  Read the article

• Advancing Code Review and Unit Testing Practice

  - by Graviton

  As a team lead managing a group of developers with no experience ( and see no need) in code review and unit testing, how can you advance code review and unit testing practice? How are you going to create a way so that code review and unit testing to naturally fit into the developer's flow? One of the resistance of these two areas is that "we are always tight on dateline, so no time for code review and unit testing". Another resistance for code review is that we currently don't know how to do it. Should we review the code upon every check-in, or review the code at a specified date?

  Read the article

• Isolated Unit Tests and Fine Grained Failures

  - by Winston Ewert

  One of the reasons often given to write unit tests which mock out all dependencies and are thus completely isolated is to ensure that when a bug exists, only the unit tests for that bug will fail. (Obviously, an integration tests may fail as well). That way you can readily determine where the bug is. But I don't understand why this is a useful property. If my code were undergoing spontaneous failures, I could see why its useful to readily identify the failure point. But if I have a failing test its either because I just wrote the test or because I just modified the code under test. In either case, I already know which unit contains a bug. What is the useful in ensuring that a test only fails due to bugs in the unit under test? I don't see how it gives me any more precision in identifying the bug than I already had.

  Read the article

• unit testing on ARM

  - by NomadAlien

  We are developing application level code that runs on an ARM processor. The BSP (low level code) is being delivered by a 3d party so our code sits just on top of this abstraction layer (code is written in c++). To do unit testing, I assume we will have to mock/stub out the BSP library(essentially abstracting out the HW), but what I'm not sure of is if I write/run the unit test on my pc, do I compile it with for example GCC? Normally we use Realview compiler to compile our code for the ARM. Can I assume that if I compile and run the code with x86 compiler and the unit tests pass that it will also pass when compiled with RealView compiler? I'm not sure how much difference the compiler makes and if you can trust that if the x86 compiled code pass the unit tests that you can also be confident that the Realview compiled code is ok.

  Read the article

• Scenario to illustrate how unit testing leads to better design

  - by Cocowalla

  For an internal training session, I'm trying to come up with a simple scenario that illustrates how unit testing leads to better design, by forcing you to think about things like coupling before you start coding. The idea is that I get the participants to code something first, without considering unit testing, then we do it again, but considering unit testing. Hopefully the code produced second time round should be more decoupled and maintainable. I'm struggling to come up with a scenario that can be coded quickly, yet can still demonstrate how unit testing can lead to better overall design.

  Read the article

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