Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 30/189 | < Previous Page | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >

  • Inheritance vs containment while extending a large legacy project

    - by Flot2011
    I have got a legacy Java project with a lot of code. The code uses MVC pattern and is well structured and well written. It also has a lot of unit tests and it is still actively maintained (bug fixing, minor features adding). Therefore I want to preserve the original structure and code style as much as possible. The new feature I am going to add is a conceptual one, so I have to make my changes all over the code. In order to minimize changes I decided not to extend existing classes but to use containment: class ExistingClass { // .... existing code // my code adding new functionality private ExistingClassExtension extension = new ExistingClassExtension(); public ExistingClassExtension getExtension() {return extension;} } ... // somewhere in code ExistingClass instance = new ExistingClass(); ... // when I need a new functionality instance.getExtension().newMethod1(); All functionality that I am adding is inside a new ExistingClassExtension class. Actually I am adding only these 2 lines to each class that needs to be extended. By doing so I also do not need to instantiate new, extended classes all over the code and I may use existing tests to make sure there is no regression. However my colleagues argue that in this situation doing so isn't a proper OOP approach, and I need to inherit from ExistingClass in order to add a new functionality. What do you think? I am aware of numerous inheritance/containment questions here, but I think my question is different.

    Read the article

  • Are injectable classes allowed to have constructor parameters in DI?

    - by Songo
    Given the following code: class ClientClass{ public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $parser= new Parser($inputString); $result= $parser->parse(); } } class Parser{ private $inputString; public __construct($inputString){ $this->inputString=$inputString; } public function parse(){ //some code } } Now the ClientClass has dependency on class Parser. However, if I wanted to use Dependency Injection for unit testing it would cause a problem because now I can't send the input string to the parser constructor like before as its calculated inside ClientCalss itself: class ClientClass{ private $parser; public __construct(Parser $parser){ $this->parser=$parser; } public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $result= $this->parser->parse(); //--> will throw an exception since no string was provided } } The only solution I found was to modify all my classes that took parameters in their constructors to utilize Setters instead (example: setInputString()). However, I think there might be a better solution than this because sometimes modifying existing classes can cause much harm than benefit. So, Are injectable classes not allowed to have input parameters? If a class must take input parameters in its constructor, what would be the way to inject it properly? UPDATE Just for clarification, the problem happens when in my production code I decide to do this: $clientClass= new ClientClass(new Parser($inputString));//--->I have no way to predict $inputString as it is calculated inside `ClientClass` itself. UPDATE 2 Again for clarification, I'm trying to find a general solution to the problem not for this example code only because some of my classes have 2, 3 or 4 parameters in their constructors not only one.

    Read the article

  • What to do as a new team lead on a project with maintainability problems?

    - by Mr_E
    I have just been put in charge of a code project with maintainability problems. What things can I do to get the project on a stable footing? I find myself in a place where we are working with a very large multi-tiered .NET system that is missing a lot of the important things such as unit tests, IOC, MEF, too many static classes, pure datasets etc. I'm only 24 but I've been here for almost three years (this app has been in development for 5) and mostly due to time constraints we've been just adding in more crap to fit the other crap. After doing a number of projects in my free time I have begun to understand just how important all those concepts are. Also due to employee shifting I find myself to now be the team lead on this project and I really want to come up with some smart ways to improve this app. Ways where the value can be explained to management. I have ideas of what I would like to do but they all seem so overwhelming without much upfront gain. Any stories of how people have or would have dealt with this would be a very interesting read. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to verify the code that could take a substantial time to compile? [on hold]

    - by user18404
    As a follow up to my prev question: What is the best aproach for coding in a slow compilation environment To recap: I am stuck with a large software system with which a TDD ideology of "test often" does not work. And to make it even worse the features like pre-compiled headers/multi-threaded compilation/incremental linking, etc is not available to me - hence I think that the best way out would be to add the extensive logging into the system and to start "coding in large chunks", which I understand as code for a two-three hours first (as opposed to 15-20 mins in TDD) - thoroughly eyeball the code for a 15 minutes and only after all that do the compilation and run the tests. As I have been doing TDD for a quite a while, my code eyeballing / code verification skills got rusty (you don't really need this that much if you can quickly verify what you've done in 5 seconds by running a test or two) - so I am after a recommendations on how to learn these source code verification/error spotting skills again. I know I was able to do that easily some 5-10 years ago when I din't have much support from the compiler/unit testing tools I had until recently, thus there should be a way to get back to the basics.

    Read the article

  • Cannot create a neutral unit with a trigger

    - by Xitcod13
    I've been playing around with the starcraft UMS (Use map settings) for a while and usually i figure things out pretty quickly when im stuck. Alas not this time. I'm trying to place a neutral unit (player 12) using a trigger. It refuses to work. I'm using Scmdraft 2.0 as my editor (but i cant get it to work in other editors either) (all neutral units placed before the game starts are visible and all other triggers work fine. Also i created a text msg and it does displays it in-game so the trigger triggers ) For testing I created a trigger that looks like this: Player: neutral (i tried neutral players player 1 and all players as well) Condition: -always Action: -Create *1 Terran Medic* at '*location 022*' for *Neutral* (also tried neutral players) When I start the game nothing happens. Here is what I tried: I tried placing a start location for neutral player (player 12) I tried changing the owner under map properties of player 12 to neutral and computer from unused which was the default. Although it seems like it should be a common enough problem, I don't see it in any FAQ and I cant find anything about it when I Google it. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Resurrecting a 5,000 line test plan that is a decade old

    - by ale
    I am currently building a test plan for the system I am working on. The plan is 5,000 lines long and about 10 years old. The structure is like this: 1. test title precondition: some W needs to be set up, X needs to be completed action: do some Y postcondition: message saying Z is displayed 2. ... What is this type of testing called ? Is it useful ? It isn't automated.. the tests would have to be handed to some unlucky person to run through and then the results would have to be given to development. It doesn't seem efficient. Is it worth modernising this method of testing (removing tests for removed features, updating tests where different postconditions happen, ...) or would a whole different approach be more appropriate ? We plan to start unit tests but the software requires so much work to actually get 'units' to test - there are no units at present ! Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Should I use a seperate class per test?

    - by user460667
    Taking the following simple method, how would you suggest I write a unit test for it (I am using MSTest however concepts are similar in other tools). public void MyMethod(MyObject myObj, bool validInput) { if(!validInput) { // Do nothing } else { // Update the object myObj.CurrentDateTime = DateTime.Now; myObj.Name = "Hello World"; } } If I try and follow the rule of one assert per test, my logic would be that I should have a Class Initialise method which executes the method and then individual tests which check each property on myobj. public class void MyTest { MyObj myObj; [TestInitialize] public void MyTestInitialize() { this.myObj = new MyObj(); MyMethod(myObj, true); } [TestMethod] public void IsValidName() { Assert.AreEqual("Hello World", this.myObj.Name); } [TestMethod] public void IsDateNotNull() { Assert.IsNotNull(this.myObj.CurrentDateTime); } } Where I am confused is around the TestInitialize. If I execute the method under TestInitialize, I would need seperate classes per variation of parameter inputs. Is this correct? This would leave me with a huge number of files in my project (unless I have multiple classes per file). Thanks

    Read the article

  • How can I test linkable/executable files that require re-hosting or retargeting?

    - by hagubear
    Due to data protection, I cannot discuss fine details of the work itself so apologies PROBLEM CASE Sometimes my software projects require merging/integration with third party (customer or other suppliers) software. these software are often in linkable executables or object code (requires that my source code is retargeted and linked with it). When I get the executables or object code, I cannot validate its operation fully without integrating it with my system. My initial idea is that executables are not meant to be unit tested, they are meant to be linkable with other system, but what is the guarantee that post-linkage and integration behaviour will be okay? There is also no sufficient documentation available (from the customer) to indicate how to go about integrating the executables or object files. I know this is philosophical question, but apparently not enough research could be found at this moment to conclude to a solution. I was hoping that people could help me go to the right direction by suggesting approaches. To start, I have found out that Avionics OEM software is often rehosted and retargeted by third parties e.g. simulator makers. I wonder how they test them. Surely, the source code will not be supplied due to IPR rgulations. UPDATE I have received reasonable and very useful suggestions regarding this area. My current struggle has shifted into testing 3rd party OBJECT code that needs to be linked with my own source code (retargeted) on my host machine. How can I even test object code? Surely, I need to link them first to even think about doing anything. Is it the post-link behaviour that needs to be determined and scripted (using perl,Tcl, etc.) so that inputs and outputs could be verified? No clue!! :( thanks,

    Read the article

  • Auto Mocking using JustMock

    - by mehfuzh
    Auto mocking containers are designed to reduce the friction of keeping unit test beds in sync with the code being tested as systems are updated and evolve over time. This is one sentence how you define auto mocking. Of course this is a more or less formal. In a more informal way auto mocking containers are nothing but a tool to keep your tests synced so that you don’t have to go back and change tests every time you add a new dependency to your SUT or System Under Test. In Q3 2012 JustMock is shipped with built in auto mocking container. This will help developers to have all the existing fun they are having with JustMock plus they can now mock object with dependencies in a more elegant way and without needing to do the homework of managing the graph. If you are not familiar with auto mocking then I won't go ahead and educate you rather ask you to do so from contents that is already made available out there from community as this is way beyond the scope of this post. Moving forward, getting started with Justmock auto mocking is pretty simple. First, I have to reference Telerik.JustMock.Container.DLL from the installation folder along with Telerik.JustMock.DLL (of course) that it uses internally and next I will write my tests with mocking container. It's that simple! In this post first I will mock the target with dependencies using current method and going forward do the same with auto mocking container. In short the sample is all about a report builder that will go through all the existing reports, send email and log any exception in that process. This is somewhat my  report builder class looks like: Reporter class depends on the following interfaces: IReporBuilder: used to  create and get the available reports IReportSender: used to send the reports ILogger: used to log any exception. Now, if I just write the test without using an auto mocking container it might end up something like this: Now, it looks fine. However, the only issue is that I am creating the mock of each dependency that is sort of a grunt work and if you have ever changing list of dependencies then it becomes really hard to keep the tests in sync. The typical example is your ASP.NET MVC controller where the number of service dependencies grows along with the project. The same test if written with auto mocking container would look like: Here few things to observe: I didn't created mock for each dependencies There is no extra step creating the Reporter class and sending in the dependencies Since ILogger is not required for the purpose of this test therefore I can be completely ignorant of it. How cool is that ? Auto mocking in JustMock is just released and we also want to extend it even further using profiler that will let me resolve not just interfaces but concrete classes as well. But that of course starts the debate of code smell vs. working with legacy code. Feel free to send in your expert opinion in that regard using one of telerik’s official channels. Hope that helps

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing TSQL

    - by Grant Fritchey
    I went through a period of time where I spent a lot of effort figuring out how to set up unit tests for TSQL. It wasn't easy. There are a few tools out there that help, but mostly it involves lots of programming. well, not as much as before. Thanks to the latest Down Tools Week at Red Gate a new utility has been built and released into the wild, SQL Test. Like a lot of the new tools coming out of Red Gate these days, this one is directly integrated into SSMS, which means you're working where you're comfortable and where you already have lots of tools at your disposal. After the install, when you launch SSMS and get connected, you're prompted to install the tSQLt example database. Go for it. It's a quick way to see how the tool works. I'd suggest using it. It' gives you a quick leg up. The concepts are pretty straight forward. There are a series of CLR commands that you use to configure a test and the test assertions. In between you're calling TSQL, either calls to your structure, queries, or stored procedures. They already have the one things that I always found wanting in database tests, a way to compare tables of results. I also like the ability to create a dummy copy of tables for the tests. It lets you control structures and behaviors so that the tests are more focused. One of the issues I always ran into with the other testing tools is that setting up the tests might require potentially destructive changes to the structure of the database (dropping FKs, etc.) which added lots of time and effort to setting up the tests, making testing more difficult, and therefor, less useful. Functionally, this is pretty similar to the Visual Studio tests and TSQLUnit tests that I used to use. The primary improvement over the Visual Studio tests is that I'm working in SSMS instead of Visual Studio. The primary improvement over TSQLUnit is the SQL Test interface it self. A lot of the functionality is the same, but having a sweet little tool to manage & run the tests from makes a huge difference. Oh, and don't worry. You can still run these tests directly from TSQL too, so automation has not gone away. I'm still thinking about how I'd use this in a dev environment where I also had source control to fret. That might be another blog post right there. I'm just getting started with SQL Test, so this is the first of several blog posts & videos. Watch this space. Try the tool.

    Read the article

  • What arguments can I use to "sell" the BDD concept to a team reluctant to adopt it?

    - by S.Robins
    I am a bit of a vocal proponent of the BDD methodology. I've been applying BDD for a couple of years now, and have adopted StoryQ as my framework of choice when developing DotNet applications. Even though I have been unit testing for many years, and had previously shifted to a test-first approach, I've found that I get much more value out of using a BDD framework, because my tests capture the intent of the requirements in relatively clear English within my code, and because my tests can execute multiple assertions without ending the test halfway through - meaning I can see which specific assertions pass/fail at a glance without debugging to prove it. This has really been the tip of the iceberg for me, as I've also noticed that I am able to debug both test and implementation code in a more targeted manner, with the result that my productivity has grown significantly, and that I can more easily determine where a failure occurs if a problem happens to make it all the way to the integration build due to the output that makes its way into the build logs. Further, the StoryQ api has a lovely fluent syntax that is easy to learn and which can be applied in an extraordinary number of ways, requiring no external dependencies in order to use it. So with all of these benefits, you would think it an easy to introduce the concept to the rest of the team. Unfortunately, the other team members are reluctant to even look at StoryQ to evaluate it properly (let alone entertain the idea of applying BDD), and have convinced each other to try and remove a number of StoryQ elements from our own core testing framework, even though they originally supported the use of StoryQ, and that it doesn't impact on any other part of our testing system. Doing so would end up increasing my workload significantly overall and really goes against the grain, as I am convinced through practical experience that it is a better way to work in a test-first manner in our particular working environment, and can only lead to greater improvements in the quality of our software, given I've found it easier to stick with test first using BDD. So the question really comes down to the following: What arguments can I use to really drive the point home that it would be better to use StoryQ, or at the very least apply the BDD methodology? Can you point me to any anecdotal evidence that I can use to support my argument to adopt BDD as our standard method of choice? What counter arguments can you think of that could suggest that my wish to convert the team efforts to BDD might be in error? Yes, I'm happy to be proven wrong provided the argument is a sound one. NOTE: I am not advocating that we rewrite our tests in their entirety, but rather to simply start working in a different manner for all future testing work.

    Read the article

  • Use a stored procedure parameter for unit parameter of DATE_SUB

    - by Mike
    I would like to know if it's possible to pass a parameter to a mysql stored procedure and use this parameter as the unit parameter of the DATE_SUB function. It seems that the unit parameter is a reserved word so I don't know if there's a type for unit. Exemple of what I'm trying to do : DELIMITER $$ DROP PROCEDURE IF EXISTS `test` $$ CREATE DEFINER=`root`@`%` PROCEDURE `test`(param1 unit) BEGIN select DATE_SUB(now(), INTERVAL 1 param1); END $$ DELIMITER ;

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test a LINQ query using Moq and Machine.Specifications?

    - by Phil.Wheeler
    I'm struggling to get my head around how to accommodate a mocked repository's method that only accepts a Linq expression as its argument. Specifically, the repository has a First() method that looks like this: public T First(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) { return All().Where(expression).FirstOrDefault(); } The difficulty I'm encountering is with my MSpec tests, where I'm (probably incorrectly) trying to mock that call: public abstract class with_userprofile_repository { protected static Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>> repository; Establish context = () => { repository = new Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>>(); repository.Setup<UserProfile>(x => x.First(up => up.OpenID == @"http://testuser.myopenid.com")).Returns(GetDummyUser()); }; protected static UserProfile GetDummyUser() { UserProfile p = new UserProfile(); p.OpenID = @"http://testuser.myopenid.com"; p.FirstName = "Joe"; p.LastLogin = DateTime.Now.Date.AddDays(-7); p.LastName = "Bloggs"; p.Email = "[email protected]"; return p; } } I run into trouble because it's not enjoying the Linq expression: System.NotSupportedException: Expression up = (up.OpenID = "http://testuser.myopenid.com") is not supported. So how does one test these sorts of scenarios?

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test a LINQ expression using Moq and Machine.Specifications?

    - by Phil.Wheeler
    I'm struggling to get my head around how to accommodate a mocked repository's method that only accepts a Linq expression as its argument. Specifically, the repository has a First() method that looks like this: public T First(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) { return All().Where(expression).FirstOrDefault(); } The difficulty I'm encountering is with my MSpec tests, where I'm (probably incorrectly) trying to mock that call: public abstract class with_userprofile_repository { protected static Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>> repository; Establish context = () => { repository = new Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>>(); repository.Setup<UserProfile>(x => x.First(up => up.OpenID == @"http://testuser.myopenid.com")).Returns(GetDummyUser()); }; protected static UserProfile GetDummyUser() { UserProfile p = new UserProfile(); p.OpenID = @"http://testuser.myopenid.com"; p.FirstName = "Joe"; p.LastLogin = DateTime.Now.Date.AddDays(-7); p.LastName = "Bloggs"; p.Email = "[email protected]"; return p; } } I run into trouble because it's not enjoying the Linq expression: System.NotSupportedException: Expression up = (up.OpenID = "http://testuser.myopenid.com") is not supported. So how does one test these sorts of scenarios?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to unit test an async method?

    - by Jiho Han
    I am using Xunit and NMock on .NET platform. I am testing a presentation model where a method is asynchronous. The method creates an async task and executes it so the method returns immediately and the state I need to check aren't ready yet. I can set a flag upon finish without modifying the SUT but that would mean I would have to keep checking the flag in a while loop for example, with perhaps timeout. What are my options?

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test a method containing a LINQ expression?

    - by Phil.Wheeler
    I'm struggling to get my head around how to accommodate a mocked method that only accepts a Linq expression as its argument. Specifically, the repository I'm using has a First() method that looks like this: public T First(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) { return All().Where(expression).FirstOrDefault(); } The difficulty I'm encountering is with my MSpec tests, where I'm (probably incorrectly) trying to mock that call: public abstract class with_userprofile_repository { protected static Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>> repository; Establish context = () => { repository = new Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>>(); repository.Setup<UserProfile>(x => x.First(up => up.OpenID == @"http://testuser.myopenid.com")).Returns(GetDummyUser()); }; protected static UserProfile GetDummyUser() { UserProfile p = new UserProfile(); p.OpenID = @"http://testuser.myopenid.com"; p.FirstName = "Joe"; p.LastLogin = DateTime.Now.Date.AddDays(-7); p.LastName = "Bloggs"; p.Email = "[email protected]"; return p; } } I run into trouble because it's not enjoying the Linq expression: System.NotSupportedException: Expression up = (up.OpenID = "http://testuser.myopenid.com") is not supported. So how does one test these sorts of scenarios?

    Read the article

  • How to organize integrity tests and code unit tests?

    - by karlthorwald
    I have several files with code testing code (which uses a "unittest" class). Later I found it would be nice to test database integrity also. I put this into a separate directory tree. (Things like the keys have correct format, parent and child nodes are pointing correctly and such.) I use the same unittest class for the integrity tests. Now I wonder if it makes really sense to keep this separate. To test the integrity of data I often duplicate parts of code that I use to test the code that handles the data. But it is not the same. The code tests use test databases (that get deleted after each test) and the integrity tests connect to the live data and analyze it. The integrity tests I want to call from cron and send an alarm if something happens in the live database. How would you handle that? Are there standards for such a setup? What is your experience? My tendency is to put everything in the same file, which would result in the code tests also being executed by the cron on the production environment.

    Read the article

  • How to organize live data integrity tests and code unit tests?

    - by karlthorwald
    I have several files with code testing code (which uses a "unittest" class). Later I found it would be nice to test database integrity also. I put this into a separate directory tree. (Things like the keys have correct format, parent and child nodes are pointing correctly and such.) I use the same unittest class for the integrity tests. Now I wonder if it makes really sense to keep this separate. To test the integrity of data I often duplicate parts of code that I use to test the code that handles the data. But it is not the same. The code tests use test databases (that get deleted after each test) and the integrity tests connect to the live data and analyze it. The integrity tests I want to call from cron and send an alarm if something happens in the live database. How would you handle that? Are there standards for such a setup? What is your experience? My tendency is to put everything in the same file, which would result in the code tests also being executed by the cron on the production environment.

    Read the article

  • Classes with the same name - is it restricted only within the same translation unit?

    - by LeopardSkinPillBoxHat
    Let's just I had the following code: foo.h class Foo { // ... }; foo.cpp #include "foo.h" // Functions for class Foo defined here... Let's say that Foo are built into a static library foo.lib. Now let's say I have the following: foo2.h class Foo { // ... }; foo2.cpp #include "foo2.h" // Functions for class Foo defined here... This is built into a separate static library foo2.lib. Now, if I re-link foo.lib and foo2.lib into an executable program foo.exe, should it be complaining that class Foo has been defined twice? In my experiences, neither the compiler or the linker are complaining. I wouldn't be expecting the compiler to complain, because they have been defined in separate translation units. But why doesn't the linker complain? How does the linker differentiate between the 2 versions of the Foo class? Does it work by decorating the symbols?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >