Search Results

Search found 7802 results on 313 pages for 'unit tests'.

Page 31/313 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

• Should developers be responsible for tests other than unit tests?

  - by Jackie

  I am currently working on a rather large project, and I have used JUnit and EasyMock to fairly extensively unit test functionality. I am now interested in what other types of testing I should worry about. As a developer is it my responsibility to worry about things like functional, or regression testing? Is there a good way to integrate these in a useable way in tools such as Maven/Ant/Gradle? Are these better suited for a Tester or BA? Are there other useful types of testing that I am missing?

  Read the article

• mocha testing for the lazies, single key-press for all possible tests

  - by laggingreflex

  I have a batch file that lists all the test files I have and asks me which test I want to perform, like Test. [U]nit, [I]ntegration : i (user input) Integration. [A]ll, [2][U]serInteraction, [3][R]esultGeneration : u 2 User Interaction. Running "mocha integration\2userint.js" ... So essentially I have configured a batch "option" for each test file I have, which I can choose to run individually or all together. But adding and removing tests is a pain. Is there something that does this or anything like this automatically? Like reads all the files and asks me which file(s) I want to test. A GUI with checkboxes would be ultimate! but I'll take anything. I'm working in node.js

  Read the article

• Dynamic tests with mstest and T4

  - by Victor Hurdugaci

  If you used mstest and NUnit you might be aware of the fact that the former doesn't support dynamic, data driven test cases. For example, the following scenario cannot be achieved with the out-of-box mstest: given a dataset, create distinct test cases for each entry in it, using a predefined generic test case. The best result that can be achieved using mstest is a single testcase that will iterate through the dataset. There is one disadvantage: if the test fails for one entry in the dataset, the whole test case fails. So, in order to overcome the previously mentioned limitation, I decided to create a text template that will generate the test cases for me. As an example, I will write some tests for an integer multiplication function that has 2 bugs in it: Read more >> [Cross post from victorhurdugaci.com]

  Read the article

• Software, script or a tool to automate managing which tests to run

  - by laggingreflex

  I have a batch file that lists all the test files I have and asks me which test I want to perform, like Test. [U]nit, [I]ntegration : i (user input) Integration. [A]ll, [2][U]serInteraction, [3][R]esultGeneration : u 2 User Interaction. Running "mocha integration\2userint.js" ... So essentially I have configured a batch "option" for each test file I have, which I can choose to run individually or all together. But adding and removing tests is a pain. I have to update the batch file everytime a new file is added or changed. Is there a software, script or a tool, that does this automatically, or makes it easier for me to do so? I basically need it to be aware of and ask me which file(s) I want to test. A GUI with checkboxes would be ultimate! but I'll take anything. I'm working in node.js

  Read the article

• Should developers be responsible for tests other than unit tests, if so which ones are the most common?

  - by Jackie

  I am currently working on a rather large project, and I have used JUnit and EasyMock to fairly extensively unit test functionality. I am now interested in what other types of testing I should worry about. As a developer is it my responsibility to worry about things like functional, or regression testing? Is there a good way to integrate these in a useable way in tools such as Maven/Ant/Gradle? Are these better suited for a Tester or BA? Are there other useful types of testing that I am missing?

  Read the article

• Automated tests for differencing algorithm

  - by Matthew Rodatus

  We are designing a differencing algorithm (based on Longest Common Subsequence) that compares a source text and a modified copy to extract the new content (i.e. content that is only in the modified copy). I'm currently compiling a library of test case data. We need to be able to run automated tests that verify the test cases, but we don't want to verify strict accuracy. Given the heuristic nature of our algorithm, we need our test pass/failures to be fuzzy. We want to specify a threshold of overlap between the desired result and the actual result (i.e. the content that is extracted). I have a few sketches in my mind as to how to solve this, but has anyone done this before? Does anyone have guidance or ideas about how to do this effectively?

  Read the article

• Google Analytics Content Experiments for non-simultaneous tests

  - by mnort9

  I really like how Google Analytics displays the results of content experiments. However, it seems the tool only works for simultaneous tests. I'd like to use the tool without implementing the page variation code into my site. For example, I want to test copy on an ecommerece category page. The original page variation would be the current page for the past 2500 visits. After making the copy changes, the new variation would be for the next 2500 visits. I realize I can simply record the metrics before and after each variation, but I'd like to take advantage of Google's presentation of the experiment. Is it possible to use the Content Experiments in this way?

  Read the article

• New WebKit tests

  I have updated the WebKit comparison table with data from Safari 5, Chrome 5, and Android 2.1. Improvements throughout!The top five WebKit browsers according to these tests are now: Chrome 5 Safari 5 Safari 4 Samsung WebKit (on bada) Android 2.1Interesting findings: Chrome and Android now support localStorage (Safari already did). Chrome and Android now support geolocation. Safari does in theory, but it doesn’t give the actual coordinates, making the whole exercise a bit pointless. Chrome and Android...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

• Writing the tests for FluentPath

  Writing the tests for FluentPath is a challenge. The library is a wrapper around a legacy API (System.IO) that wasnt designed to be easily testable. If it were more testable, the sensible testing methodology would be to tell System.IO to act against a mock file system, which would enable me to verify that my code is doing the expected file system operations without having to manipulate the actual, physical file system: what we are testing here is FluentPath, not System.IO. Unfortunately, that...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

• CodeStock 2012 Review: Eric Landes( @ericlandes ) - Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.

  Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.Speaker: Eric LandesTwitter: @ericlandesBlog: http://ericlandes.com/ This was one of the first sessions I attended during CodeStock 2012. Eric’s talk focused mostly on unit testing, and that the lack of proper unit testing can be compared to stealing from an employer. His point was that if you’re not doing proper unit testing then all of the time wasted on fixing issues that could have been detected with unit tests is like stealing money from employer. He makes the assumption that that time spent on fixing these issues could have been better spent developing new features that drive the business. To a point I can agree with Eric’s argument regarding unit testing and stealing from a company’s perspective. I can see how he relates resources being shifted from new development to bug fixes as stealing based on the fact that the resources used to fix bugs are directly taken from other projects. He also states that Boring/Redundant and Build/Test tasks should be automated because it reduces the changes of errors and frees up developer to do what they do best, DEVELOP! When he refers to testing, he breaks testing down in to four distinct types. Unit Test Acceptance Test (This also includes Integration Tests) Performance Test UI Test With this he also recommends that developers should not go buck wild striving for 100% code coverage because some test my not provide a great return on investment. In his experience he recommends that 70% test coverage was a very acceptable rate.

  Read the article

• CodeStock 2012 Review: Eric Landes( @ericlandes ) - Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.

  Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.Speaker: Eric LandesTwitter: @ericlandesBlog: http://ericlandes.com/ This was one of the first sessions I attended during CodeStock 2012. Eric’s talk focused mostly on unit testing, and that the lack of proper unit testing can be compared to stealing from an employer. His point was that if you’re not doing proper unit testing then all of the time wasted on fixing issues that could have been detected with unit tests is like stealing money from employer. He makes the assumption that that time spent on fixing these issues could have been better spent developing new features that drive the business. To a point I can agree with Eric’s argument regarding unit testing and stealing from a company’s perspective. I can see how he relates resources being shifted from new development to bug fixes as stealing based on the fact that the resources used to fix bugs are directly taken from other projects. He also states that Boring/Redundant and Build/Test tasks should be automated because it reduces the changes of errors and frees up developer to do what they do best, DEVELOP! When he refers to testing, he breaks testing down in to four distinct types. Unit Test Acceptance Test (This also includes Integration Tests) Performance Test UI Test With this he also recommends that developers should not go buck wild striving for 100% code coverage because some test my not provide a great return on investment. In his experience he recommends that 70% test coverage was a very acceptable rate.

  Read the article

• TeamCity sends inadequate responses after Selenium tests

  - by Dmitriy Sukharev

  I have a TeamCity 7.0.2 at CentOS 6.2 server without X Server. I've installed x11-fonts*, xvfb, firefox, xauth, extracted env. variable DISPLAY=localhost:1, and started xvfb. After that I could start Selenium tests using maven. Tests are executed, but there's an issue with TeamCity. Usually TeamCity starts hehaves absolutely inadequate (it confuses images at the page, sends xml or strange text ampersants and numbers in responses and is a bit slower), also tests are executed 4 times slower (1h 15m) at server than at tester Windows 7-based machine (25m). It worth to notice that tests launch two Jetty servers for tested application (one for REST-services application and another for client). In TeamCity I set JVM command line parameters: -Xms256m -Xmx1224m -XX:MaxPermSize=320m, and Additional Maven command line parameters ends with "-DMAVEN_OPTS=-Xmx1024m" (without quotes). Also both web-services and TeamCity uses the same Oracle server (but different Oracle users). Finally TeamCity and its build agent is at the same server. Server has only 4GB of RAM, but during testing there're 400MB of RAM and 1.2GB of swap. TeamCity and Firefox uses about 65% of CPU during testing. There's no firefox process after end of testing. My knowledge about Selenium is weak. I only know that we use 2.20.0 version of selenium-java maven dependency. Please help me to determine why TeamCity sends wrong responces after Selenium tests. I've tried to give you all information I have, but feel free to ask me for more information.

  Read the article

• Ethernet run tests green but won't connect

  - by Simon Gillbee

  I have a single ethernet run at home that I just added. I have a cable tester that tests for pin/pair crossover or miswired pines. The entire line tests green (all 4 LEDs light up green on the tester) but I can't get any PC to connect through the link. No link light on the ethernet connection. Any simple tests/fixes, or do I rip out the wall sockets and do it again?

  Read the article

• Ethernet run tests green but won't connect

  - by Simon Gillbee

  I have a single ethernet run at home that I just added. I have a cable tester that tests for pin/pair crossover or miswired pins. The entire line tests green (all 4 LEDs light up green on the tester) but I can't get any PC to connect through the link. No link light on the ethernet connection. Any simple tests/fixes, or do I rip out the wall sockets and do it again?

  Read the article

• automated GUI tests fails when running from Jenkins

  - by adm

  Jenkins(master) is installed on the Linux system and runs automated tests on the node slave (Win-XP) via ssh connection. But all the GUi tests are failed, when GUI tests are running locally(WINXP system) testst are passed. I tried tscon.exe 0 /dest:console for forwards the calls to the console but I am getting the error: Could not connect sessionID 0 to sessionname console, Error code 7045 Error [7045]:The requested session access is denied. thanks

  Read the article

• What is the most idiomatic way to emulating Perl's Test::More::done_testing?

  - by DVK

  I have to build unit tests for in environment with a very old version of Test::More (perl5.8 with $Test::More::VERSION being '0.80') which predates the addition of done_testing(). Upgrading to newer Test::More is out of the question for practical reasons. And I am trying to avoid using no_tests - it's generally a bad idea not catching when your unit test exits prematurely - say due to some logic not executing when you expected it to. What is the most idiomatic way of running a configurable amount of tests, assuming no no_tests or done_testing() is used? Details: My unit tests usually take the form of: use Test::More; my @test_set = ( [ "Test #1", $param1, $param2, ... ] ,[ "Test #1", $param1, $param2, ... ] # ,... ); foreach my $test (@test_set) { run_test($test); } sub run_test { # $expected_tests += count_tests($test); ok(test1($test)) || diag("Test1 failed"); # ... } The standard approach of use Test::More tests => 23; or BEGIN {plan tests => 23} does not work since both are obviously executed before @tests is known. My current approach involves making @tests global and defining it in the BEGIN {} block as follows: use Test::More; BEGIN { our @test_set = (); # Same set of tests as above my $expected_tests = 0; foreach my $test (@tests) { my $expected_tests += count_tests($test); } plan tests = $expected_tests; } our @test_set; # Must do!!! Since first "our" was in BEGIN's scope :( foreach my $test (@test_set) { run_test($test); } # Same sub run_test {} # Same I feel this can be done more idiomatically but not certain how to improve. Chief among the smells is the duplicate our @test_test declarations - in BEGIN{} and after it. Another approach is to emulate done_testing() by calling Test::More->builder->plan(tests=>$total_tests_calculated). I'm not sure if it's any better idiomatically-wise.

  Read the article

• Django's self.client.login(...) does not work in unit tests

  - by thebossman

  I have created users for my unit tests in two ways: 1) Create a fixture for "auth.user" that looks roughly like this: { "pk": 1, "model": "auth.user", "fields": { "username": "homer", "is_active": 1, "password": "sha1$72cd3$4935449e2cd7efb8b3723fb9958fe3bb100a30f2", ... } } I've left out the seemingly unimportant parts. 2) Use 'create_user' in the setUp function (although I'd rather keep everything in my fixtures class): def setUp(self): User.objects.create_user('homer', '[email protected]', 'simpson') Note that the password is simpson in both cases. I've verified that this info is correctly being loaded into the test database time and time again. I can grab the User object using User.objects.get. I can verify the password is correct using 'check_password.' The user is active. Yet, invariably, self.client.login(username='homer', password='simpson') FAILS. I'm baffled as to why. I think I've read every single Internet discussion pertaining to this. Can anybody help? The login code in my unit test looks like this: login = self.client.login(username='homer', password='simpson') self.assertTrue(login) Thanks.

  Read the article

• Weirdness with cabal, HTF, and HUnit assertions

  - by rampion

  So I'm trying to use HTF to run some HUnit-style assertions % cat tests/TestDemo.hs {-# OPTIONS_GHC -Wall -F -pgmF htfpp #-} module Main where import Test.Framework import Test.HUnit.Base ((@?=)) import System.Environment (getArgs) -- just run some tests main :: IO () main = getArgs >>= flip runTestWithArgs Main.allHTFTests -- all these tests should fail test_fail_int1 :: Assertion test_fail_int1 = (0::Int) @?= (1::Int) test_fail_bool1 :: Assertion test_fail_bool1 = True @?= False test_fail_string1 :: Assertion test_fail_string1 = "0" @?= "1" test_fail_int2 :: Assertion test_fail_int2 = [0::Int] @?= [1::Int] test_fail_string2 :: Assertion test_fail_string2 = "true" @?= "false" test_fail_bool2 :: Assertion test_fail_bool2 = [True] @?= [False] And when I use ghc --make, it seems to work correctly. % ghc --make tests/TestDemo.hs [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( tests/TestDemo.hs, tests/TestDemo.o ) Linking tests/TestDemo ... % tests/TestDemoA ... * Tests: 6 * Passed: 0 * Failures: 6 * Errors: 0 Failures: * Main:fail_int1 (tests/TestDemo.hs:9) * Main:fail_bool1 (tests/TestDemo.hs:12) * Main:fail_string1 (tests/TestDemo.hs:15) * Main:fail_int2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:19) * Main:fail_string2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:22) * Main:fail_bool2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:25) But when I use cabal to build it, not all the tests that should fail, fail. % cat Demo.cabal ... executable test-demo build-depends: base >= 4, HUnit, HTF main-is: TestDemo.hs hs-source-dirs: tests % cabal configure Resolving dependencies... Configuring Demo-0.0.0... % cabal build Preprocessing executables for Demo-0.0.0... Building Demo-0.0.0... [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( tests/TestDemo.hs, dist/build/test-demo/test-demo-tmp/Main.o ) Linking dist/build/test-demo/test-demo ... % dist/build/test-demo/test-demo ... * Tests: 6 * Passed: 3 * Failures: 3 * Errors: 0 Failures: * Main:fail_int2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:23) * Main:fail_string2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:26) * Main:fail_bool2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:29) What's going wrong and how can I fix it?

  Read the article

• What's the use of writing tests matching configuration-like code line by line?

  - by Pascal Van Hecke

  Hi, I have been wondering about the usefulness of writing tests that match code one-by-one. Just an example: in Rails, you can define 7 restful routes in one line in routes.rb using: resources :products BDD/TDD proscribes you test first and then write code. In order to test the full effect of this line, devs come up with macros e.g. for shoulda: http://kconrails.com/2010/01/27/route-testing-with-shoulda-in-ruby-on-rails/ class RoutingTest < ActionController::TestCase # simple should_map_resources :products end I'm not trying to pick on the guy that wrote the macros, this is just an example of a pattern that I see all over Rails. I'm just wondering what the use of it is... in the end you're just duplicating code and the only thing you test is that Rails works. You could as well write a tool that transforms your test macros into actual code... When I ask around, people answer me that: "the tests should document your code, so yes it makes sense to write them, even if it's just one line corresponding to one line" What are your thoughts?

  Read the article

• Is your test method self-validating ?

  - by mehfuzh

  Writing state of art unit tests that can validate your every part of the framework is challenging and interesting at the same time, its like becoming a samurai. One of the key concept in this is to keep our test synced all the time as underlying code changes and thus breaking them to the furthest unit as possible.  This also means, we should avoid  multiple conditions embedded in a single test. Let’s consider the following example of transfer funds. [Fact] public void ShouldAssertTranserFunds() {     var currencyService = Mock.Create<ICurrencyService>();     //// current rate     Mock.Arrange(() => currencyService.GetConversionRate("AUS", "CAD")).Returns(0.88f);       Account to = new Account { Currency = "AUS", Balance = 120 };     Account from = new Account { Currency = "CAD" };       AccountService accService = new AccountService(currencyService);       Assert.Throws<InvalidOperationException>(() => accService.TranferFunds(to, from, 200f));       accService.TranferFunds(to, from, 100f);       Assert.Equal(from.Balance, 88);     Assert.Equal(20, to.Balance); } At first look,  it seems ok but as you look more closely , it is actually doing two tasks in one test. At line# 10 it is trying to validate the exception for invalid fund transfer and finally it is asserting if the currency conversion is successfully made. Here, the name of the test itself is pretty vague. The first rule for writing unit test should always reflect to inner working of the target code, where just by looking at their names it is self explanatory. Having a obscure name for a test method not only increase the chances of cluttering the test code, but it also gives the opportunity to add multiple paths into it and eventually makes things messy as possible. I would rater have two test methods that explicitly describes its intent and are more self-validating. ShouldThrowExceptionForInvalidTransferOperation ShouldAssertTransferForExpectedConversionRate Having, this type of breakdown also helps us pin-point reported bugs easily rather wasting any time on debugging for something more general and can minimize confusion among team members. Finally, we should always make our test F.I.R.S.T ( Fast.Independent.Repeatable.Self-validating.Timely) [ Bob martin – Clean Code]. Only this will be enough to ensure, our test is as simple and clean as possible.   Hope that helps

  Read the article

• Gradual approaches to dependency injection

  - by JW01

  I'm working on making my classes unit-testable, using dependency injection. But some of these classes have a lot of clients, and I'm not ready to refactor all of them to start passing in the dependencies yet. So I'm trying to do it gradually; keeping the default dependencies for now, but allowing them to be overridden for testing. One approach I'm conisdering is just moving all the "new" calls into their own methods, e.g.: public MyObject createMyObject(args) { return new MyObject(args); } Then in my unit tests, I can just subclass this class, and override the create functions, so they create fake objects instead. Is this a good approach? Are there any disadvantages? More generally, is it okay to have hard-coded dependencies, as long as you can replace them for testing? I know the preferred approach is to explicitly require them in the constructor, and I'd like to get there eventually. But I'm wondering if this is a good first step.

  Read the article

• Differences between software testing processes and techniques?

  - by Aptos

  I get confused between these terms. For examples, should Unit testing be listed as a software testing process or technique? I think unit testing is a software testing technique. And how about Test driven development? Can you give me some examples for software testing processes and techniques? In my opinion, software testing process is a part of the software development life cycle. For example, if we use V-Model, the software testing process will be System test, Acceptance test, Integration Test... Thank you.

  Read the article

• Submitting Java Code with Junit unit test

  - by LivingThing

  I have mostly work on simple java programs and compiled and run it with eclipse on Windows. So, i have no experience of using command prompt for compiling Java projects and do not have much info about what actually happens beneath the play button in Eclipse. Now i have to submit a Java application which will have basic operation on XML. My project also will have (JUnit) Unit Test. My question is related to submission of this Project. Which files would be necessary to submit the code. So, it executes properly? Does chosing eclipse as an IDE or junit as a unit testing framweork produces any dependenices i.e the executor of the program should have eclipse/libraries to execute the program on his machine?

  Read the article

• Tech Article: Oracle ADF Essentials - Unit Testing Your Application with JUnit

  - by OracleTechnologyNetwork

  A primer on creating unit tests for Oracle Application Development Framework projects and executing them from within Oracle JDeveloper.

  Read the article

• Basic WCF Unit Testing

  - by Brian

  Coming from someone who loves the KISS method, I was surprised to find that I was making something entirely too complicated. I know, shocker right? Now I'm no unit testing ninja, and not really a WCF ninja either, but had a desire to test service calls without a) going to a database, or b) making sure that the entire WCF infrastructure was tip top. Who does? It's not the environment I want to test, just the logic I’ve written to ensure there aren't any side effects. So, for the K.I.S.S. method: Assuming that you're using a WCF service library (you are using service libraries correct?), it's really as easy as referencing the service library, then building out some stubs for bunking up data. The service contract We’ll use a very basic service contract, just for getting and updating an entity. I’ve used the default “CompositeType” that is in the template, handy only for examples like this. I’ve added an Id property and overridden ToString and Equals. [ServiceContract] public interface IMyService { [OperationContract] CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id); [OperationContract] CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item); [OperationContract] CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes(); } The implementation When I implement the service, I want to be able to send known data into it so I don’t have to fuss around with database access or the like. To do this, I first have to create an interface for my data access: public interface IMyServiceDataManager { CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id); CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item); CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes(); } For the purposes of this we can ignore our implementation of the IMyServiceDataManager interface inside of the service. Pretend it uses LINQ to Entities to map its data, or maybe it goes old school and uses EntLib to talk to SQL. Maybe it talks to a tape spool on a mainframe on the third floor. It really doesn’t matter. That’s the point. So here’s what our service looks like in its most basic form: public CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id) { //sanity checks if (id == 0) throw new ArgumentException("id cannot be zero."); return _dataManager.GetCompositeType(id); } public CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item) { return _dataManager.SaveCompositeType(item); } public CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes() { return _dataManager.GetAllCompositeTypes(); } But what about the datamanager? The constructor takes care of that. I don’t want to expose any testing ability in release (or the ability for someone to swap out my datamanager) so this is what we get: IMyServiceDataManager _dataManager; public MyService() { _dataManager = new MyServiceDataManager(); } #if DEBUG public MyService(IMyServiceDataManager dataManager) { _dataManager = dataManager; } #endif The Stub Now it’s time for the rubber to meet the road… Like most guys that ever talk about unit testing here’s a sample that is painting in *very* broad strokes. The important part however is that within the test project, I’ve created a bunk (unit testing purists would say stub I believe) object that implements my IMyServiceDataManager so that I can deal with known data. Here it is: internal class FakeMyServiceDataManager : IMyServiceDataManager { internal FakeMyServiceDataManager() { Collection = new CompositeTypeCollection(); Collection.AddRange(new CompositeTypeCollection { new CompositeType { Id = 1, BoolValue = true, StringValue = "foo 1", }, new CompositeType { Id = 2, BoolValue = false, StringValue = "foo 2", }, new CompositeType { Id = 3, BoolValue = true, StringValue = "foo 3", }, }); } CompositeTypeCollection Collection { get; set; } #region IMyServiceDataManager Members public CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id) { if (id <= 0) return null; return Collection.SingleOrDefault(m => m.Id == id); } public CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item) { var existing = Collection.SingleOrDefault(m => m.Id == item.Id); if (null != existing) { Collection.Remove(existing); } if (item.Id == 0) { item.Id = Collection.Count > 0 ? Collection.Max(m => m.Id) + 1 : 1; } Collection.Add(item); return item; } public CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes() { return Collection; } #endregion } So it’s tough to see in this example why any of this is necessary, but in a real world application you would/should/could be applying much more logic within your service implementation. This all serves to ensure that between refactorings etc, that it doesn’t send sparking cogs all about or let the blue smoke out. Here’s a simple test that brings it all home, remember, broad strokes: [TestMethod] public void MyService_GetCompositeType_ExpectedValues() { FakeMyServiceDataManager fake = new FakeMyServiceDataManager(); MyService service = new MyService(fake); CompositeType expected = fake.GetCompositeType(1); CompositeType actual = service.GetCompositeType(2); Assert.AreEqual<CompositeType>(expected, actual, "Objects are not equal. Expected: {0}; Actual: {1};", expected, actual); } Summary That’s really all there is to it. You could use software x or framework y to do the exact same thing, but in my case I just didn’t really feel like it. This speaks volumes to my not yet ninja unit testing prowess.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >