Search Results

Search found 10978 results on 440 pages for 'collision testing'.

Page 32/440 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

• Understanding Box2d Restitution & Bouncing

  - by layzrr

  I'm currently trying to implement basketball bouncing into my game using Box2d (jBox2d technically), but I'm a bit confused about restitution. While trying to create the ball in the testbed first, I've run into infinite bouncing, as described in this question, however obviously not using my own implementation. The Box2d manual describes restitution as follows: Restitution is used to make objects bounce. The restitution value is usually set to be between 0 and 1. Consider dropping a ball on a table. A value of zero means the ball won't bounce. This is called an inelastic collision. A value of one means the ball's velocity will be exactly reflected. This is called a perfectly elastic collision. My confusion lies in that I am still getting infinite bouncing with restitution values at 0.75/0.8. The same behavior can be seen in the testbed under Collision Watching - Varying Restitution, on the 6th and 7th balls. I believe the last one has restitution of 1, which makes sense, but I don't understand why the second to last ball bounces infinitely (as is happening with my working basketball I've created). I am looking to understand the restitution concept more fully, as well as look for a solution to infinite bouncing with the Box2d framework. My instinct was to sleep objects that appeared to be moving in very small increments, but this seems like a misuse of the engine. Should I just work with lower restitution values altogether?

  Read the article

• Implementing Circle Physics in Java

  - by Shijima

  I am working on a simple physics based game where 2 balls bounce off each other. I am following a tutorial, 2-Dimensional Elastic Collisions Without Trigonometry, for the collision reactions. I am using Vector2 from the LIBGDX library to handle vectors. I am a bit confused on how to implement step 6 in Java from the tutorial. Below is my current code, please note that the code strictly follows the tutorial and there are redundant pieces of code which I plan to refactor later. Note: refrences to this refer to ball 1, and ball refers to ball 2. /* * Step 1 * * Find the Normal, Unit Normal and Unit Tangential vectors */ Vector2 n = new Vector2(this.position[0] - ball.position[0], this.position[1] - ball.position[1]); Vector2 un = n.normalize(); Vector2 ut = new Vector2(-un.y, un.x); /* * Step 2 * * Create the initial (before collision) velocity vectors */ Vector2 v1 = this.velocity; Vector2 v2 = ball.velocity; /* * Step 3 * * Resolve the velocity vectors into normal and tangential components */ float v1n = un.dot(v1); float v1t = ut.dot(v1); float v2n = un.dot(v2); float v2t = ut.dot(v2); /* * Step 4 * * Find the new tangential Velocities after collision */ float v1tPrime = v1t; float v2tPrime = v2t; /* * Step 5 * * Find the new normal velocities */ float v1nPrime = v1n * (this.mass - ball.mass) + (2 * ball.mass * v2n) / (this.mass + ball.mass); float v2nPrime = v2n * (ball.mass - this.mass) + (2 * this.mass * v1n) / (this.mass + ball.mass); /* * Step 6 * * Convert the scalar normal and tangential velocities into vectors??? */

  Read the article

• Why does my player stop when stepping onto a new tile?

  - by user220631

  Me and my friend are creating a game from scratch. He is in charge of art design and I am in charge of coding. I have done well so far with the code, but I have a collision detection problem when the character moves right: Once the player moves right, whenever a new block is encountered, the player stops. I don't know if this is a problem with collision or the player but I can't work around it. Here is the collision code: this.IsColliding = function(obj) { if(this.X > obj.X + obj.Width) return false; else if(this.X + this.Width < obj.X) return false; else if(this.Y > obj.Y + obj.Height) return false; else if(this.Y + this.Height < obj.Y) return false; else return true; } I also wanted to see if there as a way to make the player collide with the bottom of the block and the right side of the block instead of running through it.

  Read the article

• F# in ASP.NET, mathematics and testing

  - by DigiMortal

  Starting from Visual Studio 2010 F# is full member of .NET Framework languages family. It is functional language with syntax specific to functional languages but I think it is time for us also notice and study functional languages. In this posting I will show you some examples about cool things other people have done using F#. F# and ASP.NET As I am ASP/ASP.NET MVP I am – of course – interested in how people use different languages and technologies with ASP.NET. C# MVP Tomáš Petrícek writes about developing ASP.NET MVC applications using F#. He also shows how to use LINQ To SQL in F# (using F# PowerPack) and provides sample solution and Visual Studio 2010 template for F# MVC web applications. You may also find interesting how you can create controllers in F#. Excellent work, Tomáš! Vladimir Matveev has interesting example about how to use F# and ApplicationHost class to process ASP.NET requests ouside of IIS. This is simple and very straight-forward example and I strongly suggest you to take a look at it. Very cool example is project Strom in Codeplex. Storm is web services testing tool that is fully written on F#. Take a look at this site because Codeplex offers also source code besides binaries. Math Functional languages are strong in fields like mathematics and physics. When I wrote my C# example about BigInteger class I found out that recursive version of Fibonacci algorithm in C# is not performing well. In same time I made same experiment on F# and in F# there were no performance problems with recursive version. You can find F# version of Fibonacci algorithm from Bob Palmer’s blog posting Fibonacci numbers in F#. Although golden spiral is useful for solving many problems I looked for some practical code example and found one. Kean Walmsley published in his Through the Interface blog very interesting posting Creating Fibonacci spirals in AutoCAD using F#. There are also other cool examples you may be interested in. Using numerical components by Extreme Optimization  it is possible to make some numerical integration (quadrature method) using F# (also C# example is available). fsharp.it introduces factorials calculation on F#. Robert Pickering has made very good work on programming The Game of Life in Silverlight and F# – I definitely suggest you to try out this example as it is very illustrative too. Who wants something more complex may take a look at Newton basin fractal example in F# by Jonathan Birge. Testing After some searching and surfing I found out that there is almost everything available for F# to write tests and test your F# code. FsCheck - FsCheck is a port of Haskell's QuickCheck. Important parts of the manual for using FsCheck is almost literally "adapted" from the QuickCheck manual and paper. Any errors and omissions are entirely my responsibility. FsTest - This project is designed to Language Oriented Programming constructs around unit testing and behavior testing in F#. The goal of this project is to create a Domain Specific Language for testing F# code in a way that makes sense for functional programming. FsUnit - FsUnit makes unit-testing with F# more enjoyable. It adds a special syntax to your favorite .NET testing framework. xUnit.NET - xUnit.net is a developer testing framework, built to support Test Driven Development, with a design goal of extreme simplicity and alignment with framework features. It is compatible with .NET Framework 2.0 and later, and offers several runners: console, GUI, MSBuild, and Visual Studio integration via TestDriven.net, CodeRush Test Runner and Resharper. It also offers test project integration for ASP.NET MVC. Getting started Well, as a first thing you need Visual Studio 2010. Then take a look at these resources: F# samples @ MSDN Microsoft F# Developer Center @ MSDN F# Language Reference @ MSDN F# blog F# forums Real World Functional Programming: With Examples in F# and C# (Amazon) Happy F#-ing! :)

  Read the article

• Unit Testing - Validation of ViewModel ASP.NET MVC 2

  - by dean nolan

  I am currently unit testing a service that adds users to a repository. I am using dependency injection to test using a fake repository. The repository has a method CreateUser(User user) which just adds it to the database or in this case a List of Users. The logic for the creation is in the UserServices class. The application has a form for creating a user that requires some properties such as name and address. This is an MVC 2 app and I will be using the new validation using data annotations. This makes me wonder about a few things: 1) Should I annotate a POCO object that will map to the database? Or should I create a specific View Model that has these annotations and pass this data to the UserServices class? 2)Should the UserServicesClass also check this data? Would I best be constructing a Usr out of the ViewModel and passing this into the Service as a parameter? 3) The actual unit testing would depend on 2), I either populate a User object and pass that in, or I pass a large list of strings to the method CreateUser. Writing this out I get a basic idea that I should probably annotate the view model only, pass in a user (constructed by the view model if the data is valid) and also just construct the user in the unit test also. Is this the best way to go?

  Read the article

• SQLite assembly not copied to output folder for unit testing

  - by Groo

  Problem: SQLite assembly referenced in my DAL assembly does not get copied to the output folder when doing unit tests (Copy local is set to true). I am working on a .Net 3.5 app in VS2008, with NHibernate & SQLite in my DAL. Data access is exposed through the IRepository interface (repository factory) to other layers, so there is no need to reference NHibernate or the System.Data.SQLite assemblies in other layers. For unit testing, there is a public factory method (also in my DAL) which creates an in-memory SQLite session and creates a new IRepository implementation. This is also done to avoid have a shared SQLite in-memory config for all assemblies which need it, and to avoid referencing those DAL internal assemblies. The problem is when I run unit tests which reside a separate project - if I don't add System.Data.SQLite as a reference to the unit test project, it doesn't get copied to the TestResults...\Out folder (although this project references my DAL project, which references System.Data.SQLite, which has its Copy local property set to true), so the tests fail while NHibernate is being configured. If I add the reference to my testing project, then it does get copied and unit tests work. What am I doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Using Rails, problem testing has_many relationship

  - by east

  The summary is that I've code that works when manually testing, but isn't doing what I would think it should when trying to build an automated test. Here are the details: I've two models: Payment and PaymentTranscation. class Payment ... has_many :transactions, :class_name => 'PaymentTransaction' class PaymentTranscation ... belongs_to payment The PaymentTransaction is only created in a Payment model method, like so: def pay_up ... transactions.create!(params...) ... end I've manually tested this code, inspected the database, and everything works well. The failing automated test looks like this: def test_pay_up purchase = Payment.new(...) assert purchase.save assert_equal purchase.state, :initialized.to_s assert purchase.pay_up # this should create a new PaymentTransaction... assert_equal purchase.state, :succeeded.to_s assert_equal purchase.transactions.count, 1 # FAILS HERE; transactions is an empty array end If I step through the code, it's clear that the PaymentTransaction is getting created correctly (though I can't see it in the database because everything is in a testing transaction). What I can't figure out is why transactions is returning an empty array in the test when I know a valid PaymentTransaction is getting created. Anybody have some suggestions? Thanks in advance, east

  Read the article

• Generating JavaScript in C# and subsequent testing

  - by Codebrain

  We are currently developing an ASP.NET MVC application which makes heavy use of attribute-based metadata to drive the generation of JavaScript. Below is a sample of the type of methods we are writing: function string GetJavascript<T>(string javascriptPresentationFunctionName, string inputId, T model) { return @"function updateFormInputs(value){ $('#" + inputId + @"_SelectedItemState').val(value); $('#" + inputId + @"_Presentation').val(value); } function clearInputs(){ " + helper.ClearHiddenInputs<T>(model) + @" updateFormInputs(''); } function handleJson(json){ clearInputs(); " + helper.UpdateHiddenInputsWithJson<T>("json", model) + @" updateFormInputs(" + javascriptPresentationFunctionName + @"()); " + model.GetCallBackFunctionForJavascript("json") + @" }"; } This method generates some boilerplace and hands off to various other methods which return strings. The whole lot is then returned as a string and written to the output. The question(s) I have are: 1) Is there a nicer way to do this other than using large string blocks? We've considered using a StringBuilder or the Response Stream but it seems quite 'noisy'. Using string.format starts to become difficult to comprehend. 2) How would you go about unit testing this code? It seems a little amateur just doing a string comparison looking for particular output in the string. 3) What about actually testing the eventual JavaScript output? Thanks for your input!

  Read the article

• Testing performance of queries in mysl

  - by Unreason

  I am trying to setup a script that would test performance of queries on a development mysql server. Here are more details: I have root access I am the only user accessing the server Mostly interested in InnoDB performance The queries I am optimizing are mostly search queries (SELECT ... LIKE '%xy%') What I want to do is to create reliable testing environment for measuring the speed of a single query, free from dependencies on other variables. Till now I have been using SQL_NO_CACHE, but sometimes the results of such tests also show caching behaviour - taking much longer to execute on the first run and taking less time on subsequent runs. If someone can explain this behaviour in full detail I might stick to using SQL_NO_CACHE; I do believe that it might be due to file system cache and/or caching of indexes used to execute the query, as this post explains. It is not clear to me when Buffer Pool and Key Buffer get invalidated or how they might interfere with testing. So, short of restarting mysql server, how would you recommend to setup an environment that would be reliable in determining if one query performs better then the other?

  Read the article

• ASP.NET MVC unit testing

  - by Simon Lomax

  Hi, I'm getting started with unit testing and trying to do some TDD. I've read a fair bit about the subject and written a few tests. I just want to know if the following is the right approach. I want to add the usual "contact us" facility on my web site. You know the thing, the user fills out a form with their email address, enters a brief message and hits a button to post the form back. The model binders do their stuff and my action method accepts the posted data as a model. The action method would then parse the model and use smtp to send an email to the web site administrator infoming him/her that somebody filled out the contact form on their site. Now for the question .... In order to test this, would I be right in creating an interface IDeliver that has a method Send(emailAddress, message) to accept the email address and message body. Implement the inteface in a concrete class and let that class deal with smtp stuff and actually send the mail. If I add the inteface as a parameter to my controller constructor I can then use DI and IoC to inject the concrete class into the controller. But when unit testing I can create a fake or mock version of my IDeliver and do assertions on that. The reason I ask is that I've seen other examples of people generating interfaces for SmtpClient and then mocking that. Is there really any need to go that far or am I not understanding this stuff?

  Read the article

• Automatic testing of GUI related private methods

  - by Stein G. Strindhaug

  When it comes to GUI programming (at least for web) I feel that often the only thing that would be useful to unit test is some of the private methods*. While unit testing makes perfect sense for back-end code, I feel it doesn't quite fit the GUI classes. What is the best way to add automatic testing of these? * Why I think the only methods useful to test is private: Often when I write GUI classes they don't even have any public methods except for the constructor. The public methods if any is trivial, and the constructor does most of the job calling private methods. They receive some data from server does a lot of trivial output and feeds data to the constructor of other classes contained inside it, adding listeners that calls a (more or less directly) calls the server... Most of it pretty trivial (the hardest part is the layout: css, IE, etc.) but sometimes I create some private method that does some advanced tricks, which I definitely do not want to be publicly visible (because it's closely coupled to the implementation of the layout, and likely to change), but is sufficiently complicated to break. These are often only called by the constructor or repeatedly by events in the code, not by any public methods at all. I'd like to have a way to test this type of methods, without making it public or resorting to reflection trickery. (BTW: I'm currently using GWT, but I feel this applies to most languages/frameworks I've used when coding for GUI)

  Read the article

• Testing subpackage modules in Python 3

  - by Mitchell Model

  I have been experimenting with various uses of hierarchies like this and the differences between absolute and relative imports, and can't figure out how to do routine things with the package, subpackages, and modules without simply putting everything on sys.path. I have a two-level package hierarchy: MyApp __init__.py Application __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... Domain __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... UI __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... I want to be able to do the following: Run test code in a Module's "if main" when the module imports from other modules in the same directory. Have one or more test code modules in each subpackage that runs unit tests on the modules in the subpackage. Have a set of unit tests that reside in someplace reasonable, but outside the subpackages, either in a sibling package, at the top-level package, or outside the top-level package (though all these might end up doing is running the tests in each subpackage) "Enter" the structure from any of the three subpackage levels, e.g. run code that just uses Domain modules, run code that just uses Application modules, but Application uses code from both Application and Domain modules, and run code from GUI uses code from both GUI and Application; for instance, Application test code would import Application modules but not Domain modules. After developing the bulk of the code without subpackages, continue developing and testing after organizing the modules into this hierarchy. I know how to use relative imports so that external code that puts MyApp on its sys.path can import MyApp, import any subpackages it wants, and import things from their modules, while the modules in each subpackage can import other modules from the same subpackage or from sibling packages. However, the development needs listed above seem incompatible with subpackage structuring -- in other words, I can't have it both ways: a well-structured multi-level package hierarchy used from the outside and also used from within, in particular for testing but also because modules from one design level (in particular the UI) should not import modules from a design level below the next one down. Sorry for the long essay, but I think it fairly represents the struggles a lot of people have been having adopting to the new relative import mechanisms.

  Read the article

• Unit testing with Mocks. Test behaviour not implementation

  - by Kenny Eliasson

  Hi.. I always had a problem when unit testing classes that calls other classes, for example I have a class that creates a new user from a phone-number then saves it to the database and sends a SMS to the number provided. Like the code provided below. public class UserRegistrationProcess : IUserRegistration { private readonly IRepository _repository; private readonly ISmsService _smsService; public UserRegistrationProcess(IRepository repository, ISmsService smsService) { _repository = repository; _smsService = smsService; } public void Register(string phone) { var user = new User(phone); _repository.Save(user); _smsService.Send(phone, "Welcome", "Message!"); } } It is a really simple class but how would you go about and test it? At the moment im using Mocks but I dont really like it [Test] public void WhenRegistreringANewUser_TheNewUserIsSavedToTheDatabase() { var repository = new Mock<IRepository>(); var smsService = new Mock<ISmsService>(); var userRegistration = new UserRegistrationProcess(repository.Object, smsService.Object); var phone = "0768524440"; userRegistration.Register(phone); repository.Verify(x => x.Save(It.Is<User>(user => user.Phone == phone)), Times.Once()); } [Test] public void WhenRegistreringANewUser_ItWillSendANewSms() { var repository = new Mock<IRepository>(); var smsService = new Mock<ISmsService>(); var userRegistration = new UserRegistrationProcess(repository.Object, smsService.Object); var phone = "0768524440"; userRegistration.Register(phone); smsService.Verify(x => x.Send(phone, It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>()), Times.Once()); } It feels like I am testing the wrong thing here? Any thoughts on how to make this better?

  Read the article

• Unit Testing-- fundamental goal?

  - by David

  Me and my co-workers had a bit of a disagreement last night about unit testing in our PHP/MySQL application. Half of us argued that when unit testing a function within a class, you should mock everything outside of that class and its parents. The other half of us argued that you SHOULDN'T mock anything that is a direct dependancy of the class either. The specific example was our logging mechanism, which happened through a static Logging class, and we had a number of Logging::log() calls in various locations throughout our application. The first half of us said the Logging mechanism should be faked (mocked) because it would be tested in the Logging unit tests. The second half of us argued that we should include the original Logging class in our unit test so that if we make a change to our logging interface, we'll be able to see if it creates problems in other parts of the application due to failing to update the call interface. So I guess the fundamental question is-- do unit tests serve to test the functionality of a single unit in a closed environment, or show the consequences of changes to a single unit in a larger environment? If it's one of these, how do you accomplish the other?

  Read the article

• Unit Testing Private Method in Resource Managing Class (C++)

  - by BillyONeal

  I previously asked this question under another name but deleted it because I didn't explain it very well. Let's say I have a class which manages a file. Let's say that this class treats the file as having a specific file format, and contains methods to perform operations on this file: class Foo { std::wstring fileName_; public: Foo(const std::wstring& fileName) : fileName_(fileName) { //Construct a Foo here. }; int getChecksum() { //Open the file and read some part of it //Long method to figure out what checksum it is. //Return the checksum. } }; Let's say I'd like to be able to unit test the part of this class that calculates the checksum. Unit testing the parts of the class that load in the file and such is impractical, because to test every part of the getChecksum() method I might need to construct 40 or 50 files! Now lets say I'd like to reuse the checksum method elsewhere in the class. I extract the method so that it now looks like this: class Foo { std::wstring fileName_; static int calculateChecksum(const std::vector<unsigned char> &fileBytes) { //Long method to figure out what checksum it is. } public: Foo(const std::wstring& fileName) : fileName_(fileName) { //Construct a Foo here. }; int getChecksum() { //Open the file and read some part of it return calculateChecksum( something ); } void modifyThisFileSomehow() { //Perform modification int newChecksum = calculateChecksum( something ); //Apply the newChecksum to the file } }; Now I'd like to unit test the calculateChecksum() method because it's easy to test and complicated, and I don't care about unit testing getChecksum() because it's simple and very difficult to test. But I can't test calculateChecksum() directly because it is private. Does anyone know of a solution to this problem?

  Read the article

• What is the purpose of unit testing an interface repository

  - by ahsteele

  I am unit testing an ICustomerRepository interface used for retrieving objects of type Customer. As a unit test what value am I gaining by testing the ICustomerRepository in this manner? Under what conditions would the below test fail? For tests of this nature is it advisable to do tests that I know should fail? i.e. look for id 4 when I know I've only placed 5 in the repository I am probably missing something obvious but it seems the integration tests of the class that implements ICustomerRepository will be of more value. [TestClass] public class CustomerTests : TestClassBase { private Customer SetUpCustomerForRepository() { return new Customer() { CustId = 5, DifId = "55", CustLookupName = "The Dude", LoginList = new[] { new Login { LoginCustId = 5, LoginName = "tdude" }, new Login { LoginCustId = 5, LoginName = "tdude2" } } }; } [TestMethod] public void CanGetCustomerById() { // arrange var customer = SetUpCustomerForRepository(); var repository = Stub<ICustomerRepository>(); // act repository.Stub(rep => rep.GetById(5)).Return(customer); // assert Assert.AreEqual(customer, repository.GetById(5)); } } Test Base Class public class TestClassBase { protected T Stub<T>() where T : class { return MockRepository.GenerateStub<T>(); } } ICustomerRepository and IRepository public interface ICustomerRepository : IRepository<Customer> { IList<Customer> FindCustomers(string q); Customer GetCustomerByDifID(string difId); Customer GetCustomerByLogin(string loginName); } public interface IRepository<T> { void Save(T entity); void Save(List<T> entity); bool Save(T entity, out string message); void Delete(T entity); T GetById(int id); ICollection<T> FindAll(); }

  Read the article

• Framework or tool for "distributed unit testing"?

  - by user262646

  Is there any tool or framework able to make it easier to test distributed software written in Java? My system under test is a peer-to-peer software, and I'd like to perform testing using something like PNUnit, but with Java instead of .Net. The system under test is a framework I'm developing to build P2P applications. It uses JXTA as a lower subsystem, trying to hide some complexities of it. It's currently an academic project, so I'm pursuing simplicity at this moment. In my test, I want to demonstrate that a peer (running in its own process, possibly with multiple threads) can discover another one (running in another process or even another machine) and that they can exchange a few messages. I'm not using mocks nor stubs because I need to see both sides working simultaneously. I realize that some kind of coordination mechanism is needed, and PNUnit seems to be able to do that. I've bumped into some initiatives like Pisces, which "aims to provide a distributed testing environment that extends JUnit, giving the developer/tester an ability to run remote JUnits and create complex test suites that are composed of several remote JUnit tests running in parallel or serially", but this project and a few others I have found seem to be long dead.

  Read the article

• Best practice for debug Asserts during Unit testing

  - by Steve Steiner

  Does heavy use of unit tests discourage the use of debug asserts? It seems like a debug assert firing in the code under test implies the unit test shouldn't exist or the debug assert shouldn't exist. "There can be only one" seems like a reasonable principle. Is this the common practice? Or do you disable your debug asserts when unit testing, so they can be around for integration testing? Edit: I updated 'Assert' to debug assert to distinguish an assert in the code under test from the lines in the unit test that check state after the test has run. Also here is an example that I believe shows the dilema: A unit test passes invalid inputs for a protected function that asserts it's inputs are valid. Should the unit test not exist? It's not a public function. Perhaps checking the inputs would kill perf? Or should the assert not exist? The function is protected not private so it should be checking it's inputs for safety.

  Read the article

• Unit Testing - Algorithm or Sample based ?

  - by ohadsc

  Say I'm trying to test a simple Set class public IntSet : IEnumerable<int> { Add(int i) {...} //IEnumerable implementation... } And suppose I'm trying to test that no duplicate values can exist in the set. My first option is to insert some sample data into the set, and test for duplicates using my knowledge of the data I used, for example: //OPTION 1 void InsertDuplicateValues_OnlyOneInstancePerValueShouldBeInTheSet() { var set = new IntSet(); //3 will be added 3 times var values = new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5}; foreach (int i in values) set.Add(i); //I know 3 is the only candidate to appear multiple times int counter = 0; foreach (int i in set) if (i == 3) counter++; Assert.AreEqual(1, counter); } My second option is to test for my condition generically: //OPTION 2 void InsertDuplicateValues_OnlyOneInstancePerValueShouldBeInTheSet() { var set = new IntSet(); //The following could even be a list of random numbers with a duplicate var values = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5}; foreach (int i in values) set.Add(i); //I am not using my prior knowledge of the sample data //the following line would work for any data CollectionAssert.AreEquivalent(new HashSet<int>(values), set); } Of course, in this example, I conveniently have a set implementation to check against, as well as code to compare collections (CollectionAssert). But what if I didn't have either ? This is the situation when you are testing your real life custom business logic. Granted, testing for expected conditions generically covers more cases - but it becomes very similar to implementing the logic again (which is both tedious and useless - you can't use the same code to check itself!). Basically I'm asking whether my tests should look like "insert 1, 2, 3 then check something about 3" or "insert 1, 2, 3 and check for something in general" EDIT - To help me understand, please state in your answer if you prefer OPTION 1 or OPTION 2 (or neither, or that it depends on the case, etc )

  Read the article

• C++ and Dependency Injection in unit testing

  - by lhumongous

  Suppose I have a C++ class like so: class A { public: A() { } void SetNewB( const B& _b ) { m_B = _b; } private: B m_B; } In order to unit test something like this, I would have to break A's dependency on B. Since class A holds onto an actual object and not a pointer, I would have to refactor this code to take a pointer. Additionally, I would need to create a parent interface class for B so I can pass in my own fake of B when I test SetNewB. In this case, doesn't unit testing with dependency injection further complicate the existing code? If I make B a pointer, I'm now introducing heap allocation, and some piece of code is now responsible for cleaning it up (unless I use ref counted pointers). Additionally, if B is a rather trivial class with only a couple of member variables and functions, why introduce a whole new interface for it instead of just testing with an instance of B? I suppose you could make the argument that it would be easier to refactor A by using an interface. But are there some cases where two classes might need to be tightly coupled?

  Read the article

• Unit testing a 'legacy' WPF Application

  - by sc_ray

  The product I have been working on has been in development for the past six years. It started as a generic data entry portal into an insanely complex part WPF/part legacy application. The system has been developed for all these years without a single Unit test in its fold. Now, the point has been raised for a comprehensive unit testing framework. I have been recruited recently to work on this product and have been tasked to get the 'Testing' in order. Since the team that worked on the product for the last six years adopted 'Agile', the project lacks any documentation of the business rules or any design documents. I have been trying to write unit tests for some of the modules. But I am not sure what to Mock, how to setup my Test fixture and eventually what to Test for, since a casual glance of the methods does not reveal its intentions. Also, it has come to my attention that the code was not developed with a particular methodology in mind. Given the situation, I was wondering if the good people of Stackoverflow could provide me with some advise on how to salvage this situation. I have heard about the book 'Working with Legacy Code' that has something to say about this general situation but I was thinking about getting some pointers from individuals who have encountered similar situations within the technology stack(C#,VB,C++,.NET 3.5,WCF,SQL Server 2005).

  Read the article

• Integration testing - can it be done right?

  - by Max

  I used TDD as a development style on some projects in the past two years, but I always get stuck on the same point: how can I test the integration of the various parts of my program? What I am currently doing is writing a testcase per class (this is my rule of thumb: a "unit" is a class, and each class has one or more testcases). I try to resolve dependencies by using mocks and stubs and this works really well as each class can be tested independently. After some coding, all important classes are tested. I then "wire" them together using an IoC container. And here I am stuck: How to test if the wiring was successfull and the objects interact the way I want? An example: Think of a web application. There is a controller class which takes an array of ids, uses a repository to fetch the records based on these ids and then iterates over the records and writes them as a string to an outfile. To make it simple, there would be three classes: Controller, Repository, OutfileWriter. Each of them is tested in isolation. What I would do in order to test the "real" application: making the http request (either manually or automated) with some ids from the database and then look in the filesystem if the file was written. Of course this process could be automated, but still: doesn´t that duplicate the test-logic? Is this what is called an "integration test"? In a book i recently read about Unit Testing it seemed to me that integration testing was more of an anti-pattern?

  Read the article

• Unit testing ASP.NET MVC 2 routes with areas bails out on AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas()

  - by Sandor Drieënhuizen

  I'm unit testing my routes in ASP.NET MVC 2. I'm using MSTest and I'm using areas as well. When I call AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas() however, it throws this exception: System.InvalidOperationException: System.InvalidOperationException: This method cannot be called during the application's pre-start initialization stage.. OK, so I reckon I can't call it from my class initializer. But when can I call it? I don't have an Application_Start in my test obviously.

  Read the article

• Django - testing using large tables of static data

  - by Michael B

  I am using "manage.py test" along with a JSON fixture I created using using 'dumpdata' My problem is that several of the tables in the fixture are very large (for example one containing the names of all cities in the US) which makes running a test incredibly slow. Seeing as several of these tables are never modified by the program (eg - the city names will never need to be modified), it doesn't make much sense to create and tear down these tables for every test run. Is there a better way to be testing this code using this kind of data?

  Read the article

• Software Testing Tools - for java

  - by Joao Guilherme

  Can someone list me 5 good softwares for "Software Testing" in java projects? I need to study 5 of them, what do you recommend?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >