Search Results

Search found 4935 results on 198 pages for 'organizational unit'.

Page 32/198 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

  • Why is the unit test useful when the view is not unit testable in MVVM?

    - by BigTiger
    Why is the unit test useful when the view is not unit testable in MVVM? In MVVM, we have the models, view-models, and views. The claimed advantage is that MVVM can make the models and view=models unit testable. But all the three parties belong to the same application. If the views are not unit testable, why test the other two? Will unit testing the other two and leave one not tested improve the quality? Removing all the code-behind from the views sounds weird to me. How about the code-behind only handles the pure UI operations?

    Read the article

  • Why does 'uses unit' disappear when I had a new unit ?

    - by TridenT
    I have a Unit test project for my Application using DUnit framework. This project have a unit surrounded by a $IFDEF to output test-results in a xml file instead of the gui or just command line. XML_OUTPUT define is enabled by switching the Build configuration. program DelphiCodeToDoc_Tests; uses TestFramework, TextTestRunner, Sysutils, Forms, GUITestRunner, {$IFDEF XML_OUTPUT} XmlTestRunner2 in 'DUnit_addon\XmlTestRunner2.pas', {$ENDIF} DCTDSetupTests in 'IntegrationTests\DCTDSetupTests.pas', ... This works perfectly. The issue starts when I'm adding a new unit to this project from the IDE (a new unit with 'FileNewUnit'). The Test project is now : uses TestFramework, TextTestRunner, Sysutils, Forms, GUITestRunner, DCTDSetupTests in 'IntegrationTests\DCTDSetupTests.pas', ... MyNewUnit in 'IntegrationTests\MyNewUnit.pas'; As you see, the test XML_OUTPUT has disappeared ... Each time I'm adding a unit, Delphi IDE deletes this test. Do you know why and how I can avoid it ?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to compile IronRuby code to a .NET assembly (EXE or DLL)

    - by Chris Ammerman
    My scenario consists of the following points. I have a packaged software product I am developing in C# Since it is a packaged product, the public interfaces of the assemblies need to be tightly controlled... All assemblies are strong-named Any classes that don't absolutely have to be "public" are "internal" I want to write unit tests for those "internal" classes, since they are the bulk of the code And finally.... I want to try writing the unit tests in Ruby. Since the unit tests would be external to the assembly containing the code under test, the assemblies under test would each need to have an "InternalsVisibleTo" attribute specifying the name of the unit test assembly. Which of course would mean that the Ruby unit tests would have to compile down to a .NET assembly so they can be given access in this way. Can this be done? If so, how? All I can find on the web about "compiling IronRuby" is about building the actual IronRuby runtime from source.

    Read the article

  • Custom validation works in development but not in unit test

    - by Geolev
    I want to validate that at least one of two columns have a value in my model. I found somewhere on the web that I could create a custom validator as follows: # Check for the presence of one or another field: # :validates_presence_of_at_least_one_field :last_name, :company_name - would require either last_name or company_name to be filled in # also works with arrays # :validates_presence_of_at_least_one_field :email, [:name, :address, :city, :state] - would require email or a mailing type address module ActiveRecord module Validations module ClassMethods def validates_presence_of_at_least_one_field(*attr_names) msg = attr_names.collect {|a| a.is_a?(Array) ? " ( #{a.join(", ")} ) " : a.to_s}.join(", ") + "can't all be blank. At least one field must be filled in." configuration = { :on => :save, :message => msg } configuration.update(attr_names.extract_options!) send(validation_method(configuration[:on]), configuration) do |record| found = false attr_names.each do |a| a = [a] unless a.is_a?(Array) found = true a.each do |attr| value = record.respond_to?(attr.to_s) ? record.send(attr.to_s) : record[attr.to_s] found = !value.blank? end break if found end record.errors.add_to_base(configuration[:message]) unless found end end end end end I put this in a file called lib/acs_validator.rb in my project and added "require 'acs_validator'" to my environment.rb. This does exactly what I want. It works perfectly when I manually test it in the development environment but when I write a unit test it breaks my test environment. This is my unit test: require 'test_helper' class CustomerTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase # Replace this with your real tests. test "the truth" do assert true end test "customer not valid" do puts "customer not valid" customer = Customer.new assert !customer.valid? assert customer.errors.invalid?(:subdomain) assert_equal "Company Name and Last Name can't both be blank.", customer.errors.on(:contact_lname) end end This is my model: class Customer < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :subdomain validates_presence_of_at_least_one_field :customer_company_name, :contact_lname, :message => "Company Name and Last Name can't both be blank." has_one :service_plan end When I run the unit test, I get the following error: DEPRECATION WARNING: Rake tasks in vendor/plugins/admin_data/tasks, vendor/plugins/admin_data/tasks, and vendor/plugins/admin_data/tasks are deprecated. Use lib/tasks instead. (called from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/tasks/rails.rb:10) Couldn't drop acs_test : #<ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: PGError: ERROR: database "acs_test" is being accessed by other users DETAIL: There are 1 other session(s) using the database. : DROP DATABASE IF EXISTS "acs_test"> acs_test already exists NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "customers_id_seq" for serial column "customers.id" NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "customers_pkey" for table "customers" NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "service_plans_id_seq" for serial column "service_plans.id" NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "service_plans_pkey" for table "service_plans" /usr/bin/ruby1.8 -I"lib:test" "/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/unit/customer_test.rb" "test/unit/service_plan_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/dashboard_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/customers_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/service_plans_helper_test.rb" /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.3.8/lib/active_record/base.rb:1994:in `method_missing_without_paginate': undefined method `validates_presence_of_at_least_one_field' for #<Class:0xb7076bd0> (NoMethodError) from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/will_paginate-2.3.12/lib/will_paginate/finder.rb:170:in `method_missing' from /home/george/projects/advancedcomfortcs/app/models/customer.rb:3 from /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `gem_original_require' from /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `require' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.8/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:158:in `require' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.8/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:265:in `require_or_load' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.8/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:224:in `depend_on' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.8/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:136:in `require_dependency' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:414:in `load_application_classes' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:413:in `each' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:413:in `load_application_classes' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:411:in `each' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:411:in `load_application_classes' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:197:in `process' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:113:in `send' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:113:in `run' from /home/george/projects/advancedcomfortcs/config/environment.rb:9 from ./test/test_helper.rb:2:in `require' from ./test/test_helper.rb:2 from ./test/unit/customer_test.rb:1:in `require' from ./test/unit/customer_test.rb:1 from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb:5:in `load' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb:5 from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb:5:in `each' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb:5 rake aborted! Command failed with status (1): [/usr/bin/ruby1.8 -I"lib:test" "/usr/lib/ru...] (See full trace by running task with --trace) It seems to have stepped on will_paginate somehow. Does anyone have any suggestions? Is there another way to do the validation I'm attempting to do? Thanks, George

    Read the article

  • tools for testing vim plugins

    - by intuited
    I'm looking for some tools for testing vim scripts. Either vim scripts that do unit/functional testing, or classes for some other library (eg Python's unittest module) that make it convenient to run vim with parameters that cause it to do some tests on its environment, and determine from the output whether or not a given test passed. I'm aware of a couple of vim scripts that do unit testing, but they're sort of vaguely documented and may or may not actually be useful: vim-unit: purports "To provide vim scripts with a simple unit testing framework and tools" first and only version (v0.1) was released in 2004 documentation doesn't mention whether or not it works reliably, other than to state that it is "fare [sic] from finished". unit-test.vim: This one also seems pretty experimental, and may not be particularly reliable. May have been abandoned or back-shelved: last commit was in 2009-11 ( 6 months ago) No tagged revisions have been created (ie no releases) So information from people who are using one of those two existent modules, and/or links to other, more clearly usable, options, are very welcome.

    Read the article

  • How should I mock out my data connectivity

    - by BobTheBuilder
    I'm trying to unit test my Data Access Layer and I'm in the process of trying to mock my data connectivity to unit test my DAL and I'm coming unstuck trying to mock out the creation of the commands. I thought about using a queue of IDbParameters for the creation of the parameters, but the unit tests then require that the parameters are configured in the right order. I'm using MOQ and having looked around for some documentation to walk me through this, I'm finding lots of recommendation not to do this, but to write a wrapper for the connection, but it's my contention that my DAL is supposed to be the wrapper for my database and I don't feel I should be writing wrappers... if I do, how do I unit test the connectivity to the database for my wrapper? By writing another wrapper? It seems like it's turtles all the way down. So does anyone have any recommendations or tutorials regarding this particular area of unit testing/mocking?

    Read the article

  • What is the best position for power unit?

    - by guest86
    I would like to buy new computer case. Last time I bought a computer was in 2008 and many things have changed up to day. Many new computer cases have power unit placed down, on bottom. I'm thinking about buying some of those cases, but i'm not sure about something - if power unit is placed on the bottom it can't take away hot air from the case and pump it out right? All my PC parts are silent - CPU (E8200, placed below 12cm Nochtua fan of power unit) has heat-pipe cooler with Nochtua fan spinning at only 800rpms, GPU has cooler powered by 7V instead 12 and that's why i don't want to HAVE TO place another fan to pump out hot air instead of PU placed on top. That might make some noise. So i ask someone more experienced: if i buy some computer case with PU placed down, do i HAVE TO place some fan to pump out hot air?

    Read the article

  • What's the best practice to setup testing for ASP.Net MVC? What to use/process/etc?

    - by melaos
    hi there, i'm trying to learn how to properly setup testing for an ASP.Net MVC. and from what i've been reading here and there thus far, the definition of legacy code kind of piques my interests, where it mentions that legacy codes are any codes without unit tests. so i did my project in a hurry not having the time to properly setup unit tests for the app and i'm still learning how to properly do TDD and unit testing at the same time. then i came upon selenium IDE/RC and was using it to test on the browser end. it was during that time too that i came upon the concept of integration testing, so from my understanding it seems that unit testing should be done to define the test and basic assumptions of each function, and if the function is dependent on something else, that something else needs to be mocked so that the tests is always singular and can be run fast. Questions: so am i right to say that the project should have started with unit test with proper mocks using something like rhino mocks. then anything else which requires 3rd party dll, database data access etc to be done via integration testing using selenium? because i have a function which calls a third party dll, i'm not sure whether to write a unit test in nunit to just instantiate the object and pass it some dummy data which breaks the mocking part to test it or just cover that part in my selenium integration testing when i submit my forms and call the dll. and for user acceptance tests, is it safe to say we can just use selenium again? Am i missing something or is there a better way/framework? i'm trying to put in more tests for regression testing, and to ensure that nothing breaks when we put in new features. i also like the idea of TDD because it helps to better define the function, sort of like a meta documentation. thanks!! hope this question isn't too subjective because i need it for my case.

    Read the article

  • Formatting XML using XSLT1.0

    - by DS
    Hi, I have the following xml: <Subscriptions> <Subscription> <Uplink> <Size>15</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Uplink> <Name>Class D</Name> </Subscription> <Subscription> <Uplink> <Size>10</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Uplink> <Name>Class A</Name> </Subscription> <Subscription> <Downlink> <Size>50</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Downlink> <Name>Class B</Name> </Subscription> <Subscription> <Uplink> <Size>10</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Uplink> <Name>Class B</Name> </Subscription> <Subscription> <Downlink> <Size>40000</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Downlink> <Name>Class A</Name> </Subscription> <Subscription> <Downlink> <Size>20</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Downlink> <Name>Class C</Name> </Subscription> <Subscription> <Downlink> <Size>45</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Downlink> <Name>Class D</Name> </Subscription> </Subscriptions> I want to group it in the following format based on name using XSLT1.0. Please help <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <Subscriptions> <Subscription> <Downlink> <Size>45</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Downlink> <Uplink> <Size>15</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Uplink> <Name>Class D</Name> </Subscription> <Subscription> <Downlink> <Size>40000</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Downlink> <Uplink> <Size>10</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Uplink> <Name>Class A</Name> </Subscription> <Subscription> <Downlink> <Size>50</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Downlink> <Uplink> <Size>10</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Uplink> <Name>Class B</Name> </Subscription> <Subscription> <Downlink> <Size>20</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Downlink> <Uplink> <Size>0</Size> <Unit>Mbps</Unit> </Uplink> <Name>Class C</Name> </Subscription> </Subscriptions> Thanks & Regards, D

    Read the article

  • When reversing a Google Analytics e-commerce transaction is the per-unit price positive or negative?

    - by Michael Glenn
    Google's own instructions for reversing an e-commerce transaction seem to contradict themselves regarding the unit price. In the instructions it states The item field has a positive per-unit price and a negative quantity. yet, the code sample has a negative per-unit price and negative quantity. _gaq.push(['_addItem', '1234', // order ID - necessary to associate item with transaction 'DD44', // SKU/code - required 'T-Shirt', // product name 'Olive Medium', // category or variation '-11.99', // unit price - required '-1' // quantity - required ]); Which is correct?

    Read the article

  • PerlRegEx vs RegularExpressionsCore Delphi Units

    - by Jan Goyvaerts
    The RegularExpressionsCore unit that is part of Delphi XE is based on the latest class-based PerlRegEx unit that I developed. Embarcadero only made a few changes to the unit. These changes are insignificant enough that code written for earlier versions of Delphi using the class-based PerlRegEx unit will work just the same with Delphi XE. The unit was renamed from PerlRegEx to RegularExpressionsCore. When migrating your code to Delphi XE, you can choose whether you want to use the new RegularExpressionsCore unit or continue using the PerlRegEx unit in your application. All you need to change is which unit you add to the uses clause in your own units. Indentation and line breaks in the code were changed to match the style used in the Delphi RTL and VCL code. This does not change the code, but makes it harder to diff the two units. Literal strings in the unit were separated into their own unit called RegularExpressionsConsts. These strings are only used for error messages that indicate bugs in your code. If your code uses TPerlRegEx correctly then the user should not see any of these strings. My code uses assertions to check for out of bounds parameters, while Embarcadero uses exceptions. Again, if you use TPerlRegEx correctly, you should never get any assertions or exceptions. The Compile method raises an exception if the regular expression is invalid in both my original TPerlRegEx component and Embarcadero’s version. If your code allows the user to provide the regular expression, you should explicitly call Compile and catch any exceptions it raises so you can tell the user there is a problem with the regular expression. Even with user-provided regular expressions, you shouldn’t get any other assertions or exceptions if your code is correct. Note that Embarcadero owns all the rights to their RegularExpressionsCore unit. Like all the other RTL and VCL units, this unit cannot be distributed by myself or anyone other than Embarcadero. I do retain the rights to my original PerlRegEx unit which I will continue to make available for those using older versions of Delphi.

    Read the article

  • PHP unable to start if "apc.shm_size" has "M" or "G" unit

    - by apasajja
    Using: Ubuntu 10.04, PHP 5.3.10, apc 3.1.3 PHP and APC installed using below repo: deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/brianmercer/php5/ubuntu lucid main deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/brianmercer/php5/ubuntu lucid main If I put apc.shm_size=3G or apc.shm_size=3000M in /etc/php5/fpm/conf.d/apc.ini, PHP unable to start. However, if I put only number without M or G unit, it will start and run. By default, if put only number, what unit is it means? It I put 3000 does it means 3000 MB?

    Read the article

  • Should I be worried about overengineering programming assignments given during interview process?

    - by DormoTheNord
    I recently had a phone interview with a company. After that phone interview, I was told to complete a short programming assignment (a small program; shouldn't take more than three hours). I'm only directly instructed to complete the assignment and turn in the code. I was given complete freedom to use any language I wished and was not told exactly how to turn in the code. Immediately I planned on throwing it on Github, writing a test suite for it, using Travis-CI (free continuous integration for public Github repositories) to run the test suites, and using CMake to build the Linux makefiles for Travis-CI. That way, not only can I demonstrate that I understand how to use Git, CMake, Travis-CI, and how to write tests, but I can also simply link to the Travis-CI page so they can see the output of the tests. I figured that'd make it a tiny bit more convenient for the interviewer. Since I know those technologies well, it would add essentially no time to the assignment. However, I'm a bit worried that doing all this for a relatively simple task would look bad. Although it wouldn't add much more time at all for me, I don't want them thinking I spend too much time on things that should be simple.

    Read the article

  • Rescue overdue offshore projects and convince management to use automated tests

    - by oazabir
    I have published two articles on codeproject recently. One is a story where an offshore project was two months overdue, my friend who runs it was paying the team from his own pocket and he was drowning in ever increasing number of change requests and how we brainstormed together to come out of that situation. Tips and Tricks to rescue overdue projects Next one is about convincing management to go for automated test and give developers extra time per sprint, at the cost of reduced productivity for couple of sprints. It’s hard to negotiate this with even dev leads, let alone managers. Whenever you tell them - there’s going to be less features/bug fixes delivered for next 3 or 4 sprints because we want to automate the tests and reduce manual QA effort; everyone gets furious and kicks you out of the meeting. Especially in a startup where every sprint is jam packed with new features and priority bug fixes to satisfy various stakeholders, including the VCs, it’s very hard to communicate the benefits of automated tests across the board. Let me tell you of a story of one of my startups where I had the pleasure to argue on this and came out victorious. How to convince developers and management to use automated test instead of manual test If you like these, please vote for me!

    Read the article

  • What are the disadvantages of automated testing?

    - by jkohlhepp
    There are a number of questions on this site that give plenty of information about the benefits that can be gained from automated testing. But I didn't see anything that represented the other side of the coin: what are the disadvantages? Everything in life is a tradeoff and there are no silver bullets, so surely there must be some valid reasons not to do automated testing. What are they? Here's a few that I've come up with: Requires more initial developer time for a given feature Requires a higher skill level of team members Increase tooling needs (test runners, frameworks, etc.) Complex analysis required when a failed test in encountered - is this test obsolete due to my change or is it telling me I made a mistake? Edit I should say that I am a huge proponent of automated testing, and I'm not looking to be convinced to do it. I'm looking to understand what the disadvantages are so when I go to my company to make a case for it I don't look like I'm throwing around the next imaginary silver bullet. Also, I'm explicity not looking for someone to dispute my examples above. I am taking as true that there must be some disadvantages (everything has trade-offs) and I want to understand what those are.

    Read the article

  • Write your Tests in RSpec with IronRuby

    - by kazimanzurrashid
    [Note: This is not a continuation of my previous post, treat it as an experiment out in the wild. ] Lets consider the following class, a fictitious Fund Transfer Service: public class FundTransferService : IFundTransferService { private readonly ICurrencyConvertionService currencyConvertionService; public FundTransferService(ICurrencyConvertionService currencyConvertionService) { this.currencyConvertionService = currencyConvertionService; } public void Transfer(Account fromAccount, Account toAccount, decimal amount) { decimal convertionRate = currencyConvertionService.GetConvertionRate(fromAccount.Currency, toAccount.Currency); decimal convertedAmount = convertionRate * amount; fromAccount.Withdraw(amount); toAccount.Deposit(convertedAmount); } } public class Account { public Account(string currency, decimal balance) { Currency = currency; Balance = balance; } public string Currency { get; private set; } public decimal Balance { get; private set; } public void Deposit(decimal amount) { Balance += amount; } public void Withdraw(decimal amount) { Balance -= amount; } } We can write the spec with MSpec + Moq like the following: public class When_fund_is_transferred { const decimal ConvertionRate = 1.029m; const decimal TransferAmount = 10.0m; const decimal InitialBalance = 100.0m; static Account fromAccount; static Account toAccount; static FundTransferService fundTransferService; Establish context = () => { fromAccount = new Account("USD", InitialBalance); toAccount = new Account("CAD", InitialBalance); var currencyConvertionService = new Moq.Mock<ICurrencyConvertionService>(); currencyConvertionService.Setup(ccv => ccv.GetConvertionRate(Moq.It.IsAny<string>(), Moq.It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(ConvertionRate); fundTransferService = new FundTransferService(currencyConvertionService.Object); }; Because of = () => { fundTransferService.Transfer(fromAccount, toAccount, TransferAmount); }; It should_decrease_from_account_balance = () => { fromAccount.Balance.ShouldBeLessThan(InitialBalance); }; It should_increase_to_account_balance = () => { toAccount.Balance.ShouldBeGreaterThan(InitialBalance); }; } and if you run the spec it will give you a nice little output like the following: When fund is transferred » should decrease from account balance » should increase to account balance 2 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 1.14 seconds (MSpec). Now, lets see how we can write exact spec in RSpec. require File.dirname(__FILE__) + "/../FundTransfer/bin/Debug/FundTransfer" require "spec" require "caricature" describe "When fund is transferred" do Convertion_Rate = 1.029 Transfer_Amount = 10.0 Initial_Balance = 100.0 before(:all) do @from_account = FundTransfer::Account.new("USD", Initial_Balance) @to_account = FundTransfer::Account.new("CAD", Initial_Balance) currency_convertion_service = Caricature::Isolation.for(FundTransfer::ICurrencyConvertionService) currency_convertion_service.when_receiving(:get_convertion_rate).with(:any, :any).return(Convertion_Rate) fund_transfer_service = FundTransfer::FundTransferService.new(currency_convertion_service) fund_transfer_service.transfer(@from_account, @to_account, Transfer_Amount) end it "should decrease from account balance" do @from_account.balance.should be < Initial_Balance end it "should increase to account balance" do @to_account.balance.should be > Initial_Balance end end I think the above code is self explanatory, treat the require(line 1- 4) statements as the add reference of our visual studio projects, we are adding all the required libraries with this statement. Next, the describe which is a RSpec keyword. The before does exactly the same as NUnit's Setup or MsTest’s TestInitialize attribute, but in the above we are using before(:all) which acts as ClassInitialize of MsTest, that means it will be executed only once before all the test methods. In the before(:all) we are first instantiating the from and to accounts, it is same as creating with the full name (including namespace)  like fromAccount = new FundTransfer.Account(.., ..), next, we are creating a mock object of ICurrencyConvertionService, check that for creating the mock we are not using the Moq like the MSpec version. This is somewhat an interesting issue of IronRuby or maybe the DLR, it seems that it is not possible to use the lambda expression that most of the mocking tools uses in arrange phase in Iron Ruby, like: currencyConvertionService.Setup(ccv => ccv.GetConvertionRate(Moq.It.IsAny<string>(), Moq.It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(ConvertionRate); But the good news is, there is already an excellent mocking tool called Caricature written completely in IronRuby which we can use to mock the .NET classes. May be all the mocking tool providers should give some thought to add the support for the DLR, so that we can use the tool that we are already familiar with. I think the rest of the code is too simple, so I am skipping the explanation. Now, the last thing, how we are going to run it with RSpec, lets first install the required gems. Open you command prompt and type the following: igem sources -a http://gems.github.com This will add the GitHub as gem source. Next type: igem install uuidtools caricature rspec and at last we have to create a batch file so that we can execute it in the Notepad++, create a batch like in the IronRuby bin directory like my previous post and put the following in that batch file: @echo off cls call spec %1 --format specdoc pause Next, add a run menu and shortcut in the Notepad++ like my previous post. Now when we run it it will show the following output: When fund is transferred - should decrease from account balance - should increase to account balance Finished in 0.332042 seconds 2 examples, 0 failures Press any key to continue . . . You will complete code of this post in the bottom. That's it for today. Download: RSpecIntegration.zip

    Read the article

  • What would a start-to-finish development procedure would look like?

    - by Tom Busby
    I have a problem that my developer friends share. We recently left university and find ourselves either end up working for a firm which already has good procedures (TDD, automated testing, proper agile development, etc) or working for a firm which doesn't. I want to learn some of these vital skills and get a grip on what a complete start-to-finish development procedure would look like. What differences would be between a smaller project, and a long term project with many team members.

    Read the article

  • Policy Implementation is Damaging Organizations: Economist Intelligence Unit

    - by michael.seback
    Read new research revealing the hidden risks of inefficient policy implementation The frenetic pace of regulatory and legislative change means public and private sector organizations must continuously update internal policies - in particular, as associated with decision making and disbursements. Yet with policy management efforts alarmingly under-resourced and under-funded, the risk and cost of non-compliance - and their associated implications - are growing daily. To find out how inefficient policy management could be putting your business at risk, read your complimentary copy of the full EIU paper - Enabling Efficient Policy Implementation - today.

    Read the article

  • Returning a mock object from a mock object

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to return an object when mocking a parser class. This is the test code using PHPUnit 3.7 //set up the result object that I want to be returned from the call to parse method $parserResult= new ParserResult(); $parserResult->setSegment('some string'); //set up the stub Parser object $stubParser=$this->getMock('Parser'); $stubParser->expects($this->any()) ->method('parse') ->will($this->returnValue($parserResult)); //injecting the stub to my client class $fileHeaderParser= new FileWriter($stubParser); $output=$fileParser->writeStringToFile(); Inside my writeStringToFile() method I'm using $parserResult like this: writeStringToFile(){ //Some code... $parserResult=$parser->parse(); $segment=$parserResult->getSegment();//that's why I set the segment in the test. } Should I mock ParserResult in the first place, so that the mock returns a mock? Is it good design for mocks to return mocks? Is there a better approach to do this all?!

    Read the article

  • How do I make code bound to an ORM testable?

    - by RPK
    In Test Driven Development, how do I make code bound to an ORM testable? I am using a Micro-ORM (PetaPoco) and I have several methods that interact with the database like: AddCustomer UpdateRecord etc. I want to know how to write a test for these methods. I searched YouTube for videos on writing a test for DAL, but I didn't find any. I want to know which method or class is testable and how to write a test before writing the code itself.

    Read the article

  • White box testing with Google Test

    - by Daemin
    I've been trying out using GoogleTest for my C++ hobby project, and I need to test the internals of a component (hence white box testing). At my previous work we just made the test classes friends of the class being tested. But with Google Test that doesn't work as each test is given its own unique class, derived from the fixture class if specified, and friend-ness doesn't transfer to derived classes. Initially I created a test proxy class that is friends with the tested class. It contains a pointer to an instance of the tested class and provides methods for the required, but hidden, members. This worked for a simple class, but now I'm up to testing a tree class with an internal private node class, of which I need to access and mess with. I'm just wondering if anyone using the GoogleTest library has done any white box testing and if they have any hints or helpful constructs that would make this easier. Ok, I've found the FRIEND_TEST macro defined in the documentation, as well as some hints on how to test private code in the advanced guide. But apart from having a huge amount of friend declerations (i.e. one FRIEND_TEST for each test), is there an easier idion to use, or should I abandon using GoogleTest and move to a different test framework?

    Read the article

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