Search Results

Search found 68011 results on 2721 pages for 'unit of work'.

Page 32/2721 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

  • Is it possible to unit test methods that rely on NHibernate Detached Criteria?

    - by Aim Kai
    I have tried to use Moq to unit test a method on a repository that uses the DetachedCriteria class. But I come up against a problem whereby I cannot actually mock the internal Criteria object that is built inside. Is there any way to mock detached criteria? Test Method [Test] [Category("UnitTest")] public void FindByNameSuccessTest() { //Mock hibernate here var sessionMock = new Mock<ISession>(); var sessionManager = new Mock<ISessionManager>(); var queryMock = new Mock<IQuery>(); var criteria = new Mock<ICriteria>(); var sessionIMock = new Mock<NHibernate.Engine.ISessionImplementor>(); var expectedRestriction = new Restriction {Id = 1, Name="Test"}; //Set up expected returns sessionManager.Setup(m => m.OpenSession()).Returns(sessionMock.Object); sessionMock.Setup(x => x.GetSessionImplementation()).Returns(sessionIMock.Object); queryMock.Setup(x => x.UniqueResult<SopRestriction>()).Returns(expectedRestriction); criteria.Setup(x => x.UniqueResult()).Returns(expectedRestriction); //Build repository var rep = new TestRepository(sessionManager.Object); //Call repostitory here to get list var returnR = rep.FindByName("Test"); Assert.That(returnR.Id == expectedRestriction.Id); } Repository Class public class TestRepository { protected readonly ISessionManager SessionManager; public virtual ISession Session { get { return SessionManager.OpenSession(); } } public TestRepository(ISessionManager sessionManager) { } public SopRestriction FindByName(string name) { var criteria = DetachedCriteria.For<Restriction>().Add<Restriction>(x => x.Name == name) return criteria.GetExecutableCriteria(Session).UniqueResult<T>(); } } Note I am using "NHibernate.LambdaExtensions" and "Castle.Facilities.NHibernateIntegration" here as well. Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How can I write a unit test to determine whether an object can be garbage collected?

    - by driis
    In relation to my previous question, I need to check whether a component that will be instantiated by Castle Windsor, can be garbage collected after my code has finished using it. I have tried the suggestion in the answers from the previous question, but it does not seem to work as expected, at least for my code. So I would like to write a unit test that tests whether a specific object instance can be garbage collected after some of my code has run. Is that possible to do in a reliable way ? EDIT I currently have the following test based on Paul Stovell's answer, which succeeds: [TestMethod] public void ReleaseTest() { WindsorContainer container = new WindsorContainer(); container.Kernel.ReleasePolicy = new NoTrackingReleasePolicy(); container.AddComponentWithLifestyle<ReleaseTester>(LifestyleType.Transient); Assert.AreEqual(0, ReleaseTester.refCount); var weakRef = new WeakReference(container.Resolve<ReleaseTester>()); Assert.AreEqual(1, ReleaseTester.refCount); GC.Collect(); GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers(); Assert.AreEqual(0, ReleaseTester.refCount, "Component not released"); } private class ReleaseTester { public static int refCount = 0; public ReleaseTester() { refCount++; } ~ReleaseTester() { refCount--; } } Am I right assuming that, based on the test above, I can conclude that Windsor will not leak memory when using the NoTrackingReleasePolicy ?

    Read the article

  • At which line in the following code should I commit my unit of work?

    - by Pure.Krome
    I have the following code which is in a transaction. I'm not sure where/when I should be commiting my unit of work. On purpose, I've not mentioned what type of Respoistory i'm using - eg. Linq-To-Sql, Entity Framework 4, NHibernate, etc. If someone knows where, can they please explain WHY they have said, where? (i'm trying to understand the pattern through example(s), as opposed to just getting my code to work). Here's what i've got :- using ( TransactionScope transactionScope = new TransactionScope ( TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew, new TransactionOptions { IsolationLevel = IsolationLevel.ReadUncommitted } ) ) { _logEntryRepository.InsertOrUpdate(logEntry); //_unitOfWork.Commit(); // Here, commit #1 ? // Now, if this log entry was a NewConnection or an LostConnection, // then we need to make sure we update the ConnectedClients. if (logEntry.EventType == EventType.NewConnection) { _connectedClientRepository.Insert( new ConnectedClient { LogEntryId = logEntry.LogEntryId }); //_unitOfWork.Commit(); // Here, commit #2 ? } // A (PB) BanKick does _NOT_ register a lost connection, // so we need to make sure we handle those scenario's as a LostConnection. if (logEntry.EventType == EventType.LostConnection || logEntry.EventType == EventType.BanKick) { _connectedClientRepository.Delete( logEntry.ClientName, logEntry.ClientIpAndPort); //_unitOfWork.Commit(); // Here, commit #3 ? } _unitOfWork.Commit(); // Here, commit #4 ? transactionScope.Complete(); }

    Read the article

  • Django unit testing: South-migrated DB works in MySQL, throws duplicate PK error in PostGreSQL. Am I

    - by unclaimedbaggage
    Hi folks, (Worth starting off with a disclaimer: I'm very new to PostGreSQL) I have a django site which involves a standard app/tests.py testing file. If I migrate the DB to MySQL (through South),, the tests all pass. However in PostGresQL, I'm getting the following error: IntegrityError: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "business_contact_pkey" Note this happens while unit testing only - the actual page runs fine in both MySQL & PostGresql. Really having a heckuva time figuring this one out. Anyone have ideas? Below are the Postgresql "\d business_contact" & offending tests.py method if they help. No changes made to either DB except the (same) South migrations Thanks first_name | character varying(200) | not null mobile_phone | character varying(100) | surname | character varying(200) | not null business_id | integer | not null created | timestamp with time zone | not null deleted | boolean | not null default false updated | timestamp with time zone | not null slug | character varying(150) | not null phone | character varying(100) | email | character varying(75) | id | integer | not null default nextval('business_contact_id_seq'::regclass) Indexes: "business_contact_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id) "business_contact_slug_key" UNIQUE, btree (slug) "business_contact_business_id" btree (business_id) Foreign-key constraints: "business_id_refs_id_772cc1b7b40f4b36" FOREIGN KEY (business_id) REFERENCES business(id) DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED Referenced by: TABLE "business" CONSTRAINT "primary_contact_id_refs_id_dfaf59c4041c850" FOREIGN KEY (primary_contact_id) REFERENCES business_contact(id) DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED TEST DEF: def test_add_business_contact(self): """ Add a business contact """ contact_slug = 'test-new-contact-added-new-adf' business_id = 1 business = Business.objects.get(id=business_id) postdata = { 'first_name': 'Test', 'surname': 'User', 'business': '1', 'slug': contact_slug, 'email': '[email protected]', 'phone': '12345678', 'mobile_phone': '9823452', 'business': 1, 'business_id': 1, } #Test to ensure contacts that should not exist are not returned contact_not_exists = Contact.objects.filter(slug=contact_slug) self.assertFalse(contact_not_exists) #Add the contact and ensure it is present in the DB afterwards """ contact_add_url = '%s%s/contact/add/' % (settings.BUSINESS_URL, business.slug) self.client.post(contact_add_url, postdata) added_contact = Contact.objects.filter(slug=contact_slug) print added_contact try: self.assertTrue(added_contact) except: formset = ContactForm(postdata) print formset.errors self.assertFalse(True, "Contact not found in the database - most likely, the post values in the test didn't validate against the form")

    Read the article

  • Why does this asp.net mvc unit test fail?

    - by Brian McCord
    I have this unit test: [TestMethod] public void Delete_Post_Passes_With_State_4() { //Arrange ViewResult result = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var model = (State)result.ViewData.Model; //Act RedirectToRouteResult redirectResult = stateController.Delete( model ) as RedirectToRouteResult; var newresult = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var newmodel = (State)newresult.ViewData.Model; //Assert Assert.AreEqual( redirectResult.RouteValues["action"], "Index" ); Assert.IsNull( newmodel ); } Here are the two controller actions that handle deleting: // // GET: /State/Delete/5 public ActionResult Delete(int id) { var x = _stateService.GetById( id ); return View(x); } // // POST: /State/Delete/5 [HttpPost] public ActionResult Delete(State model) { try { if( model == null ) { return View( model ); } _stateService.Delete( model ); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } catch { return View( model ); } } What I can't figure out is why this test fails. I have verified that the record actually gets deleted from the list. If I set a break point in the Delete method on the line: var x = _stateService.GetById( id ); The GetById does indeed return a null just as it should, but when it gets back to the newresult variable in the test, the ViewData.Model is the deleted model. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • What are the best practices for unit testing properties with code in the setter?

    - by nportelli
    I'm fairly new to unit testing and we are actually attempting to use it on a project. There is a property like this. public TimeSpan CountDown { get { return _countDown; } set { long fraction = value.Ticks % 10000000; value -= TimeSpan.FromTicks(fraction); if(fraction > 5000000) value += TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1); if(_countDown != value) { _countDown = value; NotifyChanged("CountDown"); } } } My test looks like this. [TestMethod] public void CountDownTest_GetSet_PropChangedShouldFire() { ManualRafflePresenter target = new ManualRafflePresenter(); bool fired = false; string name = null; target.PropertyChanged += new PropertyChangedEventHandler((o, a) => { fired = true; name = a.PropertyName; }); TimeSpan expected = new TimeSpan(0, 1, 25); TimeSpan actual; target.CountDown = expected; actual = target.CountDown; Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); Assert.IsTrue(fired); Assert.AreEqual("CountDown", name); } The question is how do I test the code in the setter? Do I break it out into a method? If I do it would probably be private since no one else needs to use this. But they say not to test private methods. Do make a class if this is the only case? would two uses of this code make a class worthwhile? What is wrong with this code from a design standpoint. What is correct?

    Read the article

  • Code excavations, wishful invocations, perimeters and domain specific unit test frameworks

    One of the talks I did at QCON London was about a subject that Ive come across fairly recently , when I was building SilverUnit a pure unit test framework for silverlight objects that depend on the silverlight runtime to run. It is the concept of cogs in the machine when your piece of code needs to run inside a host framework or runtime that you have little or no control over for testability related matters. Examples of such cogs and machines can be: your custom control running inside silverlight...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

  • That Escalated Quickly

    - by Jesse Taber
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/GruffCode/archive/2014/05/17/that-escalated-quickly.aspxI have been working remotely out of my home for over 4 years now. All of my coworkers during that time have also worked remotely. Lots of folks have written about the challenges inherent in facilitating communication on remote teams and strategies for overcoming them. A popular theme around this topic is the notion of “escalating communication”. In this context “escalating” means taking a conversation from one mode of communication to a different, higher fidelity mode of communication. Here are the five modes of communication I use at work in order of increasing fidelity: Email – This is the “lowest fidelity” mode of communication that I use. I usually only check it a few times a day (and I’m trying to check it even less frequently than that) and I only keep items in my inbox if they represent an item I need to take action on that I haven’t tracked anywhere else. Forums / Message boards – Being a developer, I’ve gotten into the habit of having other people look over my code before it becomes part of the product I’m working on. These code reviews often happen in “real time” via screen sharing, but I also always have someone else give all of the changes another look using pull requests. A pull request takes my code and lets someone else see the changes I’ve made side-by-side with the existing code so they can see if I did anything dumb. Pull requests can facilitate a conversation about the code changes in an online-forum like style. Some teams I’ve worked on also liked using tools like Trello or Google Groups to have on-going conversations about a topic or task that was being worked on. Chat & Instant Messaging  - Chat and instant messaging are the real workhorses for communication on the remote teams I’ve been a part of. I know some teams that are co-located that also use it pretty extensively for quick messages that don’t warrant walking across the office to talk with someone but reqire more immediacy than an e-mail. For the purposes of this post I think it’s important to note that the terms “chat” and “instant messaging” might insinuate that the conversation is happening in real time, but that’s not always true. Modern chat and IM applications maintain a searchable history so people can easily see what might have been discussed while they were away from their computers. Voice, Video and Screen sharing – Everyone’s got a camera and microphone on their computers now, and there are an abundance of services that will let you use them to talk to other people who have cameras and microphones on their computers. I’m including screen sharing here as well because, in my experience, these discussions typically involve one or more people showing the other participants something that’s happening on their screen. Obviously, this mode of communication is much higher-fidelity than any of the ones listed above. Scheduled meetings are typically conducted using this mode of communication. In Person – No matter how great communication tools become, there’s no substitute for meeting with someone face-to-face. However, opportunities for this kind of communcation are few and far between when you work on a remote team. When a conversation gets escalated that usually means it moves up one or more positions on this list. A lot of people advocate jumping to #4 sooner than later. Like them, I used to believe that, if it was possible, organizing a call with voice and video was automatically better than any kind of text-based communication could be. Lately, however, I’m becoming less convinced that escalating is always the right move. Working Asynchronously Last year I attended a talk at our local code camp given by Drew Miller. Drew works at GitHub and was talking about how they use GitHub internally. Many of the folks at GitHub work remotely, so communication was one of the main themes in Drew’s talk. During the talk Drew used the phrase, “asynchronous communication” to describe their use of chat and pull request comments. That phrase stuck in my head because I hadn’t heard it before but I think it perfectly describes the way in which remote teams often need to communicate. You don’t always know when your co-workers are at their computers or what hours (if any) they are working that day. In order to work this way you need to assume that the person you’re talking to might not respond right away. You can’t always afford to wait until everyone required is online and available to join a voice call, so you need to use text-based, persistent forms of communication so that people can receive and respond to messages when they are available. Going back to my list from the beginning of this post for a second, I characterize items #1-3 as being “asynchronous” modes of communication while we could call items #4 and #5 “synchronous”. When communication gets escalated it’s almost always moving from an asynchronous mode of communication to a synchronous one. Now, to the point of this post: I’ve become increasingly reluctant to escalate from asynchronous to synchronous communication for two primary reasons: 1 – You can often find a higher fidelity way to convey your message without holding a synchronous conversation 2 - Asynchronous modes of communication are (usually) persistent and searchable. You Don’t Have to Broadcast Live Let’s start with the first reason I’ve listed. A lot of times you feel like you need to escalate to synchronous communication because you’re having difficulty describing something that you’re seeing in words. You want to provide the people you’re conversing with some audio-visual aids to help them understand the point that you’re trying to make and you think that getting on Skype and sharing your screen with them is the best way to do that. Firing up a screen sharing session does work well, but you can usually accomplish the same thing in an asynchronous manner. For example, you could take a screenshot and annotate it with some text and drawings to illustrate what it is you’re seeing. If a screenshot won’t work, taking a short screen recording while your narrate over it and posting the video to your forum or chat system along with a text-based description of what’s in the recording that can be searched for later can be a great way to effectively communicate with your team asynchronously. I Said What?!? Now for the second reason I listed: most asynchronous modes of communication provide a transcript of what was said and what decisions might have been made during the conversation. There have been many occasions where I’ve used the search feature of my team’s chat application to find a conversation that happened several weeks or months ago to remember what was decided. Unfortunately, I think the benefits associated with the persistence of communicating asynchronously often get overlooked when people decide to escalate to a in-person meeting or voice/video call. I’m becoming much more reluctant to suggest a voice or video call if I suspect that it might lead to codifying some kind of design decision because everyone involved is going to hang up the call and immediately forget what was decided. I recognize that you can record and archive these types of interactions, but without being able to search them the recordings aren’t terribly useful. When and How To Escalate I don’t mean to imply that communicating via voice/video or in person is never a good idea. I probably jump on a Skype call with a co-worker at least once a day to quickly hash something out or show them a bit of code that I’m working on. Also, meeting in person periodically is really important for remote teams. There’s no way around the fact that sometimes it’s easier to jump on a call and show someone my screen so they can see what I’m seeing. So when is it right to escalate? I think the simplest way to answer that is when the communication starts to feel painful. Everyone’s tolerance for that pain is different, but I think you need to let it hurt a little bit before jumping to synchronous communication. When you do escalate from asynchronous to synchronous communication, there are a couple of things you can do to maximize the effectiveness of the communication: Takes notes – This is huge and yet I’ve found that a lot of teams don’t do this. If you’re holding a meeting with  > 2 people you should have someone taking notes. Taking notes while participating in a meeting can be difficult but there are a few strategies to deal with this challenge that probably deserve a short post of their own. After the meeting, make sure the notes are posted to a place where all concerned parties (including those that might not have attended the meeting) can review and search them. Persist decisions made ASAP – If any decisions were made during the meeting, persist those decisions to a searchable medium as soon as possible following the conversation. All the teams I’ve worked on used a web-based system for tracking the on-going work and a backlog of work to be done in the future. I always try to make sure that all of the cards/stories/tasks/whatever in these systems always reflect the latest decisions that were made as the work was being planned and executed. If held a quick call with your team lead and decided that it wasn’t worth the effort to build real-time validation into that new UI you were working on, go and codify that decision in the story associated with that work immediately after you hang up. Even better, write it up in the story while you are both still on the phone. That way when the folks from your QA team pick up the story to test a few days later they’ll know why the real-time validation isn’t there without having to invoke yet another conversation about the work. Communicating Well is Hard At this point you might be thinking that communicating asynchronously is more difficult than having a live conversation. You’re right: it is more difficult. In order to communicate effectively this way you need to very carefully think about the message that you’re trying to convey and craft it in a way that’s easy for your audience to understand. This is almost always harder than just talking through a problem in real time with someone; this is why escalating communication is such a popular idea. Why wouldn’t we want to do the thing that’s easier? Easier isn’t always better. If you and your team can get in the habit of communicating effectively in an asynchronous manner you’ll find that, over time, all of your communications get less painful because you don’t need to re-iterate previously made points over and over again. If you communicate right the first time, you often don’t need to rehash old conversations because you can go back and find the decisions that were made laid out in plain language. You’ll also find that you get better at doing things like writing useful comments in your code, creating written documentation about how the feature that you just built works, or persuading your team to do things in a certain way.

    Read the article

  • Telerik Introduces New Developer Tool Designed to Simplify Unit Test Mocking

    JustMock extends Teleriks commitment to providing Visual Studio developer productivity Waltham, MA, April 13, 2010 Telerik, the leading vendor of development tools and user interface components for .NET, today announced the introduction of JustMock, a productivity add-in for Microsoft? Visual Studio 2008 and 2010. JustMock helps developers easily create object mockings in unit tests, saving time and improving the quality of software testing. JustMock is being introduced as a Beta and is scheduled...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

  • Testing loses its effectiveness if all programmers don't use them

    - by Jeff O
    Let's assume you are convinced that the extra time spent unit testing has merit and improves production. Does that still hold up when everyone working on the same code doesn't use them? This question makes me wonder if fixing tests that everyone doesn't use is a waste of time. If you correct a test so the new code will pass, you're assuming the new code is correct. The person updating the test better have a firm understanding of the reasoning behind the code change and decide if the test or the new code needs to be fixed. This much inconsistency in a team when it comes to testing is probably an indication of other problems as well. There is a certain amount of risk involved that someone else on the team will alter code that is covered by testing. Is this the point where testing becomes counter-productive?

    Read the article

  • How does TDD address interaction between objects?

    - by Gigi
    TDD proponents claim that it results in better design and decoupled objects. I can understand that writing tests first enforces the use of things like dependency injection, resulting in loosely coupled objects. However, TDD is based on unit tests - which test individual methods and not the integration between objects. And yet, TDD expects design to evolve from the tests themselves. So how can TDD possibly result in a better design at the integration (i.e. inter-object) level when the granularity it addresses is finer than that (individual methods)?

    Read the article

  • Returning JsonResult From ASP.NET MVC 2.0 Controller and Unit Testing

    This post will show how to return a simple Json result from an ASP.NET MVC 2.0 web project.  It will show how to test that result inside a unit test and essentially pick apart the Json, just... This site is a resource for asp.net web programming. It has examples by Peter Kellner of techniques for high performance programming...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

  • What is the best way to find a python google app engine coach?

    - by David Haddad
    i'm a software engineer and have been building Google App Engine apps with Python for about a year. I have a pretty good familiarity with the main concepts: web app framework, modeling, queues, memcache, django templates, etc. Where I think I'm lacking is in methodology. Architecting the app, using git for versioning, designing an writing unit tests. I'm totally convinced to incorporate these practices in my development style, and have started reading up on them. However I've learned that I'm a much faster learner when I have someone experienced to ask questions to and interact with. IRC channels and forums like stack overflow are great. But sometimes you want something more dynamic that produces results faster. So my question is how can a person find an experienced engineer that is familiar with the technologies he uses and that is willing to give them a couple of hours of Skype coaching sessions per week in return for an hourly fee...

    Read the article

  • How can I test a parser for a bespoke XML schema?

    - by Greg B
    I'm parsing a bespoke XML format into an object graph using .NET 4.0. My parser is using the System.XML namespace internally, I'm then interrogating the relevant properties of XmlNodes to create my object graph. I've got a first cut of the parser working on a basic input file and I want to put some unit tests around this before I progress on to more complex input files. Is there a pattern for how to test a parser such as this? When I started looking at this, my first move was to new up and XmlDocument, XmlNamespaceManager and create an XmlElement. But it occurs to me that this is quite lengthy and prone to human error. My parser is quite recursive as you can imagine and this might lead to testing the full system rather than the individual units (methods) of the system. So a second question might be What refactoring might make a recursive parser more testable?

    Read the article

  • What are best practices for testing programs with stochastic behavior?

    - by John Doucette
    Doing R&D work, I often find myself writing programs that have some large degree of randomness in their behavior. For example, when I work in Genetic Programming, I often write programs that generate and execute arbitrary random source code. A problem with testing such code is that bugs are often intermittent and can be very hard to reproduce. This goes beyond just setting a random seed to the same value and starting execution over. For instance, code might read a message from the kernal ring buffer, and then make conditional jumps on the message contents. Naturally, the ring buffer's state will have changed when one later attempts to reproduce the issue. Even though this behavior is a feature it can trigger other code in unexpected ways, and thus often reveals bugs that unit tests (or human testers) don't find. Are there established best practices for testing systems of this sort? If so, some references would be very helpful. If not, any other suggestions are welcome!

    Read the article

  • Test driven development - convince me!

    - by Casebash
    I know some people are massive proponents of test driven development. I have used unit tests in the past, but only to test operations that can be tested easily or which I believe will quite possibly be correct. Complete or near complete code coverage sounds like it would take a lot of time. What projects do you use test-driven development for? Do you only use it for projects above a certain size? Should I be using it or not? Convince me!

    Read the article

  • migrating product and team from startup race to quality development

    - by thevikas
    This is year 3 and product is selling good enough. Now we need to enforce good software development practices. The goal is to monitor incoming bug reports and reduce them, allow never ending features and get ready for scaling 10x. The phrases "test-driven-development" and "continuous-integration" are not even understood by the team cause they were all in the first 2 year product race. Tech team size is 5. The question is how to sell/convince team and management about TDD/unit testing/coding standards/documentation - with economics. train the team to do more than just feature coding and start writing test units along - which looks like more work, means needs more time! how to plan for creating units for all backlog production code

    Read the article

  • Test Doubles : Do they go in "source packages" or "test packages"?

    - by sbrattla
    I've got a couple of data access objects (DefaultPersonServices.class, DefaultAddressServices.class) which is responsible for various CRUD operations in a database. A few different classes use these services, but as the services requires that a connection is established with a database I can't really use them in unit tests as they take too long. Thus, I'd like to create a test doubles for them and simply do FakePersonServices.class and FakeAddressService.class implementations which I can use throughout testing. Now, this is all good (I assume)...but my question relates to where I put the test doubles. Should I keep them along with the default implementations (aka "real" implementations) or should I keep them in a corresponding test package. The default implementations are found in Source Packages : com.company.data.services. Should I keep the test doubles here too, or should the test doubles rather be in Test Packages : com.company.data.services?

    Read the article

  • How do I check that my tests were not removed by other developers?

    - by parxier
    I've just came across an interesting collaborative coding issue at work. I've written some unit/functional/integration tests and implemented new functionality into application that's got ~20 developers working on it. All tests passed and I checked in the code. Next day I updated my project and noticed (by chance) that some of my test methods were deleted by other developers (merging problems on their end). New application code was not touched. How can I detect such problem automatically? I mean, I write tests to automatically check that my code still works (or was not deleted), how do I do the same for tests? We're using Java, JUnit, Selenium, SVN and Hudson CI if it matters.

    Read the article

  • matrix to transform unit cube to space defined by 8 arbitrary points

    - by aadster
    I asked a question relating to similar to this already, but I think this is a clearer objective of what Im trying to achieve.. or whether its possible at all! Im trying to find a transformation (matrix ideally) which would transform the 8 points of a 3d unit cube to 8 arbitrary points in space. The 8 target points have no known structure. e.g: My gut feeling is that a matrix is unable to provide this xform since the cube faces vertices can be concave.. but are there any other methods of transformation? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Cannot create a neutral unit with a trigger

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

    Read the article

  • Should I pass an object into a constructor, or instantiate in class?

    - by Prisoner
    Consider these two examples: Passing an object to a constructor class ExampleA { private $config; public function __construct($config) { $this->config = $config; } } $config = new Config; $exampleA = new ExampleA($config); Instantiating a class class ExampleB { private $config; public function __construct() { $this->config = new Config; } } $exampleA = new ExampleA(); Which is the correct way to handle adding an object as a property? When should I use one over the other? Does unit testing affect what I should use?

    Read the article

  • Advise how to write a simple test for this javascript snippet?

    - by resting
    I'm trying to start unit testing (not using any testing frameworks) for my javascripts. Here's one example of it. var obj = {}; obj.disableBtn = function ($btn, style) { $btn.attr('disabled','disabled').addClass('disabled').removeClass(style); }; The use case is as such: obj.disableBtn($('.submit'), 'btn-blue'); What it does is simply add the disabled attribute, add the disabled class, and remove the btn-blue style. Please advise how would a typical test case look like in this case. I have a little knowledge on testing using assert(), but have no idea how to go about it when it involves verifying the result on HTML elements.

    Read the article

  • Junit (3.8.1) testing that an exception is thrown (works in unit test, fails when added to a testSui

    - by Mike Cargal
    I'm trying to test that I'm throwing an exception when appropriate. In my test class I have a method similar to the following: public void testParseException() { try { ClientEntitySingleton.getInstance(); fail("should have thrown exception."); } catch (RuntimeException re) { assertEquals( "<exception message>", re.getMessage()); } } This works fine (green bar) whenever I run that single unitTest class. However, when I add that test to a testSuite, I get a red bar Unit test failure reported on the exception. One more thing... it works in the testSuite, if it's the first test in the suite. Actually, I'm doing two of these tests and just figured out that if I make them the first two tests in the suite, all is good, but I get this failure if a "regular" test precedes it. So I have a work-around, but no real answer. Any ideas? Heres'a stack trace of the "failure" java.lang.RuntimeException: ProcEntity client dn="Xxxxxx/Xxxx/XXX" is defined multiple times. at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.addClientEntity(ClientEntitySingleton.java:247) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.startElement(ClientEntitySingleton.java:264) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.AbstractSAXParser.startElement(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl.scanStartElement(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl$FragmentContentDispatcher.dispatch(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl.scanDocument(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XML11Configuration.parse(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XML11Configuration.parse(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XMLParser.parse(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.AbstractSAXParser.parse(Unknown Source) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.parse(ClientEntitySingleton.java:216) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.reload(ClientEntitySingleton.java:303) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.setInputSourceProvider(ClientEntitySingleton.java:88) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.test.TestClientBase.setUp(TestClientBase.java:17) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.test.TestClientEntityDup.setUp(TestClientEntityDup.java:8) at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:125) at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106) at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124) at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109) at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118) at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:208) at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203) at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:208) at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:128) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:460) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:673) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:386) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:196)

    Read the article

  • Function doesn't work, but it must work

    - by Artem
    private void Main_OnLayoutUpdated(object sender, EventArgs e) { label1.Content = Classes.Global.X.ToString(); Classes.Global.PositionChanged(this); } PositionChanged writes to X new x-position of window. It works, but as soon as I delete label1 it stops working. No errors.

    Read the article

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