Search Results

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

Page 33/313 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

  • Are multiple asserts bad in a unit test? Even if chaining?

    - by Michael Haren
    Is there anything wrong with checking so many things in this unit test?: ActualModel = ActualResult.AssertViewRendered() // check 1 .ForView("Index") // check 2 .WithViewData<List<Page>>(); // check 3 CollectionAssert.AreEqual(Expected, ActualModel); // check 4 The primary goals of this test are to verify the right view is returned (check 2) and it contains the right data (check 4). Would I gain anything by splitting this into multiple tests? I'm all about doing things right, but I'm not going to split things up if it doesn't have practical value. I'm pretty new to unit testing, so be gentle.

    Read the article

  • C#: How to unit test a method that relies on another method within the same class?

    - by michael paul
    I have a class similar to the following: public class MyProxy : ClientBase<IService>, IService { public MyProxy(String endpointConfiguration) : base(endpointConfiguration) { } public int DoSomething(int x) { int result = DoSomethingToX(x); //This passes unit testing int result2 = ((IService)this).DoWork(x) //do I have to extract this part into a separate method just //to test it even though it's only a couple of lines? //Do something on result2 int result3 = result2 ... return result3; } int IService.DoWork(int x) { return base.Channel.DoWork(x); } } The problem lies in the fact that when testing I don't know how to mock the result2 item without extracting the part that gets result3 using result2 into a separate method. And, because it is unit testing I don't want to go that deep as to test what result2 comes back as... I'd rather mock the data somehow... like, be able to call the function and replace just that one call.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing of static library that involves NSDocumentDirectory and other iOS App specific calls.

    - by Shiun
    Hi, I'm attempting to run unit tests for a static library that attempts to create/write/read a file in the document directory. Since this is a static library and not an application for the iOS, attempts to reference the NSDocumentDirectory is returning me directory for the form "/Users//Library/Application Support/iPhone Simulator/Documents" This directory does not exist. When attempting to access a directory from an actual application, the NSDocumentDirectory returns something of the form: "/Users//Library/Application Support/iPhone Simulator/4.2/FEDBEF5F-1326-4383-A087-CDA1B865E61A/Documents" (Please note the simulator version as well as application ID as part of the path) How can I overcome this shortcoming in the unit test framework for static libraries that implement tests that require iOS app specific calls? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How to write an unit test for WCF behaviors?

    - by katie77
    I am new to unit testing. How do I write a unit test for a method when I am extending a WCF behavior. Since I am not sure of when the class is being instantiated, or I can not change the method signature. In the behavior implementation, I am getting the header and looking up a value in the config. public class IncomingValidator : IDispatchMessageInspector { public object AfterReceiveRequest(ref Message request, IClientChannel channel, InstanceContext instanceContext) { // Grab the header and see if one of the particular values(read from config) is there. } public void BeforeSendReply(ref Message reply, object correlationState) { } }

    Read the article

  • Is there any way to delete an HttpOnly cookie from C# Selenium tests?

    - by BenA
    I have a set of C# Selenium tests that need to delete a cookie that has the HttpOnly flag set. Unfortunately the DefaultSelenium.GetCookie() and DefaultSelenium.DeleteCookie() commands aren't able to access the cookie, because it has that HttpOnly flag set. I've confirmed this by removing the flag by hand, and checking that subsequent calls to either of those methods are then happily able to manipulate the cookie in question. Is there any other way to do this via the Selenium .NET client driver? All ideas welcome!

    Read the article

  • Is it against best practice to throw Exception on most JUnit tests?

    - by Chris Knight
    Almost all of my JUnit tests are written with the following signature: public void testSomething() throws Exception My reasoning is that I can focus on what I'm testing rather than exception handling which JUnit appears to give me for free. But am I missing anything by doing this? Is it against best practice? Would I gain anything by explicitly catching specific exceptions in my test and then fail()'ing on them?

    Read the article

  • How to unit tests functions which return results asyncronously in XCode?

    - by DevDevDev
    I have something like - (void)getData:(SomeParameter*)param { // Remotely call out for data returned asynchronously // returns data via a delegate method } - (void)handleDataDelegateMethod:(NSData*)data { // Handle returned data } I want to write a unit test for this, how can I do something better than NSData* returnedData = nil; - (void)handleDataDelegateMethod:(NSData*)data { returnedData = data; } - (void)test { [obj getData:param]; while (!returnedData) { [NSThread sleep:1]; } // Make tests on returnedData }

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to run NUnit 2.5.3 tests in Gallio?

    - by Allrameest
    When I try to run NUnit tests in resharper I get this: Detected a probable test framework assembly version mismatch. Referenced test frameworks: 'nunit.framework, Version=2.5.3.9345, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=96d09a1eb7f44a77'. Supported test frameworks: 'nunit.framework, Version=2.5.0.0-2.5.2.65535', 'nunit.framework, Version=2.4.8.0-2.4.8.65535'. I use Gallio v3.1 build 397.

    Read the article

  • Tests for JUnit. How ?

    - by Belun
    How is the JUnit Framework tested ? How are the tests for their framework code created, considering that JUnit as a testing framework itself. What technology are they using ? Their own testing framework ? A smaller more basic version of it ? Another framework ? Can any knower please provide some details ?

    Read the article

  • How do you run your unit tests? Compiler flags? Static libraries?

    - by Christopher Gateley
    I'm just getting started with TDD and am curious as to what approaches others take to run their tests. For reference, I am using the google testing framework, but I believe the question is applicable to most other testing frameworks and to languages other than C/C++. My general approach so far has been to do either one of three things: Write the majority of the application in a static library, then create two executables. One executable is the application itself, while the other is the test runner with all of the tests. Both link to the static library. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and enable or disable the testing code using compiler flags. This is probably the best approach I've used so far, but clutters up the code a bit. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and, given certain command-line switches either run the application itself or run the tests embedded in the application. None of these solutions are particularly elegant... How do you do it?

    Read the article

  • How should one import large amounts of data for FIT/Fitnesse tests?

    - by Lachlan
    We have a scheduling engine with large amounts of test data to test all the scenarios, so test automation is critical. We're currently hoping to use FIT/Fitnesse. However a single test has quite a large table of test data, so it doesn't fit very well into the mould of "two or three inputs, one or more outputs" that Fitnesse uses in its examples. Hopefully the other functionality of Fitnesse makes it worth using it. I hear that there is a way to initialize an application for a FIT test with an Excel spreadsheet - not the Spreadsheet to Fitness function, mind you - but I haven't been able to find it so far. Once the whole spreadsheet is loaded into the application, and the application does its thing, we plan to compare either a number of output rows, or perhaps just the last row, to see if the test passes. The application is currently pulling test data from a database for manual tests, but writing to a database, then initializing from it, is not preferred because of the performance impact. The application is written in C#.

    Read the article

  • Rails performance tests "rake test:benchmark" and "rake test:profile" give me errors

    - by go minimal
    I'm trying to run a blank default performance test with Ruby 1.9 and Rails 2.3.5 and I just can't get it to work! What am I missing here??? rails testapp cd testapp script/generate scaffold User name:string rake db:migrate rake test:benchmark - /usr/local/bin/ruby19 -I"lib:test" "/usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/performance/browsing_test.rb" -- --benchmark Loaded suite /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader Started /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/activesupport-2.3.5/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:105:in `rescue in const_missing': uninitialized constant BrowsingTest::STARTED (NameError) from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/activesupport-2.3.5/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:94:in `const_missing' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/activesupport-2.3.5/lib/active_support/testing/performance.rb:38:in `run' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:415:in `block (2 levels) in run_test_suites' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:409:in `each' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:409:in `block in run_test_suites' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:408:in `each' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:408:in `run_test_suites' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:388:in `run' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:329:in `block in autorun' rake aborted! Command failed with status (1): [/usr/local/bin/ruby19 -I"lib:test" "/usr/l...]

    Read the article

  • How do I unit test controllers for an asp.net mvc site that uses StructureMap and NHibernate?

    - by Jim Geurts
    I have an asp.net mvc2 application that is using StructureMap 2.6 and NHibernate 3.x. I would like to add unit tests to the application but am sort of at a loss for how to accomplish it. Say I have a basic controller called Posts that has an action called Index. The controller looks something like: public class PostsController : Controller { private readonly IPostService _postService; public PostsController(IPostService postService) { _postService = postService; } public ActionResult Index() { return View(_postService.QueryOver<Post>().Future()); } } If I wanted to create an nunit test that would verify that the index action is returning all of the posts, how do I go about that? If mocking is recommended, do you just assume that interaction with the database will work? Sorry for asking such a broad question, but my web searches haven't turned up anything decent for how to unit test asp.net mvc actions that use StructureMap (or any other IOC) and NHibernate. btw, if you don't like that I return a QueryOver object from my post service, pretend it is an IQueryable object. I'm using it essentially in the same way.

    Read the article

  • How can "today's date" be varied for unit testing purposes?

    - by ck
    I use VS2008 targetting .NET 2.0 Framework, and, just in case, no I can't change this :) I have a DateCalculator class. Its method GetNextExpirationDate attempts to determine the next expiration, internally using DateTime.Today as a baseline date. As I was writing unit tests, I realized that I wanted to test GetNextExpirationDate for different 'today' dates. What's the best way to do this? Here are some alternatives I've considered: Expose a property/overloaded method with argument baselineDate and only use it from the unit test. In actual client code, disregard the property/overloaded method in favour of the method that defaults baselineDate to DateTime.Today. I'm reluctant to do this as it makes the public interface of the DateCalculator class awkward. Create a protected field called baselineDate that is internally set to DateTime.Today. When testing, derive a DateCalculatorForTesting from DateCalculator and set baslineDate via the constructor. It keeps the public interface clean, but still isn't great - baselineDate was made protected and a derived class is required, both solely for testing. Use extension methods. I tried this after adding the ExtensionAttribute, then realized it wouldn't work because extension methods can't access private/protected variables. I initially thought this was really quite an elegant solution. :( I'd be interested in hearing what others think.

    Read the article

  • How can I unit test a PHP class method that executes a command-line program?

    - by acoulton
    For a PHP application I'm developing, I need to read the current git revision SHA which of course I can get easily by using shell_exec or backticks to execute the git command line client. I have obviously put this call into a method of its very own, so that I can easily isolate and mock this for the rest of my unit tests. So my class looks a bit like this: class Task_Bundle { public function execute() { // Do things $revision = $this->git_sha(); // Do more things } protected function git_sha() { return `git rev-parse --short HEAD`; } } Of course, although I can test most of the class by mocking git_sha, I'm struggling to see how to test the actual git_sha() method because I don't see a way to create a known state for it. I don't think there's any real value in a unit test that also calls git rev-parse to compare the results? I was wondering about at least asserting that the command had been run, but I can't see any way to get a history of shell commands executed by PHP - even if I specify that PHP should use BASH rather than SH the history list comes up empty, I presume because the separate backticks executions are separate terminal sessions. I'd love to hear any suggestions for how I might test this, or is it OK to just leave that method untested and be careful with it when the app is being maintained in future?

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to avoid try...catch...finally... in my unit tests?

    - by Bruce Li
    I'm writing many unit tests in VS 2010 with Microsoft Test. In each test class I have many test methods similar to below: [TestMethod] public void This_is_a_Test() { try { // do some test here // assert } catch (Exception ex) { // test failed, log error message in my log file and make the test fail } finally { // do some cleanup with different parameters } } When each test method looks like this I fell it's kind of ugly. But so far I haven't found a good solution to make my test code more clean, especially the cleanup code in the finally block. Could someone here give me some advices on this? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • What's the state of PHP unit testing frameworks in 2010?

    - by Pekka
    As far as I can see, PHPUnit is the only serious product in the field at the moment. It is widely used, is integrated into Continuous Integration suites like phpUnderControl, and well regarded. The thing is, I don't really like working with PHPUnit. I find it hard to set up (PEAR is the only officially supported installation method, and I hate PEAR), sometimes complicated to work with and, correct me if I'm wrong, lacking executability from a web page context (i.e. no CLI, which would really be nice when developing a web app.) The only competition to I can see is Simpletest, which looks very nice but hasn't seen a new release for almost two years, which tends to rule it out for me - Unit Testing is quite a static field, true, but as I will be deploying those tests alongside web applications, I would like to see active development on the project, at least for security updates and such. There is a SO question that pretty much confirms what I'm saying: Simple test vs PHPunit Seeing that that is almost two years old as well, though, I think it's time to ask again: Does anybody know any other serious feature-complete unit testing frameworks? Am I wrong in my criticism of PHPUnit? Is there still development going on for SimpleTest?

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test new code that uses a bunch of classes that cannot be instantiated in a test har

    - by trendl
    I'm writing a messaging layer that should handle communication with a third party API. The API has a bunch of classes that cannot be easily (if at all) instantiated in a test harness. I decided to wrap each class that I need in my unit tests with an adapter/wrapper and expose the members I need through this adapter class. Often I need to expose the wrapped type as well which I do by exposing it as an object. I have also provided an interface for for each or the adapter classes to be able to use them with a mocking framework. This way I can substitute the classes in test for whatever I need. The downside is that I have a bunch of adapter classes that so far server no other reason but testing. For me this is a good reason by itself but others may find this not enough. Possibly, when I write an implementation for another third party vendor's API, I may be able to reuse much of my code and only provide the adapters specific to the vendor's API. However, this is a bit of a long shot and I'm not actually sure it will work. What do you think? Is this approach viable or am I writing unnecessary code that serves no real purpose? Let me say that I do want to write unit tests for my messaging layer and I do now know how to do it otherwise.

    Read the article

  • Is it a bad idea to create tests that rely on each other within a test fixture?

    - by nbolton
    For example: // NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture) Ctor() { m_globalVar = getFoo(); } [Test] Create() { a(m_globalVar) } [Test] Delete() { // depends on Create being run b(m_globalVar) } … or… // NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture) [Test] CreateAndDelete() { Foo foo = getFoo(); a(foo); // depends on Create being run b(foo); } … I’m going with the later, and assuming that the answer to my question is: No, at least not with NUnit, because according to the NUnit manual: The constructor should not have any side effects, since NUnit may construct the class multiple times in the course of a session. ... also, can I assume it's bad practice in general? Since tests can usually be run separately. So the result of Create may never be cleaned up by Delete.

    Read the article

  • is it a good idea to write tests for environments other than development?

    - by jcollum
    Let's say I have a (fairly typical) set of environments: PROD, UAT, QA, DEV. Is it a good idea to run your tests across all environments? Here's what I'm thinking of. I have a proc in SQL that my code depends on, I'll call it proc_getActiveCustomers. If that proc isn't present my app will go south real fast. So I write a test that checks for the existence of this proc in the database. Nothing new here. But when I then deploy my app to the QA environment, would I also want to have a test that checks that environment for the existence of proc_getActiveCustomers? I think this is a good idea but I've never heard much about testing in environments outside of development. Makes me wonder if there's some downside I'm not aware of. The direction that I'm going is to have a list of environments in code and then passing that environment into my unit test.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >