Search Results

Search found 26146 results on 1046 pages for 'white box testing'.

Page 33/1046 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

  • Unit testing opaque structure based C API

    - by Nicolas Goy
    I have a library I wrote with API based on opaque structures. Using opaque structures has a lot of benefits and I am very happy with it. Now that my API are stable in term of specifications, I'd like to write a complete battery of unit test to ensure a solid base before releasing it. My concern is simple, how do you unit test API based on opaque structures where the main goal is to hide the internal logic? For example, let's take a very simple object, an array with a very simple test: WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); int foo = 5; WSArrayAppendValue(a, &foo); int *bar = WSArrayGetValueAtIndex(a, 0); if(&foo != bar) printf("Eroneous value returned\n"); else printf("Good value returned\n"); WSRelease(a); Of course, this tests some facts, like the array actually acts as wanted with 1 value, but when I write unit tests, at least in C, I usualy compare the memory footprint of my datastructures with a known state. In my example, I don't know if some internal state of the array is broken. How would you handle that? I'd really like to avoid adding codes in the implementation files only for unit testings, I really emphasis loose coupling of modules, and injecting unit tests into the implementation would seem rather invasive to me. My first thought was to include the implementation file into my unit test, linking my unit test statically to my library. For example: #include <WS/WS.h> #include <WS/Collection/Array.c> static void TestArray(void) { WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); /* Structure members are available because we included Array.c */ printf("%d\n", a->count); } Is that a good idea? Of course, the unit tests won't benefit from encapsulation, but they are here to ensure it's actually working.

    Read the article

  • Problem with load testing Web Service - VSTS 2008

    - by Carlos
    Hello, I have a webtest with makes a simple call to a WebService which looks like that: MyWebService webService = new MyWebService(); webService.Timeout = 180000; webService.myMethod(); I am not using ThinkTimes, also the Run Duration is set to 5 minutes. When I ran this test simulating only 1 user, I check the counters and I found something like that: Tests Total: 4500 Network Interface\Bytes sent (agent machine): 35,500 Then I ran the same tests, but this time simulating 2 users and I got something like that: Tests Total: 2225 Network Interface\Bytes sent (agent machine): 30,500 So when I increased the numbers of users the tests/sec was half than when I use only 1 user and the bytes sent by the agent was also lower. I think it is strange, because it doesn't seems I have a bottleneck in my agent machine since CPU is never higher than 30% and I have over 1.5GB of RAM free, also my network utilization is like 0.5% of its capacity. In order to troubleshot this I ran a test using Step Pattern, the simulated users went from 20 to 800 users. When I check the requests/sec it is practically constant through the whole test, so it is clear there is something in my test or my environment which is preventing the number of requests from gets higher. It would be a expected behavior if the "response time" was getting higher because it would tell me the requests wasn't been processed properly, but the strange thing is the response time is practically constant all the time and it is pretty low actually. I have no idea why my agent can't send more requests when I increase the numbers of users, any help/tip/guess would be really appreciate.

    Read the article

  • Django Testing: Faking User Creation

    - by Ygam
    I want to better write this test: def test_profile_created(self): self.client.post(reverse('registration_register'), data={ 'username':'ygam', 'email':'[email protected]', 'password1':'ygam', 'password2':'ygam' }) """ Test if a profile is created on save """ user = User.objects.get(username='ygam') self.assertTrue(UserProfile.objects.filter(user=user).exists()) and I just came upon this code on django-registration tests that does not actually "create" the user: def test_registration_signal(self): def receiver(sender, **kwargs): self.failUnless('user' in kwargs) self.assertEqual(kwargs['user'].username, 'bob') self.failUnless('request' in kwargs) self.failUnless(isinstance(kwargs['request'], WSGIRequest)) received_signals.append(kwargs.get('signal')) received_signals = [] signals.user_registered.connect(receiver, sender=self.backend.__class__) self.backend.register(_mock_request(), username='bob', email='[email protected]', password1='secret') self.assertEqual(len(received_signals), 1) self.assertEqual(received_signals, [signals.user_registered]) However he used a custom function for this "_mock_request": class _MockRequestClient(Client): def request(self, **request): environ = { 'HTTP_COOKIE': self.cookies, 'PATH_INFO': '/', 'QUERY_STRING': '', 'REMOTE_ADDR': '127.0.0.1', 'REQUEST_METHOD': 'GET', 'SCRIPT_NAME': '', 'SERVER_NAME': 'testserver', 'SERVER_PORT': '80', 'SERVER_PROTOCOL': 'HTTP/1.1', 'wsgi.version': (1,0), 'wsgi.url_scheme': 'http', 'wsgi.errors': self.errors, 'wsgi.multiprocess':True, 'wsgi.multithread': False, 'wsgi.run_once': False, 'wsgi.input': None, } environ.update(self.defaults) environ.update(request) request = WSGIRequest(environ) # We have to manually add a session since we'll be bypassing # the middleware chain. session_middleware = SessionMiddleware() session_middleware.process_request(request) return request def _mock_request(): return _MockRequestClient().request() However, it may be too long of a function for my needs. I want to be able to somehow "fake" the account creation. I have not much experience on mocks and stubs so any help would do. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to setup testing LAMP environment to work with outsourcing companies?

    - by Kelvin
    Hello Guys, I need to setup testing LAMP environment in my office to work with outsourcing companies. This is what I think should be done on my side: Setup testing web server with the same configuration as on production Setup testing SQL server with "fake data"? Outsourcers should have access only to some part of original code Outsourcers should use CVS to update their code Once testing is finished someone releases the update ............ How would you separate original code and database from testing environment, but keep it as close as possible to production? What is the general practice for setting up testing environment and how other companies deal with outsourcers? I will appreciate for any of your thoughts and ideas from your personal experience. Maybe someone can suggest some article on this topic. Thank you a lot!

    Read the article

  • Lightweight web browser for testing

    - by Ghostrider
    I have e very specific test setup in mind. I would like to start a web-browser that understands Javascript and can use HTTP proxy, point it to a URL (ideally by specifying it in the command line along with the proxy config), wait for the page to load while listening (in the proxy) requests are generated as web-page is rendered and Javascript is executed, then kill the whole thing and restart. I don't care about how the page renders graphically at all. Which browser or tool should I use for this? Ideally it should be something self-contained that doesn't require installation (just an EXE file that runs from command line). Lynx would have been ideal but for the fact that it doesn't support JS. It should have as small memory footprint as possible.

    Read the article

  • Simplifying Testing through design considerations while utilizing dependency injection

    - by Adam Driscoll
    We are a few months into a green-field project to rework the Logic and Business layers of our product. By utilizing MEF (dependency injection) we have achieved high levels of code coverage and I believe that we have a pretty solid product. As we have been working through some of the more complex logic I have found it increasingly difficult to unit test. We are utilizing the CompositionContainer to query for types required by these complex algorithms. My unit tests are sometimes difficult to follow due to the lengthy mock object setup process that must take place, just right, to allow for certain circumstances to be verified. My unit tests often take me longer to write than the code that I'm trying to test. I realize this is not only an issue with dependency injection but with design as a whole. Is poor method design or lack of composition to blame for my overly complex tests? I've tried base classing tests, creating commonly used mock objects and ensuring that I utilize the container as much as possible to ease this issue but my tests always end up quite complex and hard to debug. What are some tips that you've seen to keep such tests concise, readable, and effective?

    Read the article

  • Ruby on Rails: Accessing production database data for testing

    - by williamjones
    With Ruby on Rails, is there a way for me to dump my production database into a form that the test part of Rails can access? I'm thinking either a way to turn the production database into fixtures, or else a way to migrate data from the production database into the test database that will not get routinely cleared out by Rails. I'd like to use this data for a variety of tests, but foremost in my mind is using real data with the performance tests, so that I can get a realistic understanding of load times.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing And Starting MongoDb Server

    - by azamsharp
    I am running some unit test that persist documents into the MongoDb database. For this unit test to succeed the MongoDb server must be started. I perform this by using Process.Start("mongod.exe"). It works but sometimes it takes time to start and before it even starts the unit test tries to run and FAILS. Unit test fails and complains that the mongodb server is not running. What to do in such situation?

    Read the article

  • Automated testing for Facebook SDK wrapper

    - by Andree
    Hi there! In my Facebook application, I have one Facebook wrapper class to encapsulates some call to Facebook API. I want to to write a unit test for this wrapper class, but since it depends on a so called "access token", which we should get from Facebook dynamically, I'm not sure if it's possible to write one. But apparently the Facebook SDK itself has a PHPUnit test class. After studying the test code for a while, I know that involves a creation of dummy cookie-based session key. private static $VALID_EXPIRED_SESSION = array( 'access_token' => '254752073152|2.I_eTFkcTKSzX5no3jI4r1Q__.3600.1273359600-1677846385|uI7GwrmBUed8seZZ05JbdzGFUpk.', 'expires' => '1273359600', 'secret' => '0d9F7pxWjM_QakY_51VZqw__', 'session_key' => '2.I_eTFkcTKSzX5no3jI4r1Q__.3600.1273359600-1677846385', 'sig' => '9f6ae89510b30dddb3f864f3caf32fb3', 'uid' => '1677846385' ); . . . $cookieName = 'fbs_' . self::APP_ID; $session = self::$VALID_EXPIRED_SESSION; $_COOKIE[$cookieName] = '"' . http_build_query($session) . '"'; What I don't understand is, how do I get the "access_token", "sig", "session_key" etc? As far as I'm concerned, it should be dynamically exchanged from Facebook and involves user action (logging in).

    Read the article

  • Testing a db structure before beginnning to code the app

    - by driverate
    I'm in the beginning stages of writing (and learning as I go) a Python database app using SQLite. I have the db structure planned on paper, and I have the queries I'll need in mind, but before I start coding I want to fully test the db design so I know it's right and ready. What's the best free software to use to test the db structure quickest?

    Read the article

  • How to create tests for poco objects

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I'm new to mocking/testing and wanting to know what level should you go to when testing. For example in my code I have the following object: public class RuleViolation { public string ErrorMessage { get; private set; } public string PropertyName { get; private set; } public RuleViolation( string errorMessage ) { ErrorMessage = errorMessage; } public RuleViolation( string errorMessage, string propertyName ) { ErrorMessage = errorMessage; PropertyName = propertyName; } } This is a relatively simple object. So my question is: Does it need a unit test? If it does what do I test and how? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Unit testing UDP socket handling code

    - by JustJeff
    Are there any 'good' ways to cause a thread waiting on a recvfrom() call to become unblocked and return with an error? The motivation for this is to write unit tests for a system which includes a unit that reads UDP datagrams. One of the branches handles errors on the recvfrom call itself. The code isn't required to distinguish between different types of errors, it just has to set a flag. I've thought of closing the socket from another thread, or do a shutdown on it, to cause recvfrom to return with an error, but this seems a bit heavy handed. I've seen mention elsewhere that sending an over-sized packet would do it, and so set up an experiment where a 16K buffer was sent to a recvfrom waiting for just 4K, but that didn't result in an error. The recvfrom just return 4096, to indicate it had gotten that many bytes.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing iPhone Code That Uses NSLocalizedString

    - by Jay Haase
    I have an iPhone iOS4.1 application that uses localized strings. I have just started building unit tests using the SenTestingKit. I have been able to successfully test many different types of values. I am unable to correctly test any of my code that uses NSLocalizedString calls, because when the code runs in my LogicTests target, all of my NSLocalizedString calls only return the string key. I have added my Localizable.strings file to the LogicTests target. My question is: How must I configure my LogicTests target so that calls to NSLocalizedString will return the localized string and not the string key.

    Read the article

  • stub webserver for integration testing

    - by Frank Schwieterman
    I have some integration tests where I want to verify certain requires are made against a third-[arty webserver. I was thinking I would replace the third-party server with a stub server that simply logs calls made to it. The calls do not need to succeed, but I do need a record of the requests made (mainly just the path+querystring). I was considering just using IIS for this. I could 1) set up an empty site, 2) modify the system's host file to redirect requests to that site 3) parse the log file at the end of each test. This is problematic as for IIS the log files are not written to immediately, and the files are written to continuosly. I'll need to locate the file, read the contents before the test, wait a nondeterministic amount of time after the test, read the update contents, etc. Can someone think of a simpler way?

    Read the article

  • Getting custom attribute from an Exception thrown during testing

    - by Amit Bhargava
    I'm using JUnit4 to test my code. Now, I'm aware that the following annotation allows me to expect an exception of a certain type @Test(expected = NipException.class) However, I have an 'errorCode' property in my exception class which I would also like to verify. This is because the same exception is thrown at three places in the same method with different error codes. How do I access 'errorCode' of the thrown exception?

    Read the article

  • Testing in Scrum

    - by alex
    In Scrum it's a good idea to test frequently when iteration is finished at customer. But the question is what kind of test should I use when some of the prototype is done with customer? In my knowledge Acceptance test is ok when all the iteration is done - but not some part of it. Examples for the test plan would be helpful

    Read the article

  • Entity framework unit testing with sqlite

    - by Marcus Malmgren
    Is it possible to unit test Entity Framework v2 repositories with SqLite? Is this only possible if my entities are plain Poco and not automatically generated by Entity Framework? I've generated a entity model from SqlServer and in the generated .edmx file i found this in section SSDL content: Provider="System.Data.SqlClient". Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldnt that be System.Data.SQLite in order to work with sqlite?

    Read the article

  • Testing the program in different OS

    - by Alex Farber
    I want to test my program by installing it in different OS versions. My development computer is Ubuntu. What other Linux versions can I test by installing them inside VirtualBox and running my program there? Though it is not critical for me right now, I want to try something different and see what happens. Also, what is the chance that the program running in Linux will work in the Unix OS? The program is not open source, I can distribute only pre-built binaries.

    Read the article

  • RSpec: Expectation on model's not working while testing controller

    - by gmile
    I'm trying to write a functional test. My test looks as following: describe PostsController do it "should create a Post" do Post.should_receive(:new).once post :create, { :post => { :caption => "ThePost", :category => "MyCategory" } } end end My PostsController (a part of it actually) looks as following: PostController < ActiveRecord::Base def create @post = Post.new(params[:post]) end end Running the test I'm always receiving a failure, which says that the Post class expected :new but never got it. Still, the actual post is created. I'm a newbie to RSpec. Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Grails Unit testing a function with session object

    - by Suganthan
    I having a Controller like def testFunction(testCommand cmdObj) { if (cmdObj.hasErrors()) { render(view: "testView", model: [cmdObj:cmdObj]) return } else { try { testService.testFunction(cmdObj.var1, cmdObj.var2, session.user.username as String) flash.message = message(code: 'message') redirect url: createLink(mapping: 'namedUrl') } catch (GeneralException error) { render(view: "testView", model: [cmdObj:cmdObj]) return } } } For the above controller function I having a Unit test function like: def "test function" () { controller.session.user.username = "testUser" def testCommandOj = new testCommand( var1:var1, var2:var2, var3:var3, var4:var4 ) testService service = Mock(testService) controller.testService = service service.testFunction(var2,var3,var4) when: controller.testFunction(testCommandOj) then: view == "testView" assertTrue model.cmdObj.hasErrors() where: var1 | var2 | var3 | var4 "testuser" | "word@3" | "word@4" | "word@4" } When running this test function I getting the error like Cannot set property 'username' on null object, means I couldn't able to set up the session object. Can someone help to fix this. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Smoke testing a .NET web application

    - by pdr
    I cannot believe I'm the first person to go through this thought process, so I'm wondering if anyone can help me out with it. Current situation: developers write a web site, operations deploy it. Once deployed, a developer Smoke Tests it, to make sure the deployment went smoothly. To me this feels wrong, it essentially means it takes two people to deploy an application; in our case those two people are on opposite sides of the planet and timezones come into play, causing havoc. But the fact remains that developers know what the minimum set of tests is and that may change over time (particularly for the web service portion of our app). Operations, with all due respect to them (and they would say this themselves), are button-pushers who need a set of instructions to follow. The manual solution is that we document the test cases and operations follow that document each time they deploy. That sounds painful, plus they may be deploying different versions to different environments (specifically UAT and Production) and may need a different set of instructions for each. On top of this, one of our near-future plans is to have an automated daily deploy environment, so then we'll have to instruct a computer as to how to deploy a given version of our app. I would dearly like to add to that instructions for how to smoke test the app. Now developers are better at documenting instructions for computers than they are for people, so the obvious solution seems to be to use a combination of nUnit (I know these aren't unit tests per se, but it is a built-for-purpose test runner) and either the Watin or Selenium APIs to run through the obvious browser steps and call to the web service and explain to the Operations guys how to run those unit tests. I can do that; I have mostly done it already. But wouldn't it be nice if I could make that process simpler still? At this point, the Operations guys and the computer are going to have to know which set of tests relate to which version of the app and tell the nUnit runner which base URL it should point to (say, www.example.com = v3.2 or test.example.com = v3.3). Wouldn't it be nicer if the test runner itself had a way of giving it a base URL and letting it download say a zip file, unpack it and edit a configuration file automatically before running any test fixtures it found in there? Is there an open source app that would do that? Is there a need for one? Is there a solution using something other than nUnit, maybe Fitnesse? For the record, I'm looking at .NET-based tools first because most of the developers are primarily .NET developers, but we're not married to it. If such a tool exists using other languages to write the tests, we'll happily adapt, as long as there is a test runner that works on Windows.

    Read the article

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