Search Results

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

Page 34/313 | < Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >

  • Does Visual Studio run Tests with a less privileged process?

    - by Filip Ekberg
    I have an application that is supposed to read from the Registry and when executing a console application my registry access works perfectly. However when I move it over to a test this returns null: var masterKey = Registry.LocalMachine.OpenSubKey("path_to_my_key"); So my question is: Does Visual Studio run Tests with a less privileged process? I tested to see what user this gave me: var x = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent().Name; and it gives me the same as in the console application. So I am a bit confused here.

    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

  • InvalidProgramException Running Unit Test (Bug Closed)

    - by Anthony Trudeau
    In a previous post I reported an InvalidProgramException that occurs in a certain circumstance with unit tests involving accessors on a private generic method.  It turns out that Bug #635093 reported through Microsoft Connect will not be fixed. The reason cited is that private accessors have been discontinued.  And why have private accessors been discontinued?  They don't have time is the reason listed in the blog post titled "Generation of Private Accessors (Publicize) and Code Generation for Visual Studio 2010". In my opinion, it's a piss poor decision to discontinue support for a feature that they're still using within automatically generated unit tests against private classes and methods.  But, I think what is worse is the lack of guidance cited in the aforementioned blog post.  Their advice?  Use the PrivateObject to help, but develop your own framework. At the end of the day what Microsoft is saying is, "I know you spent a lot of money for this product.  I know that you don't have time to develop a framework to deal with this.  We don't have time and that is all that's important."

    Read the article

  • Unit testing ASP.NET Web API controllers that rely on the UrlHelper

    - by cibrax
    UrlHelper is the class you can use in ASP.NET Web API to automatically infer links from the routing table without hardcoding anything. For example, the following code uses the helper to infer the location url for a new resource,public HttpResponseMessage Post(User model) { var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, user); var link = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = id, controller = "Users" }); response.Headers.Location = new Uri(link); return response; } That code uses a previously defined route “DefaultApi”, which you might configure in the HttpConfiguration object (This is the route generated by default when you create a new Web API project). The problem with UrlHelper is that it requires from some initialization code before you can invoking it from a unit test (for testing the Post method in this example). If you don’t initialize the HttpConfiguration and Request instances associated to the controller from the unit test, it will fail miserably. After digging into the ASP.NET Web API source code a little bit, I could figure out what the requirements for using the UrlHelper are. It relies on the routing table configuration, and a few properties you need to add to the HttpRequestMessage. The following code illustrates what’s needed,var controller = new UserController(); controller.Configuration = new HttpConfiguration(); var route = controller.Configuration.Routes.MapHttpRoute( name: "DefaultApi", routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{id}", defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional } ); var routeData = new HttpRouteData(route, new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "id", "1" }, { "controller", "Users" } } ); controller.Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost:9091/"); controller.Request.Properties.Add(HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, controller.Configuration); controller.Request.Properties.Add(HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, routeData);  The HttpRouteData instance should be initialized with the route values you will use in the controller method (“id” and “controller” in this example). Once you have correctly setup all those properties, you shouldn’t have any problem to use the UrlHelper. There is no need to mock anything else. Enjoy!!.

    Read the article

  • At what point would you drop some of your principles of software development for the sake of more money?

    - by MeshMan
    I'd like to throw this question out there to interestingly see where the medium is. I'm going to admit that in my last 12 months, I picked up TDD and a lot of the Agile values in software development. I was so overwhelmed with how much better my development of software became that I would never drop them out of principle. Until...I was offered a contracting role that doubled my take home pay for the year. The company I joined didn't follow any specific methodology, the team hadn't heard of anything like code smells, SOLID, etc., and I certainly wasn't going to get away with spending time doing TDD if the team had never even seen unit testing in practice. Am I a sell out? No, not completely... Code will always been written "cleanly" (as per Uncle Bob's teachings) and the principles of SOLID will always be applied to the code that I write as they are needed. Testing was dropped for me though, the company couldn't afford to have such a unknown handed to the team who quite frankly, even I did create test frameworks, they would never use/maintain the test framework correctly. Using that as an example, what point would you say a developer should never drop his craftsmanship principles for the sake of money/other benefits to them personally? I understand that this can be a very personal opinion on how concerned one is to their own needs, business needs, and the sake of craftsmanship etc. But one can consider that for example testing can be dropped if the company decided they would rather have a test team, than rather understand unit testing in programming, would that be something you could forgive yourself for like I did? So given that there is something you would drop, there usually should be an equal cost in the business that makes up for what you drop - hopefully, unless of course you are pretty much out for lining your own pockets and not community/social collaborating ;). Double your money, go back to RAD? Or walk on, and look for someone doing Agile, and never look back...

    Read the article

  • Automated testing tool development challenges (for embedded software)

    - by Karthi prime
    My boss want to come up with the proposal for the following tool: An IDE: Able to build, compile, debug, via JTAG programming for the micro-controller. A Test Suite, reads the code in the IDE, auto generates the test cases, and it gives the in-target unit testing results(which is done by controlling code execution in the micro-controller via IDE). A no-overhead code coverage tool which interacts with the test suite and IDE. My work is to obtain the high level architecture of this tool, so as to proceed further. My current knowledge: There are tool-chains available from the chip manufacturer for the micro-controllers which can be utilized along with an open-source IDE like Eclipse, and along with an open-source burner, a complete IDE for a micro-controller can be done. Test cases can be auto-generated by reading the source file through the process of parsing, scripting, based on keywords. Test suite must be able to command the IDE to control, through breakpoints, and read the register contents from the microcontroller - This enables the in-target unit testing. An no-overhead code coverage should be done by no-overhead code instrumentation so as to execute those in the resource constraint environment of the micro-controller. I have the following questions: Any advice on the validity of my understanding? What are the challenges I will have during the development? What are the helpful open-source tools regarding this? What is the development time for this software? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How can Agile methodologies be adapted to High Volume processing system development?

    - by luckyluke
    I am developing high volume processing systems. Like mathematical models that calculate various parameters based on millions of records, calculated derived fields over milions of records, process huge files having transactions etc... I am well aware of unit testing methodologies and if my code is in C# I have no problem in unit testing it. Problem is I often have code in T-SQL, C# code that is a SQL stored assembly, and SSIS workflow with a good amount of logic (and outcomes etc) or some SAS process. What is the approach YOu use when developing such systems. I usually develop several tests as Stored procedures in a designed schema(TEST) and then automatically run them overnight and check out the results. But this is only for T-SQL. And Continous integration IS hard. But the problem is with testing SSIS packages. How do You test it? What is Your preferred approach for stubbing data into tables (especially if You need a lot data initialization). I have some approach derived over the years but maybe I am just not reading enough articles. So Banking, Telecom, Risk developers out there. How do You test your mission critical apps that process milions of records at end day, month end etc? What frameworks do You use? How do You validate that Your ssis package is Correct (as You develop it)/ How do You achieve continous integration in such an environment (Personally I never got there)? I hope this is not to open-ended question. How do You test Your map-reduce jobs for example (i do not use hadoop but this is quite similar). luke Hope that this is not too open ended

    Read the article

  • Inheritance vs containment while extending a large legacy project

    - by Flot2011
    I have got a legacy Java project with a lot of code. The code uses MVC pattern and is well structured and well written. It also has a lot of unit tests and it is still actively maintained (bug fixing, minor features adding). Therefore I want to preserve the original structure and code style as much as possible. The new feature I am going to add is a conceptual one, so I have to make my changes all over the code. In order to minimize changes I decided not to extend existing classes but to use containment: class ExistingClass { // .... existing code // my code adding new functionality private ExistingClassExtension extension = new ExistingClassExtension(); public ExistingClassExtension getExtension() {return extension;} } ... // somewhere in code ExistingClass instance = new ExistingClass(); ... // when I need a new functionality instance.getExtension().newMethod1(); All functionality that I am adding is inside a new ExistingClassExtension class. Actually I am adding only these 2 lines to each class that needs to be extended. By doing so I also do not need to instantiate new, extended classes all over the code and I may use existing tests to make sure there is no regression. However my colleagues argue that in this situation doing so isn't a proper OOP approach, and I need to inherit from ExistingClass in order to add a new functionality. What do you think? I am aware of numerous inheritance/containment questions here, but I think my question is different.

    Read the article

  • Need help understanding Mocks and Stubs

    - by Theomax
    I'm new to use mocking frameworks and I have a few questions on the things that I am not clear on. I'm using Rhinomocks to generate mock objects in my unit tests. I understand that mocks can be created to verify interactions between methods and they record the interactions etc and stubs allow you to setup data and entities required by the test but you do not verify expectations on stubs. Looking at the recent unit tests I have created, I appear to be creating mocks literally for the purpose of stubbing and allowing for data to be setup. Is this a correct usage of mocks or is it incorrect if you're not actually calling verify on them? For example: user = MockRepository.GenerateMock<User>(); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid()); user.Stub(x => x.Name = "User1"); In the above code I generate a new user mock object, but I use a mock so I can stub the properties of the user because in some cases if the properties do not have a setter and I need to set them it seems the only way is to stub the property values. Is this a correct usage of stubbing and mocking? Also, I am not completely clear on what the difference between the following lines is: user.Stub(x => x.Id).Return(new Guid()); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid());

    Read the article

  • How to define implementation details?

    - by woni
    In our project, an assembly combines logic for the IoC-Container, the project internals and the communication layer. The current version evolved to have only internal classes in addin assemblies. My main problem with this approach is, that the entry point is only available over the IoC-Container. It is not possible to use anything else than reflection to initialize the assembly. Everything behind the IoC-Interface is defined as implementation detail and therefore not intended for usages outside. It is well known that you should not test implementation detail (such as private and internal methods), because they should be tested through the public interface. It is also well known, that your tests should not use the IoC-Container to setup the SUTs, because that would result in too much dependencies. So we are using the InternalsVisibleTo-Attribute to make internals visible to our test assemblies and test the so called implementation details. I recognized that one problem could be the mixup between different concerns in that assembly, changing this would make this discussion useless, because classes have to be defined public. Ignoring my concerns with this, isn't the need to test a class enough reason to make it public, the usages of InternalsVisibleTo seems unintended, and a little bit "hacky". The approach to test only against the publicly available IoC-Container is too costly and would result in integration style tests. The pros of using internals are, that the usages are well known and do not have to be implemented like a public method would have to be (documentation, completeness, versioning,...). Is there a solution, to not test against internals, but keep their advantages over public classes, or do we have to redefine what an implementation detail is.

    Read the article

  • Classes as a compilation unit

    - by Yannbane
    If "compilation unit" is unclear, please refer to this. However, what I mean by it will be clear from the context. Edit: my language allows for multiple inheritance, unlike Java. I've started designing+developing my own programming language for educational, recreational, and potentially useful purposes. At first, I've decided to base it off Java. This implied that I would have all the code be written inside classes, and that code compiles to classes, which are loaded by the VM. However, I've excluded features such as interfaces and abstract classes, because I found no need for them. They seemed to be enforcing a paradigm, and I'd like my language not to do that. I wanted to keep the classes as the compilation unit though, because it seemed convenient to implement, familiar, and I just liked the idea. Then I noticed that I'm basically left with a glorified module system, where classes could be used either as "namespaces", providing constants and functions using the static directive, or as templates for objects that need to be instantiated ("actual" purpose of classes in other languages). Now I'm left wondering: what are the benefits of having classes as compilation units? (Also, any general commentary on my design would be much appreciated.)

    Read the article

  • PHP unit tests for controller returns no errors and no success message.

    - by Mallika Iyer
    I'm using the zend modular director structure, i.e. application modules users controllers . . lessons reports blog I have a unit test for a controller in 'blog' that goes something like the below section of code: I'm definitely doing something very wrong, or missing something - as when i run the test, i get no error, no success message (that goes usually like ...OK (2 tests, 2 assertions)). I get all the text from layout.phtml, where i have the global site layout. This is my first endeavor writing a unittest for zend-M-V-C structure so probably I'm missing something important? Here goes.... require_once '../../../../public/index.php'; require_once '../../../../application/Bootstrap.php'; require_once '../../../../application/modules/blog/controllers/BrowseController.php'; require_once '../../../TestConfiguration.php'; class Blog_BrowseControllerTest extends Zend_Test_PHPUnit_ControllerTestCase { public function setUp() { $this->bootstrap = array($this, 'appBootstrap'); Blog_BrowseController::setUp(); } public function appBootstrap() { require_once dirname(__FILE__) . '/../../bootstrap.php'; } public function testAction() { $this->dispatch('/'); $this->assertController('browse'); $this->assertAction('index'); } public function tearDown() { $this->resetRequest(); $this->resetResponse(); Blog_BrowseController::tearDown(); } }

    Read the article

  • Should I unit test the model returned by DefaultModelBinder?

    - by Byron Sommardahl
    I'm having some trouble unit testing the model returned by DefaultModelBinder. I want to feed in a fake form collection and check the model that it returns to make sure model properties are being bound properly. In my research, I'm not turning up -any- resources on testing the DefaultModelBinder. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I shouldn't be testing this part of MVC? Your thoughts?

    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

  • PHPUnit won't run tests by directory

    - by Frank Schwieterman
    I'm new to PHP, trying to get multiple tests to run at once. I was hoping to just run all tests in a directory, which seemed to work awhile (instead of using a phpunit.xml). I am able to run a test individually like so: phpunit FirstUnitTest sites\all\modules\experiment\unit-tests\FirstUnitTest.lua But when I try to run the same test by directory, its not found. I try using: phpunit sites\all\modules\experiment\unit-tests Does anyone know why this may not work?

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test a class that's meant to talk to data?

    - by Arda Xi
    I have a few repository classes that are meant to talk to different kinds of data, deriving from an IRepository interface laid out like so: In implementations, the code talks to a data source, be this a directory of XML files or a database or even just a cache. Is it possible to reliably unit test any of these implementations? I don't see a mock implementation working, because then I'm only testing the mock code and not the actual code.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing - how do I test a function that returns random output?

    - by Extrakun
    I have a function which takes in two parameters, and returns one or the other 50% of the time. The unit test for this should determine that both parameters could be returned. Luckily, I don't need to prove that the probability for each is 50% but I do need to show that both parameters are possible to be returned. How do I write a test case for this function?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >