Search Results

Search found 26297 results on 1052 pages for 'unit test'.

Page 35/1052 | < Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >

  • at what point in the test cycle are the test results written to a file?

    - by jcollum
    I'd like to take the entirety of the test results and publish it to a database. Got the database, got the table, got the script to publish it. Question is, at what point in the ms-test cycle would the results be fully written to the file? And how can I get the path to that file? I'd especially like to grab the "TextMessages" node and put it into my database. I assumed AssemblyCleanup, but the TestContext doesn't seem to be available then.

    Read the article

  • Does isolation frameworks (Moq, RhinoMock, etc) lead to test overspecification?

    - by Marius
    In Osherove's great book "The Art of Unit Testing" one of the test anti-patterns is over-specification which is basically the same as testing the internal state of the object instead of some expected output. To my experience, using Isolation frameworks can cause the same unwanted side effects as testing internal behavior because one tends to only implement the behavior necessary to make your stub interact with the object under test. Now if your implementation changes later on (but the contract remains the same), your test will suddenly break because you are expecting some data from the stub which was not implemented. So what do you think is the best approach to counter this? 1) Implement your stubs/mocks fully, this has the negative side-effect of potentially making your test less readable and also specifying more than necessary to make your test pass. 2) Favor manual, fully implemented fakes. 3) Implement your stubs/fakes so that they make your test just pass, and then deal with the brittleness that this might introduce.

    Read the article

  • Use a Fake Http Channel to Unit Test with HttpClient

    - by Steve Michelotti
    Applications get data from lots of different sources. The most common is to get data from a database or a web service. Typically, we encapsulate calls to a database in a Repository object and we create some sort of IRepository interface as an abstraction to decouple between layers and enable easier unit testing by leveraging faking and mocking. This works great for database interaction. However, when consuming a RESTful web service, this is is not always the best approach. The WCF Web APIs that are available on CodePlex (current drop is Preview 3) provide a variety of features to make building HTTP REST services more robust. When you download the latest bits, you’ll also find a new HttpClient which has been updated for .NET 4.0 as compared to the one that shipped for 3.5 in the original REST Starter Kit. The HttpClient currently provides the best API for consuming REST services on the .NET platform and the WCF Web APIs provide a number of extension methods which extend HttpClient and make it even easier to use. Let’s say you have a client application that is consuming an HTTP service – this could be Silverlight, WPF, or any UI technology but for my example I’ll use an MVC application: 1: using System; 2: using System.Net.Http; 3: using System.Web.Mvc; 4: using FakeChannelExample.Models; 5: using Microsoft.Runtime.Serialization; 6:   7: namespace FakeChannelExample.Controllers 8: { 9: public class HomeController : Controller 10: { 11: private readonly HttpClient httpClient; 12:   13: public HomeController(HttpClient httpClient) 14: { 15: this.httpClient = httpClient; 16: } 17:   18: public ActionResult Index() 19: { 20: var response = httpClient.Get("Person(1)"); 21: var person = response.Content.ReadAsDataContract<Person>(); 22:   23: this.ViewBag.Message = person.FirstName + " " + person.LastName; 24: 25: return View(); 26: } 27: } 28: } On line #20 of the code above you can see I’m performing an HTTP GET request to a Person resource exposed by an HTTP service. On line #21, I use the ReadAsDataContract() extension method provided by the WCF Web APIs to serialize to a Person object. In this example, the HttpClient is being passed into the constructor by MVC’s dependency resolver – in this case, I’m using StructureMap as an IoC and my StructureMap initialization code looks like this: 1: using StructureMap; 2: using System.Net.Http; 3:   4: namespace FakeChannelExample 5: { 6: public static class IoC 7: { 8: public static IContainer Initialize() 9: { 10: ObjectFactory.Initialize(x => 11: { 12: x.For<HttpClient>().Use(() => new HttpClient("http://localhost:31614/")); 13: }); 14: return ObjectFactory.Container; 15: } 16: } 17: } My controller code currently depends on a concrete instance of the HttpClient. Now I *could* create some sort of interface and wrap the HttpClient in this interface and use that object inside my controller instead – however, there are a few why reasons that is not desirable: For one thing, the API provided by the HttpClient provides nice features for dealing with HTTP services. I don’t really *want* these to look like C# RPC method calls – when HTTP services have REST features, I may want to inspect HTTP response headers and hypermedia contained within the message so that I can make intelligent decisions as to what to do next in my workflow (although I don’t happen to be doing these things in my example above) – this type of workflow is common in hypermedia REST scenarios. If I just encapsulate HttpClient behind some IRepository interface and make it look like a C# RPC method call, it will become difficult to take advantage of these types of things. Second, it could get pretty mind-numbing to have to create interfaces all over the place just to wrap the HttpClient. Then you’re probably going to have to hard-code HTTP knowledge into your code to formulate requests rather than just “following the links” that the hypermedia in a message might provide. Third, at first glance it might appear that we need to create an interface to facilitate unit testing, but actually it’s unnecessary. Even though the code above is dependent on a concrete type, it’s actually very easy to fake the data in a unit test. The HttpClient provides a Channel property (of type HttpMessageChannel) which allows you to create a fake message channel which can be leveraged in unit testing. In this case, what I want is to be able to write a unit test that just returns fake data. I also want this to be as re-usable as possible for my unit testing. I want to be able to write a unit test that looks like this: 1: [TestClass] 2: public class HomeControllerTest 3: { 4: [TestMethod] 5: public void Index() 6: { 7: // Arrange 8: var httpClient = new HttpClient("http://foo.com"); 9: httpClient.Channel = new FakeHttpChannel<Person>(new Person { FirstName = "Joe", LastName = "Blow" }); 10:   11: HomeController controller = new HomeController(httpClient); 12:   13: // Act 14: ViewResult result = controller.Index() as ViewResult; 15:   16: // Assert 17: Assert.AreEqual("Joe Blow", result.ViewBag.Message); 18: } 19: } Notice on line #9, I’m setting the Channel property of the HttpClient to be a fake channel. I’m also specifying the fake object that I want to be in the response on my “fake” Http request. I don’t need to rely on any mocking frameworks to do this. All I need is my FakeHttpChannel. The code to do this is not complex: 1: using System; 2: using System.IO; 3: using System.Net.Http; 4: using System.Runtime.Serialization; 5: using System.Threading; 6: using FakeChannelExample.Models; 7:   8: namespace FakeChannelExample.Tests 9: { 10: public class FakeHttpChannel<T> : HttpClientChannel 11: { 12: private T responseObject; 13:   14: public FakeHttpChannel(T responseObject) 15: { 16: this.responseObject = responseObject; 17: } 18:   19: protected override HttpResponseMessage Send(HttpRequestMessage request, CancellationToken cancellationToken) 20: { 21: return new HttpResponseMessage() 22: { 23: RequestMessage = request, 24: Content = new StreamContent(this.GetContentStream()) 25: }; 26: } 27:   28: private Stream GetContentStream() 29: { 30: var serializer = new DataContractSerializer(typeof(T)); 31: Stream stream = new MemoryStream(); 32: serializer.WriteObject(stream, this.responseObject); 33: stream.Position = 0; 34: return stream; 35: } 36: } 37: } The HttpClientChannel provides a Send() method which you can override to return any HttpResponseMessage that you want. You can see I’m using the DataContractSerializer to serialize the object and write it to a stream. That’s all you need to do. In the example above, the only thing I’ve chosen to do is to provide a way to return different response objects. But there are many more features you could add to your own re-usable FakeHttpChannel. For example, you might want to provide the ability to add HTTP headers to the message. You might want to use a different serializer other than the DataContractSerializer. You might want to provide custom hypermedia in the response as well as just an object or set HTTP response codes. This list goes on. This is the just one example of the really cool features being added to the next version of WCF to enable various HTTP scenarios. The code sample for this post can be downloaded here.

    Read the article

  • How can I use that?

    - by user289220
    test test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test test

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Example, on a class with required fields?

    - by Mastro
    I'm new to developing Unit test and I can't find an example of how to test an existing class I have. The class has a save method which does an insert or update in the database when the user clicks Save in the UI. But the save method has required fields that need to be populated. And has other fields that do not. So how can I run this test properly? Was trying to write it out.. Give a user When user saves object Then Field1 is required then Field2 is required Then Field3 is required WhenUserSavesObject() object = new object object.field1 IsNot Nothing something like that right? And what about the other fields that are optional? How would I test the save method to make sure it takes all those values properly? Was trying to use BDD but not sure if I should try it or not. Can't find any example of classes with many properties that are needed when calling a test method.

    Read the article

  • Guide to reduce TFS database growth using the Test Attachment Cleaner

    - by terje
    Recently there has been several reports on TFS databases growing too fast and growing too big.  Notable this has been observed when one has started to use more features of the Testing system.  Also, the TFS 2010 handles test results differently from TFS 2008, and this leads to more data stored in the TFS databases. As a consequence of this there has been released some tools to remove unneeded data in the database, and also some fixes to correct for bugs which has been found and corrected during this process.  Further some preventive practices and maintenance rules should be adopted. A lot of people have blogged about this, among these are: Anu’s very important blog post here describes both the problem and solutions to handle it.  She describes both the Test Attachment Cleaner tool, and also some QFE/CU releases to fix some underlying bugs which prevented the tool from being fully effective. Brian Harry’s blog post here describes the problem too This forum thread describes the problem with some solution hints. Ravi Shanker’s blog post here describes best practices on solving this (TBP) Grant Holidays blogpost here describes strategies to use the Test Attachment Cleaner both to detect space problems and how to rectify them.   The problem can be divided into the following areas: Publishing of test results from builds Publishing of manual test results and their attachments in particular Publishing of deployment binaries for use during a test run Bugs in SQL server preventing total cleanup of data (All the published data above is published into the TFS database as attachments.) The test results will include all data being collected during the run.  Some of this data can grow rather large, like IntelliTrace logs and video recordings.   Also the pushing of binaries which happen for automated test runs, including tests run during a build using code coverage which will include all the files in the deployment folder, contributes a lot to the size of the attached data.   In order to handle this systematically, I have set up a 3-stage process: Find out if you have a database space issue Set up your TFS server to minimize potential database issues If you have the “problem”, clean up the database and otherwise keep it clean   Analyze the data Are your database( s) growing ?  Are unused test results growing out of proportion ? To find out about this you need to query your TFS database for some of the information, and use the Test Attachment Cleaner (TAC) to obtain some  more detailed information. If you don’t have too many databases you can use the SQL Server reports from within the Management Studio to analyze the database and table sizes. Or, you can use a set of queries . I find queries often faster to use because I can tweak them the way I want them.  But be aware that these queries are non-documented and non-supported and may change when the product team wants to change them. If you have multiple Project Collections, find out which might have problems: (Disclaimer: The queries below work on TFS 2010. They will not work on Dev-11, since the table structure have been changed.  I will try to update them for Dev-11 when it is released.) Open a SQL Management Studio session onto the SQL Server where you have your TFS Databases. Use the query below to find the Project Collection databases and their sizes, in descending size order.  use master select DB_NAME(database_id) AS DBName, (size/128) SizeInMB FROM sys.master_files where type=0 and substring(db_name(database_id),1,4)='Tfs_' and DB_NAME(database_id)<>'Tfs_Configuration' order by size desc Doing this on one of our SQL servers gives the following results: It is pretty easy to see on which collection to start the work   Find out which tables are possibly too large Keep a special watch out for the Tfs_Attachment table. Use the script at the bottom of Grant’s blog to find the table sizes in descending size order. In our case we got this result: From Grant’s blog we learnt that the tbl_Content is in the Version Control category, so the major only big issue we have here is the tbl_AttachmentContent.   Find out which team projects have possibly too large attachments In order to use the TAC to find and eventually delete attachment data we need to find out which team projects have these attachments. The team project is a required parameter to the TAC. Use the following query to find this, replace the collection database name with whatever applies in your case:   use Tfs_DefaultCollection select p.projectname, sum(a.compressedlength)/1024/1024 as sizeInMB from dbo.tbl_Attachment as a inner join tbl_testrun as tr on a.testrunid=tr.testrunid inner join tbl_project as p on p.projectid=tr.projectid group by p.projectname order by sum(a.compressedlength) desc In our case we got this result (had to remove some names), out of more than 100 team projects accumulated over quite some years: As can be seen here it is pretty obvious the “Byggtjeneste – Projects” are the main team project to take care of, with the ones on lines 2-4 as the next ones.  Check which attachment types takes up the most space It can be nice to know which attachment types takes up the space, so run the following query: use Tfs_DefaultCollection select a.attachmenttype, sum(a.compressedlength)/1024/1024 as sizeInMB from dbo.tbl_Attachment as a inner join tbl_testrun as tr on a.testrunid=tr.testrunid inner join tbl_project as p on p.projectid=tr.projectid group by a.attachmenttype order by sum(a.compressedlength) desc We then got this result: From this it is pretty obvious that the problem here is the binary files, as also mentioned in Anu’s blog. Check which file types, by their extension, takes up the most space Run the following query use Tfs_DefaultCollection select SUBSTRING(filename,len(filename)-CHARINDEX('.',REVERSE(filename))+2,999)as Extension, sum(compressedlength)/1024 as SizeInKB from tbl_Attachment group by SUBSTRING(filename,len(filename)-CHARINDEX('.',REVERSE(filename))+2,999) order by sum(compressedlength) desc This gives a result like this:   Now you should have collected enough information to tell you what to do – if you got to do something, and some of the information you need in order to set up your TAC settings file, both for a cleanup and for scheduled maintenance later.    Get your TFS server and environment properly set up Even if you have got the problem or if have yet not got the problem, you should ensure the TFS server is set up so that the risk of getting into this problem is minimized.  To ensure this you should install the following set of updates and components. The assumption is that your TFS Server is at SP1 level. Install the QFE for KB2608743 – which also contains detailed instructions on its use, download from here. The QFE changes the default settings to not upload deployed binaries, which are used in automated test runs. Binaries will still be uploaded if: Code coverage is enabled in the test settings. You change the UploadDeploymentItem to true in the testsettings file. Be aware that this might be reset back to false by another user which haven't installed this QFE. The hotfix should be installed to The build servers (the build agents) The machine hosting the Test Controller Local development computers (Visual Studio) Local test computers (MTM) It is not required to install it to the TFS Server, test agents or the build controller – it has no effect on these programs. If you use the SQL Server 2008 R2 you should also install the CU 10 (or later).  This CU fixes a potential problem of hanging “ghost” files.  This seems to happen only in certain trigger situations, but to ensure it doesn’t bite you, it is better to make sure this CU is installed. There is no such CU for SQL Server 2008 pre-R2 Work around:  If you suspect hanging ghost files, they can be – with some mental effort, deduced from the ghost counters using the following SQL query: use master SELECT DB_NAME(database_id) as 'database',OBJECT_NAME(object_id) as 'objectname', index_type_desc,ghost_record_count,version_ghost_record_count,record_count,avg_record_size_in_bytes FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats (DB_ID(N'<DatabaseName>'), OBJECT_ID(N'<TableName>'), NULL, NULL , 'DETAILED') The problem is a stalled ghost cleanup process.  Restarting the SQL server after having stopped all components that depends on it, like the TFS Server and SPS services – that is all applications that connect to the SQL server. Then restart the SQL server, and finally start up all dependent processes again.  (I would guess a complete server reboot would do the trick too.) After this the ghost cleanup process will run properly again. The fix will come in the next CU cycle for SQL Server R2 SP1.  The R2 pre-SP1 and R2 SP1 have separate maintenance cycles, and are maintained individually. Each have its own set of CU’s. When it comes I will add the link here to that CU. The "hanging ghost file” issue came up after one have run the TAC, and deleted enourmes amount of data.  The SQL Server can get into this hanging state (without the QFE) in certain cases due to this. And of course, install and set up the Test Attachment Cleaner command line power tool.  This should be done following some guidelines from Ravi Shanker: “When you run TAC, ensure that you are deleting small chunks of data at regular intervals (say run TAC every night at 3AM to delete data that is between age 730 to 731 days) – this will ensure that small amounts of data are being deleted and SQL ghosted record cleanup can catch up with the number of deletes performed. “ This rule minimizes the risk of the ghosted hang problem to occur, and further makes it easier for the SQL server ghosting process to work smoothly. “Run DBCC SHRINKDB post the ghosted records are cleaned up to physically reclaim the space on the file system” This is the last step in a 3 step process of removing SQL server data. First they are logically deleted. Then they are cleaned out by the ghosting process, and finally removed using the shrinkdb command. Cleaning out the attachments The TAC is run from the command line using a set of parameters and controlled by a settingsfile.  The parameters point out a server uri including the team project collection and also point at a specific team project. So in order to run this for multiple team projects regularly one has to set up a script to run the TAC multiple times, once for each team project.  When you install the TAC there is a very useful readme file in the same directory. When the deployment binaries are published to the TFS server, ALL items are published up from the deployment folder. That often means much more files than you would assume are necessary. This is a brute force technique. It works, but you need to take care when cleaning up. Grant has shown how their settings file looks in his blog post, removing all attachments older than 180 days , as long as there are no active workitems connected to them. This setting can be useful to clean out all items, both in a clean-up once operation, and in a general There are two scenarios we need to consider: Cleaning up an existing overgrown database Maintaining a server to avoid an overgrown database using scheduled TAC   1. Cleaning up a database which has grown too big due to these attachments. This job is a “Once” job.  We do this once and then move on to make sure it won’t happen again, by taking the actions in 2) below.  In this scenario you should only consider the large files. Your goal should be to simply reduce the size, and don’t bother about  the smaller stuff. That can be left a scheduled TAC cleanup ( 2 below). Here you can use a very general settings file, and just remove the large attachments, or you can choose to remove any old items.  Grant’s settings file is an example of the last one.  A settings file to remove only large attachments could look like this: <!-- Scenario : Remove large files --> <DeletionCriteria> <TestRun /> <Attachment> <SizeInMB GreaterThan="10" /> </Attachment> </DeletionCriteria> Or like this: If you want only to remove dll’s and pdb’s about that size, add an Extensions-section.  Without that section, all extensions will be deleted. <!-- Scenario : Remove large files of type dll's and pdb's --> <DeletionCriteria> <TestRun /> <Attachment> <SizeInMB GreaterThan="10" /> <Extensions> <Include value="dll" /> <Include value="pdb" /> </Extensions> </Attachment> </DeletionCriteria> Before you start up your scheduled maintenance, you should clear out all older items. 2. Scheduled maintenance using the TAC If you run a schedule every night, and remove old items, and also remove them in small batches.  It is important to run this often, like every night, in order to keep the number of deleted items low. That way the SQL ghost process works better. One approach could be to delete all items older than some number of days, let’s say 180 days. This could be combined with restricting it to keep attachments with active or resolved bugs.  Doing this every night ensures that only small amounts of data is deleted. <!-- Scenario : Remove old items except if they have active or resolved bugs --> <DeletionCriteria> <TestRun> <AgeInDays OlderThan="180" /> </TestRun> <Attachment /> <LinkedBugs> <Exclude state="Active" /> <Exclude state="Resolved"/> </LinkedBugs> </DeletionCriteria> In my experience there are projects which are left with active or resolved workitems, akthough no further work is done.  It can be wise to have a cleanup process with no restrictions on linked bugs at all. Note that you then have to remove the whole LinkedBugs section. A approach which could work better here is to do a two step approach, use the schedule above to with no LinkedBugs as a sweeper cleaning task taking away all data older than you could care about.  Then have another scheduled TAC task to take out more specifically attachments that you are not likely to use. This task could be much more specific, and based on your analysis clean out what you know is troublesome data. <!-- Scenario : Remove specific files early --> <DeletionCriteria> <TestRun > <AgeInDays OlderThan="30" /> </TestRun> <Attachment> <SizeInMB GreaterThan="10" /> <Extensions> <Include value="iTrace"/> <Include value="dll"/> <Include value="pdb"/> <Include value="wmv"/> </Extensions> </Attachment> <LinkedBugs> <Exclude state="Active" /> <Exclude state="Resolved" /> </LinkedBugs> </DeletionCriteria> The readme document for the TAC says that it recognizes “internal” extensions, but it does recognize any extension. To run the tool do the following command: tcmpt attachmentcleanup /collection:your_tfs_collection_url /teamproject:your_team_project /settingsfile:path_to_settingsfile /outputfile:%temp%/teamproject.tcmpt.log /mode:delete   Shrinking the database You could run a shrink database command after the TAC has run in cases where there are a lot of data being deleted.  In this case you SHOULD do it, to free up all that space.  But, after the shrink operation you should do a rebuild indexes, since the shrink operation will leave the database in a very fragmented state, which will reduce performance. Note that you need to rebuild indexes, reorganizing is not enough. For smaller amounts of data you should NOT shrink the database, since the data will be reused by the SQL server when it need to add more records.  In fact, it is regarded as a bad practice to shrink the database regularly.  So on a daily maintenance schedule you should NOT shrink the database. To shrink the database you do a DBCC SHRINKDATABASE command, and then follow up with a DBCC INDEXDEFRAG afterwards.  I find the easiest way to do this is to create a SQL Maintenance plan including the Shrink Database Task and the Rebuild Index Task and just execute it when you need to do this.

    Read the article

  • What should be tested in Javascript?

    - by Nathan Hoad
    At work, we've just started on a heavily Javascript based application (actually using Coffeescript, but still), of which I've been implementing an automated test system using JsTestDriver and fabric. We've never written something with this much Javascript, so up until now we've never done any Javascript testing. I'm unsure what exactly we should be testing in our unit tests. We've written JQuery plugins for various things, so it's quite obvious that they should be verified for correctness as much as possible with JsTestDriver, but everyone else in my team seems to think that we should be testing the page level Javascript as well. I don't think we should be testing page level Javascript as unit tests, but instead using a system like Selenium to verify everything works as expected. My main reasoning for this is that at the moment, page level Javascript tests are guaranteed to fail through JsTestDriver, because they're trying to access elements on the DOM that can't possibly exist. So, what should be unit tested in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • TestDriven.NET - Free unit test tool for Visual Studio

    - by Guilherme Cardoso
    Developers that use unit testing are familiar with Resharper and his plugin for Unit Testing. For those that like me, don't have a great pc hardware (Pentium 4, 3ghz, 1GB ram) the Resharper can be really slow, and affect the performance of pc. That's why i use TestDriven.NET TestDriven.NET is a freeware license tool (there are others licenses for this product) that gives us the possibility to run unit tests with this plugin, that's integrated with Visual Studio. You can check some screenshots here: http://www.testdriven.net/Screenshots.aspx It's compatible with: NUnit, MbUnit, MSTest, NCover, Reflector, TypeMock, dotTrace and MSBee. More information and free download here: http://www.testdriven.net

    Read the article

  • Next generation Three MiFi unit - call for questions to put to Three

    - by Liam Westley
    I've been invited to a preview of the next generation Three mobile Mi-Fi unit in their London offices this week. If you've got feedback on the current MiFi unit; niggles, wish list items or general feedback, or you've got any questions about what the next generation MiFi unit might be, drop me an e-mail or post a comment with your question on this blog. I'll be taking any questions from my blog or my twitter account @westleyl to Three, and if I get an answer I can publish, I'll add to this blog post with the details. Thanks Liam

    Read the article

  • Best approach for unit enemy "awareness" in RTS?

    - by Phil
    I'm using Unity3d to develop an RTS/TD hybrid prototype game. What is the best approach to have "awareness" between units and their enemies? Is it sane to have every unit check the distance to every enemy and engage if within range? The approach I'm going for right now is to have a trigger sphere on every unit. If an enemy enters the trigger, the unit becomes aware of the enemy and starts distance checking. I'm imagining that this would save some unnecessary checks? What's the best practice here (if there's such a thing)? Thanks for reading.

    Read the article

  • Platform for DS/Gameboy Dev - Managed Memory, Tools, and Unit Testing

    - by ashes999
    I'm interested in dabbling in Nintendo DS, 3DS, or GBA development. I would like to know what my (legal) options for development tools and IDEs are. In particular, I would not consider moving in this direction unless I can find: A programming language that has managed memory (garbage collection) A unit testing tool akin to JUnit, NUnit, etc. for unit tests I would also prefer if other tools exist, like code-coverage, etc. for that platform. But the main thing is managed memory and unit testing. What options are out there?

    Read the article

  • Making Separate Assemblies For Different Types Of Tests For The Same Component?

    - by sooprise
    I was told by a few members here that splitting up my unit tests into different assemblies for different components is the best way to structure unit tests. Now, I have a few questions about that idea. What are the advantages of this? Organization, and isolation of errors? Let's say I have a component named "calculator", and I create an assembly for the unit tests on "calculator". Would I create a separate assembly for the integration tests I want to run on "calculator"? Or is the definition of an integration test a test across multiple components, like "calculator" and whatever else, which would require a separate assembly to test both of them together? In that case, would I have one assembly to do all of the integration testing for every component combination?

    Read the article

  • vim does not preserve symlink over sshfs

    - by HighCommander4
    I'm having some trouble with symlinks and sshfs. I use the '-o follow_symlinks' option to follow symlinks on the server side, but whenever I edit a symlinked file on the client side with vim, a copy of it is made on the server side, i.e. it's no longer a symlink. Set up a symlink on the server side: me@machine1:~$ echo foo > test.txt me@machine1:~$ mkdir test me@machine1:~$ cd test me@machine1:~/test$ ln -s ../test.txt test.txt me@machine1:~/test$ ls -al test.txt lrwxrwxrwx 1 me me 11 Jan 5 21:13 test.txt -> ../test.txt me@machine1:~/test$ cat test.txt foo me@machine1:~/test$ cat ../test.txt foo So far so good. Now: me@machine2:~$ mkdir test me@machine2:~$ sshfs me@machine1:test test -o follow_symlinks me@machine2:~$ cd test me@machine2:~/test$ vim test.txt [in vim, add a new line "bar" to the file] me@machine2:~/test$ cat test.txt foo bar Now observe what this does to the file on the server side: me@machine1:~/test$ ls -al test.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 me me 19 Jan 5 21:24 test.txt me@machine1:~/test$ cat test.txt foo bar me@machine1:~/test$ cat ../test.txt foo As you can see, it made a copy and only edited the copy. How can I get it to work so it actually follows the symlink when editing the file?

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to test using grails using IDEA?

    - by egervari
    I am seriously having a very non-pleasant time testing using Grails. I will describe my experience, and I'd like to know if there's a better way. The first problem I have with testing is that Grails doesn't give immediate feedback to the developer when .save() fails inside of an integration test. So let's say you have a domain class with 12 fields, and 1 of them is violating a constraint and you don't know it when you create the instance... it just doesn't save. Naturally, the test code afterward is going to fail. This is most troublesome because the thingy under test is probably fine... and the real risk and pain is the setup code for the test itself. So, I've tried to develop the habit of using .save(failOnError: true) to avoid this problem, but that's not something that can be easily enforced by everyone working on the project... and it's kind of bloaty. It'd be nice to turn this on for code that is running as part of a unit test automatically. Integration Tests run slow. I cannot understand how 1 integration test that saves 1 object takes 15-20 seconds to run. With some careful test planning, I've been able to get 1000 tests talking to an actual database and doing dbunit dumps after every test to happen in about the same time! This is dumb. It is hard to run all the unit tests and not integration tests in IDEA. Integration tests are a massive pain. Idea actually shows a GREEN BAR when integration tests fail. The output given by grails indicates that something failed, but it doesn't say what it was. It says to look in the test reports... which forces the developer to launch up their file system to hunt the stupid html file down. What a pain. Then once you got the html file and click to the failing test, it'll tell you a line number. Since these reports are not in the IDE, you can't just click the stack trace to go to that line of code... you gotta go back and find it yourself. ARGGH!@!@! Maybe people put up with this, but I refuse. Testing should not be this painful. It should be fast and painless, or people won't do it. Please help. What is the solution? Rails instead of Grails? Something else entirely? I love the Grails framework, but they never demo their testing for a reason. They have a snazzy framework, but the testing is painful. After having used Scala for the last 1.5 months, and being totally spoiled by ScalaTest... I can't go back to this.

    Read the article

  • Eclipse JUnit Plugin Test very slow to re-execute Test Suite on Windows

    - by soundasleepful
    I'm having an odd, and stressing, problem with running a large JUnit Plugin test suite in Eclipse. When I try to re-run a JUnit plugin suite that has just been executed, Eclipse hangs for quite some time before it eventually wakes up and launches. It can take up to 5 minutes sometimes, and increases with the size of the suite. Visually, it appears as a GC cleanup, except that I have plenty of GC space available (400 MB freely allocated). The size of the workspace that is has to delete is well under 1 GB, and there are not too many files - definitely less than 20,000. While I was waiting for a new run to start, I decided to manually kill explorer.exe to see if it had any effect. Surprisingly, Eclipse instantly fell out of its freeze and ran as normal. This makes me think that Windows is somehow interfering with the deletion of these workspace files. They're not being put into the Recycle Bin though. The workspace is in C: which I think is out of the range of any workspace/domain stuff. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How to feature-detect/test for specific jQuery (and Javascript) methods/functions used

    - by Zildjoms
    good day everyone, hope yer all doin awesome am very new to javascript and jquery, and i (think) i have come up with a simple fade-in/out implementation on a site am workin on (check out http://www.s5ent.com/expandjs.html - if you have the time to check it for inefficiency or what that'd be real sweet). i use the following functions/methods/collections and i would like to do a feature test before using them. uhm.. how? or is there a better way to go about this? jQuery $ .fadeIn([duration]) .fadeOut([duration]) .attr(attributeName,value) .append(content) .each(function(index,Element)) .css(propertyName,value) .hover(handlerIn(eventObject),handlerOut(eventObject)) .stop([clearQueue],[jumpToEnd]) .parent() .eq(index) JavaScript setInterval(expression,timeout) clearInterval(timeoutId) setTimeout(expression,timeout) clearTimeout(timeoutId) i tried looking into jquery.support for the jquery ones, but i find myself running into conceptual problems with it, i.e. for fadein/fadeout, i (think i) should test for $.support.opacity, but that would be false in ie whereas ie6+ could still fairly render the fades. also am using jquery 1.2.6 coz that's enough for what i need. the support object is in 1.3. so i'm hoping to avoid dragging-in more unnecessary code if i can. i also worked with browser sniffing, no matter how frowned-upon. but that's also a bigger problem for me because of non-standard ua strings and spoofing and everything else am not aware of. so how do you guys think i should go about this? or should i even? is there a better way to go about making sure that i don't run code that'll eventually break the page? i've set it up to degrade into a css hover when javascript ain't there.. expertise needed. much appreciated, thanks guyz!

    Read the article

  • How do I test database-related code with NUnit?

    - by Michael Haren
    I want to write unit tests with NUnit that hit the database. I'd like to have the database in a consistent state for each test. I thought transactions would allow me to "undo" each test so I searched around and found several articles from 2004-05 on the topic: http://weblogs.asp.net/rosherove/archive/2004/07/12/180189.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/rosherove/archive/2004/10/05/238201.aspx http://davidhayden.com/blog/dave/archive/2004/07/12/365.aspx http://haacked.com/archive/2005/12/28/11377.aspx These seem to resolve around implementing a custom attribute for NUnit which builds in the ability to rollback DB operations after each test executes. That's great but... Does this functionality exists somewhere in NUnit natively? Has this technique been improved upon in the last 4 years? Is this still the best way to test database-related code? Edit: it's not that I want to test my DAL specifically, it's more that I want to test pieces of my code that interact with the database. For these tests to be "no-touch" and repeatable, it'd be awesome if I could reset the database after each one. Further, I want to ease this into an existing project that has no testing place at the moment. For that reason, I can't practically script up a database and data from scratch for each test.

    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

  • How fast are my services? Comparing basicHttpBinding and ws2007HttpBinding using the SO-Aware Test Workbench

    - by gsusx
    When working on real world WCF solutions, we become pretty aware of the performance implications of the binding and behavior configuration of WCF services. However, whether it’s a known fact the different binding and behavior configurations have direct reflections on the performance of WCF services, developers often struggle to figure out the real performance behavior of the services. We can attribute this to the lack of tools for correctly testing the performance characteristics of WCF services...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Differences between software testing processes and techniques?

    - by Aptos
    I get confused between these terms. For examples, should Unit testing be listed as a software testing process or technique? I think unit testing is a software testing technique. And how about Test driven development? Can you give me some examples for software testing processes and techniques? In my opinion, software testing process is a part of the software development life cycle. For example, if we use V-Model, the software testing process will be System test, Acceptance test, Integration Test... Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Bug in Delphi XE RegularExpressions Unit

    - by Jan Goyvaerts
    Using the new RegularExpressions unit in Delphi XE, you can iterate over all the matches that a regex finds in a string like this: procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject); var RegEx: TRegEx; Match: TMatch; begin RegEx := TRegex.Create('\w+'); Match := RegEx.Match('One two three four'); while Match.Success do begin Memo1.Lines.Add(Match.Value); Match := Match.NextMatch; end end; Or you could save yourself two lines of code by using the static TRegEx.Match call: procedure TForm1.Button2Click(Sender: TObject); var Match: TMatch; begin Match := TRegEx.Match('One two three four', '\w+'); while Match.Success do begin Memo1.Lines.Add(Match.Value); Match := Match.NextMatch; end end; Unfortunately, due to a bug in the RegularExpressions unit, the static call doesn’t work. Depending on your exact code, you may get fewer matches or blank matches than you should, or your application may crash with an access violation. The RegularExpressions unit defines TRegEx and TMatch as records. That way you don’t have to explicitly create and destroy them. Internally, TRegEx uses TPerlRegEx to do the heavy lifting. TPerlRegEx is a class that needs to be created and destroyed like any other class. If you look at the TRegEx source code, you’ll notice that it uses an interface to destroy the TPerlRegEx instance when TRegEx goes out of scope. Interfaces are reference counted in Delphi, making them usable for automatic memory management. The bug is that TMatch and TGroupCollection also need the TPerlRegEx instance to do their work. TRegEx passes its TPerlRegEx instance to TMatch and TGroupCollection, but it does not pass the instance of the interface that is responsible for destroying TPerlRegEx. This is not a problem in our first code sample. TRegEx stays in scope until we’re done with TMatch. The interface is destroyed when Button1Click exits. In the second code sample, the static TRegEx.Match call creates a local variable of type TRegEx. This local variable goes out of scope when TRegEx.Match returns. Thus the reference count on the interface reaches zero and TPerlRegEx is destroyed when TRegEx.Match returns. When we call MatchAgain the TMatch record tries to use a TPerlRegEx instance that has already been destroyed. To fix this bug, delete or rename the two RegularExpressions.dcu files and copy RegularExpressions.pas into your source code folder. Make these changes to both the TMatch and TGroupCollection records in this unit: Declare FNotifier: IInterface; in the private section. Add the parameter ANotifier: IInterface; to the Create constructor. Assign FNotifier := ANotifier; in the constructor’s implementation. You also need to add the ANotifier: IInterface; parameter to the TMatchCollection.Create constructor. Now try to compile some code that uses the RegularExpressions unit. The compiler will flag all calls to TMatch.Create, TGroupCollection.Create and TMatchCollection.Create. Fix them by adding the ANotifier or FNotifier parameter, depending on whether ARegEx or FRegEx is being passed. With these fixes, the TPerlRegEx instance won’t be destroyed until the last TRegEx, TMatch, or TGroupCollection that uses it goes out of scope or is used with a different regular expression.

    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

  • SQL Server Unit Testing with tSQLt

    When one considers the amount of time and effort that Unit Testing consumes for the Database Developer, is surprising how few good SQL Server Test frameworks are around. tSQLt , which is open source and free to use, is one of the frameworks that provide a simple way to populate a table with test data as part of the unit test, and check the results with what should be expected. Sebastian Meine and Dennis Lloyd, who created tSQLt, explain

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Unit Testing with tSQLt

    When one considers the amount of time and effort that Unit Testing consumes for the Database Developer, is surprising how few good SQL Server Test frameworks are around. tSQLt , which is open source and free to use, is one of the frameworks that provide a simple way to populate a table with test data as part of the unit test, and check the results with what should be expected. Sebastian and Dennis, who created tSQLt, explain.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >