Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 38/1052 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

  • What are the design principles that promote testable code? (designing testable code vs driving design through tests)

    - by bot
    Most of the projects that I work on consider development and unit testing in isolation which makes writing unit tests at a later instance a nightmare. My objective is to keep testing in mind during the high level and low level design phases itself. I want to know if there are any well defined design principles that promote testable code. One such principle that I have come to understand recently is Dependency Inversion through Dependency injection and Inversion of Control. I have read that there is something known as SOLID. I want to understand if following the SOLID principles indirectly results in code that is easily testable? If not, are there any well-defined design principles that promote testable code? I am aware that there is something known as Test Driven Development. Although, I am more interested in designing code with testing in mind during the design phase itself rather than driving design through tests. I hope this makes sense. One more question related to this topic is whether it's alright to re-factor an existing product/project and make changes to code and design for the purpose of being able to write a unit test case for each module?

    Read the article

  • GWT: Best practice for unit testing / mocking JSNI methods?

    - by Epaga
    I have a class which uses JSNI to retrieve JSON data stored in the host page: protected native JsArray<JsonModel> getModels() /*-{ return $wnd.jsonData; }-*/; This method is called, and the data is then translated and process in a different method. How should I unit test this class, since I'm not able to instantiate (or seemingly mock?) JsArray? What is the best way to unit test JSNI methods at all?

    Read the article

  • How to get Eclipse + PyDev + App Engine + Unit testing to work?

    - by PEZ
    I want to run my unit tests for a Python Google App Engine project using Run As = Python unit-test But when I try that all my Model tests bail with the error message: BadArgumentError: app must not be empty. Anyone got this to work? NB: The tests runs fine using Nose --with-gae. But I want the PyDev integration with hyperlinking of resources and such.

    Read the article

  • How can I get "Copy to Output Directory" to work with Unit Tests?

    - by spoon16
    When I build a unit test project before the tests are executed the test output is copied to a TestResults folder and then the tests are executed. The issue I'm having is that not all the files in the Debug/bin directory are copied to the TestResults project. How can I get a file that is copied to the Debug/bin directory to also be copied to the TestResults folder? EDIT: Here is a link to a similar question on another site (no answer there though), http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/aspnet/29316967/files-and-unit-testing-wi.aspx

    Read the article

  • How to unit test private methods in BDD / TDD?

    - by robert_d
    I am trying to program according to Behavior Driven Development, which states that no line of code should be written without writing failing unit test first. My question is, how to use BDD with private methods? How can I unit test private methods? Is there better solution than: - making private methods public first and then making them private when I write public method that uses those private methods; or - in C# making all private methods internal and using InternalsVisibleTo attribute. Robert

    Read the article

  • What is a really simple explanation of unit testing?

    - by ensnare
    I've never done any unit testing before, and would like to learn what it is and how it can be useful in my Python code. I've read through a few Python unit testing tutorials online but they're all so complicated and assume an extended programming background. I'm using Python with Pylons to create a simple web app. Any simple examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to know if your Unit Test is "right-sized"?

    - by leeand00
    One thing that I've always noticed with my unit tests is that they get to be kind of verbose; seeing as they could also be not verbose enough, how do you get a sense of when your unit tests are the right size? I know of a good quote for this and it's: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to remove." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

    Read the article

  • C++ - Is it possible to implement memory leak testing in a unit test?

    - by sevaxx
    I'm trying to implement unit testing for my code and I'm having a hard time doing it. Ideally I would like to test some classes not only for good functionality but also for proper memory allocation/deallocation. I wonder if this check can be done using a unit testing framework. I am using Visual Assert btw. I would love to see some sample code , if possible !

    Read the article

  • Auto Mocking using JustMock

    - by mehfuzh
    Auto mocking containers are designed to reduce the friction of keeping unit test beds in sync with the code being tested as systems are updated and evolve over time. This is one sentence how you define auto mocking. Of course this is a more or less formal. In a more informal way auto mocking containers are nothing but a tool to keep your tests synced so that you don’t have to go back and change tests every time you add a new dependency to your SUT or System Under Test. In Q3 2012 JustMock is shipped with built in auto mocking container. This will help developers to have all the existing fun they are having with JustMock plus they can now mock object with dependencies in a more elegant way and without needing to do the homework of managing the graph. If you are not familiar with auto mocking then I won't go ahead and educate you rather ask you to do so from contents that is already made available out there from community as this is way beyond the scope of this post. Moving forward, getting started with Justmock auto mocking is pretty simple. First, I have to reference Telerik.JustMock.Container.DLL from the installation folder along with Telerik.JustMock.DLL (of course) that it uses internally and next I will write my tests with mocking container. It's that simple! In this post first I will mock the target with dependencies using current method and going forward do the same with auto mocking container. In short the sample is all about a report builder that will go through all the existing reports, send email and log any exception in that process. This is somewhat my  report builder class looks like: Reporter class depends on the following interfaces: IReporBuilder: used to  create and get the available reports IReportSender: used to send the reports ILogger: used to log any exception. Now, if I just write the test without using an auto mocking container it might end up something like this: Now, it looks fine. However, the only issue is that I am creating the mock of each dependency that is sort of a grunt work and if you have ever changing list of dependencies then it becomes really hard to keep the tests in sync. The typical example is your ASP.NET MVC controller where the number of service dependencies grows along with the project. The same test if written with auto mocking container would look like: Here few things to observe: I didn't created mock for each dependencies There is no extra step creating the Reporter class and sending in the dependencies Since ILogger is not required for the purpose of this test therefore I can be completely ignorant of it. How cool is that ? Auto mocking in JustMock is just released and we also want to extend it even further using profiler that will let me resolve not just interfaces but concrete classes as well. But that of course starts the debate of code smell vs. working with legacy code. Feel free to send in your expert opinion in that regard using one of telerik’s official channels. Hope that helps

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing TSQL

    - by Grant Fritchey
    I went through a period of time where I spent a lot of effort figuring out how to set up unit tests for TSQL. It wasn't easy. There are a few tools out there that help, but mostly it involves lots of programming. well, not as much as before. Thanks to the latest Down Tools Week at Red Gate a new utility has been built and released into the wild, SQL Test. Like a lot of the new tools coming out of Red Gate these days, this one is directly integrated into SSMS, which means you're working where you're comfortable and where you already have lots of tools at your disposal. After the install, when you launch SSMS and get connected, you're prompted to install the tSQLt example database. Go for it. It's a quick way to see how the tool works. I'd suggest using it. It' gives you a quick leg up. The concepts are pretty straight forward. There are a series of CLR commands that you use to configure a test and the test assertions. In between you're calling TSQL, either calls to your structure, queries, or stored procedures. They already have the one things that I always found wanting in database tests, a way to compare tables of results. I also like the ability to create a dummy copy of tables for the tests. It lets you control structures and behaviors so that the tests are more focused. One of the issues I always ran into with the other testing tools is that setting up the tests might require potentially destructive changes to the structure of the database (dropping FKs, etc.) which added lots of time and effort to setting up the tests, making testing more difficult, and therefor, less useful. Functionally, this is pretty similar to the Visual Studio tests and TSQLUnit tests that I used to use. The primary improvement over the Visual Studio tests is that I'm working in SSMS instead of Visual Studio. The primary improvement over TSQLUnit is the SQL Test interface it self. A lot of the functionality is the same, but having a sweet little tool to manage & run the tests from makes a huge difference. Oh, and don't worry. You can still run these tests directly from TSQL too, so automation has not gone away. I'm still thinking about how I'd use this in a dev environment where I also had source control to fret. That might be another blog post right there. I'm just getting started with SQL Test, so this is the first of several blog posts & videos. Watch this space. Try the tool.

    Read the article

  • What arguments can I use to "sell" the BDD concept to a team reluctant to adopt it?

    - by S.Robins
    I am a bit of a vocal proponent of the BDD methodology. I've been applying BDD for a couple of years now, and have adopted StoryQ as my framework of choice when developing DotNet applications. Even though I have been unit testing for many years, and had previously shifted to a test-first approach, I've found that I get much more value out of using a BDD framework, because my tests capture the intent of the requirements in relatively clear English within my code, and because my tests can execute multiple assertions without ending the test halfway through - meaning I can see which specific assertions pass/fail at a glance without debugging to prove it. This has really been the tip of the iceberg for me, as I've also noticed that I am able to debug both test and implementation code in a more targeted manner, with the result that my productivity has grown significantly, and that I can more easily determine where a failure occurs if a problem happens to make it all the way to the integration build due to the output that makes its way into the build logs. Further, the StoryQ api has a lovely fluent syntax that is easy to learn and which can be applied in an extraordinary number of ways, requiring no external dependencies in order to use it. So with all of these benefits, you would think it an easy to introduce the concept to the rest of the team. Unfortunately, the other team members are reluctant to even look at StoryQ to evaluate it properly (let alone entertain the idea of applying BDD), and have convinced each other to try and remove a number of StoryQ elements from our own core testing framework, even though they originally supported the use of StoryQ, and that it doesn't impact on any other part of our testing system. Doing so would end up increasing my workload significantly overall and really goes against the grain, as I am convinced through practical experience that it is a better way to work in a test-first manner in our particular working environment, and can only lead to greater improvements in the quality of our software, given I've found it easier to stick with test first using BDD. So the question really comes down to the following: What arguments can I use to really drive the point home that it would be better to use StoryQ, or at the very least apply the BDD methodology? Can you point me to any anecdotal evidence that I can use to support my argument to adopt BDD as our standard method of choice? What counter arguments can you think of that could suggest that my wish to convert the team efforts to BDD might be in error? Yes, I'm happy to be proven wrong provided the argument is a sound one. NOTE: I am not advocating that we rewrite our tests in their entirety, but rather to simply start working in a different manner for all future testing work.

    Read the article

  • Sneak peek at next generation Three MiFi unit – Huawei E585

    - by Liam Westley
    Last Wednesday I was fortunate to be invited to a sneak preview of the next generation Three MiFi unit, the Huawei E585. Many thanks to all those who posted questions both via this blog or via @westleyl on Twitter. I think I made sure I asked every question posed to the MiFi product manager from Three UK, and so here's the answers you were after. What is a MiFi? For those who are wondering, a MiFi unit is a 3G broadband modem combined with a WiFi access point, providing 3G broadband data access to up to five devices simultaneously via standard WiFi connections. What is different? It appears the prime task of enhancing the MiFi was to improve the user experience and user interface, both in terms of the device hardware and within the management software to configure the device.  I think this was a very sensible decision as these areas had substantial room for improvement. Single button operation to switch on, enable WiFi and connect to 3G Improved OELD display (see below), replacing the multi coloured LEDs; including signal strength, SMS notifications, the number of connected clients and data usage Management is via a web based dashboard accessible from any web browser. This is a big win for those running Linux, Mac OS/X, iPad users and, for me, as I can now configure the device from Windows 7 64-bit Charging is via micro USB, the new standard for small USB devices; you cannot use your old charger for the new MiFi unit Automatic reconnection when regaining a signal Improved charging time, which should allow recharging of the device when in use Although subjective, the black and silver design does look more classy than the silver and white plastic of the original MiFi What is the same? Virtually the same size and weight The battery is the same unit as the original MiFi so you’ll have a handy spare if you upgrade Data plans remain the same as the current MiFi, so cheapest price for upgraders will be £49 pay as you go Still only works on 3G networks, with no fallback to GPRS or EDGE There is no specific upgrade path for existing three customers, either from dongle or from the original MiFi My opinion I think three have concentrated on the correct areas of usability and user experience rather than trying to add new whizz bang technology features which aren’t of interest to mainstream users. The one button operation and the improved device display will make it much easier to use when out and about. If the automatic reconnection proves reliable that will remove a major bugbear that I experienced the previous evening when travelling on the First Great Western line from Paddington to Didcot Parkway.  The signal was repeatedly lost as we sped through tunnels and cuttings, and without automatic reconnection is was a real pain to keep pressing the data button on the MiFi to re-establish my data connection. And finally, the web based dashboard will mean I no longer need to resort to my XP based netbook to configure the SSID and password. My everyday laptop runs Windows 7 64-bit which appears to confuse the older 3 WiFi manager which cannot locate the MiFi when connected. Links to other sites, and other images of the device Good first impressions from Ben Smith, http://thereallymobileproject.com/2010/06/3uk-announce-a-new-mifi-with-a-screen/ Also, a round up of other sneak preview posts, http://www.3mobilebuzz.com/2010/06/11/mifi-round-two-your-view/ Pictures Here is a comparison of the old MiFi device next to the new device, complete with OLED display and the Huawei logo now being a prominent feature on the front of the device. One of my fellow bloggers had a Linux based netbook, showing off the web based dashboard complete with Text messages panel to manage SMS. And finally, I never thought that my blog sub title would ever end up printed onto a cup cake, ... and here's some of the other cup cakes ...

    Read the article

  • Mocking concrete class - Not recommended

    - by Mik378
    I've just read an excerpt of "Growing Object-Oriented Software" book which explains some reasons why mocking concrete class is not recommended. Here some sample code of a unit-test for the MusicCentre class: public class MusicCentreTest { @Test public void startsCdPlayerAtTimeRequested() { final MutableTime scheduledTime = new MutableTime(); CdPlayer player = new CdPlayer() { @Override public void scheduleToStartAt(Time startTime) { scheduledTime.set(startTime); } } MusicCentre centre = new MusicCentre(player); centre.startMediaAt(LATER); assertEquals(LATER, scheduledTime.get()); } } And his first explanation: The problem with this approach is that it leaves the relationship between the objects implicit. I hope we've made clear by now that the intention of Test-Driven Development with Mock Objects is to discover relationships between objects. If I subclass, there's nothing in the domain code to make such a relationship visible, just methods on an object. This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I can't figure out exactly what he means when he says: This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I understand that the service corresponds to MusicCentre's method called startMediaAt. What does he mean by "elsewhere"? The complete excerpt is here: http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-mocking-concrete-classes.html

    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

  • How to refactor a myriad of similar classes

    - by TobiMcNamobi
    I'm faced with similar classes A1, A2, ..., A100. Believe it or not but yeah, there are roughly hundred classes that almost look the same. None of these classes are unit tested (of course ;-) ). Each of theses classes is about 50 lines of code which is not too much by itself. Still this is way too much duplicated code. I consider the following options: Writing tests for A1, ..., A100. Then refactor by creating an abstract base class AA. Pro: I'm (near to totally) safe by the tests that nothing goes wrong. Con: Much effort. Duplication of test code. Writing tests for A1, A2. Abstracting the duplicated test code and using the abstraction to create the rest of the tests. Then create AA as in 1. Pro: Less effort than in 1 but maintaining a similar degree of safety. Con: I find generalized test code weird; it often seems ... incoherent (is this the right word?). Normally I prefer specialized test code for specialized classes. But that requires a good design which is my goal of this whole refactoring. Writing AA first, testing it with mock classes. Then inheriting A1, ..., A100 successively. Pro: Fastest way to eliminate duplicates. Con: Most Ax classes look very much the same. But if not, there is the danger of changing the code by inheriting from AA. Other options ... At first I went for 3. because the Ax classes are really very similar to each other. But now I'm a bit unsure if this is the right way (from a unit testing enthusiast's perspective).

    Read the article

  • Templated function with two type parameters fails compile when used with an error-checking macro

    - by SirPentor
    Because someone in our group hates exceptions (let's not discuss that here), we tend to use error-checking macros in our C++ projects. I have encountered an odd compilation failure when using a templated function with two type parameters. There are a few errors (below), but I think the root cause is a warning: warning C4002: too many actual parameters for macro 'BOOL_CHECK_BOOL_RETURN' Probably best explained in code: #include "stdafx.h" template<class A, class B> bool DoubleTemplated(B & value) { return true; } template<class A> bool SingleTemplated(A & value) { return true; } bool NotTemplated(bool & value) { return true; } #define BOOL_CHECK_BOOL_RETURN(expr) \ do \ { \ bool __b = (expr); \ if (!__b) \ { \ return false; \ } \ } while (false) \ bool call() { bool thing = true; // BOOL_CHECK_BOOL_RETURN(DoubleTemplated<int, bool>(thing)); // Above line doesn't compile. BOOL_CHECK_BOOL_RETURN((DoubleTemplated<int, bool>(thing))); // Above line compiles just fine. bool temp = DoubleTemplated<int, bool>(thing); // Above line compiles just fine. BOOL_CHECK_BOOL_RETURN(SingleTemplated<bool>(thing)); BOOL_CHECK_BOOL_RETURN(NotTemplated(thing)); return true; } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { call(); return 0; } Here are the errors, when the offending line is not commented out: 1>------ Build started: Project: test, Configuration: Debug Win32 ------ 1>Compiling... 1>test.cpp 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(38) : warning C4002: too many actual parameters for macro 'BOOL_CHECK_BOOL_RETURN' 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(38) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ',' before ')' 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(38) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before '{' 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(41) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before '{' 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(48) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before '{' 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(49) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before '{' 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(52) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before '}' 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(54) : error C2065: 'argv' : undeclared identifier 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(54) : error C2059: syntax error : ']' 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(55) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before '{' 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(58) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before '}' 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(60) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before '}' 1>c:\junk\temp\test\test\test.cpp(60) : fatal error C1004: unexpected end-of-file found 1>Build log was saved at "file://c:\junk\temp\test\test\Debug\BuildLog.htm" 1>test - 12 error(s), 1 warning(s) ========== Build: 0 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped ========== Any ideas? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing.... a data provider ?

    - by TomTom
    Given problem: I like unit tests. I develop connectivity software to external systems that pretty much and often use a C++ library The return of this systems is nonndeterministic. Data is received while running, but making sure it is all correctly interpreted is hard. How can I test this properly? I can run a unit test that does a connect. Sadly, it will then process a life data stream. I can say I run the test for 30 or 60 seconds before disconnecting, but getting code ccoverage is impossible - I simply dont even comeclose to get all code paths EVERY ONCE PER DAY (error code paths are rarely run). I also can not really assert every result. Depending on the time of the day we talk of 20.000 data callbacks per second - all of which are not relly determined good enough to validate each of them for consistency. Mocking? Well, that would leave me testing an empty shell of myself because the code handling the events basically is the to be tested case, and in many cases we talk here of a COMPLEX c level structure - hard to have mocking frameworks that integrate from Csharp to C++ Anyone any idea? I am short on giving up using unit tests for this part of the application.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • What does well written, readable tests look like?

    - by Industrial
    Doing unit testing for the first time at a large scale, I find myself writing a lot of repetitive unit tests for my business logic. Sure, to create complete test suites I need to test all possibilities but readability feels compromised doing what I do - as shown in the psuedocode below. How would a well written, readable test suit look like? describe "UserEntity" -> it "valid name validates" ... it "invalid name doesnt validate" ... it "valid list of followers validate" ..

    Read the article

  • Improve Your Database Unit Testing Skills and Win Free Stuff

    As the SQL Developer community grows to embrace the benefits of test-driven development for databases, so the importance of learning to do it properly increases. One way of learning effective TDD is by the use of code kata – short practice sessions that encourage test-first development in baby steps. I have a limited number of licences for SQL Test to give away free – just for practicing a bit of TDD and telling me about it. Keep your database and application development in syncSQL Connect is a Visual Studio add-in that brings your databases into your solution. It then makes it easy to keep your database in sync, and commit to your existing source control system. Find out more.

    Read the article

  • How do I get developers to treat test code as "real" code?

    - by womp
    In the last two companies I've been at, there is an overriding mentality among developers that it's okay to write unit tests in a throw-away style. Code that they would never write in the actual product suddenly becomes OK in the unit tests. I'm talking Rampant copying and pasting between tests Code styling rules not followed Hard-coded magic strings across tests No object-oriented thought or design for integration tests, mocks or helper objects (250 line single-function tests!) .. and so on. I'm highly dissatisfied with the quality of the test code. Generally we do not do code reviews on our test assemblies, and we also do not enforce style or code analysis of them on our build server. Is that the only way to overcome this inertia about test quality? I'm looking for ideas to take to our developers, without having to go to higher management saying that we need to use resources for enforcement of test quality (although I will if I have to). Any thoughts or similar experiences?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >