Search Results

Search found 5783 results on 232 pages for 'translation unit'.

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 39/232 | < Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >

  • How to organize unit/integration test in BDD

    - by whatf
    So finally after reading a lot, I have understood that the difference between BDD and TDD is between T & B. But coming from basic TDD background, what I used to was, first write unittest for database models write test for views (at this point start with integration test as well, along with unittests) write more integration tests for testing UI stuff. What would be a correct way to approach BDD. Say I have a simple blog application. Given : When a user logs in. He should be shown list of all his posts. But for this, I need a model with a row user, another row blog posts. So how do we go about writing tests? when do we create fixtures? When do we write integration (selenium) tests?

    Read the article

  • Are there any formal approaches for familiarising oneself with a new or legacy codebase? [closed]

    - by codecowboy
    Possible Duplicate: How do you dive into large code bases? As a contractor, I often encounter legacy codebases which might have little or no supporting documentation. Are there any techniques or best practices? I work with PHP and web applications, though also face situations in which I have to edit code in an unfamiliar language. How can I leave a codebase in better shape, learn something along the way and impress the team I'm working with?

    Read the article

  • Assignments in mock return values

    - by zerkms
    (I will show examples using php and phpunit but this may be applied to any programming language) The case: let's say we have a method A::foo that delegates some work to class M and returns the value as-is. Which of these solutions would you choose: $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue('baz')); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals('baz', $obj->foo()); or $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue($result = 'baz')); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals($result, $obj->foo()); or $result = 'baz'; $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue($result)); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals($result, $obj->foo()); Personally I always follow the 2nd solution, but just 10 minutes ago I had a conversation with couple of developers who said that it is "too tricky" and chose 3rd or 1st. So what would you usually do? And do you have any conventions to follow in such cases?

    Read the article

  • Does it make sense to write tests for legacy code when there is no time for a complete refactoring?

    - by is4
    I usually try to follow the advice of the book Working Effectively with Legacy Code. I break dependencies, move parts of the code to @VisibleForTesting public static methods and to new classes to make the code (or at least some part of it) testable. And I write tests to make sure that I don't break anything when I'm modifying or adding new functions. A colleague says that I shouldn't do this. His reasoning: The original code might not work properly in the first place. And writing tests for it makes future fixes and modifications harder since devs have to understand and modify the tests too. If it's GUI code with some logic (~12 lines, 2-3 if/else block, for example), a test isn't worth the trouble since the code is too trivial to begin with. Similar bad patterns could exist in other parts of the codebase, too (which I haven't seen yet, I'm rather new); it will be easier to clean them all up in one big refactoring. Extracting out logic could undermine this future possibility. Should I avoid extracting out testable parts and writing tests if we don't have time for complete refactoring? Is there any disadvantage to this that I should consider?

    Read the article

  • test coverage reality

    - by iPhoneDeveloper
    I am NOT doing test driven development and I write my test classes after the actual code is written. In my current project I have a test coverage of(Line coverage) %70 for 3000 lines of Java code.(Using JUnit, Mockito and Sonar for testing) But while I feel actually I am not covering and catching %70 of the problems that can occur. So my question is in theory is that possible to have a %100 Line coverage but in reality it is meaningless because of low quality of the test code and maybe a %40 well written test code is much better than a bad %100 coverage? or we can always say line coverage more or less gives the percentage of all covered issues?

    Read the article

  • "TDD is about design, not verification"; concretely, what does that mean?

    - by sigo
    I've been wondering about this. What do we exactly mean by design and verification. Should I just apply TDD to make sure my code is SOLID and not check if it's external behaviour is correct? Should I use BDD for verifying the behaviour is correct? Where I get confused also is regarding TDD code Katas, to me they looked like more about verification than design; shouldn't they be called BDD Katas instead of TDD Katas? I reckon that for example the Uncle Bob bowling Kata leads in the end to a simple and nice internal design but I felt that most of the process was centred more around verification than design. Design seemed to be a side effect of testing the external behaviour incrementally. I didn't feel so much that we were focusing most of our efforts on design but more on verification. While normally we are told the contrary, that in TDD, verification is a side effect, design is the main purpose. So my question is what should I focus on exactly, when I do TDD: SOLID, external API usability, or something else? And how can I do that without being focused on verification? What do you guys focus your energy on when you are practising TDD?

    Read the article

  • How do functional languages handle a mocking situation when using Interface based design?

    - by Programmin Tool
    Typically in C# I use dependency injection to help with mocking; public void UserService { public UserService(IUserQuery userQuery, IUserCommunicator userCommunicator, IUserValidator userValidator) { UserQuery = userQuery; UserValidator = userValidator; UserCommunicator = userCommunicator; } ... public UserResponseModel UpdateAUserName(int userId, string userName) { var result = UserValidator.ValidateUserName(userName) if(result.Success) { var user = UserQuery.GetUserById(userId); if(user == null) { throw new ArgumentException(); user.UserName = userName; UserCommunicator.UpdateUser(user); } } ... } ... } public class WhenGettingAUser { public void AndTheUserDoesNotExistThrowAnException() { var userQuery = Substitute.For<IUserQuery>(); userQuery.GetUserById(Arg.Any<int>).Returns(null); var userService = new UserService(userQuery); AssertionExtensions.ShouldThrow<ArgumentException>(() => userService.GetUserById(-121)); } } Now in something like F#: if I don't go down the hybrid path, how would I test workflow situations like above that normally would touch the persistence layer without using Interfaces/Mocks? I realize that every step above would be tested on its own and would be kept as atomic as possible. Problem is that at some point they all have to be called in line, and I'll want to make sure everything is called correctly.

    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

  • Should the test and the fix be written by different people?

    - by Nutel
    There is a common practice in TDD to write a test before fix to avoid regression and simplify fixing. I just wonder what if the test and fix will be written by different people, total spent time will be almost the same but as now three people will think about possible failures (+tester) we increase probability that fix will cover all possible failure scenarios. Does this practice make sense or it will just waste additional time needed for one more person to familiarize with bug?

    Read the article

  • If you should only have one assertion per test; how to test multiple inputs?

    - by speg
    I'm trying to build up some test cases, and have read that you should try and limit the number of assertions per test case. So my question is, what is the best way to go about testing a function w/ multiple inputs. For example, I have a function that parses a string from the user and returns the number of minutes. The string can be in the form "5w6h2d1m", where w, h, d, m correspond to the number of weeks, hours, days, and minutes. If I wanted to follow the '1 assertion per test rule' I'd have to make multiple tests for each variation of input? That seems silly so instead I just have something like: self.assertEqual(parse_date('5m'), 5) self.assertEqual(parse_date('5h'), 300) self.assertEqual(parse_date('5d') ,7200) self.assertEqual(parse_date('1d4h20m'), 1700) In the one test case. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Using NSpec at various architectural layers

    - by nono
    Having read the quick start at nspec.org, I realized that NSpec might be a useful tool in a scenario which was becoming a bit cumbersome with NUnit alone. I'm adding an OAuth (or, DotNetOpenAuth) to a website and quickly made a mess of writing test methods such as [Test] public void UserIsLoggedInLocallyPriorToInvokingExternalLoginAndExternalLoginSucceedsAndExternalProviderIdIsNotAlreadyAssociatedWithUserAccount() { ... } ... and I wound up with maybe a dozen permutations of this theme, for the user already being logged in locally and not locally, the external login succeeding or failing, etc. Not only were the method names unwieldy, but every test needed a setup that contained parts in common with a different set of other tests. I realized that NSpec's incremental setup capabilities would work great for this, and for a while I was trucking a long wonderfully, with code like act = () => { actionResult = controller.ExternalLoginCallback(returnUrl); }; context["The user is already logged in"] = () => { before = () => identity.Setup(x => x.IsAuthenticated).Returns(true); context["The external login succeeds"] = () => { before = () => oauth.Setup(x => x.VerifyAuthentication(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(new AuthenticationResult(true, providerName, "provideruserid", "username", new Dictionary<string, string>())); context["External login already exists for current user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Should add 'login sucessful' alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("Login successful"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Success); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; context["External login already exists for another user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForAnyOtherUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Adds an error alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("The external login you requested is already associated with a different user account"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Error); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; This approach seemed to work magnificently until I prepared to write test code for my ApplicationServices layer, to which I delegate viewmodel manipulation from my MVC controllers, and which coordinates the operations of the lower data repository layer: public void CreateUserAccountFromExternalLogin(RegisterExternalLoginModel model) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void AssociateExternalLoginWithUser(string userName, string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public string GetLocalUserName(string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } I have no idea what in the world to name the test class, the test methods, or even if I should perhaps include the testing for this layer into the test class from my large code snippet above, so that a single feature or user action could be tested without regard to architectural layering. I can't find any tutorials or blog posts which cover more than simple examples, so I would appreciate any recommendations or pointing in the right direction. I would even welcome "your question is invalid"-type answers as long as some explanation is provided.

    Read the article

  • Unittest test case only touches the file name

    - by Chen OT
    I was told that unittest is fast and the tests which touches DB, across network, and touches FileSystem are not unittest. In one of my testcases, its input are the file names (amount about 300~400) under a specific folder. Although these input are part of file system, the execution time of this test is very fast. Should I moved this test, which is fast but touches file system, to higher level test?

    Read the article

  • How to implement isValid correctly?

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to provide a mechanism for validating my object like this: class SomeObject { private $_inputString; private $_errors=array(); public function __construct($inputString) { $this->_inputString = $inputString; } public function getErrors() { return $this->_errors; } public function isValid() { $isValid = preg_match("/Some regular expression here/", $this->_inputString); if($isValid==0){ $this->_errors[]= 'Error was found in the input'; } return $isValid==1; } } Then when I'm testing my code I'm doing it like this: $obj = new SomeObject('an INVALID input string'); $isValid = $obj->isValid(); $errors=$obj->getErrors(); $this->assertFalse($isValid); $this->assertNotEmpty($errors); Now the test passes correctly, but I noticed a design problem here. What if the user called $obj->getErrors() before calling $obj->isValid()? The test will fail because the user has to validate the object first before checking the error resulting from validation. I think this way the user depends on a sequence of action to work properly which I think is a bad thing because it exposes the internal behaviour of the class. How do I solve this problem? Should I tell the user explicitly to validate first? Where do I mention that? Should I change the way I validate? Is there a better solution for this? UPDATE: I'm still developing the class so changes are easy and renaming functions and refactoring them is possible.

    Read the article

  • Using Cpp Unit with visual studio 2010 [closed]

    - by Deepak
    I have downloaded "cppunit-cvs-repo-archive.tar.bz2" from http://sourceforge.net/projects/cppunit/ Now after unzipping the above .tar.bz2 what to do next? On searching on internet, it is mentioned that open the CppUnitLibraries.dsw project under cppunit-cvs-repo-archive\cppunit\src folder but the same file is existing with name "CppUnitLibraries.dsw,v" and on changing its extension to .dsw and on opening again it displays the message invalid project file.

    Read the article

  • I want to start using TDD. Any tips for a beginner?

    - by Mike42
    I never used an automated test mechanism in any of my projects and I feel I'm missing a lot. I want to improve myself, so I have to start tackling some issues I've been neglecting like this and trying Git instead of being stuck on SVN. What's a good way to learn TDD? I'll probably be using Eclipse to program in Java. I've heard of JUnit, but I don't know if there's anything else I should consider.

    Read the article

  • Is the test, which touches the filenames under directory, a kind of unittest? [on hold]

    - by Chen OT
    I was told that unittest is fast and the tests which touches DB, across network, and touches FileSystem are not unittest. In one of my testcases, its input are the file names (amount about 300~400) under a specific folder. Although these input are part of file system, the execution time of this test is very fast. Should I moved this test, which is fast but touches file system, to higher level test?

    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

  • Coded UI Test Method failed inconsistently

    - by Sunitha M
    The following exception failing my UI automation test. Message: Test method CodedUITestMethod1 throw exception: The playback failed to find the control with the given search properties. Additional Details: TechnologyName: 'UIA' ControlType: 'MenuItem' Name: 'MyViewModel' ---> system.runtime.interopservices.comexception error hresult e_fail has been returned from a call to a COM component please any one give me a solution for these type of exceptions.

    Read the article

  • Tips for Making this Code Testable [migrated]

    - by Jesse Bunch
    So I'm writing an abstraction layer that wraps a telephony RESTful service for sending text messages and making phone calls. I should build this in such a way that the low-level provider, in this case Twilio, can be easily swapped without having to re-code the higher level interactions. I'm using a package that is pre-built for Twilio and so I'm thinking that I need to create a wrapper interface to standardize the interaction between the Twilio service package and my application. Let us pretend that I cannot modify this pre-built package. Here is what I have so far (in PHP): <?php namespace Telephony; class Provider_Twilio implements Provider_Interface { public function send_sms(Provider_Request_SMS $request) { if (!$request->is_valid()) throw new Provider_Exception_InvalidRequest(); $sms = \Twilio\Twilio::request('SmsMessage'); $response = $sms->create(array( 'To' => $request->to, 'From' => $request->from, 'Body' => $request->body )); if ($this->_did_request_fail($response)) { throw new Provider_Exception_RequestFailed($response->message); } $response = new Provider_Response_SMS(TRUE); return $response; } private function _did_request_fail($api_response) { return isset($api_response->status); } } So the idea is that I can write another file like this for any other telephony service provided that it implements Provider_Interface making them swappable. Here are my questions: First off, do you think this is a good design? How could it be improved? Second, I'm having a hard time testing this because I need to mock out the Twilio package so that I'm not actually depending on Twilio's API for my tests to pass or fail. Do you see any strategy for mocking this out? Thanks in advance for any advice!

    Read the article

  • What license to use for translations of open source software

    - by vividos
    I'm writing an open source software that is licensed under the GPL. Now I'm offering that other users can translate the software, starting from an english translation I made by myself. What license or range of license may be best for translation of text strings, dialogs, etc.? As GPL is a software license, I thought about a Creative Commons license. The goal is so that all translations remain free and may be updated by other translators.

    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 | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >