Search Results

Search found 6281 results on 252 pages for 'automated tests'.

Page 4/252 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Do Repeat Yourself in Unit Tests

    - by João Angelo
    Don’t get me wrong I’m a big supporter of the DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) Principle except however when it comes to unit tests. Why? Well, in my opinion a unit test should be a self-contained group of actions with the intent to test a very specific piece of code and should not depend on externals shared with other unit tests. In a typical unit test we can divide its code in two major groups: Preparation of preconditions for the code under test; Invocation of the code under test. It’s in the first group that you are tempted to refactor common code in several unit tests into helper methods that can then be called in each one of them. Another way to not duplicate code is to use the built-in infrastructure of some unit test frameworks such as SetUp/TearDown methods that automatically run before and after each unit test. I must admit that in the past I was guilty of both charges but what at first seemed a good idea since I was removing code duplication turnout to offer no added value and even complicate the process when a given test fails. We love unit tests because of their rapid feedback when something goes wrong. However, this feedback requires most of the times reading the code for the failed test. Given this, what do you prefer? To read a single method or wander through several methods like SetUp/TearDown and private common methods. I say it again, do repeat yourself in unit tests. It may feel wrong at first but I bet you won’t regret it later.

    Read the article

  • Link between tests and user stories

    - by Sardathrion
    I have not see these links explicitly stated in the Agile literature I have read. So, I was wondering if this approach was correct: Let a story be defined as "In order to [RESULT], [ROLE] needs to [ACTION]" then RESULT generates system tests. ROLE generates acceptance tests. ACTION generates component and unit tests. Where the definitions are the ones used in xUnit Patterns which to be fair are fairly standard. Is this a correct interpretation or did I misunderstand something?

    Read the article

  • Isolating test data in acceptance tests

    - by Matt Phillips
    I'm looking for guidance on how to keep my acceptance tests isolated. Right now the issue I'm having with being able to run the tests in parallel is the database records that are manipulated in the tests. I've written helpers that take care of doing inserts and deletes before tests are executed, to make sure the state is correct. But now I can't run them in parallel against the same database without uniquely generating the test data fields for each test. For example. Testing creating a row i'll delete everything where column A = foo and column B = bar Then I'll navigate through the UI in the test and create a record with column A = foo and column B = bar. Testing that a duplicate row is not allowed to be created. I'll insert a row with column A = foo and column B = bar and then use the UI to try and do the exact same thing. This will display an error message in the UI as expected. These tests work perfectly when ran separately and serially. But I can't run them at the same time for fear that one will create or delete a record the other is expecting. Any tips on how to structure them better so they can be run in parallel?

    Read the article

  • Quality of Code in unit tests?

    - by m3th0dman
    Is it worth to spend time when writing unit tests in order that the code written there has good quality and is very easy to read? When writing this kinds of tests I break very often the Law of Demeter, for faster writing and not using so many variables. Technically, unit tests are not reused directly - are strictly bound to the code so I do not see any reason for spending much time on them; they only need to be functionaly.

    Read the article

  • TDD: Write a separate test for object initialization or relying on other tests exercising it

    - by DXM
    This seems to be the common pattern that's emerging in some of the tests I've worked on lately. We have a class, and quite often this is legacy code whose design can't be easily altered, which has a bunch of member variables. There's some kind of "Initialize" or "Load" function which would put an object into a valid state. Only after it is initialized/loaded, are the members in the proper state so that other methods can be exercised. So when we start writing tests, first test is "TestLoad" and all we put in there is exercising initialization logic. Then we might add one (or few) TestLoadFailureXXX tests and those are definitely valuable. Then we start writing tests to verify other behaviors but all of them require the object to be loaded. So they all start by running exactly the same code as "TestLoad". So my question: Is TestLoad even necessary? Do you take it and let other tests simply exercise the loading? Or leave it so things are more explicit? I know that each unit test function should have no (or as little as possible) overlap with other test functions, but it seems like in cases of loading, this is unavoidable. And whether we like it or not, if something in the loading code breaks, we will end up with a whole test suite of failures. Is there another approach that I might be missing here? Thank you for the responses. It definitely makes sense that you want to see "InitializationTest" and if that fails you know where to start looking. In case it matters, this question is mostly about C++ and we use CppUnit framework. And now, thanks to sleske, I'll be constantly wishing that CppUnit supported test dependencies. Might have to hack something in one of these days :)

    Read the article

  • Rescue overdue offshore projects and convince management to use automated tests

    - by oazabir
    I have published two articles on codeproject recently. One is a story where an offshore project was two months overdue, my friend who runs it was paying the team from his own pocket and he was drowning in ever increasing number of change requests and how we brainstormed together to come out of that situation. Tips and Tricks to rescue overdue projects Next one is about convincing management to go for automated test and give developers extra time per sprint, at the cost of reduced productivity for couple of sprints. It’s hard to negotiate this with even dev leads, let alone managers. Whenever you tell them - there’s going to be less features/bug fixes delivered for next 3 or 4 sprints because we want to automate the tests and reduce manual QA effort; everyone gets furious and kicks you out of the meeting. Especially in a startup where every sprint is jam packed with new features and priority bug fixes to satisfy various stakeholders, including the VCs, it’s very hard to communicate the benefits of automated tests across the board. Let me tell you of a story of one of my startups where I had the pleasure to argue on this and came out victorious. How to convince developers and management to use automated test instead of manual test If you like these, please vote for me!

    Read the article

  • What are the disadvantages of automated testing?

    - by jkohlhepp
    There are a number of questions on this site that give plenty of information about the benefits that can be gained from automated testing. But I didn't see anything that represented the other side of the coin: what are the disadvantages? Everything in life is a tradeoff and there are no silver bullets, so surely there must be some valid reasons not to do automated testing. What are they? Here's a few that I've come up with: Requires more initial developer time for a given feature Requires a higher skill level of team members Increase tooling needs (test runners, frameworks, etc.) Complex analysis required when a failed test in encountered - is this test obsolete due to my change or is it telling me I made a mistake? Edit I should say that I am a huge proponent of automated testing, and I'm not looking to be convinced to do it. I'm looking to understand what the disadvantages are so when I go to my company to make a case for it I don't look like I'm throwing around the next imaginary silver bullet. Also, I'm explicity not looking for someone to dispute my examples above. I am taking as true that there must be some disadvantages (everything has trade-offs) and I want to understand what those are.

    Read the article

  • Security in Robots and Automated Systems

    - by Roger Brinkley
    Alex Dropplinger posted a Freescale blog on Securing Robotics and Automated Systems where she asks the question,“How should we secure robotics and automated systems?”.My first thought on this was duh, make sure your robot is running Java. Java's built-in services for authentication, authorization, encryption/confidentiality, and the like can be leveraged and benefit robotic or autonomous implementations. Leveraging these built-in services and pluggable encryption models of Java makes adding security to an exist bot implementation much easier. But then I thought I should ask an expert on robotics so I fired the question off to Paul Perrone of Perrone Robotics. Paul's build automated vehicles and other forms of embedded devices like auto monitoring of commercial vehicles on highways.He says that most of the works that robots do now are autonomous so it isn't a problem in the short term. But long term projects like collision avoidance technology in automobiles are going to require it.Some of the work he's doing with his Java-based MAX, set of software building blocks containing a wide range of low level and higher level software modules that developers can use to build simple to complex robot and automation applications faster and cheaper, already provide some support for JAUS compliance and because their based on Java, access to standards based security APIs.But, as Paul explained to me, "the bottom line is…it depends on the criticality level of the bot, it's network connectivity, and whether or not a standards compliance is required."

    Read the article

  • Fitnesse - multiple tests but only the last test being executed

    - by simon_bellis
    I have a Fitnesse test that I want to run twice. Once in firefox and once in ie. The test is below. The problem I am having is that only the second test is being executed by fitnesse !define COMMAND_PATTERN {%m %p} !define TEST_RUNNER {dotnet2\FitServer.exe} !****>Global Variables !define testUrl {http://localhost:1516/Web.App/Login.aspx} *****! !define browserToUse (IE) !include -c -seamless .FrontPage.LoginTests !define browserToUse (FireFox) !include -c -seamless .FrontPage.LoginTests

    Read the article

  • How To Run integrational Tests

    - by Vladimir
    In our project we have a plenty of Unit Tests. They help to keep project rather well-tested. Besides them we have a set of tests which are unit tests, but depends on some kind of external resource. We call them external tests. They can access web-service sometimes or similar. While unit tests is easy to run the integrational tests couldn't pass sometimes - for example due to timeout error. Also these tests can take too much time to run. Currently we keep integration/external unit tests just to run them when developing corresponding functionality. For plain unit tests we use TeamCIty for continuous integration. How do you run the integration unit tests and when do you run them?

    Read the article

  • assistance with classifying tests

    - by amateur
    I have a .net c# library that I have created that I am currently creating some unit tests for. I am at present writing unit tests for a cache provider class that I have created. Being new to writing unit tests I have 2 questions These being: My cache provider class is the abstraction layer to my distributed cache - AppFabric. So to test aspects of my cache provider class such as adding to appfabric cache, removing from cache etc involves communicating with appfabric. Therefore the tests to test for such, are they still categorised as unit tests or integration tests? The above methods I am testing due to interacting with appfabric, I would like to time such methods. If they take longer than a specified benchmark, the tests have failed. Again I ask the question, can this performance benchmark test be classifed as a unit test? The way I have my tests set up I want to include all unit tests together, integration tests together etc, therefore I ask these questions that I would appreciate input on.

    Read the article

  • Automated Acceptance tests under specific contraints

    - by HH_
    This is a follow up to my previous question, which was a bit general, so I'll be asking for a more precise situation. I want to automate acceptance testing on a web application. Briefly, this application allows the user to create contracts for subscribers with the two constraints: You cannot create more than one contract for a subscriber. Once a contract is created, it cannot be deleted (from the UI) Let's say TestCreate is a test case with tests for the normal creation of a contract. The constraints have introduced complexities to the testing process, mainly dependencies between test cases and test executions. Before we run TestCreate we need to make sure that the application is in a suitable state (the subscriber has no contract) If we run TestCreate twice, the second run will fail since the state of the application will have changed. So we need to revert back to the initial state (i.e. delete the contract), which is impossible to do from the UI. More generally, after each test case we should guarantee that the state is reverted back. And since, in this case, it is impossible to do it from the UI, how do you handle this? Possible solution: I thought about doing a backup of the database in the state that I desire, and after each test case, run a script which deletes the db and restores the backup. However, I find that to be too heavy to do for each single test case. In addition, what if some information are stored in files? or in multiple or unaccessible databases? My question: In this situation, what would an experienced tester do to write automated and maintanable tests. Thank you. More info: I'm trying to integrate tests into a BDD framework, which I find to be a neat solution for test documentation and communication, but it does not solve this particular problem (it even makes it harder)

    Read the article

  • Interactive manifest editing with the Automated Installer Manifest Wizard

    - by Glynn Foster
    Oracle Solaris 11.2 adds a new Automated Installer (AI) Manifest Wizard to allow administrators to more easily create AI manifests for use in provisioning new client systems in the data center. The AI Manifest Wizard is a web web based interface that steps administrators through the basics of the AI manifest - target disks and layout selection, additional ZFS pools and datasets, IPS publisher and package selection, and the creation of any Oracle Solaris Zone virtual environments. The end result is an AI manifest without having to directly edit XML, and this can then be associated with an appropriate AI service. To get started, check out How To Create an Automated Installer Manifest with an Interactive Wizard

    Read the article

  • Is this method of writing Unit Tests correct?

    - by aspdotnetuser
    I have created a small C# project to help me learn how to write good unit tests. I know that one important rule of unit testing is to test the smallest 'unit' of code possible so that if it fails you know exactly what part of the code needs to fixed. I need help with the following before I continue to implement more unit tests for the project: If I have a Car class, for example, that creates a new Car object which has various attributes that are calculated when its' constructor method is called, would the two following tests be considered as overkill? Should there be one test that tests all calculated attributes of the Car object instead? [Test] public void CarEngineCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.GreaterOrEqual(car.Engine, 1); } [Test] public void CarNameCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.IsNotNull(car.Name); } Should I have the above two test methods to test these things or should I have one test method that asserts the Car object has first been created and then test these things in the same test method?

    Read the article

  • unit testing variable state explicit tests in dynamically typed languages

    - by kris welsh
    I have heard that a desirable quality of unit tests is that they test for each scenario independently. I realised whilst writing tests today that when you compare a variable with another value in a statement like: assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); You are really testing three things: The variable you are testing exists and is within scope. The variable you are testing is the expected type. The variable you are testing's value is what you expect it to be. Which to me raises the question of whether you should test for each of these implicitly so that a test fail would occur on the specific line that tests for that problem: assertTrue(stringFoo); assertTrue(stringFoo.typeOf() == "String"); assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); For example if the variable was an integer instead of a string the test case failure would be on line 2 which would give you more feedback on what went wrong. Should you test for this kind of thing explicitly or am i overthinking this?

    Read the article

  • Isolated Unit Tests and Fine Grained Failures

    - by Winston Ewert
    One of the reasons often given to write unit tests which mock out all dependencies and are thus completely isolated is to ensure that when a bug exists, only the unit tests for that bug will fail. (Obviously, an integration tests may fail as well). That way you can readily determine where the bug is. But I don't understand why this is a useful property. If my code were undergoing spontaneous failures, I could see why its useful to readily identify the failure point. But if I have a failing test its either because I just wrote the test or because I just modified the code under test. In either case, I already know which unit contains a bug. What is the useful in ensuring that a test only fails due to bugs in the unit under test? I don't see how it gives me any more precision in identifying the bug than I already had.

    Read the article

  • Are unit tests really used as documentation?

    - by stijn
    I cannot count the number of times I read statements in the vein of 'unit tests are a very important source of documentation of the code under test'. I do not deny they are true. But personally I haven't found myself using them as documentation, ever. For the typical frameworks I use, the method declarations document their behaviour and that's all I need. And I assume the unit tests backup everything stated in that documentation, plus likely some more internal stuff, so on one side it duplicates the ducumentation while on the other it might add some more that is irrelevant. So the question is: when are unit tests used as documentation? When the comments do not cover everything? By developpers extending the source? And what do they expose that can be useful and relevant that the documentation itself cannot expose?

    Read the article

  • Problems with data driven testing in MSTest

    - by severj3
    Hello, I am trying to get data driven testing to work in C# with MSTest/Selenium. Here is a sample of some of my code trying to set it up: [TestClass] public class NewTest { private ISelenium selenium; private StringBuilder verificationErrors; [DeploymentItem("GoogleTestData.xls")] [DataSource("System.Data.OleDb", "Provider=Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0;Data Source=GoogleTestData.xls;Persist Security Info=False;Extended Properties='Excel 8.0'", "TestSearches$", DataAccessMethod.Sequential)] [TestMethod] public void GoogleTest() { selenium = new DefaultSelenium("localhost", 4444, "*iehta", http://www.google.com); selenium.Start(); verificationErrors = new StringBuilder(); var searchingTerm = TestContext.DataRow["SearchingString"].ToString(); var expectedResult = TestContext.DataRow["ExpectedTextResults"].ToString(); Here's my error: Error 3 An object reference is required for the non-static field, method, or property 'Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TestContext.DataRow.get' E:\Projects\SeleniumProject\SeleniumProject\MaverickTest.cs 32 33 SeleniumProject The error is underlining the "TestContext.DataRow" part of both statements. I've really been struggling with this one, thanks!

    Read the article

  • Automated “ubuntu-12.04.1-server-amd64” OS installation on physical machine

    - by user285336
    We are using Physical server and are in process of Automated “ubuntu-12.04.1-server-amd64” OS installation on it. There are two HDD for OS installation purpose and there are RAID1 relation between them. This setup has been done through BIOS. The kickstart configuration file looks like this: #Generated by Kickstart Configurator #platform=AMD64 or Intel EM64T #System language lang en_US #Language modules to install langsupport en_US #System keyboard keyboard us #System mouse mouse #System timezone timezone Asia/Dili #Root password rootpw --iscrypted $1$Yl1QJyta$KzIT.kq3i9E5XaiQKcUJn/ #Initial user user ankit --fullname "Ankit" --iscrypted --password $1$c6Yflpea$pi1QQ59/jgywmGwBv25z3/ #Reboot after installation reboot #Use text mode install text #Install OS instead of upgrade install #Use Web installation url --url my_repo_location #System bootloader configuration bootloader --location=mbr #Clear the Master Boot Record zerombr yes #Partition clearing information clearpart --all --initlabel #Disk partitioning information part /boot --fstype ext4 --size 100 --ondisk sda part / --fstype ext4 --size 10000 --ondisk sda part /var --fstype ext4 --size 10000 --ondisk sda part swap --size 1024 --ondisk sdb #System authorization infomation auth --useshadow --enablemd5 #Network information network --bootproto=dhcp --device=eth0 #Firewall configuration firewall --enabled --trust=eth0 --http --ftp --ssh --telnet --smtp #X Window System configuration information xconfig --depth=8 --resolution=640x480 --defaultdesktop=GNOME But I am getting the below error : No root file system is defined Please suggest on this. Do we need to do any modification in kickstart configuration file. Any help in this regard will be very helpful for us. The automated Ubuntu OS installation is successful in Virtual Machine(VM) with the above ks.cfg (kickstart configuration file ) but failing in case of physical machine. Please suggest on this and if possible provide the new ks.cfg file to resolve above problem. Thanks & Regards, Rajesh Prasad

    Read the article

  • Automated backups for Windows Azure SQL Database

    - by Greg Low
    One of the questions that I've often been asked is about how you can backup databases in Windows Azure SQL Database. What we have had access to was the ability to export a database to a BACPAC. A BACPAC is basically just a zip file that contains a bunch of metadata along with a set of bcp files for each of the tables in the database. Each table in the database is exported one after the other, so this does not produce a transactionally-consistent backup at a specific point in time. To get a transactionally-consistent copy, you need a database that isn't in use.The easiest way to get a database that isn't in use is to use CREATE DATABASE AS COPY OF. This creates a new database as a transactionally-consistent copy of the database that you are copying. You can then use the export options to get a consistent BACPAC created.Previously, I've had to automate this process by myself. Given there was also no SQL Agent in Azure, I used a job in my on-premises SQL Server to do this, using a linked server configuration.Now there's a much simpler way. Windows Azure SQL Database now supports an automated export function. On the Configuration tab for the database, you need to enable the Automated Export function. You can configure how often the operation is performed for you, and which storage account will be used for the backups.It's important to consider the cost impacts of this as well. You are charged for how ever many databases are on your server on a given day. So if you enable a daily backup, you will double your database costs. Do not schedule the backups just before midnight UTC, as that could cause you to have three databases each day instead of one.This is a much needed addition to the capabilities. Scott Guthrie also posted about some other notable changes today, including a preview of a new premium offering for SQL Database. In addition to the Web and Business editions, there will now be a Premium edition that has reserved (rather than shared) resources. You can read about it all in Scott's post here: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2013/07/23/windows-azure-july-updates-sql-database-traffic-manager-autoscale-virtual-machines.aspx

    Read the article

  • A Brand-new Automated Testing Tool is the Result of Telerik and ArtOfTest Merger

    Im sure youve already heard the great news about Telerik expansion and the new Telerik Automated Testing Tools division. I am excited to share what we worked on and produced for the last couple of months. New Release The latest Telerik release that went live this week added a completely new tool to Teleriks automated testing product line. The new QA Edition is tailored for QA Professionals. The QA Edition is a standalone tool that allows QAs to freely create, execute and maintain their tests without having to install Visual Studio. If you are a developer and you want something much faster and lightweight than VS, then the Standalone tool is worth trying. New IDE The QA Edition is a WPF application with interface built on top of the latest and greatest RadControls for WPF. This allowed us to configure and build intuitive and easy-to-use UI. Additionally, the rich ...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • How to unit test image processing code?

    - by rold2007
    I'm working in image processing (mainly OCR) and I wonder how I should integrate unit tests in my development. I'm already using unit tests for more "common" type of code but when dealing with image processing code I'm not sure how to deal with it. This kind of code always need some image data input/output and mocking this is not obvious. For now I'm mostly doing integration tests but they take a while to run and I would like some ideas on how to break down this kind of code into unit tests so that I can run them more quickly.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >