Search Results

Search found 42756 results on 1711 pages for 'model based testing'.

Page 4/1711 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • What kind of code would Kent Beck avoid unit testing?

    - by tieTYT
    I've been watching a few of the Is TDD Dead? talks on youtube, and one of the things that surprised me is Kent Beck seems to acknowledge that there are just some kinds of programs that aren't worth unit testing. For example, right here DHH says that Kent Beck is ... very happy to say "Well, TDD doesn't fit in this case, I'm just going to bail" It's frustrating to me that Kent Beck seems to acknowledge this, but nobody asks him to elaborate on it or give concrete examples. I'd like to know the situations where Kent Beck thinks TDD is a bad fit. Nobody can read his mind or speak for him, but I'm hoping he's been transparent enough through his books/tweets/whatever for someone to be able to answer. I'm not necessarily going to take what he says as gospel, but it would be useful to know that the times I've tried TDD and it just felt impossible/useless are situations that he would have bailed on it himself. Or, if it turned out he would have tested that code it'd suggest to me that I was approaching the process very wrong. I also think it would be enlightening to understand why he would bail on such projects. My opinion on why this is not a duplicate of "When is it appropriate to not unit test?" After skimming those answers I'm not satisfied. For example, look at UncleBob's answer. He doesn't even acknowledge that such a situation exists. I really think there's value in understanding Kent Beck's position, not just a general, "What's your opinion?" type of question. After all, he's the father of TDD.

    Read the article

  • ISO 12207 - testing being only validation activity? [closed]

    - by user970696
    Possible Duplicate: How come verification does not include actual testing? ISO norm 12207 states that testing is only validation activity, while all static inspections are verification (that requirement, code.. is complete, correct..). I did found some articles saying its not correct but you know, it is not "official". I would like to understand because there are two different concepts (in books & articles): 1) Verification is all testing except for UAT (because only user can really validate the use). E.g. here OR 2) Verification is everything but testing. All testing is validation. E.g. here Definitions are mostly the same, as Sommerville's: The aim of verification is to check that the software meets its stated functional and non-functional requirements. Validation, however, is a more general process. The aim of validation is to ensure that the software meets the customer’s expectations. It goes beyond simply checking conformance with the specification to demonstrating that the software does what the customer expects it to do It is really bugging me because I tend to agree that functional testing done on a product (SIT) is still verification because I just follow the requirements. But ISO does not agree..

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC Postbacks and HtmlHelper Controls ignoring Model Changes

    - by Rick Strahl
    So here's a binding behavior in ASP.NET MVC that I didn't really get until today: HtmlHelpers controls (like .TextBoxFor() etc.) don't bind to model values on Postback, but rather get their value directly out of the POST buffer from ModelState. Effectively it looks like you can't change the display value of a control via model value updates on a Postback operation. To demonstrate here's an example. I have a small section in a document where I display an editable email address: This is what the form displays on a GET operation and as expected I get the email value displayed in both the textbox and plain value display below, which reflects the value in the mode. I added a plain text value to demonstrate the model value compared to what's rendered in the textbox. The relevant markup is the email address which needs to be manipulated via the model in the Controller code. Here's the Razor markup: <div class="fieldcontainer"> <label> Email: &nbsp; <small>(username and <a href="http://gravatar.com">Gravatar</a> image)</small> </label> <div> @Html.TextBoxFor( mod=> mod.User.Email, new {type="email",@class="inputfield"}) @Model.User.Email </div> </div>   So, I have this form and the user can change their email address. On postback the Post controller code then asks the business layer whether the change is allowed. If it's not I want to reset the email address back to the old value which exists in the database and was previously store. The obvious thing to do would be to modify the model. Here's the Controller logic block that deals with that:// did user change email? if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(oldEmail) && user.Email != oldEmail) { if (userBus.DoesEmailExist(user.Email)) { userBus.ValidationErrors.Add("New email address exists already. Please…"); user.Email = oldEmail; } else // allow email change but require verification by forcing a login user.IsVerified = false; }… model.user = user; return View(model); The logic is straight forward - if the new email address is not valid because it already exists I don't want to display the new email address the user entered, but rather the old one. To do this I change the value on the model which effectively does this:model.user.Email = oldEmail; return View(model); So when I press the Save button after entering in my new email address ([email protected]) here's what comes back in the rendered view: Notice that the textbox value and the raw displayed model value are different. The TextBox displays the POST value, the raw value displays the actual model value which are different. This means that MVC renders the textbox value from the POST data rather than from the view data when an Http POST is active. Now I don't know about you but this is not the behavior I expected - initially. This behavior effectively means that I cannot modify the contents of the textbox from the Controller code if using HtmlHelpers for binding. Updating the model for display purposes in a POST has in effect - no effect. (Apr. 25, 2012 - edited the post heavily based on comments and more experimentation) What should the behavior be? After getting quite a few comments on this post I quickly realized that the behavior I described above is actually the behavior you'd want in 99% of the binding scenarios. You do want to get the POST values back into your input controls at all times, so that the data displayed on a form for the user matches what they typed. So if an error occurs, the error doesn't mysteriously disappear getting replaced either with a default value or some value that you changed on the model on your own. Makes sense. Still it is a little non-obvious because the way you create the UI elements with MVC, it certainly looks like your are binding to the model value:@Html.TextBoxFor( mod=> mod.User.Email, new {type="email",@class="inputfield",required="required" }) and so unless one understands a little bit about how the model binder works this is easy to trip up. At least it was for me. Even though I'm telling the control which model value to bind to, that model value is only used initially on GET operations. After that ModelState/POST values provide the display value. Workarounds The default behavior should be fine for 99% of binding scenarios. But if you do need fix up values based on your model rather than the default POST values, there are a number of ways that you can work around this. Initially when I ran into this, I couldn't figure out how to set the value using code and so the simplest solution to me was simply to not use the MVC Html Helper for the specific control and explicitly bind the model via HTML markup and @Razor expression: <input type="text" name="User.Email" id="User_Email" value="@Model.User.Email" /> And this produces the right result. This is easy enough to create, but feels a little out of place when using the @Html helpers for everything else. As you can see by the difference in the name and id values, you also are forced to remember the naming conventions that MVC imposes in order for ModelBinding to work properly which is a pain to remember and set manually (name is the same as the property with . syntax, id replaces dots with underlines). Use the ModelState Some of my original confusion came because I didn't understand how the model binder works. The model binder basically maintains ModelState on a postback, which holds a value and binding errors for each of the Post back value submitted on the page that can be mapped to the model. In other words there's one ModelState entry for each bound property of the model. Each ModelState entry contains a value property that holds AttemptedValue and RawValue properties. The AttemptedValue is essentially the POST value retrieved from the form. The RawValue is the value that the model holds. When MVC binds controls like @Html.TextBoxFor() or @Html.TextBox(), it always binds values on a GET operation. On a POST operation however, it'll always used the AttemptedValue to display the control. MVC binds using the ModelState on a POST operation, not the model's value. So, if you want the behavior that I was expecting originally you can actually get it by clearing the ModelState in the controller code:ModelState.Clear(); This clears out all the captured ModelState values, and effectively binds to the model. Note this will produce very similar results - in fact if there are no binding errors you see exactly the same behavior as if binding from ModelState, because the model has been updated from the ModelState already and binding to the updated values most likely produces the same values you would get with POST back values. The big difference though is that any values that couldn't bind - like say putting a string into a numeric field - will now not display back the value the user typed, but the default field value or whatever you changed the model value to. This is the behavior I was actually expecting previously. But - clearing out all values might be a bit heavy handed. You might want to fix up one or two values in a model but rarely would you want the entire model to update from the model. So, you can also clear out individual values on an as needed basis:if (userBus.DoesEmailExist(user.Email)) { userBus.ValidationErrors.Add("New email address exists already. Please…"); user.Email = oldEmail; ModelState.Remove("User.Email"); } This allows you to remove a single value from the ModelState and effectively allows you to replace that value for display from the model. Why? While researching this I came across a post from Microsoft's Brad Wilson who describes the default binding behavior best in a forum post: The reason we use the posted value for editors rather than the model value is that the model may not be able to contain the value that the user typed. Imagine in your "int" editor the user had typed "dog". You want to display an error message which says "dog is not valid", and leave "dog" in the editor field. However, your model is an int: there's no way it can store "dog". So we keep the old value. If you don't want the old values in the editor, clear out the Model State. That's where the old value is stored and pulled from the HTML helpers. There you have it. It's not the most intuitive behavior, but in hindsight this behavior does make some sense even if at first glance it looks like you should be able to update values from the model. The solution of clearing ModelState works and is a reasonable one but you have to know about some of the innards of ModelState and how it actually works to figure that out.© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in ASP.NET  MVC   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • Penetration testing - common examples?

    - by Mirek
    Hi, I was charged to do some basic penetration testing on our system. I tried to find some favoured practices but I was not successful. I guess SYN attack is retired (no NT here). Could anyone advice some basic steps of what to test in order to proceed at least very basic penetration test? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Tips on ensuring Model Quality

    - by [email protected]
    Given enough data that represents well the domain and models that reflect exactly the decision being optimized, models usually provide good predictions that ensure lift. Nevertheless, sometimes the modeling situation is less than ideal. In this blog entry we explore the problems found in a few such situations and how to avoid them.1 - The Model does not reflect the problem you are trying to solveFor example, you may be trying to solve the problem: "What product should I recommend to this customer" but your model learns on the problem: "Given that a customer has acquired our products, what is the likelihood for each product". In this case the model you built may be too far of a proxy for the problem you are really trying to solve. What you could do in this case is try to build a model based on the result from recommendations of products to customers. If there is not enough data from actual recommendations, you could use a hybrid approach in which you would use the [bad] proxy model until the recommendation model converges.2 - Data is not predictive enoughIf the inputs are not correlated with the output then the models may be unable to provide good predictions. For example, if the input is the phase of the moon and the weather and the output is what car did the customer buy, there may be no correlations found. In this case you should see a low quality model.The solution in this case is to include more relevant inputs.3 - Not enough cases seenIf the data learned does not include enough cases, at least 200 positive examples for each output, then the quality of recommendations may be low. The obvious solution is to include more data records. If this is not possible, then it may be possible to build a model based on the characteristics of the output choices rather than the choices themselves. For example, instead of using products as output, use the product category, price and brand name, and then combine these models.4 - Output leaking into input giving the false impression of good quality modelsIf the input data in the training includes values that have changed or are available only because the output happened, then you will find some strong correlations between the input and the output, but these strong correlations do not reflect the data that you will have available at decision (prediction) time. For example, if you are building a model to predict whether a web site visitor will succeed in registering, and the input includes the variable DaysSinceRegistration, and you learn when this variable has already been set, you will probably see a big correlation between having a Zero (or one) in this variable and the fact that registration was successful.The solution is to remove these variables from the input or make sure they reflect the value as of the time of decision and not after the result is known. 

    Read the article

  • About unit testing a function in the zend framework and unit testing in general

    - by sanders
    Hello people, I am diving into the world of unit testing. And i am sort of lost. I learned today that unit testing is testing if a function works. I wanted to test the following function: public function getEventById($id) { return $this->getResource('Event')->getEventById($id); } So i wanted to test this function as follows: public function test_Event_Get_Event_By_Id_Returns_Event_Item() { $p = $this->_model->getEventById(42); $this->assertEquals(42, EventManager_Resource_Event_Item_Interface); $this->assertType('EventManager_Resource_Event_Item_Interface', $p); } But then I got the error: 1) EventTest::test_Event_Get_Event_By_Id_Returns_Event_Item Zend_Db_Table_Exception: No adapter found for EventManager_Resource_Event /home/user/Public/ZendFramework-1.10.1/library/SF/Model/Abstract.php:101 /var/www/nrka2/application/modules/eventManager/models/Event.php:25 But then someone told me that i am currently unit testing and not doing an integration test. So i figured that i have to test the function getEventById on a different way. But I don't understand how. What this function does it just cals a resource and returns the event by id.

    Read the article

  • Time based movement Vs Frame rate based movement?

    - by sil3nt
    Hello there, I'm new to Game programmming and SDL, and I have been following Lazyfoo's SDL tutorials. My question is related to time based motion and frame rate based motion, basically which is better or appropriate depending on situations?. Could you give me an example where each of these methods are used?. Another question I have is that, in lazyfoo's two Motion tutorials (FPS based and time based) The time based method showed a much smoother animation while the Frame rate based one was a little hiccupy, meaning you could clearly see the gap between the previous location of the dot and its current position when you compare the two programs. As beginner which method should I stick to?(all I want is smooth animations).

    Read the article

  • Component based game engine issue

    - by Mathias Hölzl
    We are just switching from a hierarchy based game engine to a component based game engine. My problem is that when I load a model which has has a hierarchy of meshes and the way I understand is that a entity in a component based system can not have multiple components of the same type, but I need a "meshComponent" for each mesh in a model. So how could I solve this problem. On this side they implemented a Component based game engine: http://cowboyprogramming.com/2007/01/05/evolve-your-heirachy/

    Read the article

  • Mock Objects for Unit Testing

    - by user9009
    Hello How often QA engineers are responsible for developing Mock Objects for Unit Testing. So dealing with Mock Objects is just developer job ?. The reason i ask is i'm interested in QA as my career and am learning tools like JUnit , TestNG and couple of frameworks. I just want to know until what level of unit testing is done by developer and from what point QA engineer takes over testing for better test coverage ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Development processes, the use of version control, and unit-testing

    - by ct01
    Preface I've worked at quite a few "flat" organizations in my time. Most of the version control policy/process has been "only commit after it's been tested". We were constantly committing at each place to "trunk" (cvs/svn). The same was true with unit-testing - it's always been a "we need to do this" mentality but it never really materializes in a substantive form b/c there is no institutional knowledge base to do it - no mentorship. Version Control The emphasis for version control management at one place was a very strict protocol for commit messages (format & content). The other places let employees just do "whatever". The branching, tagging, committing, rolling back, and merging aspect of things was always ill defined and almost never used. This sort of seems to leave the version control system in the position of being a fancy file-storage mechanism with a meta-data component that never really gets accessed/utilized. (The same was true for unit testing and committing code to the source tree) Unit tests It seems there's a prevailing "we must/should do this" mentality in most places I've worked. As a policy or standard operating procedure it never gets implemented because there seems to be a very ill-defined understanding about what that means, what is going to be tested, and how to do it. Summary It seems most places I've been to think version control and unit testing is "important" b/c the trendy trade journals say it is but, if there's very little mentorship to use these tools or any real business policies, then the full power of version control/unit testing is never really expressed. So grunts, like myself, never really have a complete understanding of the point beyond that "it's a good thing" and "we should do it". Question I was wondering if there are blogs, books, white-papers, or online journals about what one could call the business process or "standard operating procedures" or uses cases for version control and unit testing? I want to know more than the trade journals tell me and get serious about doing these things. PS: @Henrik Hansen had a great comment about the lack of definition for the question. I'm not interested in a specific unit-testing/versioning product or methodology (like, XP) - my interest is more about work-flow at the individual team/developer level than evangelism. This is more-or-less a by product of the management situation I've operated under more than a lack of reading software engineering books or magazines about development processes. A lot of what I've seen/read is more marketing oriented material than any specifically enumerated description of "well, this is how our shop operates".

    Read the article

  • Advancing Code Review and Unit Testing Practice

    - by Graviton
    As a team lead managing a group of developers with no experience ( and see no need) in code review and unit testing, how can you advance code review and unit testing practice? How are you going to create a way so that code review and unit testing to naturally fit into the developer's flow? One of the resistance of these two areas is that "we are always tight on dateline, so no time for code review and unit testing". Another resistance for code review is that we currently don't know how to do it. Should we review the code upon every check-in, or review the code at a specified date?

    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

  • 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

  • Is verification and validation part of testing process?

    - by user970696
    Based on many sources I do not believe the simple definition that aim of testing is to find as many bugs as possible - we test to ensure that it works or that it does not. E.g. followint are goals of testing form ISTQB: Determine that (software products) satisfy specified requirements ( I think its verificication) Demonstrate that (software products) are fit for purpose (I think that is validation) Detect defects I would agree that testing is verification, validation and defect detection. Is that correct?

    Read the article

  • JUnit Testing in Multithread Application

    - by e2bady
    This is a problem me and my team faces in almost all of the projects. Testing certain parts of the application with JUnit is not easy and you need to start early and to stick to it, but that's not the question I'm asking. The actual problem is that with n-Threads, locking, possible exceptions within the threads and shared objects the task of testing is not as simple as testing the class, but testing them under endless possible situations within threading. To be more precise, let me tell you about the design of one of our applications: When a user makes a request several threads are started that each analyse a part of the data to complete the analysis, these threads run a certain time depending on the size of the chunk of data (which are endless and of uncertain quality) to analyse, or they may fail if the data was insufficient/lacking quality. After each completed its analysis they call upon a handler which decides after each thread terminates if the collected analysis-data is sufficient to deliver an answer to the request. All of these analysers share certain parts of the applications (some parts because the instances are very big and only a certain number can be loaded into memory and those instances are reusable, some parts because they have a standing connection, where connecting takes time, ex.gr. sql connections) so locking is very common (done with reentrant-locks). While the applications runs very efficient and fast, it's not very easy to test it under real-world conditions. What we do right now is test each class and it's predefined conditions, but there are no automated tests for interlocking and synchronization, which in my opionion is not very good for quality insurances. Given this example how would you handle testing the threading, interlocking and synchronization?

    Read the article

  • Database unit testing is now available for SSDT

    - by jamiet
    Good news was announced yesterday for those that are using SSDT and want to write unit tests, unit testing functionality is now available. The announcement was made on the SSDT team blog in post Available Today: SSDT—December 2012. Here are a few thoughts about this news. Firstly, there seems to be a general impression that database unit testing was not previously available for SSDT – that’s not entirely true. Database unit testing was most recently delivered in Visual Studio 2010 and any database unit tests written therein work perfectly well against SQL Server databases created using SSDT (why wouldn’t they – its just a database after all). In other words, if you’re running SSDT inside Visual Studio 2010 then you could carry on freely writing database unit tests; some of the tight integration between the two (e.g. right-click on an object in SQL Server Object Explorer and choose to create a unit test) was not there – but I’ve never found that to be a problem. I am currently working on a project that uses SSDT for database development and have been happily running VS2010 database unit tests for a few months now. All that being said, delivery of database unit testing for SSDT is now with us and that is good news, not least because we now have the ability to create unit tests in VS2012. We also get tight integration with SSDT itself, the like of which I mentioned above. Having now had a look at the new features I was delighted to find that one of my big complaints about database unit testing has been solved. As I reported here on Connect a refactor operation would cause unit test code to get completely mangled. See here the before and after from such an operation: SELECT    * FROM    bi.ProcessMessageLog pml INNER JOIN bi.[LogMessageType] lmt     ON    pml.[LogMessageTypeId] = lmt.[LogMessageTypeId] WHERE    pml.[LogMessage] = 'Ski[LogMessageTypeName]of message: IApplicationCanceled' AND        lmt.[LogMessageType] = 'Warning'; which is obviously not ideal. Thankfully that seems to have been solved with this latest release. One disappointment about this new release is that the process for running tests as part of a CI build has not changed from the horrendously complicated process required previously. Check out my blog post Setting up database unit testing as part of a Continuous Integration build process [VS2010 DB Tools - Datadude] for instructions on how to do it. In that blog post I describe it as “fiddly” – I was being kind when I said that! @Jamiet

    Read the article

  • Mock Objects for Testing - Test Automation Engineer Perspective

    - by user9009
    Hello How often QA engineers are responsible for developing Mock Objects for Unit Testing. So dealing with Mock Objects is just developer job ?. The reason i ask is i'm interested in QA as my career and am learning tools like JUnit , TestNG and couple of frameworks. I just want to know until what level of unit testing is done by developer and from what point QA engineer takes over testing for better test coverage ? Thanks Edit : Based on the answers below am providing more details about what QA i was referring to . I'm interested in more of Test Automation rather than simple QA involved in record and play of script. So Test Automation engineers are responsible for developing frameworks ? or do they have a team of developers dedicated in Framework development ? Yes i was asking about usage of Mock Objects for testing from Test Automation engineer perspective.

    Read the article

  • Data Model Dissonance

    - by Tony Davis
    So often at the start of the development of database applications, there is a premature rush to the keyboard. Unless, before we get there, we’ve mapped out and agreed the three data models, the Conceptual, the Logical and the Physical, then the inevitable refactoring will dog development work. It pays to get the data models sorted out up-front, however ‘agile’ you profess to be. The hardest model to get right, the most misunderstood, and the one most neglected by the various modeling tools, is the conceptual data model, and yet it is critical to all that follows. The conceptual model distils what the business understands about itself, and the way it operates. It represents the business rules that govern the required data, its constraints and its properties. The conceptual model uses the terminology of the business and defines the most important entities and their inter-relationships. Don’t assume that the organization’s understanding of these business rules is consistent or accurate. Too often, one department has a subtly different understanding of what an entity means and what it stores, from another. If our conceptual data model fails to resolve such inconsistencies, it will reduce data quality. If we don’t collect and measure the raw data in a consistent way across the whole business, how can we hope to perform meaningful aggregation? The conceptual data model has more to do with business than technology, and as such, developers often regard it as a worthy but rather arcane ceremony like saluting the flag or only eating fish on Friday. However, the consequences of getting it wrong have a direct and painful impact on many aspects of the project. If you adopt a silo-based (a.k.a. Domain driven) approach to development), you are still likely to suffer by starting with an incomplete knowledge of the domain. Even when you have surmounted these problems so that the data entities accurately reflect the business domain that the application represents, there are likely to be dire consequences from abandoning the goal of a shared, enterprise-wide understanding of the business. In reading this, you may recall experiences of the consequence of getting the conceptual data model wrong. I believe that Phil Factor, for example, witnessed the abandonment of a multi-million dollar banking project due to an inadequate conceptual analysis of how the bank defined a ‘customer’. We’d love to hear of any examples you know of development projects poleaxed by errors in the conceptual data model. Cheers, Tony

    Read the article

  • CppUnit for unit-testing executable files?

    - by hagubear
    I am not sure if anyone has done it. I am trying to do something that is in general, uncommon i.e. unit-testing executable (Windows) or ELFs (Linux). I know that CppUnit provides a good unit testing facility, but I have never used it for unit-testing (used UnitTest++). I hear rumours that you can unit-test executables too. Does anyone have the experience in this? A relevant post regarding the philosophy of it was here

    Read the article

  • Scenario to illustrate how unit testing leads to better design

    - by Cocowalla
    For an internal training session, I'm trying to come up with a simple scenario that illustrates how unit testing leads to better design, by forcing you to think about things like coupling before you start coding. The idea is that I get the participants to code something first, without considering unit testing, then we do it again, but considering unit testing. Hopefully the code produced second time round should be more decoupled and maintainable. I'm struggling to come up with a scenario that can be coded quickly, yet can still demonstrate how unit testing can lead to better overall design.

    Read the article

  • What is the aim of software testing?

    - by user970696
    Having read many books, there is a basic contradiction: Some say, "the goal of testing is to find bugs" while other say "the goal of the testing is to equalize the quality of the product", meaning that bugs are its by-products. I would also agree that if testing would be aimed primarily on a bug hunt, who would do the actual verification and actually provided the information, that the software is ready? Even e.g. Kaner changed his original definiton of testing goal from bug hunting to quality assesement provision but I still cannot see the clear difference. I percieve both as equally important. I can verify software by its specification to make sure it works and in that case, bugs found are just by products. But also I perform tests just to brake things. Also what definition is more accurate?

    Read the article

  • Code testing practice

    - by Robin Castlin
    So now I have come to the conclusion like many others that having some way of constantly testing your code is good practice since it enables fewer people to be involved (colleges and customers alike) by simply knowing what's wrong before someone else finds out the hard way. I've heard and read some about Unit Testing and understand what it's supposed to do and all. The there are so many different types of bugs. It can be everything from web browser not being able not being able to send correct values, javascript failing, a global function messing up a piece of code somewhere to a change that looked good when testing it out but fails in some special case which was hard to anticipate. My simply finding these errors I learn to rarely repeat them again, but there seems to always be new bugs to be found and learnt from. I would guess maybe the best practice would be to run every page and it's functions a couple of times, witness the result and repeat this in Firefox, Chrome and Internet Explorer (and all smartphones apparently) to make sure it works as intended. However this would take quite some time to do consider I don't work with patches/versions and do little fixes here and there a couple of times per week. What I prefer would be some kind of page I can just load that tests as much things as possible to make sure the site works as intended. Basicly just run a lot of cURL's with POST-values and see if I get expected result. But how would I preferably not increase the IDs of every mysql rows if I delete these testing rows? It feels silly to be on ID 1000 with maybe 50 rows in total. If I could build a new project from scratch I would probably implement some kind of smooth way to return a "TRUE" on testing instead of the actual page. But this solution would for the moment being have to be passed on existing projects. My question What would you recommend to be the best way to test my site to make sure that existing functions does their job upon editing the code? Should I consider to implement a lot of edits first, then test manually the entire code to make sure it still works? Is there any nice way of testing codes without "hurting" the ID columns? Extra thoughs Would it be a good idea to associate all of my files to the different parts of my site which they affect? For instance if I edit home.php I will through documentation test if my homepage's start works as intended since it's the only part of my site it should affect.

    Read the article

  • Performance Testing Versus Unit Testing

    - by Mystagogue
    I'm reading Osherove's "The Art of Unit Testing," and though I've not yet seen him say anything about performance testing, two thoughts still cross my mind: Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance tests generally need to run for long periods of time. Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance issues too often manifest at an integration or system level (or at least the logic of a single unit test needed to re-create the performance of the integration environment would be too involved to be a unit test). Particularly for the first reason stated above, I doubt it makes sense for performance tests to be handled by a unit testing framework (such as NUnit). My question is: do my findings / leanings correspond with the thoughts of the community?

    Read the article

  • Model binding & derived model classes

    - by Richard Ev
    Does ASP.NET MVC offer any simple way to get model binding to work when you have model classes that inherit from others? In my scenario I have a View that is strongly typed to List<Person>. I have a couple of classes that inherit from Person, namely PersonTypeOne and PersonTypeTwo. I have three strongly typed partial views with names that match these class names (and render form elements for the properties of their respective models). This means that in my main View I can have the following code: <% for(int i = 0; i < Model.Count; i++) { Html.RenderPartial(Model[i].GetType().Name, Model[i]); } %> This works well, apart from when the user submits the form the relevant controller action method just gets a List<Person>, rather than a list of Person, PersonTypeOne and PersonTypeTwo. This is pretty much as expected as the form submission doesn't contain enough information to tell the default model binder to create any instances of PersonTypeOne and PersonTypeTwo classes. So, is there any way to get such functionality from the default model binder?

    Read the article

  • The Interaction between Three-Tier Client/Server Model and Three-Tier Application Architecture Model

    The three-tier client/server model is a network architectural approach currently used in modern networking. This approach divides a network in to three distinct components. Three-Tier Client/Server Model Components Client Component Server Component Database Component The Client Component of the network typically represents any device on the network. A basic example of this would be computer or another network/web enabled devices that are connected to a network. Network clients request resources on the network, and are usually equipped with a user interface for the presentation of the data returned from the Server Component. This process is done through the use of various software clients, and example of this can be seen through the use of a web browser client. The web browser request information from the Server Component located on the network and then renders the results for the user to process. The Server Components of the network return data based on specific client request back to the requesting client.  Server Components also inherit the attributes of a Client Component in that they are a device on the network and that they can also request information from other Server Components. However what differentiates a Client Component from a Server Component is that a Server Component response to requests from devices on the network. An example of a Server Component can be seen in a web server. A web server listens for new requests and then interprets the request, processes the web pages, and then returns the processed data back to the web browser client so that it may render the data for the user to interpret. The Database Component of the network returns unprocessed data from databases or other resources. This component also inherits attributes from the Server Component in that it is a device on a network, it can request information from other server components and database components, and it also listens for new requests so that it can return data when needed. The three-tier client/server model is very similar to the three-tier application architecture model, and in fact the layers can be mapped to one another. Three-Tier Application Architecture Model Presentation Layer/Logic Business Layer/Logic Data Layer/Logic The Presentation Layer including its underlying logic is very similar to the Client Component of the three-tiered model. The Presentation Layer focuses on interpreting the data returned by the Business Layer as well as presents the data back to the user.  Both the Presentation Layer and the Client Component focus primarily on the user and their experience. This allows for segments of the Business Layer to be distributable and interchangeable because the Presentation Layer is not directly integrated in with Business Layer. The Presentation Layer does not care where the data comes from as long as it is in the proper format. This allows for the Presentation Layer and Business Layer to be stored on one or more different servers so that it can provide a higher availability to clients requesting data. A good example of this is a web site that uses load balancing. When a web site decides to take on the task of load balancing they must obtain a network device that sits in front of a one or machines in order to distribute the request across multiple servers. When a user comes in through the load balanced device they are redirected to a specific server based on a few factors. Common Load Balancing Factors Current Server Availability Current Server Response Time Current Server Priority The Business Layer and corresponding logic are business rules applied to data prior to it being sent to the Presentation Layer. These rules are used to manipulate the data coming from the Data Access Layer, in addition to validating any data prior to being stored in the Data Access Layer. A good example of this would be when a user is trying to create multiple accounts under one email address. The Business Layer logic can prevent duplicate accounts by enforcing a unique email for every new account before the data is even stored in the Data Access Layer. The Server Component can be directly tied to this layer in that the server typically stores and process the Business Layer before it is returned to the end-user via the Presentation Layer. In addition the Server Component can also run automated process through the Business Layer on the data in the Data Access Layer so that additional business analysis can be derived from the data that has been already collected. The Data Layer and its logic are responsible for storing information so that it can be easily retrieved. Typical in most modern applications data is stored in a database management system however data can also be in the form of files stored on a file server. In addition a database can take on one of several forms. Common Database Formats XML File Pipe Delimited File Tab Delimited File Comma Delimited File (CSV) Plain Text File Microsoft Access Microsoft SQL Server MySql Oracle Sybase The Database component of the Networking model can be directly tied to the Data Layer because this is where the Data Layer obtains the data to return back the Business Layer. The Database Component basically allows for a place on the network to store data for future use. This enables applications to save data when they can and then quickly recall the saved data as needed so that the application does not have to worry about storing the data in memory. This prevents overhead that could be created when an application must retain all data in memory. As you can see the Three-Tier Client/Server Networking Model and the Three-Tiered Application Architecture Model rely very heavily on one another to function especially if different aspects of an application are distributed across an entire network. The use of various servers and database servers are wonderful when an application has a need to distribute work across the network. Network Components and Application Layers Interaction Database components will store all data needed for the Data Access Layer to manipulate and return to the Business Layer Server Component executes the Business Layer that manipulates data so that it can be returned to the Presentation Layer Client Component hosts the Presentation Layer that  interprets the data and present it to the user

    Read the article

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