Search Results

Search found 160 results on 7 pages for 'mstest'.

Page 4/7 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >

  • MS Test : How do I enforce exception message with ExpectedException attribute

    - by CRice
    I thought these two tests should behave identically, in fact I have written the test in my project using MS Test only to find out now that it does not respect the expected message in the same way that nunit does. nunit (fails): [Test, ExpectedException(typeof(System.FormatException), ExpectedMessage = "blah")] public void Validate() { int.Parse("dfd"); } ms test (passes): [TestMethod, ExpectedException(typeof(System.FormatException), "blah")] public void Validate() { int.Parse("dfd"); } No matter what message I give the ms test, it will pass. Is there any way to get the ms test to fail if the message is not right? Can I even create my own exception attribute? I would rather not have to write a try catch block for every test where this occurs.

    Read the article

  • Assemblies mysteriously loaded into new AppDomains

    - by Eric
    I'm testing some code that does work whenever assemblies are loaded into an appdomain. For unit testing (in VS2k8's built-in test host) I spin up a new, uniquely-named appdomain prior to each test with the idea that it should be "clean": [TestInitialize()] public void CalledBeforeEachTestMethod() { AppDomainSetup appSetup = new AppDomainSetup(); appSetup.ApplicationBase = @"G:\<ProjectDir>\bin\Debug"; Evidence baseEvidence = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.Evidence; Evidence evidence = new Evidence( baseEvidence ); _testAppDomain = AppDomain.CreateDomain( "myAppDomain" + _appDomainCounter++, evidence, appSetup ); } [TestMethod] public void MissingFactoryCausesAppDomainUnload() { SupportingClass supportClassObj = (SupportingClass)_testAppDomain.CreateInstanceAndUnwrap( GetType().Assembly.GetName().Name, typeof( SupportingClass ).FullName ); try { supportClassObj.LoadMissingRegistrationAssembly(); Assert.Fail( "Should have nuked the app domain" ); } catch( AppDomainUnloadedException ) { } } [TestMethod] public void InvalidFactoryMethodCausesAppDomainUnload() { SupportingClass supportClassObj = (SupportingClass)_testAppDomain.CreateInstanceAndUnwrap( GetType().Assembly.GetName().Name, typeof( SupportingClass ).FullName ); try { supportClassObj.LoadInvalidFactoriesAssembly(); Assert.Fail( "Should have nuked the app domain" ); } catch( AppDomainUnloadedException ) { } } public class SupportingClass : MarshalByRefObject { public void LoadMissingRegistrationAssembly() { MissingRegistration.Main(); } public void LoadInvalidFactoriesAssembly() { InvalidFactories.Main(); } } If every test is run individually I find that it works correctly; the appdomain is created and has only the few intended assemblies loaded. However, if multiple tests are run in succession then each _testAppDomain already has assemblies loaded from all previous tests. Oddly enough, the two tests get appdomains with different names. The test assemblies that define MissingRegistration and InvalidFactories (two different assemblies) are never loaded into the unit test's default appdomain. Can anyone explain this behavior?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Getting path of file copied after deployment in a unit test

    - by amitchd
    The connection string in my app.config for my C# project looks like Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename='|DataDirectory|\EIC.mdf';Integrated Security=True;User Instance=True" I am writing unit tests for the project and have the set the test run configuration to copy the EIC.mdf, but I do am not able to reference the Deployed copy of EIC.mdf to be referenced by the app.config I created for the test project. If I set it to Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename='EIC.mdf';Integrated Security=True;User Instance=True" It still does not find the mdf file.

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2008 Unit test does not pick up code changes unless I build the entire solution

    - by Orion Edwards
    Here's the scenario: Change my code: Change my unit test for that code With the cursor inside the unit test class/method, invoke VS2008's "Run tests in current context" command The visual studio "Output" window indicates that the code dll and the test dll both successfully build (in that order) The problem is however, that the unit test does not use the latest version of the dll which it has just built. Instead, it uses the previously built dll (which doesn't have the updated code in it), so the test fails. When adding a new method, this results in a MethodNotImplementedException, and when adding a class, it results in a TypeLoadException, both because the unit test thinks the new code is there, and it isn't!. If I'm just updating an existing method, then the test just fails due to incorrect results. I can 'work around' the problem by doing this Change my code: Change my unit test for that code Invoke VS2008's 'Build Solution' command With the cursor inside the unit test class/method, invoke VS2008's "Run tests in current context" command The problem is that doing a full build solution (even though nothing has changed) takes upwards of 30 seconds, as I have approx 50 C# projects, and VS2008 is not smart enough to realize that only 2 of them need to be looked at. Having to wait 30 seconds just to change 1 line of code and re-run a unit test is abysmal. Is there anything I can do to fix this? None of my code is in the GAC or anything funny like that, it's just ordinary old dll's (buiding against .NET 3.5SP1 on a win7/64bit machine) Please help!

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to avoid try...catch...finally... in my unit tests?

    - by Bruce Li
    I'm writing many unit tests in VS 2010 with Microsoft Test. In each test class I have many test methods similar to below: [TestMethod] public void This_is_a_Test() { try { // do some test here // assert } catch (Exception ex) { // test failed, log error message in my log file and make the test fail } finally { // do some cleanup with different parameters } } When each test method looks like this I fell it's kind of ugly. But so far I haven't found a good solution to make my test code more clean, especially the cleanup code in the finally block. Could someone here give me some advices on this? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Using content from the project in tests

    - by oillio
    I am working with Visual Studio 2010 and it's integrated testing functionality. I have an XML file in my project which is set to copy to the output directory. I can access the file just fine when I compile and run the project. But it doesn't exist when I attempt to access it within a TestMethod. It looks like the test is run with the working directory set to an "Out" directory created within the TestResults directory. I can set a breakpoint before I use the file. If I then copy the file into this "Out" directory and continue running the test it accesses the file properly. But that is not really how I want my automated tests to function. Is it possible to tell VS to copy the build directory into this working directory?

    Read the article

  • Detect if Visual Studio Test is running

    - by RTigger
    Is there an easy way to detect if you're running in the context of a Visual Studio Test as opposed to debug or release? Here's the scenario - we have a factory class that we use heavily throughout our existing codebase, and I figured instead of refactoring it out in each class so we can substitute the default factory with one that would return mock/fake objects, I could add something in the factory class itself to return those mock objects if it detects it's running in "test" mode.

    Read the article

  • Are multiple asserts bad in a unit test? Even if chaining?

    - by Michael Haren
    Is there anything wrong with checking so many things in this unit test?: ActualModel = ActualResult.AssertViewRendered() // check 1 .ForView("Index") // check 2 .WithViewData<List<Page>>(); // check 3 CollectionAssert.AreEqual(Expected, ActualModel); // check 4 The primary goals of this test are to verify the right view is returned (check 2) and it contains the right data (check 4). Would I gain anything by splitting this into multiple tests? I'm all about doing things right, but I'm not going to split things up if it doesn't have practical value. I'm pretty new to unit testing, so be gentle.

    Read the article

  • C# Attributes Aren't Supposed to Inherit

    - by Adam
    Since attributes don't inherit in C# (at least I didn't think they did) - how does the following code still display the Hello popup when the MyTestMethod test is run: [TestClass] public class BaseTestClass { [TestInitialize] public void Foo() { System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show("Hello"); } } [TestClass] public class TestClass : BaseTestClass { [TestMethod] public void MyTestMethod() { Assert.IsTrue(true); } }

    Read the article

  • Converting NUnit tests to MSUnit.

    - by TATWORTH
    I created the MSTest project by creating a new class library project and copying the test classes to it. I then followed the instructions in the following posts.http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/vststest/thread/eeb42224-bc1f-476d-98b4-93d0daf44aadhttp://dangerz.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/converting-nunit-to-mstest.htmlHowever I did not need to add the GUID fix as I used ReSharper to run both sets of tests.

    Read the article

  • Too much memory consumed during TFS automated build

    - by Bernard Chen
    We're running TFS 2010 Standard Edition, and we've set up an automated build to run whenever someone checks in code. We run through all of the automated tests (built with MSTest) as part of the build. We've configured the build to run the tests as a 64-bit process, but the QTAgent.exe that runs the tests grows in memory while the tests are running. It is currently reaching 8GB for the ~650 tests we have, and the process has slowed significantly when we went from 450 tests to 650 tests. When we run all of the tests in the local development environment, memory seems to be freed at least with each TestClass and never exceeds a certain level. The process of running all tests has not increased significantly in the local development environment. Is there a way to configure the build service to free up memory with each Test or each TestClass? With the way things are currently running, the build process gets very slow when we start to run out of memory on the machine. Edit: I found the MSTest invocation in the build log and ran it manually and saw the same behavior of runaway memory. I removed the /publish, /publishbuild, /teamproject, /platform, and /flavor parameters from the invocation of MSTest, in case the test runner was holding onto results until the end, but the behavior didn't change. I ran the same command line on a dev box, separate from the build server, and the memory freed up frequently. It seems there must be something wrong/different about the build server that is causing it to behave different, but I'm stumped where to look. I've looked at qtagent.exe.config, mstest.exe.config, versions of both executables. What else might affect this?

    Read the article

  • TestDriven.Net 3.0 – All Systems Go

    - by Jamie Cansdale
    I’m pleased to announce that TestDriven.Net 3.0 is now available. Finally! I know many of you will already be using the Beta and RC versions, but if you look at the release notes you’ll see there’s been many refinements since then, so I highly recommend you install the RTM version. Here is a quick summary of a few new features: Visual Studio 2010 supports targeting multiple versions of the .NET framework (multi-targeting). This means you can easily upgrade your Visual Studio 2005/2008 solutions without necessarily converting them to use .NET 4.0. TestDriven.Net will execute your tests using the .NET version your test project is targeting (see ‘Properties > Application > Target framework’). There is now first class support for MSTest when using Visual Studio 2008 & 2010. Previous versions of TestDriven.Net had support for a limited number of MSTest attributes. This version supports virtually all MSTest unit testing related attributes, including support for deployment item and data driven test attributes. You should also find this test runner is quick. ;) There is a new ‘Go To Test/Code’ command on the code context menu. You can think of this as Ctrl-Tab for test driven developers; it will quickly flip back and forth between your tests and code under test. I recommend assigning a keyboard shortcut to the ‘TestDriven.NET.GoToTestOrCode’ command. NCover can now be used for code coverage on .NET 4.0. This is only officially supported since NCover 3.2 (your mileage may vary if you’re using the 1.5.8 version). Rather than clutter the ‘Output’ window, ignored or skipped tests will be placed on the ‘Task List’. You can double-click on these items to navigate to the offending test (or assign a keyboard shortcut to ‘View.NextTask’). If you’re using a Team, Premium or Ultimate edition of Visual Studio 2005-2010, a new ‘Test With > Performance’ command will be available. This command will perform instrumented performance profiling on your target code. A particular focus of this version has been to make it more keyboard friendly. Here’s a list of commands you will probably want to assign keyboard shortcuts to: Name Default What I use TestDriven.NET.RunTests Run tests in context   Alt + T TestDriven.NET.RerunTests Repeat test run   Alt + R TestDriven.NET.GoToTestOrCode Flip between tests and code   Alt + G TestDriven.NET.Debugger Run tests with debugger   Alt + D View.Output Show the ‘Output’ window Ctrl+ Alt + O   Edit.BreakLine Edit code in stack trace Enter   View.NextError Jump to next failed test Ctrl + Shift + F12   View.NextTask Jump to next skipped test   Alt + S   By default the ‘Output’ window will automatically activate when there is test output or a failed test (this is an option). The cursor will be positioned on the stack trace of the last failed test, ready for you to hit ‘Enter’ to jump to the fail point or ‘Esc’ to return to your source (assuming your ‘Output’ window is set to auto-hide).  If your ‘Output’ window isn’t set to auto-hide, you’ll need to hit ‘Ctrl + Alt + O’ then ‘Enter’. Alternatively you can use ‘Ctrl + Shift + F12’ (View.NextError) to navigate between all failed tests.   For more frequent updates or to give feedback, you can find me on twitter here. I hope you enjoy this version. Let me know how you get on. :)

    Read the article

  • TFS 2010 Build: Dealing with the API restriction error

    - by Jakob Ehn
    Recently I’ve come across this error a couple of times when running builds that exeucte unit tests using Test containers: API restriction: The assembly 'file:///C:\Builds\<path>\myassembly.dll' has already loaded from a different location. It cannot be loaded from a new location within the same appdomain. Every time I’ve got this error, the project has been a web application, and the path to the assembly points down to the _PublishedWebsites directory that is created beneath the Binaries folder during a team build. The error description really says it all (although slightly cryptic), when using test containers, MSTest needs to load all assemblies and see if they contain any unit tests. During this serach, it finds the ‘myassembly.dll’ in two different locations. First it is found directly beneth the Binaries folder, and then it is alos found beneath the _PublishedWebsites\Project\bin folder. The reason is that the default setting for test containers in a TFS 2010 build definition is **\*test*.dll:   This pattern means that MSTest will search recursively for all assemblies beneath the Binaries folder, and during the search it will find the MyAssembly.dll twice. The solution is simple, set the Test assembly file specification property to *test*.dll instead, this will disable the recursive search:

    Read the article

  • Speed up loading of test results from builds in Visual Studio

    - by Jakob Ehn
    I still see people complaining about the long time it takes to load test results from a TFS build in Visual Studio. And they make a valid point, it does take a very long time to load the test results, even for a small number of tests. The reason for this is that the test results is not just the result of the test run but also all the binaries that were part of the test run. This often also means that the debug symbols (*.pdb) will be downloaded to your local machine. This reason for this behaviour is that it letsyou re-run the tests locally. However, most of the times this is not what the developer will do, they just want to know which tests failed and why. They can then fix the tests and rerun them locally. It turns out there is a way to load only the test results, which is much faster. The only tricky bit is to find the location of the .trx file that is generated during the build. Particularly in TFS 2010 where you often have multiple build agents, which of corse results in different paths to the trx file. Note: To use this you must have read permission to the build folder on the build agent where the build was executed. Open the build result for the build Click View Log Locate the part where MSTest is invoked. When using test containers, it looks like this:   Note: You can actually search in the log window, press Ctrl+F and you will get a little search box at the bottom. Nice! On the MSTest command line call, locate the /resultsfileroot parameter, which points to the folder where the test results are stored Note that this path is local for the build server, so you need to replace the drive letter with the server name: D:\Builds\Project\TestResults to \Project\TestResults">\\<BuildServer>\Project\TestResults Double-click on the .trx file and you will notice that it loads much faster compared to opening it from the build log window

    Read the article

  • VS2010 Custom Code Analysis Rule

    - by devlife
    I'm trying to write a custom fxcop rule for mstest projects VS2010. I'd like to debug it but keep getting an exception when it tries to load the dll for the mstest project it fails stating that it can't find referenced assembly: Microsoft.FxCop.Common.AssemblyLoadException Could not load C:\Users\Administrator\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\20100106-CodeAnalysisRulesBlogDemo\BlogDemo\TestProject1\bin\Debug\TestProject1.dll. Microsoft.FxCop.Sdk.InvalidMetadataException The following error was encountered while reading module 'TestProject1': Assembly reference cannot be resolved: Microsoft.VisualStudio.QualityTools.UnitTestFramework, Version=10.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a. Does anyone have any idea how to resolve this? If I just run the code analysis it works fine but as soon as I try to debug it fails. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How do you run PartCover with spaces in the path?

    - by nportelli
    I have a msbuild file that I'm trying to run from Hudson CI. It outputs like this "C:\Program Files\Gubka Bob\PartCover .NET 2\PartCover.exe" --target "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Common7\IDE\MSTest.exe" --target-args "/noisolation" "/testcontainer:C:\CI\Hudson\jobs\Video Raffle\workspace\Source\VideoRaffleCaller\Source\VideoRaffleCaller.Test.Unit\bin\Debug\VideoRaffleCaller.Test.Unit.dll" --include "[VideoRaffleCaller*]*" --output "Coverage\partcover.xml" I get this error Invalid switch "raffle\workspace\source\videorafflecaller\source\videorafflecall er.test.unit\bin\debug\videorafflecaller.test.unit.dll". For switch syntax, type "MSTest /help" WTF? Looks like PartCover doesn't handle spaces in the --target-args well. Or am I missing some quotes somewhere? Has anyone gotten something like to to work?

    Read the article

  • Mocking the Unmockable: Using Microsoft Moles with Gallio

    - by Thomas Weller
    Usual opensource mocking frameworks (like e.g. Moq or Rhino.Mocks) can mock only interfaces and virtual methods. In contrary to that, Microsoft’s Moles framework can ‘mock’ virtually anything, in that it uses runtime instrumentation to inject callbacks in the method MSIL bodies of the moled methods. Therefore, it is possible to detour any .NET method, including non-virtual/static methods in sealed types. This can be extremely helpful when dealing e.g. with code that calls into the .NET framework, some third-party or legacy stuff etc… Some useful collected resources (links to website, documentation material and some videos) can be found in my toolbox on Delicious under this link: http://delicious.com/thomasweller/toolbox+moles A Gallio extension for Moles Originally, Moles is a part of Microsoft’s Pex framework and thus integrates best with Visual Studio Unit Tests (MSTest). However, the Moles sample download contains some additional assemblies to also support other unit test frameworks. They provide a Moled attribute to ease the usage of mole types with the respective framework (there are extensions for NUnit, xUnit.net and MbUnit v2 included with the samples). As there is no such extension for the Gallio platform, I did the few required lines myself – the resulting Gallio.Moles.dll is included with the sample download. With this little assembly in place, it is possible to use Moles with Gallio like that: [Test, Moled] public void SomeTest() {     ... What you can do with it Moles can be very helpful, if you need to ‘mock’ something other than a virtual or interface-implementing method. This might be the case when dealing with some third-party component, legacy code, or if you want to ‘mock’ the .NET framework itself. Generally, you need to announce each moled type that you want to use in a test with the MoledType attribute on assembly level. For example: [assembly: MoledType(typeof(System.IO.File))] Below are some typical use cases for Moles. For a more detailed overview (incl. naming conventions and an instruction on how to create the required moles assemblies), please refer to the reference material above.  Detouring the .NET framework Imagine that you want to test a method similar to the one below, which internally calls some framework method:   public void ReadFileContent(string fileName) {     this.FileContent = System.IO.File.ReadAllText(fileName); } Using a mole, you would replace the call to the File.ReadAllText(string) method with a runtime delegate like so: [Test, Moled] [Description("This 'mocks' the System.IO.File class with a custom delegate.")] public void ReadFileContentWithMoles() {     // arrange ('mock' the FileSystem with a delegate)     System.IO.Moles.MFile.ReadAllTextString = (fname => fname == FileName ? FileContent : "WrongFileName");       // act     var testTarget = new TestTarget.TestTarget();     testTarget.ReadFileContent(FileName);       // assert     Assert.AreEqual(FileContent, testTarget.FileContent); } Detouring static methods and/or classes A static method like the below… public static string StaticMethod(int x, int y) {     return string.Format("{0}{1}", x, y); } … can be ‘mocked’ with the following: [Test, Moled] public void StaticMethodWithMoles() {     MStaticClass.StaticMethodInt32Int32 = ((x, y) => "uups");       var result = StaticClass.StaticMethod(1, 2);       Assert.AreEqual("uups", result); } Detouring constructors You can do this delegate thing even with a class’ constructor. The syntax for this is not all  too intuitive, because you have to setup the internal state of the mole, but generally it works like a charm. For example, to replace this c’tor… public class ClassWithCtor {     public int Value { get; private set; }       public ClassWithCtor(int someValue)     {         this.Value = someValue;     } } … you would do the following: [Test, Moled] public void ConstructorTestWithMoles() {     MClassWithCtor.ConstructorInt32 =            ((@class, @value) => new MClassWithCtor(@class) {ValueGet = () => 99});       var classWithCtor = new ClassWithCtor(3);       Assert.AreEqual(99, classWithCtor.Value); } Detouring abstract base classes You can also use this approach to ‘mock’ abstract base classes of a class that you call in your test. Assumed that you have something like that: public abstract class AbstractBaseClass {     public virtual string SaySomething()     {         return "Hello from base.";     } }      public class ChildClass : AbstractBaseClass {     public override string SaySomething()     {         return string.Format(             "Hello from child. Base says: '{0}'",             base.SaySomething());     } } Then you would set up the child’s underlying base class like this: [Test, Moled] public void AbstractBaseClassTestWithMoles() {     ChildClass child = new ChildClass();     new MAbstractBaseClass(child)         {                 SaySomething = () => "Leave me alone!"         }         .InstanceBehavior = MoleBehaviors.Fallthrough;       var hello = child.SaySomething();       Assert.AreEqual("Hello from child. Base says: 'Leave me alone!'", hello); } Setting the moles behavior to a value of  MoleBehaviors.Fallthrough causes the ‘original’ method to be called if a respective delegate is not provided explicitly – here it causes the ChildClass’ override of the SaySomething() method to be called. There are some more possible scenarios, where the Moles framework could be of much help (e.g. it’s also possible to detour interface implementations like IEnumerable<T> and such…). One other possibility that comes to my mind (because I’m currently dealing with that), is to replace calls from repository classes to the ADO.NET Entity Framework O/R mapper with delegates to isolate the repository classes from the underlying database, which otherwise would not be possible… Usage Since Moles relies on runtime instrumentation, mole types must be run under the Pex profiler. This only works from inside Visual Studio if you write your tests with MSTest (Visual Studio Unit Test). While other unit test frameworks generally can be used with Moles, they require the respective tests to be run via command line, executed through the moles.runner.exe tool. A typical test execution would be similar to this: moles.runner.exe <mytests.dll> /runner:<myframework.console.exe> /args:/<myargs> So, the moled test can be run through tools like NCover or a scripting tool like MSBuild (which makes them easy to run in a Continuous Integration environment), but they are somewhat unhandy to run in the usual TDD workflow (which I described in some detail here). To make this a bit more fluent, I wrote a ReSharper live template to generate the respective command line for the test (it is also included in the sample download – moled_cmd.xml). - This is just a quick-and-dirty ‘solution’. Maybe it makes sense to write an extra Gallio adapter plugin (similar to the many others that are already provided) and include it with the Gallio download package, if  there’s sufficient demand for it. As of now, the only way to run tests with the Moles framework from within Visual Studio is by using them with MSTest. From the command line, anything with a managed console runner can be used (provided that the appropriate extension is in place)… A typical Gallio/Moles command line (as generated by the mentioned R#-template) looks like that: "%ProgramFiles%\Microsoft Moles\bin\moles.runner.exe" /runner:"%ProgramFiles%\Gallio\bin\Gallio.Echo.exe" "Gallio.Moles.Demo.dll" /args:/r:IsolatedAppDomain /args:/filter:"ExactType:TestFixture and Member:ReadFileContentWithMoles" -- Note: When using the command line with Echo (Gallio’s console runner), be sure to always include the IsolatedAppDomain option, otherwise the tests won’t use the instrumentation callbacks! -- License issues As I already said, the free mocking frameworks can mock only interfaces and virtual methods. if you want to mock other things, you need the Typemock Isolator tool for that, which comes with license costs (Although these ‘costs’ are ridiculously low compared to the value that such a tool can bring to a software project, spending money often is a considerable gateway hurdle in real life...).  The Moles framework also is not totally free, but comes with the same license conditions as the (closely related) Pex framework: It is free for academic/non-commercial use only, to use it in a ‘real’ software project requires an MSDN Subscription (from VS2010pro on). The demo solution The sample solution (VS 2008) can be downloaded from here. It contains the Gallio.Moles.dll which provides the here described Moled attribute, the above mentioned R#-template (moled_cmd.xml) and a test fixture containing the above described use case scenarios. To run it, you need the Gallio framework (download) and Microsoft Moles (download) being installed in the default locations. Happy testing…

    Read the article

  • More on Map Testing

    - by Michael Stephenson
    I have been chatting with Maurice den Heijer recently about his codeplex project for the BizTalk Map Testing Framework (http://mtf.codeplex.com/). Some of you may remember the article I did for BizTalk 2009 and 2006 about how to test maps but with Maurice's project he is effectively looking at how to improve productivity and quality by building some useful testing features within the framework to simplify the process of testing maps. As part of our discussion we realized that we both had slightly different approaches to how we validate the output from the map. Put simple Maurice does some xpath validation of the data in various nodes where as my approach for most standard cases is to use serialization to allow you to validate the output using normal MSTest assertions. I'm not really going to go into the pro's and con's of each approach because I think there is a place for both and also I'm sure others have various approaches which work too. What would be great is for the map testing framework to provide support for different ways of testing which can cover everything from simple cases to some very specialized scenarios. So as agreed with Maurice I have done the sample which I will talk about in the rest of this article to show how we can use the serialization approach to create and compare the input and output from a map in normal development testing. Prerequisites One of the common patterns I usually implement when developing BizTalk solutions is to use xsd.exe to create .net classes for most of the schemas used within the solution. In the testing pattern I will take advantage of these .net classes. The Map In this sample the map we will use is very simple and just concatenates some data from the input message to the output message. Hopefully the below picture illustrates this well. The Test In the test I'm basically taking the following actions: Use the .net class generated from the schema to create an input message for the map Serialize the input object to a file Run the map from .net using the standard BizTalk test method which was generated for running the map Deserialize the output file from the map execution to a .net class representing the output schema Use MsTest assertions to validate things about the output message The below picture shows this: As you can see the code for this is pretty simple and it's all strongly typed which means changes to my schema which can affect the tests can be easily picked up as compilation errors. I can then chose to have one test which validates most of the output from the map, or to have many specific tests covering individual scenarios within the map. Summary Hopefully this post illustrates a powerful yet simple way of effectively testing many BizTalk mapping scenarios. I will probably have more conversations with Maurice about these approaches and perhaps some of the above will be included in the mapping test framework.   The sample can be downloaded from here: http://cid-983a58358c675769.office.live.com/self.aspx/Blog%20Samples/More%20Map%20Testing/MapTestSample.zip

    Read the article

  • Test-only Members: Good or Bad?

    In the article, Dino focuses on two particular situations: dealing with dependencies and testing private members. He'll be discussing this in the context of ASP.NET MVC and MSTest, but without any significant loss of generality.

    Read the article

  • Starting a new Open-source project - 2 - CommonEventLog is available.

    - by TATWORTH
    On this project I needed to provide unit tests both in NUnit and MSTest. I will write about this later.Once done, both projects ran without errors being detected. I loaded up the main project as source to CodePlex. (Resharper was very helpful in that it would run both sets of tests - thank you Jet Brains!) Can't code withoutIn-depth C# code analysis with instant errorand warning highlighting and quick-fixes

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >