Search Results

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

Page 40/252 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

  • Benefits of Behavior Driven Development

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/07/26/benefits-of-behavior-driven-development.aspxContinuing my previous article on BDD, I wanted to point out some benefits of BDD and since BDD is an extension of Test Driven Development (TDD), you get those as well. I’ll add another article on some possible downsides of this approach. There are many articles about the benefits of TDD and they apply to BDD. I’ve pointed out some here and copied some of the main points for each article, but there are many more including the book The Art of Unit Testing by Roy Osherove. http://geekswithblogs.net/leesblog/archive/2008/04/30/the-benefits-of-test-driven-development.aspx (Lee Brandt) Stability Accountability Design Ability Separated Concerns Progress Indicator http://tddftw.com/benefits-of-tdd/ Help maintainers understand the intention behind the code Bring validation and proper data handling concerns to the forefront. Writing the tests first is fun. Better APIs come from writing testable code. TDD will make you a better developer. http://www.slideshare.net/dhelper/benefit-from-unit-testing-in-the-real-world (from Typemock). Take a look at the slides, especially the extra time required for TDD (slide 10) and the next one of the bugs avoided using TDD (slide 11). Less bugs (slide 11) about testing and development (13) Increase confidence in code (14) Fearlessly change your code (14) Document Requirements (14) also see http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2013/06/01/roc-rocks.aspx Discover usability issues early (14) All these points and articles are great and there are many more. The following are my additions to the benefits of BDD from using it in real projects for my company. July 2013 on MSDN - Behavior-Driven Design with SpecFlow Scott Allen did a very informative TDD and MVC module, but to me he is doing BDDCompile and Execute Requirements in Microsoft .NET ~ Video from TechEd 2012 Communication I was working through a complicated task that the decision tree kept growing. After writing out the Given, When, Then of the scenario, I was able tell QA what I had worked through for their initial test cases. They were able to add from there. It is also useful to use this language with other developers, managers, or clients to help make informed decisions on if it meets the requirements or if it can simplified to save time (money). Thinking through solutions, before starting to code This was the biggest benefit to me. I like to jump into coding to figure out the problem. Many times I don't understand my path well enough and have to do some parts over. A past supervisor told me several times during reviews that I need to get better at seeing "the forest for the trees". When I sit down and write out the behavior that I need to implement, I force myself to think things out further and catch scenarios before they get to QA. A co-worker that is new to BDD and we’ve been using it in our new project for the last 6 months, said “It really clarifies things”. It took him awhile to understand it all, but now he’s seeing the value of this approach (yes there are some downsides, but that is a different issue). Developers’ Confidence This is huge for me. With tests in place, my confidence grows that I won’t break code that I’m not directly changing. In the past, I’ve worked on projects with out tests and we would frequently find regression bugs (or worse the users would find them). That isn’t fun. We don’t catch all problems with the tests, but when QA catches one, I can write a test to make sure it doesn’t happen again. It’s also good for Releasing code, telling your manager that it’s good to go. As time goes on and the code gets older, how confident are you that checking in code won’t break something somewhere else? Merging code - pre release confidence If you’re merging code a lot, it’s nice to have the tests to help ensure you didn’t merge incorrectly. Interrupted work I had a task that I started and planned out, then was interrupted for a month because of different priorities. When I started it up again, and un-shelved my changes, I had the BDD specs and it helped me remember what I had figured out and what was left to do. It would have much more difficult without the specs and tests. Testing and verifying complicated scenarios Sometimes in the UI there are scenarios that get tricky, because there are a lot of steps involved (click here to open the dialog, enter the information, make sure it’s valid, when I click cancel it should do {x}, when I click ok it should close and do {y}, then do this, etc….). With BDD I can avoid some of the mouse clicking define the scenarios and have them re-run quickly, without using a mouse. UI testing is still needed, but this helps a bunch. The same can be true for tricky server logic. Documentation of Assumptions and Specifications The BDD spec tests (Jasmine or SpecFlow or other tool) also work as documentation and show what the original developer was trying to accomplish. It’s not a different Word document, so developers will keep this up to date, instead of letting it become obsolete. What happens if you leave the project (consulting, new job, etc) with no specs or at the least good comments in the code? Sometimes I think of a new scenario, so I add a failing spec and continue in the same stream of thought (don’t forget it because it was on a piece of paper or in a notepad). Then later I can come back and handle it and have it documented. Jasmine tests and JavaScript –> help deal with the non-typed system I like JavaScript, but I also dislike working with JavaScript. I miss C# telling me if a property doesn’t actually exist at build time. I like the idea of TypeScript and hope to use it more in the future. I also use KnockoutJs, which has observables that need to be called with ending (), since the observable is a function. It’s hard to remember when to use () or not and the Jasmine specs/tests help ensure the correct usage.   This should give you an idea of the benefits that I see in using the BDD approach. I’m sure there are more. It talks a lot of practice, investment and experimentation to figure out how to approach this and to get comfortable with it. I agree with Scott Allen in the video I linked above “Remember that TDD can take some practice. So if you're not doing test-driven design right now? You can start and practice and get better. And you'll reach a point where you'll never want to get back.”

    Read the article

  • Benchmarks Using Oracle Solaris 11

    - by Brian
    The following is a list of links to recent benchmarks which used Oracle Solaris 11. Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database Performance on SPARC T4-2 World Record Performance on PeopleSoft Enterprise Financials Benchmark on SPARC T4-2 SPARC T4 Servers Running Oracle Solaris 11 and Oracle RAC Deliver World Record on PeopleSoft HRMS 9.1 SPEC CPU2006 Results on Oracle's Sun x86 Servers SPARC T4-4 Beats 8-CPU IBM POWER7 on TPC-H @3000GB Benchmark SPARC T4-2 Delivers World Record SPECjvm2008 Result with Oracle Solaris 11 SPARC T4-2 Server Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on ZFS Encryption Tests SPARC T4 Processor Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on AES Encryption Tests SPARC T4 Processor Outperforms IBM POWER7 and Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on OpenSSL AES Encryption Test SPARC T4-1 Server Outperforms Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on IPsec Encryption Tests SPARC T4-2 Server Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on SSL Network Tests SPARC T4-2 Server Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on Oracle Database Tablespace Encryption Queries

    Read the article

  • Achieving decoupling in Model classes

    - by Guven
    I am trying to test-drive (or at least write unit tests) my Model classes but I noticed that my classes end up being too coupled. Since I can't break this coupling, writing unit tests is becoming harder and harder. To be more specific: Model Classes: These are the classes that hold the data in my application. They resemble pretty much the POJO (plain old Java objects), but they also have some methods. The application is not too big so I have around 15 model classes. Coupling: Just to give an example, think of a simple case of Order Header - Order Item. The header knows the item and the item knows the header (needs some information from the header for performing certain operations). Then, let's say there is the relationship between Order Item - Item Report. The item report needs the item as well. At this point, imagine writing tests for Item Report; you need have a Order Header to carry out the tests. This is a simple case with 3 classes; things get more complicated with more classes. I can come up with decoupled classes when I design algorithms, persistence layers, UI interactions, etc... but with model classes, I can't think of a way to separate them. They currently sit as one big chunk of classes that depend on each other. Here are some workarounds that I can think of: Data Generators: I have a package that generates sample data for my model classes. For example, the OrderHeaderGenerator class creates OrderHeaders with some basic data in it. I use the OrderHeaderGenerator from my ItemReport unit-tests so that I get an instance to OrderHeader class. The problem is these generators get complicated pretty fast and then I also need to test these generators; defeating the purpose a little bit. Interfaces instead of dependencies: I can come up with interfaces to get rid of the hard dependencies. For example, the OrderItem class would depend on the IOrderHeader interface. So, in my unit tests, I can easily mock the behaviour of an OrderHeader with a FakeOrderHeader class that implements the IOrderHeader interface. The problem with this approach is the complexity that the Model classes would end up having. Would you have other ideas on how to break this coupling in the model classes? Or, how to make it easier to unit-test the model classes?

    Read the article

  • Stylecop 4.7.36.0 is out!

    - by TATWORTH
    Stylecop 4.7.36.0 has been released at http://stylecop.codeplex.com/releases/view/79972This is an update to coincide with the latest ReSharper. The full fix list is:4.7.36.0 (508dbac00ffc)=======================Fix for 7344. Don't throw 1126 inside default expressions.Fix for 7371. Compare Namespace parts using the CurrentCulture and not InvariantCulture.Fix for 7386. Don't throw casing violations for filed names in languages that do not support case (like Chinese). Added new tests.fix for 7380. Catch Exception caused by CRM Toolkit.Update ReSharper 7.0 dependency to 7.0.1 (7.0.1098.2760)Fix for 7358. Use the RuleId in the call to MSBuild Logging.Fix for 7348. Update suggestion text for constructors.Fix for 7364. Don't throw 1126 for New Array Expressions.Fix for 7372. Throw 1126 inside catch blocks wasn't working. Add new tests.Fix for 7369. Await is allowed to be inside parenthesis. Add new tests.Fix testsCorrect styling issues.Fix for 7373. Typeparam violations were not being thrown in all cases. Added new tests.Fix for 7361. Rule 1120 was logging against the root element and so Suppressions wouldn't work. Fixed and added tests.Updating de-DE resources - from Michael Diermeier - thank you.Change for 7368. Add the violation count into the Task outputs.Fix for 7383. Fix for memory leak in plugins.Update environment to detect ReSharper 7Fix for 7378. Null reference exception from command line run in message output.Update release history.

    Read the article

  • Is deserializing complex objects instead of creating them a good idea, in test setup?

    - by Chris Bye
    I'm writing tests for a component that takes very complex objects as input. These tests are mixes of tests against already existing components, and test-first tests for new features. Instead of re-creating my input objects (this would be a large chunk of code) or reading one from our data store, I had the thought to serialize a live instance of one of these objects, and just deserialize it into test setup. I can't decide if this is a reasonable idea that will save effort in long run, or whether it's the worst idea that I've ever had, causing those that will maintain this code will hunt me down as soon as they read it. Is deserialization of inputs a valid means of test setup in some cases? To give a sense of scale of what I'm dealing with, the size of serialization output for one of these input objects is 93KB. Obtained by, in C#: new BinaryFormatter().Serialize((Stream)fileStream, myObject);

    Read the article

  • How to run SpecFlow tests in Visual Studio 2010?

    - by testerboy
    Trying to get SpecFlow running with a fresh VS2010 Professional install. Created a new console application and added references to NUnit and SpecFlow. Created a SpecFlow feature. The .feature with the default template code is created. Now I try to run this test, but I don't understand how. When I right-click the project (at the top-level), there is no "Run test(s)" option in the mouse drop down menu. Didn't the SpecFlow install correctly, am I missing some references or some other tool I need to install?

    Read the article

  • How to unit test models in MVC / MVR app?

    - by BBnyc
    I'm building a node.js web app and am trying to do so for the first time in a test driven fashion. I'm using nodeunit for testing, which I find allows me to write tests quickly and painlessly. In this particular app, the heavy lifting primarily involves translating SQL data into complex Javascript object and serving them to the front-end via json. Likewise, the app also spends a great deal of code validating and translating complex, multidimensional Javascript objects it receives from the front-end into SQL rows. Hence I have used a fat model design for the app -- most of the real code resides in the models, where the data translation happens. What's the best approach to test such models with unit tests? I mean in particular the methods that have create javascript objects from the SQL rows and serve them to the front-end. Right now what I'm doing is making particular requests of my models with the unit tests and checking the returned data for all of the fields that should be there. However I have a suspicion that this is not the most robust kind of testing I could be doing. My current testing design also means I have to package my app code with some dummy data so that my tests can anticipate the kind of data that the app should be returning when tests run.

    Read the article

  • Should developers be involved in testing phases?

    - by LudoMC
    Hi, we are using a classical V-shaped development process. We then have requirements, architecture, design, implementation, integration tests, system tests and acceptance. Testers are preparing test cases during the first phases of the project. The issue is that, due to resources issues (*), test phases are too long and are often shortened due to time constraints (you know project managers... ;)). So my question is simple: should developers be involved in the tests phases and isn't it too 'dangerous'. I'm afraid it will give the project managers a false feeling of better quality as the work has been done but would the added man.days be of any value? I'm not really confident of developers doing tests (no offense here but we all know it's quite hard to break in a few clicks what you have made in severals days). Thanks for sharing your thoughts. (*) For obscure reasons, increasing the number of testers is not an option as of today. (Just upfront, it's not a duplicate of Should programmers help testers in designing tests? which talks about test preparation and not test execution, where we avoid the implication of developers)

    Read the article

  • Groovy support in Java EE projects

    - by Martin Janicek
    As requested in the issue 144038, I've implemented support for Groovy in a Java enterprise projects. You should be able to combine Java/Groovy files, run them and thanks to the new Groovy JUnit tests support you can also run groovy tests together with your existing Java tests. I hope it will make your enterprise development (and especially enterprise testing) easier and more productive. Note: The changes will be propagated to the NetBeans daily build in a few days, so please stay in touch!

    Read the article

  • Is there a Java unit-test framework that auto-tests getters and setters?

    - by Michael Easter
    There is a well-known debate in Java (and other communities, I'm sure) whether or not trivial getter/setter methods should be tested. Usually, this is with respect to code coverage. Let's agree that this is an open debate, and not try to answer it here. There have been several blog posts on using Java reflection to auto-test such methods. Does any framework (e.g. jUnit) provide such a feature? e.g. An annotation that says "this test T should auto-test all the getters/setters on class C, because I assert that they are standard". It seems to me that it would add value, and if it were configurable, the 'debate' would be left as an option to the user.

    Read the article

  • Make audible Ding! sound, or growl notification, when `rake test` finishes!

    - by Jordan Feldstein
    I lose a ton of productivity by getting distracted while waiting for my tests to run. Usually, I'll start to look at something while they're loading --- and 15-20 minutes later I realize my tests are long done, and I've spent 10 minutes reading online. Make a small change... rerun tests ... another 10-15 minutes wasted! How can I make my computer make some kind of alert (Sound or growl notification) when my tests finish, so I can snap back to what I was doing??

    Read the article

  • Agile team with no dedicated Tester members. Insane or efficient?

    - by MetaFight
    I'm a software developer. I've been thinking a lot about the efficiency of the Software Testers I've worked with so far in my career. In fact, I've been thinking a lot about the Software Testers role in general and have reached a potentially contentious conclusion: Non-developer Software Testers staff are less efficient at software testing than developers. Now, before everyone gets upset, hear me out. This isn't mere opinion: Software Testing and Software Development both require a lot of skills in common: Problem solving Thinking about corner cases Analytical skills The ability to define clear and concise step-by-step scenarios What developers have in addition to this is the ability to automate their tests. Yes, I know non-dev testers can automate their tests too, but that often then becomes a test maintenance issue. Because automating UI tests is essentially programming, non-dev members encounter all the same difficulties software developers encounter: Copy-pasta, lack of code reusibility/maintainability, etc. So, I was wondering. Why not replace all non-dev roles with developer roles? Developers have the skills required to perform Software Testing tasks, and they have the skills to automate tests and keep them maintainable. Would the following work: Hire a bunch of developers and split them into 2 roles: Software developers Software developers doing testing (some manual, mostly automated by writing integration tests, unit tests, etc) Software developers doing application support. (I've removed this as it is probably a separate question altogether) And, in our case since we're doing Agile development, rotate the roles every sprint or two. Also, if at all possible, try to have people spend their Developer stints and Testing stints on different projects. Ideally you would want to reduce the turnover rate per rotation. So maybe you could have 2 groups and make sure the rotation cycles of the groups are elided. So, for example, if each rotation was two sprints long, the two groups would have their rotations 1 sprint apart. That way there's only a 50% turn-over rate per sprint. Am I crazy, or could this work? (Obviously a key component to this working is that all devs want to be in the 3 roles. Let's assume I'm starting a new company and I can hire these ideal people) Edit I've removed the phrase "QA", as apparently we are using it incorrectly where I work.

    Read the article

  • How best to organize projects folders for unit tests in .NET?

    - by Dan Bailiff
    So I'm trying to introduce unit testing to my group. I've successfully upgraded a VS'05 web site project to a VS'08 web application, and now have a solution with the web app project and a unit test project. The issue now is how to fit this back into the source repository such that we don't break the build system and the unit test projects are persisted as well. Right now we have something like this: c:\root c:\root\projectA c:\root\projectB c:\root\projectC where projectA contains the sln file and all other related files/folders for the project. Now I have this new solution that looks like this: c:\root\projectA (parent folder) c:\root\projectA\projectA (the production code project) c:\root\projectA\projectA_Test (the unit test project) c:\root\projectA\TestResults c:\root\projecta\projectA.sln How do I integrate this new structure back into the code repository? I'd really prefer to keep the production code folder where it was in the source repository for the sake of the build, but is this necessary? If I keep the production code project in its usual place then where do I keep my unit test projects and how do I connect them with a sln file? Is it better to use this new structure and adjust the build process? I'd love to hear how other people are dealing with this issue of upgrading legacy projects to unit testing.

    Read the article

  • How Can I Run a Regex that Tests Text for Characters in a Particular Alphabet or Script?

    - by Eli
    I'd like to make a regex in Perl that will test a string for a characters in a particular string. This would be something like: $text =~ .*P{'Chinese'}.* Is there a simple way of doing this, for English it's pretty easy by just testing for [a-zA-Z], but for a script like Chinese, or one of the Japanese scripts, I can't figure out any way of doing this short of writing out every character explicitly, which would make for some very ugly code. Ideas? I can't be the first/only person that's wanted to do this.

    Read the article

  • Test run errors with MSTest in VS2010

    - by Tomas Lycken
    When I run my Unit Tests, all tests pass, but instead of "Test run succeeded" or whatever the success message is, I get "Test run error" in the little bar that tells me how many of my tests pass, even though all my tests passed. When i click the text, I'm taken to a page that tells me the following two things happened: Warning: conflict during test run deployment: deployment item '[...]\Booking.Web.dll' directly or indirectly referenced by the test container [...]\Booking.Web.Tests.dll cannot be deployed to 'Booking.Web.dll' because otherwise the file '[...]\Booking.Web.dll' would override deployment item '[...]\Booking.Web.dll' directly or indirectly referenced by '[...]\Booking.Web.Tests.dll' Error: Cannot initialize the ASP.NET project 'Booking.Web' Exception was thrown: The website could not be configured correctly; getting ASP.NET proccess information failed. Requesting 'http://localhost:54131/VSEnterpriseHelper.axd' returned an error: The remote server returned an error: (500) Internal Server Error. I don't understand half of what it's complaining about. How do I get rid of these errors? (And for reference: Booking.Web is an ASP.NET MVC 2 project, Booking.Web.Tests is a Test project, [...] is the full local path to the projects in my environment, in most of the cases above to the /bin/debug/ folder inside the Booking.Web project)

    Read the article

  • How to change TestNG dataProvider order

    - by momad
    Hi, I am running hundreds of tests against a large publishing system and would like to paralellize the tests using TestNG. However, I cannot find any easy way of doing this. Each test case instanciates an instance of this publisher, send some messages, wait for those messages to be published, then dump out the contents of the publish queues and compare against expected outcome. Doing this with so many tests (even if I paralellize using threads, still takes a very long time to complete (1 day or more)). We've found that in testing this sort of system, it's best to start up system once, run all tests to send their messages, wait for publish to do its thing, dump all outputs, and match outputs with tests and verify. For example, instead of the following: @Test public void testRule1() { Publisher pub = new Publisher(); pub.sendRule(new Rule("test1-a")); sleep(10); // wait 10 seconds pub.dumpRules(); verifyRule("test1-a"); } We wanted to do something like the following: @Test public void testRule1(bool sendMode) { if(sendMode) { this.pub.sendRule(new Rule("test1-a")); } else { verifyRule("test1-a"); } } Where you have a dataProvider run through all the tests with sendMode = true and then perform dumpAllRules() followed by running through all of the tests again with sendMode = false. The problem is, TestNG calls the same method twice, once with sendMode = true followed by sendMode = false. Is there anyway to accomplish this in TestNG? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to implement or emulate an "abstract" OCUnit test class?

    - by Quinn Taylor
    I have a number of Objective-C classes organized in an inheritance hierarchy. They all share a common parent which implements all the behaviors shared among the children. Each child class defines a few methods that make it work, and the parent class raises an exception for the methods designed to be implemented/overridden by its children. This effectively makes the parent a pseudo-abstract class (since it's useless on its own) even though Objective-C doesn't explicitly support abstract classes. The crux of this problem is that I'm unit testing this class hierarchy using OCUnit, and the tests are structured similarly: one test class that exercises the common behavior, with a subclass corresponding to each of the child classes under test. However, running the test cases on the (effectively abstract) parent class is problematic, since the unit tests will fail in spectacular fashion without the key methods. (The alternative of repeating the common tests across 5 test classes is not really an acceptable option.) The non-ideal solution I've been using is to check (in each test method) whether the instance is the parent test class, and bail out if it is. This leads to repeated code in every test method, a problem that becomes increasingly annoying if one's unit tests are highly granular. In addition, all such tests are still executed and reported as successes, skewing the number of meaningful tests that were actually run. What I'd prefer is a way to signal to OCUnit "Don't run any tests in this class, only run them in its child classes." To my knowledge, there isn't (yet) a way to do that, something similar to a +(BOOL)isAbstractTest method I can implement/override. Any ideas on a better way to solve this problem with minimal repetition? Does OCUnit have any ability to flag a test class in this way, or is it time to file a Radar? Edit: Here's a link to the test code in question. Notice the frequent repetition of if (...) return; to start a method, including use of the NonConcreteClass() macro for brevity.

    Read the article

  • What Scheme Does Ghuloum Use?

    - by Don Wakefield
    I'm trying to work my way through Compilers: Backend to Frontend (and Back to Front Again) by Abdulaziz Ghuloum. It seems abbreviated from what one would expect in a full course/seminar, so I'm trying to fill in the pieces myself. For instance, I have tried to use his testing framework in the R5RS flavor of DrScheme, but it doesn't seem to like the macro stuff: src/ghuloum/tests/tests-driver.scm:6:4: read: illegal use of open square bracket I've read his intro paper on the course, An Incremental Approach to Compiler Construction, which gives a great overview of the techniques used, and mentions a couple of Schemes with features one might want to implement for 'extra credit', but he doesn't mention the Scheme he uses in the course. Update I'm still digging into the original question (investigating options such as Petit Scheme suggested by Eli below), but found an interesting link relating to Gholoum's work, so I am including it here. [Ikarus Scheme](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikarus_(Scheme_implementation)) is the actual implementation of Ghuloum's ideas, and appears to have been part of his Ph.D. work. It's supposed to be one of the first implementations of R6RS. I'm trying to install Ikarus now, but the configure script doesn't want to recognize my system's install of libgmp.so, so my problems are still unresolved. Example The following example seems to work in PLT 2.4.2 running in DrEd using the Pretty Big (require lang/plt-pretty-big) (load "/Users/donaldwakefield/ghuloum/tests/tests-driver.scm") (load "/Users/donaldwakefield/ghuloum/tests/tests-1.1-req.scm") (define (emit-program x) (unless (integer? x) (error "---")) (emit " .text") (emit " .globl scheme_entry") (emit " .type scheme_entry, @function") (emit "scheme_entry:") (emit " movl $~s, %eax" x) (emit " ret") ) Attempting to replace the require directive with #lang scheme results in the error message foo.scm:7:3: expand: unbound identifier in module in: emit which appears to be due to a failure to load tests-driver.scm. Attempting to use #lang r6rs disables the REPL, which I'd really like to use, so I'm going to try to continue with Pretty Big. My thanks to Eli Barzilay for his patient help.

    Read the article

  • How do I make the manifest available during a Maven/Surefire unittest run "mvn test" ?

    - by Ernst de Haan
    How do I make the manifest available during a Maven/Surefire unittest run "mvn test" ? I have an open-source project that I am converting from Ant to Maven, including its unit tests. Here's the project source repository with the Maven project: http://github.com/znerd/logdoc My question pertains to the primary module, called "base". This module has a unit test that tests the behaviour of the static method getVersion() in the class org.znerd.logdoc.Library. This method returns: Library.class.getPackage().getImplementationVersion() The getImplementationVersion() method returns a value of a setting in the manifest file. So far, so good. I have tested this in the past and it works well, as long as the manifest is indeed available on the classpath at the path META-INF/MANIFEST.MF (either on the file system or inside a JAR file). Now my challenge is that the manifest file is not available when I run the unit tests: mvn test Surefire runs the unit tests, but my unit test fails with a mesage indicating that Library.getVersion() returned null. When I want to check the JAR, I find that it has not even been generated. Maven/Surefire runs the unit tests against the classes, before the resources are added to the classpath. So can I either run the unit tests against the JAR (implicitly requiring the JAR to be generated first) or can I make sure the resources (including the manifest file) are generated/copied under target/classes before the unit tests are run? Note that I use Maven 2.2.0, Java 1.6.0_17 on Mac OS X 10.6.2, with JUnit 4.8.1.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >