Search Results

Search found 39118 results on 1565 pages for 'boost unit test framework'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 40/1565 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

  • boost::enable_if class template method

    - by aaa
    I got class with template methods that looks at this: struct undefined {}; template<typename T> struct is_undefined : mpl::false_ {}; template<> struct is_undefined<undefined> : mpl::true_ {}; template<class C> struct foo { template<class F, class V> typename boost::disable_if<is_undefined<C> >::type apply(const F &f, const V &variables) { } template<class F, class V> typename boost::enable_if<is_undefined<C> >::type apply(const F &f, const V &variables) { } }; apparently, both templates are instantiated, resulting in compile time error. is instantiation of template methods different from instantiation of free functions? I have fixed this differently, but I would like to know what is up. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Wrong code coverage on of unit test

    - by KamilPyc
    I'm using code coverage for unit tests in Xcode. Everything is working except some special cases, for example protocol declaration shows wrong values. If I have : @protocol SomeProtocole <NSObject> @property (nonatomic, readonly) NSObject *example; @end I will get 0% code coverage for this file. But I have unit test that is using class that conforms to that protocol. Only solution I found so far is to filter code coverage raport to not include protocols. But I would like to see real values for protocols. Any one have some solution to fix it?

    Read the article

  • Is my code really not unit-testable?

    - by John
    A lot of code in a current project is directly related to displaying things using a 3rd-party 3D rendering engine. As such, it's easy to say "this is a special case, you can't unit test it". But I wonder if this is a valid excuse... it's easy to think "I am special" but rarely actually the case. Are there types of code which are genuinely not suited for unit-testing? By suitable, I mean "without it taking longer to figure out how to write the test than is worth the effort"... dealing with a ton of 3D math/rendering it could take a lot of work to prove the output of a function is correct compared with just looking at the rendered graphics.

    Read the article

  • Silverlight unit testing (using NUnit)

    - by 1gn1ter
    I'm using NUnit for testing back-end. Unit tests are being executed while building (I'm using TeamCity for continuous building). Now I hove to test front-end (Silverlight 4.0). Because the tests are being executed while building, I have to simulate browser (TypeMock - is not free, isn't it?) could I use NUnit.Mocks somehow?. How to use NUnit for Silverlight testing? I've found WHITE framework could it help? Any other advises about software/frameworks to use for Silverlight unit testing?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing: hard dependency MessageBox.Show()

    - by Sean B
    What ways can the SampleConfirmationDialog be unit tested? The SampleConfirmationDialog would be exercised via acceptance tests, however how could we unit test it, seeing as MessageBox is not abstract and no matching interface? public interface IConfirmationDialog { /// <summary> /// Confirms the dialog with the user /// </summary> /// <returns>True if confirmed, false if not, null if cancelled</returns> bool? Confirm(); } /// <summary> /// Implementation of a confirmation dialog /// </summary> public class SampleConfirmationDialog : IConfirmationDialog { /// <summary> /// Confirms the dialog with the user /// </summary> /// <returns>True if confirmed, false if not, null if cancelled</returns> public bool? Confirm() { return MessageBox.Show("do operation x?", "title", MessageBoxButton.YesNo, MessageBoxImage.Question) == MessageBoxResult.Yes; } }

    Read the article

  • python unit testing os.remove fails file system

    - by hwjp
    Am doing a bit of unit testing on a function which attempts to open a new file, but should fail if the file already exists. when the function runs sucessfully, the new file is created, so i want to delete it after every test run, but it doesn't seem to be working: class MyObject_Initialisation(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): if os.path.exists(TEMPORARY_FILE_NAME): try: os.remove(TEMPORARY_FILE_NAME) except WindowsError: #TODO: can't figure out how to fix this... #time.sleep(3) #self.setUp() #this just loops forever pass def tearDown(self): self.setUp() any thoughts? The Windows Error thrown seems to suggest the file is in use... could it be that the tests are run in parallel threads? I've read elsewhere that it's 'bad practice' to use the filesystem in unit testing, but really? Surely there's a way around this that doesn't invole dummying the filesystem?

    Read the article

  • url not found in zend framework though working for index page

    - by Rohan Thakare
    i am trying to develop website using zend framework so i had created one index.php file where all my requests goes and c.reated two controller one is IndexController and other is TestController Class IndexController extends Zend_Controller_Action{ public function indexAction(){ echo "Index Index Jamla"; } public function displayAction(){ echo "Index Display Jamla"; } } now when i access the url http://test/ it correctly calls IndexController and its IndexAction function but when i access the url http://test/index/index it displays the message url /index/index was not found on this server same it does when i access http://test/test/index though http://test/ is equivalent to http://test/index/index

    Read the article

  • How to use the boost lexical_cast library for just for checking input

    - by Inverse
    I use the boost lexical_cast library for parsing text data into numeric values quite often. In several situations however, I only need to check if values are numeric; I don't actually need or use the conversion. So, I was thinking about writing a simple function to test if a string is a double: template<typename T> bool is_double(const T& s) { try { boost::lexical_cast<double>(s); return true; } catch (...) { return false; } } My question is, are there any optimizing compilers that would drop out the lexical_cast here since I never actually use the value? Is there a better technique to use the lexical_cast library to perform input checking?

    Read the article

  • Write Unit test for sorting

    - by user175084
    I need to write a unit test for a method where I arrange data according to another default list. This is the method. internal AData[] GetDataArrayInInitialSortOrder(ABData aBData) { Dictionary<string,AData > aMap = aBData.ADataArray.ToDictionary(v => v.GroupName, v => v); List<AData> newDataList = new List<AData>(); foreach (AData aData in _viewModel.ADList) newDataList.Add(aMap[aData.GroupName]); return newDataList.ToArray(); } Please help I am new in unit testing and this is not easy for me. Any sample or links are appreciated Thanks

    Read the article

  • Boost: Although compiled, missing lib

    - by Jonathan
    I've compiled Boost and am using it in a Visual C++ project. At some point, I started getting the following error: 1>LINK : fatal error LNK1104: cannot open file 'libboost_filesystem-vc100-mt-sgd-1_45.lib' AFAIK I have the linker configuration set correctly. I've searched for the lib and the closest I found was: libboost_filesystem-vc100-mt-gd-1_45.lib (Notice the missing 's') What does the missing 's' represent? What do these similar yet different libs stand for? How come I'm missing it although I've compiled all of Boost?

    Read the article

  • boost variant static_visitor problem picking correct function

    - by Steve
    I'm sure I'm having a problem with template resolution here, but I'm not sure why I'm having the problem. I have a static visitor I'm passing to boost variant where i've had to do template specialization for certain cases. The case for everything except for MyClass should throw in the static_visitor below. Unfortunately, when the visitor is applied to pull a MyClass out, it selects the most generic case rather than the exact match. I would type each case explicitly, but that will be rather long. So, why is the compiler resolving the most generic case over the exact match, and is there anyway to fix it template<> class CastVisitor<MyClass>:public boost::static_visitor<MyClass> { public: template<typename U> MyClass operator()(const U & i) const { throw std::exception("Unable to cast"); } MyClass operator()(const MyClass& i) { return i; } };

    Read the article

  • Boost.Log - Multiple processes to one log file?

    - by Kevin
    Reading through the doc for Boost.Log, it explains how to "fan out" into multiple files/sinks pretty well from one application, and how to get multiple threads working together to log to one place, but is there any documentation on how to get multiple processes logging to a single log file? What I imagine is that every process would log to its own "private" log file, but in addition, any messages above a certain severity would also go to a "common" log file. Is this possible with Boost.Log? Is there some configuration of the sinks that makes this easy? I understand that I will likely have the same "timestamp out of order" problem described in the FAQ here, but that's OK, as long as the timestamps are correct I can work with that. This is all on one machine, so no remote filesystem problems either.

    Read the article

  • boost test case for function taking user input

    - by oadams
    I have a function that takes in user input via std::cin: std::getline(std::cin, in); and creates a corresponding data structure by matching it with a regular expression. The function then returns this data structure. I'm using boost.test and I want to create a unit test to check that the output data type is correct given some inputs. However I don't know how to go about it since the input isn't passed as an argument to the function. EDIT: Is there a simple way to create a boost test case that feeds the function a string via standard input?

    Read the article

  • Linker Error : Statically Linking of Boost Serialization Library

    - by Manikanda raj S
    I'm trying to link the Boost Serialization Library to my Code. But it doesn't seem to be working. g++ serialize.cpp -L"/usr/local/lib/libboost_serialization.a" Error : /tmp/ccw7eX4A.o: In function boost::archive::text_oarchive::text_oarchive(std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char> >&, unsigned int)': serializep.cpp:(.text._ZN5boost7archive13text_oarchiveC2ERSoj[_ZN5boost7archive13text_oarchiveC5ERSoj]+0x25): undefined reference toboost::archive::text_oarchive_impl::text_oarchive_impl(std::basic_ostream &, unsigned int)' .......... collect2: ld returned 1 exit status But when i link as a shared library, g++ serialize.cpp -lboost_serialization , it works fine. What am i missing here P.S : Other StackOverflow posts with the same question has no answers that work for the above error

    Read the article

  • Value of Step-by-Step Asserts in Unit Tests

    - by Eric J.
    When writing unit tests, there are cases where one can create an Assert for each condition that could fail or an Assert that would catch all such conditions. C# Example: Dictionary<string, string> dict = LoadDictionary(); // Optional Asserts: Assert.IsNotNull(dict); Assert.IsTrue(dict.Count > 0); Assert.IsTrue(dict.ContainsKey("ExpectedKey")); // Condition actually interested in testing: Assert.IsTrue(dict["ExpectedKey"] == "ExpectedValue"); Is there value to a large, multi-person project in this kind of situation to add the "Optional Asserts"? There's more work involved (if you have lots of unit tests) but it will be more immediately clear where the problem lies. I'm using VS 2010 and the integrated testing tools but intend the question to be generic.

    Read the article

  • test post, not public

    test test test more test more test more test more test This site is a resource for asp.net web programming. It has examples by Peter Kellner of techniques for high performance programming...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • GuestPost: Unit Testing Entity Framework (v1) Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator

    - by Eric Nelson
    Time for another guest post (check out others in the series), this time bringing together the world of mocking with the world of Entity Framework. A big thanks to Moses for agreeing to do this. Unit Testing Entity Framework Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator by Muhammad Mosa Introduction Unit testing data access code in my opinion is a challenging thing. Let us consider unit tests and integration tests. In integration tests you are allowed to have environmental dependencies such as a physical database connection to insert, update, delete or retrieve your data. However when performing unit tests it is often much more efficient and productive to remove environmental dependencies. Instead you will need to fake these dependencies. Faking a database (also known as mocking) can be relatively straight forward but the version of Entity Framework released with .Net 3.5 SP1 has a number of implementation specifics which actually makes faking the existence of a database quite difficult. Faking Entity Framework As mentioned earlier, to effectively unit test you will need to fake/simulate Entity Framework calls to the database. There are many free open source mocking frameworks that can help you achieve this but it will require additional effort to overcome & workaround a number of limitations in those frameworks. Examples of these limitations include: Not able to fake calls to non virtual methods Not able to fake sealed classes Not able to fake LINQ to Entities queries (replace database calls with in-memory collection calls) There is a mocking framework which is flexible enough to handle limitations such as those above. The commercially available TypeMock Isolator can do the job for you with less code and ultimately more readable unit tests. I’m going to demonstrate tackling one of those limitations using MoQ as my mocking framework. Then I will tackle the same issue using TypeMock Isolator. Mocking Entity Framework with MoQ One basic need when faking Entity Framework is to fake the ObjectContext. This cannot be done by passing any connection string. You have to pass a correct Entity Framework connection string that specifies CSDL, SSDL and MSL locations along with a provider connection string. Assuming we are going to do that, we’ll explore another limitation. The limitation we are going to face now is related to not being able to fake calls to non-virtual/overridable members with MoQ. I have the following repository method that adds an EntityObject (instance of a Blog entity) to Blogs entity set in an ObjectContext. public override void Add(Blog blog) { if(BlogContext.Blogs.Any(b=>b.Name == blog.Name)) { throw new InvalidOperationException("Blog with same name already exists!"); } BlogContext.AddToBlogs(blog); } The method does a very simple check that the name of the new Blog entity instance doesn’t exist. This is done through the simple LINQ query above. If the blog doesn’t already exist it simply adds it to the current context to be saved when SaveChanges of the ObjectContext instance (e.g. BlogContext) is called. However, if a blog with the same name exits, and exception (InvalideOperationException) will be thrown. Let us now create a unit test for the Add method using MoQ. [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException_When_Blog_With_Same_Name_Already_Exits() { //(1) We shouldn't depend on configuration when doing unit tests! But, //its a workaround to fake the ObjectContext string connectionString = ConfigurationManager .ConnectionStrings["MyBlogConnString"] .ConnectionString; //(2) Arrange: Fake ObjectContext var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); //(3) Next Line will pass, as ObjectContext now can be faked with proper connection string var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); //(4) Create fake ObjectQuery<Blog>. Will be used to substitute MyBlogContext.Blogs property var fakeObjectQuery = new Mock<ObjectQuery<Blog>>("[Blogs]", fakeContext.Object); //(5) Arrange: Set Expectations //Next line will throw an exception by MoQ: //System.ArgumentException: Invalid setup on a non-overridable member fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); //Act repo.Add(new Blog { Name = "NewBlog" }); } This test method is checking to see if the correct exception ([ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))]) is thrown when a developer attempts to Add a blog with a name that’s already exists. On (1) a connection string is initialized from configuration file. To retrieve the full connection string. On (2) a fake ObjectContext is being created. The ObjectContext here is MyBlogContext and its being created using this var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); This way a fake context is being created using MoQ. On (3) a BlogRepository instance is created. BlogRepository has dependency on generate Entity Framework ObjectContext, MyObjectContext. And so the fake context is passed to the constructor. var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); On (4) a fake instance of ObjectQuery<Blog> is being created to use as a substitute to MyObjectContext.Blogs property as we will see in (5). On (5) setup an expectation for calling Blogs property of MyBlogContext and substitute the return result with the fake ObjectQuery<Blog> instance created on (4). When you run this test it will fail with MoQ throwing an exception because of this line: fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); This happens because the generate property MyBlogContext.Blogs is not virtual/overridable. And assuming it is virtual or you managed to make it virtual it will fail at the following line throwing the same exception: fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); This time the test will fail because the Any extension method is not virtual/overridable. You won’t be able to replace ObjectQuery<Blog> with fake in memory collection to test your LINQ to Entities queries. Now lets see how replacing MoQ with TypeMock Isolator can help. Mocking Entity Framework with TypeMock Isolator The following is the same test method we had above for MoQ but this time implemented using TypeMock Isolator: [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_New_Blog_That_Already_Exists_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException() { //(1) Create fake in memory collection of blogs var fakeInMemoryBlogs = new List<Blog> {new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}}; //(2) create fake context var fakeContext = Isolate.Fake.Instance<MyBlogContext>(); //(3) Setup expected call to MyBlogContext.Blogs property through the fake context Isolate.WhenCalled(() => fakeContext.Blogs) .WillReturnCollectionValuesOf(fakeInMemoryBlogs.AsQueryable()); //(4) Create new blog with a name that already exits in the fake in memory collection in (1) var blog = new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}; //(5) Instantiate instance of BlogRepository (Class under test) var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext); //(6) Acting by adding the newly created blog () repo.Add(blog); } When running the above test method it will pass as the Add method of BlogRepository is going to throw an InvalidOperationException which is the expected behaviour. Nothing prevents us from faking out the database interaction! Even faking ObjectContext  at (2) didn’t require a connection string. On (3) Isolator sets up a faking result for MyBlogContext.Blogs when its being called through the fake instance fakeContext created on (2). The faking result is just an in-memory collection declared an initialized on (1). Finally at (6) action we call the Add method of BlogRepository passing a new Blog instance that has a name that’s already exists in the fake in-memory collection which we set up at (1). As expected the test will pass because it will throw the expected exception defined on top of the test method - InvalidOperationException. TypeMock Isolator succeeded in faking Entity Framework with ease. Conclusion We explored how to write a simple unit test using TypeMock Isolator for code which is using Entity Framework. We also explored a few of the limitations of other mocking frameworks which TypeMock is successfully able to handle. There are workarounds that you can use to overcome limitations when using MoQ or Rhino Mock, however the workarounds will require you to write more code and your tests will likely be more complex. For a comparison between different mocking frameworks take a look at this document produced by TypeMock. You might also want to check out this open source project to compare mocking frameworks. I hope you enjoyed this post Muhammad Mosa http://mosesofegypt.net/ http://twitter.com/mosessaur Screencast of unit testing Entity Framework Related Links GuestPost: Introduction to Mocking GuesPost: Typemock Isolator – Much more than an Isolation framework

    Read the article

  • Can I use boost::make_shared with a private constructor?

    - by Billy ONeal
    Consider the following: class DirectoryIterator; namespace detail { class FileDataProxy; class DirectoryIteratorImpl { friend class DirectoryIterator; friend class FileDataProxy; WIN32_FIND_DATAW currentData; HANDLE hFind; std::wstring root; DirectoryIteratorImpl(); explicit DirectoryIteratorImpl(const std::wstring& pathSpec); void increment(); public: ~DirectoryIteratorImpl() {}; }; class FileDataProxy //Serves as a proxy to the WIN32_FIND_DATA struture inside the iterator. { friend class DirectoryIterator; boost::shared_ptr<DirectoryIteratorImpl> iteratorSource; FileDataProxy(boost::shared_ptr<DirectoryIteratorImpl> parent) : iteratorSource(parent) {}; public: std::wstring GetFolderPath() const { return iteratorSource->root; } }; } class DirectoryIterator : public boost::iterator_facade<DirectoryIterator, detail::FileDataProxy, std::input_iterator_tag> { friend class boost::iterator_core_access; boost::shared_ptr<detail::DirectoryIteratorImpl> impl; void increment() { impl->increment(); }; detail::FileDataProxy dereference() const { return detail::FileDataProxy(impl); }; public: DirectoryIterator() { impl = boost::make_shared<detail::DirectoryIteratorImpl>(); }; }; It seems like DirectoryIterator should be able to call boost::make_shared<DirectoryIteratorImpl>, because it is a friend of DirectoryIteratorImpl. However, this code fails to compile because the constructor for DirectoryIteratorImpl is private. Since this class is an internal implementation detail that clients of DirectoryIterator should never touch, it would be nice if I could keep the constructor private. Is this my fundamental misunderstanding around make_shared or do I need to mark some sort of boost piece as friend in order for the call to compile?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing UrlHelper Extension Methods

    - by fregas
    I'm trying to create unit tests to make sure my extension methods for UrlHelper work? Does anyone know how to do this? I'm using MVC 1.0 and MvcContrib. I can test the routes but can't test code like this: public static string MoreFloorplans(this UrlHelper urlHelper, long productID, int pageIndex) { return urlHelper.Action<CatalogController>(x => x.GetRelatedProducts(productID, pageIndex)); }

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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