Search Results

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

Page 41/252 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

  • Chicken and egg problem (restore database) when trying to write unit test against SQl Server 2008.

    - by Hamish Grubijan
    Ok, they are not unit tests but end-to-end tests. The setup is somewhat involved. Unit tests will use C#, ODBC connection. Every unit tests will try to clean up after itself, but every 20 tests or so (once per C# class) we would need to do a full database restore. I do not think I can do it over an ODBC connection, according to this document: http://www.sql-server-performance.com/articles/dba/Obtain_Exclusive_Access_to_Restore_SQL_Server_p1.aspx Msg 6104, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Cannot use KILL to kill your own process. However, I would like to, so that 199 tests do not go amok because of a bad clean-up. Is there another way? Perhaps I can open a different "connection" such as use COM automation or something of that sort, and then kill all database connections from there? If so, how can I do that? Also, will the clients be able to re-connect automatically after a restore, or would I have to dismantle everything once every 20 tests or so? If you find this question confusing, please let me know what your questions are. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Running Flash on a headless Solaris box

    - by Marty Pitt
    Our build server is a Solaris box, and I'm trying to run a suite of FlexUnit tests as part of the automated build process. This works by compiling a swf movie with a suite of automated unit tests. The build script launches this movie, which automatically begins running the tests. Results of each test are sent back to the launching script across a port, and written out to a local xml file. Once the tests are completed, the movie closes down, and the build script interrogates the results to see if all the tests passed. The FlexUnit wiki provides information about how to to acheive this on a Unix server, by using Xvnc to provide a virtual space for the flash movie to run its tests in. I've provided this information through to our sys admin team, (along with the link to the article), and I've been told that because this is a Solaris box, we can't use that approach - Xvnc isn't supported on Solaris. Unfortunately, I know very little about servers, *nix vs Solaris, or Xvnc. Can someone please provide some advice about how we can achieve the same outcome on a Solaris box?

    Read the article

  • Running RSpec on Google App Engine via JRuby

    - by Carl
    I'm trying to write some tests (RSpec) against the AppEngine and its datastore. I've tried to load the environment and tests via: appcfg.rb run -S spec app/tests/ And I end up with the following error: spec:19: undefined method `bin_path' for Gem:Module (NoMethodError) I can run non-appengine specs just fine by running: spec app/tests/ Any suggestions on how to get RSpec up and running with JRuby and Google App Engine would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Integration testing - Hibernate & DbUnit

    - by Marco
    Hi, I'm writing some integrations tests in JUnit. What happens here is that when i run all the tests together in a row (and not separately), the data persisted in the database always changes and the tests find unexpected data (inserted by the previous test) during their execution. I was thinking to use DbUnit, but i wonder if it resets the auto-increment index between each execution or not (because the tests also check the IDs of the persisted entities). Thanks M.

    Read the article

  • Null reference to DataContext when testing an ASP.NET MVC app with NUnit

    - by user252160
    I have an ASP.NET MVC application with a separate project added for tests. I know the plusses and minuses of using the connection to the database when running unit tests, and I still want to use it. Yet, every time when I run the tests with the NUnit tool, they all fail due to my Data Context being null. I heard something about having a separate config file for the tests assembly, but i am not sure whether I did it properly, or whether that works at all.

    Read the article

  • Using Selenium IDE with random values

    - by Toby Hede
    Is it possible to create Selenium tests using the Firefox plugin that use randomly generated values to help do regression tests? The full story: I would like to help my clients do acceptance testing by providing them with a suite of tests that use some smarts to create random (or at least pseudo-random) values for the database. One of the issues with my Selenium IDE tests at the moment is that they have predefined values - which makes some types of testing problematic.

    Read the article

  • Old operational master still thinks it is the "one"

    - by Doug
    Hi there, I have a domain with 3 AD servers for now i'll just call them: AD01 (Win 2008 GC, Operations master) AD02 (Win 2008 GC) AD03 (Win 2003 GC) A couple of months there was some hardware issues with AD01 so the operations master, PDC and Infrastructure Master was moved to AD02. All machines where on while this was happening. AD01 (Win 2008 GC) AD02 (Win 2008 GC, Operations master) AD03 (Win 2003 GC) AD01 was then shutdown for a month. Upon starting this machine up with replaced hardware (NIC and RAID card) i now have a weird problem. AD01 Thinks it is operations master still in AD on the local box AD02 & AD03 Thinks AD02 is operations master in AD on both boxes When running DCDIAG on AD01 i get a number of issues (listed below) When running "dcdiag /test:advertising" on AD01: Doing primary tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\AD01 Starting test: Advertising Warning: DsGetDcName returned information for \\ad02.domain.local, when we were trying to reach AD01. SERVER IS NOT RESPONDING or IS NOT CONSIDERED SUITABLE. ......................... AD01 failed test Advertising Running partition tests on : ForestDnsZones Running partition tests on : DomainDnsZones Running partition tests on : Schema Running partition tests on : Configuration Running partition tests on : domain Running enterprise tests on : domain.local When running "dcdiag" on AD01 i get the following errors (excerpt of the Final output): Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\AD01 Starting test: Advertising Warning: DsGetDcName returned information for \\ad02.domain.local, when we were trying to reach AD01. SERVER IS NOT RESPONDING or IS NOT CONSIDERED SUITABLE. ......................... AD01 failed test Advertising Starting test: FrsEvent There are warning or error events within the last 24 hours after the SYSVOL has been shared. Failing SYSVOL replication problems may cause Group Policy problems. Starting test: NCSecDesc Error NT AUTHORITY\ENTERPRISE DOMAIN CONTROLLERS doesn't have Replicating Directory Changes In Filtered Set access rights for the naming context: DC=ForestDnsZones,DC=domain,DC=local Error NT AUTHORITY\ENTERPRISE DOMAIN CONTROLLERS doesn't have Replicating Directory Changes In Filtered Set access rights for the naming context: DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=domain,DC=local Starting test: Replications [Replications Check,Replications Check] Inbound replication is disabled. To correct, run "repadmin /options AD01 -DISABLE_INBOUND_REPL" [Replications Check,AD01] Outbound replication is disabled. To correct, run "repadmin /options AD01 -DISABLE_OUTBOUND_REPL" So the problem appeasr to be that when i moved the operations master, AD01 never got the memo, and now that it's started up, all the other AD servers don't think its the boss anymore when it trys to replicate etc. So i really need to manually update AD01 so that it knows who the operations master, instrastructure and PDC is - but i'm not having any luck I've been googling for nearly a day and all solutions lead to "the cake is a lie" Your ninja skills will be greatly appreciated

    Read the article

  • Active Directory Partition Error

    - by BLAKE
    Right now my active directory is failing a dcdiag test. I can find no info online about this error. When I run dcdiag /test:crossrefvalidation, I get the output: .... Doing primary tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\ad01 Running partition tests on : ForestDnsZones Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... ForestDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : DomainDnsZones Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... DomainDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : Schema Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Schema passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : Configuration Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Configuration passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : mydomain Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... mydomain passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : t Starting test: CrossRefValidation This cross-ref has a non-standard dNSRoot attribute. Cross-ref DN: CN=a3a24d3a-4782-460b-9148-86ac2d86b9ae,CN=Partitions,CN=Configuration, DC=mydomain,DC=com nCName attribute (Partition name): DC=t Bad dNSRoot attribute: dc01.mydomain.com Check with your network administrator to make sure this dNSRoot attribute is correct, and if not please change the attribute to the value below. dNSRoot should be: t It appears this partition (DC=t) failed to get completely created. This cross-ref (CN=a3a24d3a-4782-460b-9148-86ac2d86b9ae,CN=Partitions,CN=Configurat ion,DC=mydomain,DC=com) is dead and should be removed from the Active Directory. ......................... t failed test CrossRefValidation .... I used LDP from the windows support tools. I searched for the dnsRoot attribute in "cn=partitions,cn=configuration,dc=mydomain,dc=com", with the filter "(&(objectcategory=crossref)(systemFlags:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=5))" I got the result: ***Searching... ldap_search_s(ld, "cn=partitions,CN=Configuration,DC=mydomain,DC=com", 1, "(& (objectcategory=crossref)(systemFlags:1.2.840.113556.1.4.803:=5))", attrList, 0, &msg) Result <0>: (null) Matched DNs: Getting 3 entries: >> Dn: CN=65502be3-fc90-442a-83d8-4b3b91e82439,CN=Partitions,CN=Configuration,DC=mydomain,DC=com 1> dnsRoot: ForestDnsZones.mydomain.com; >> Dn: CN=a3a24d3a-4782-460b-9148-86ac2d86b9ae,CN=Partitions,CN=Configuration,DC=mydomain,DC=com 1> dnsRoot: ad01.mydomain.com; >> Dn: CN=f0ef5771-6225-4984-acd9-c08f582eb4e2,CN=Partitions,CN=Configuration,DC=mydomain,DC=com 1> dnsRoot: DomainDnsZones.mydomain.com; It looks like the bad partition has the name of my first domain controller 'ad01.mydomain.com'. I have googled for a while and have not been able to find any help or documentation about application partitions in Active Directory. Does anyone have any advice on how to cleanup this partition (or what the partition is for)? Does anyone know the repercussions for deleting this partition?

    Read the article

  • Code Contracts: Unit testing contracted code

    - by DigiMortal
    Code contracts and unit tests are not replacements for each other. They both have different purpose and different nature. It does not matter if you are using code contracts or not – you still have to write tests for your code. In this posting I will show you how to unit test code with contracts. In my previous posting about code contracts I showed how to avoid ContractExceptions that are defined in code contracts runtime and that are not accessible for us in design time. This was one step further to make my randomizer testable. In this posting I will complete the mission. Problems with current code This is my current code. public class Randomizer {     public static int GetRandomFromRangeContracted(int min, int max)     {         Contract.Requires<ArgumentOutOfRangeException>(             min < max,             "Min must be less than max"         );           Contract.Ensures(             Contract.Result<int>() >= min &&             Contract.Result<int>() <= max,             "Return value is out of range"         );           var rnd = new Random();         return rnd.Next(min, max);     } } As you can see this code has some problems: randomizer class is static and cannot be instantiated. We cannot move this class between components if we need to, GetRandomFromRangeContracted() is not fully testable because we cannot currently affect random number generator output and therefore we cannot test post-contract. Now let’s solve these problems. Making randomizer testable As a first thing I made Randomizer to be class that must be instantiated. This is simple thing to do. Now let’s solve the problem with Random class. To make Randomizer testable I define IRandomGenerator interface and RandomGenerator class. The public constructor of Randomizer accepts IRandomGenerator as argument. public interface IRandomGenerator {     int Next(int min, int max); }   public class RandomGenerator : IRandomGenerator {     private Random _random = new Random();       public int Next(int min, int max)     {         return _random.Next(min, max);     } } And here is our Randomizer after total make-over. public class Randomizer {     private IRandomGenerator _generator;       private Randomizer()     {         _generator = new RandomGenerator();     }       public Randomizer(IRandomGenerator generator)     {         _generator = generator;     }       public int GetRandomFromRangeContracted(int min, int max)     {         Contract.Requires<ArgumentOutOfRangeException>(             min < max,             "Min must be less than max"         );           Contract.Ensures(             Contract.Result<int>() >= min &&             Contract.Result<int>() <= max,             "Return value is out of range"         );           return _generator.Next(min, max);     } } It seems to be inconvenient to instantiate Randomizer now but you can always use DI/IoC containers and break compiled dependencies between the components of your system. Writing tests for randomizer IRandomGenerator solved problem with testing post-condition. Now it is time to write tests for Randomizer class. Writing tests for contracted code is not easy. The main problem is still ContractException that we are not able to access. Still it is the main exception we get as soon as contracts fail. Although pre-conditions are able to throw exceptions with type we want we cannot do much when post-conditions will fail. We have to use Contract.ContractFailed event and this event is called for every contract failure. This way we find ourselves in situation where supporting well input interface makes it impossible to support output interface well and vice versa. ContractFailed is nasty hack and it works pretty weird way. Although documentation sais that ContractFailed is good choice for testing contracts it is still pretty painful. As a last chance I got tests working almost normally when I wrapped them up. Can you remember similar solution from the times of Visual Studio 2008 unit tests? Cannot understand how Microsoft was able to mess up testing again. [TestClass] public class RandomizerTest {     private Mock<IRandomGenerator> _randomMock;     private Randomizer _randomizer;     private string _lastContractError;       public TestContext TestContext { get; set; }       public RandomizerTest()     {         Contract.ContractFailed += (sender, e) =>         {             e.SetHandled();             e.SetUnwind();               throw new Exception(e.FailureKind + ": " + e.Message);         };     }       [TestInitialize()]     public void RandomizerTestInitialize()     {         _randomMock = new Mock<IRandomGenerator>();         _randomizer = new Randomizer(_randomMock.Object);         _lastContractError = string.Empty;     }       #region InputInterfaceTests     [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_min_is_not_less_than_max()     {         try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(100, 10);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }     }       [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_min_is_equal_to_max()     {         try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(10, 10);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }     }       [TestMethod]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_work_when_min_is_less_than_max()     {         int minValue = 10;         int maxValue = 100;         int returnValue = 50;           _randomMock.Setup(r => r.Next(minValue, maxValue))             .Returns(returnValue)             .Verifiable();           var result = _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(minValue, maxValue);           _randomMock.Verify();         Assert.AreEqual<int>(returnValue, result);     }     #endregion       #region OutputInterfaceTests     [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_return_value_is_less_than_min()     {         int minValue = 10;         int maxValue = 100;         int returnValue = 7;           _randomMock.Setup(r => r.Next(10, 100))             .Returns(returnValue)             .Verifiable();           try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(minValue, maxValue);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }           _randomMock.Verify();     }       [TestMethod]     [ExpectedException(typeof(Exception))]     public void GetRandomFromRangeContracted_should_throw_exception_when_return_value_is_more_than_max()     {         int minValue = 10;         int maxValue = 100;         int returnValue = 102;           _randomMock.Setup(r => r.Next(10, 100))             .Returns(returnValue)             .Verifiable();           try         {             _randomizer.GetRandomFromRangeContracted(minValue, maxValue);         }         catch (Exception ex)         {             throw new Exception(string.Empty, ex);         }           _randomMock.Verify();     }     #endregion        } Although these tests are pretty awful and contain hacks we are at least able now to make sure that our code works as expected. Here is the test list after running these tests. Conclusion Code contracts are very new stuff in Visual Studio world and as young technology it has some problems – like all other new bits and bytes in the world. As you saw then making our contracted code testable is easy only to the point when pre-conditions are considered. When we start dealing with post-conditions we will end up with hacked tests. I hope that future versions of code contracts will solve error handling issues the way that testing of contracted code will be easier than it is right now.

    Read the article

  • Cloud Based Load Testing Using TF Service &amp; VS 2013

    - by Tarun Arora [Microsoft MVP]
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TarunArora/archive/2013/06/30/cloud-based-load-testing-using-tf-service-amp-vs-2013.aspx One of the new features announced as part of the Visual Studio 2013 Ultimate Preview is ‘Cloud Based Load Testing’. In this blog post I’ll walk you through, What is Cloud Based Load Testing? How have I been using this feature? – Success story! Where can you find more resources on this feature? What is Cloud Based Load Testing? It goes without saying that performance testing your application not only gives you the confidence that the application will work under heavy levels of stress but also gives you the ability to test how scalable the architecture of your application is. It is important to know how much is too much for your application! Working with various clients in the industry I have realized that the biggest barriers in Load Testing & Performance Testing adoption are, High infrastructure and administration cost that comes with this phase of testing Time taken to procure & set up the test infrastructure Finding use for this infrastructure investment after completion of testing Is cloud the answer? 100% Visual Studio Compatible Scalable and Realistic Start testing in < 2 minutes Intuitive Pay only for what you need Use existing on premise tests on cloud There are a lot of vendors out there offering Cloud Based Load Testing, to name a few, Load Storm Soasta Blaze Meter Blitz And others… The question you may want to ask is, why should you go with Microsoft’s Cloud based Load Test offering. If you are a Microsoft shop or already have investments in Microsoft technologies, you’ll see great benefit in the natural integration this offers with existing Microsoft products such as Visual Studio and Windows Azure. For example, your existing Web tests authored in Visual Studio 2010 or Visual Studio 2012 will run on the cloud without requiring any modifications what so ever. Microsoft’s cloud test rig also supports API based testing, for example, if you are building a WPF application which consumes WCF services, you can write unit tests to invoke the WCF service, these tests can be run on the cloud test rig and loaded with ‘N’ concurrent users for performance testing. If you have your assets already hosted in the Azure and possibly in the same data centre as the Cloud test rig, your Azure app will not incur a usage cost because of the generated traffic since the traffic is coming from the same data centre. The licensing or pricing information on Microsoft’s cloud based Load test service is yet to be announced, but I would expect this to be priced attractively to match the market competition.   The only additional configuration required for running load tests on Microsoft Cloud based Load Tests service is to select the Test run location as Run tests using Visual Studio Team Foundation Service, How have I been using Microsoft’s Cloud based Load Test Service? I have been part of the Microsoft Cloud Based Load Test Service advisory council for the last 7 months. This gave the opportunity to see the product shape up from concept to working solution. I was also the first person outside of Microsoft to try this offering out. This gave me the opportunity to test real world application at various clients using the Microsoft Load Test Service and provide real world feedback to the Microsoft product team. One of the most recent systems I tested using the Load Test Service has been an insurance quote generation engine. This insurance quote generation engine is,   hosted in Windows Azure expected to get quote requests from across the globe expected to handle 5 Million quote requests in a day (not clear how this load will be distributed across the day) There was no way, I could simulate such kind of load from on premise without standing up additional hardware. But Microsoft’s Cloud based Load Test service allowed me to test my key performance testing scenarios, i.e. Simulate expected Load, Endurance Testing, Threshold Testing and Testing for Latency. Simulating expected load: approach to devising a load pattern My approach to devising a load test pattern has been to run the test scenario with 1 user to figure out the response time. Then work out how many users are required to reach the target load. So, for example, to invoke 1 quote from the quote engine software takes 0.5 seconds. Now if you do the math,   1 quote request by 1 user = 0.5 seconds   quotes generated by 1 user in 24 hour = 1 * (((2 * 60) * 60) * 24) = 172,800   quotes generated by 30 users in 24 hours = 172,800 * 30 =  5,184,000 This was a very simple example, if your application requires more concurrent users to test scenario’s such as caching, etc then you can devise your own load pattern, some examples of load test patterns can be found here.  Endurance Testing To test for endurance, I loaded the quote generation engine with an expected fixed user load and ran the test for very long duration such as over 48 hours and observed the affect of the long running test on the Azure infrastructure. Currently Microsoft Load Test service does not support metrics from the machine under test. I used Azure diagnostics to begin with, but later started using Cerebrata Azure Diagnostics Manager to capture the metrics of the machine under test. Threshold Testing To figure out how much user load the application could cope with before falling on its belly, I opted to step load the quote generation engine by incrementing user load with different variations of incremental user load per minute till the application crashed out and forced an IIS reset. Testing for Latency Currently the Microsoft Load Test service does not support generating geographically distributed load, I however, deployed the insurance quote generation engine in different Azure data centres and ran the same set of performance tests to measure for latency. Because I could compare load test results from different runs by exporting the results to excel (this feature is provided out of the box right from Visual Studio 2010) I could see the different in response times. More resources on Microsoft Cloud based Load Test Service A few important links to get you started, Download Visual Studio Ultimate 2013 Preview Getting started guide for load testing using Team Foundation Service Troubleshooting guide for FAQs and known issues Team Foundation Service forum for questions and support Detailed demo and presentation (link to Tech-Ed session recording) Detailed demo and presentation (link to Build session recording) There a few limits on the usage of Microsoft Cloud based Load Test service that you can read about here. If you have any feedback on Microsoft Cloud based Load Test service, feel free to share it with the product team via the Visual Studio User Voice forum. I hope you found this useful. Thank you for taking the time out and reading this blog post. If you enjoyed the post, remember to subscribe to http://feeds.feedburner.com/TarunArora. Stay tuned!

    Read the article

  • Unit testing is… well, flawed.

    - by Dewald Galjaard
    Hey someone had to say it. I clearly recall my first IT job. I was appointed Systems Co-coordinator for a leading South African retailer at store level. Don’t get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an honest day’s labor and in fact I highly recommend it, however I’m obliged to refer to the designation cautiously; in reality all I had to do was monitor in-store prices and two UNIX front line controllers. If anything went wrong – I only had to phone it in… Luckily that wasn’t all I did. My duties extended to some other interesting annual occurrence – stock take. Despite a bit more curious affair, it was still a tedious process that took weeks of preparation and several nights to complete.  Then also I remember that no matter how elaborate our planning was, the entire exercise would be rendered useless if we couldn’t get the basics right – that being the act of counting. Sounds simple right? We’ll with a store which could potentially carry over tens of thousands of different items… we’ll let’s just say I believe that’s when I first became a coffee addict. In those days the act of counting stock was a very humble process. Nothing like we have today. A staff member would be assigned a bin or shelve filled with items he or she had to sort then count. Thereafter they had to record their findings on a complementary piece of paper. Every night I would manage several teams. Each team was divided into two groups - counters and auditors. Both groups had the same task, only auditors followed shortly on the heels of the counters, recounting stock levels, making sure the original count correspond to their findings. It was a simple yet hugely responsible orchestration of people and thankfully there was one fundamental and golden rule I could always abide by to ensure things run smoothly – No-one was allowed to audit their own work. Nope, not even on nights when I didn’t have enough staff available. This meant I too at times had to get up there and get counting, or have the audit stand over until the next evening. The reason for this was obvious - late at night and with so much to do we were prone to make some mistakes, then on the recount, without a fresh set of eyes, you were likely to repeat the offence. Now years later this rule or guideline still holds true as we develop software (as far removed as software development from counting stock may be). For some reason it is a fundamental guideline we’re simply ignorant of. We write our code, we write our tests and thus commit the same horrendous offence. Yes, the procedure of writing unit tests as practiced in most development houses today – is flawed. Most if not all of the tests we write today exercise application logic – our logic. They are based on the way we believe an application or method should/may/will behave or function. As we write our tests, our unit tests mirror our best understanding of the inner workings of our application code. Unfortunately these tests will therefore also include (or be unaware of) any imperfections and errors on our part. If your logic is flawed as you write your initial code, chances are, without a fresh set of eyes, you will commit the same error second time around too. Not even experience seems to be a suitable solution. It certainly helps to have deeper insight, but is that really the answer we should be looking for? Is that really failsafe? What about code review? Code review is certainly an answer. You could have one developer coding away and another (or team) making sure the logic is sound. The practice however has its obvious drawbacks. Firstly and mainly it is resource intensive and from what I’ve seen in most development houses, given heavy deadlines, this guideline is seldom adhered to. Hardly ever do we have the resources, money or time readily available. So what other options are out there? A quest to find some solution revealed a project by Microsoft Research called PEX. PEX is a framework which creates several test scenarios for each method or class you write, automatically. Think of it as your own personal auditor. Within a few clicks the framework will auto generate several unit tests for a given class or method and save them to a single project. PEX help to audit your work. It lends a fresh set of eyes to any project you’re working on and best of all; it is cost effective and fast. Check them out at http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/pex/ In upcoming posts we’ll dive deeper into how it works and how it can help you.   Certainly there are more similar frameworks out there and I would love to hear from you. Please share your experiences and insights.

    Read the article

  • How do I implement a dispatch table in a Perl OO module?

    - by Iain
    I want to put some subs that are within an OO package into an array - also within the package - to use as a dispatch table. Something like this package Blah::Blah; use fields 'tests'; sub new { my($class )= @_; my $self = fields::new($class); $self->{'tests'} = [ $self->_sub1 ,$self->_sub2 ]; return $self; } _sub1 { ... }; _sub2 { ... }; I'm not entirely sure on the syntax for this? $self->{'tests'} = [ $self->_sub1 ,$self->_sub2 ]; or $self->{'tests'} = [ \&{$self->_sub1} ,\&{$self->_sub2} ]; or $self->{'tests'} = [ \&{_sub1} ,\&{_sub2} ]; I don't seem to be able to get this to work within an OO package, whereas it's quite straightforward in a procedural fashion, and I haven't found any examples for OO. Any help is much appreciated, Iain

    Read the article

  • How do you debug a unit test in Xcode 3?

    - by Dov
    I followed Apple's instructions to set up Unit Testing in my project. I followed the directions for making them dependent, so the tests run with every build of my main project. This works, and when my tests pass the application runs; when they don't, I get build errors on the lines of the unit tests that failed. I would like, however, to be able to step through my application code when the tests are failing, but can't get Xcode (3.2.5) configured properly. The project is a Mac project, not iOS. I tried the instructions here and here, but execution never stopped at the breakpoints I set, neither in the the unit test code or in my application code. After following the first set of instructions, the breakpoints I set turned yellow with blue outlines, and I don't know what that meant, either. What do I need to do to step through my tests?

    Read the article

  • TFS and code coverage for web application (MVC) assemblies not working

    - by Andrew
    I've got an MVC web application with associated controller tests that run under a TFS build as per normal. I can see the tests running and passing in the build log and they appear in the "Result details for Any CPU/Release" section of the build I also have a number of other assemblies with associated tests that are running in the same build. Tests are passing and the details are being shown in the results and logs just fine. I've enabled code coverage in the build script and the testrunconfig. The coverage is appearing for all assemblies EXCEPT the web application even though it looks like the tests have been run for it. Is there anything obvious that I have missed or some sort of work around that I need to do? I've searched around for a while and haven't found an answer. Has anyone got code coverage working for MVC web applications?

    Read the article

  • Perl: implementing a dispatch table in an OO module?

    - by Iain
    I want to put some subs that are within an OO package into an array - also within the package - to use as a dispatch table. Something like this package Blah::Blah; use fields 'tests'; sub new { my($class )= @_; my $self = fields::new($class); $self->{'tests'} = [ $self->_sub1 ,$self->_sub2 ]; return $self; } _sub1 { ... }; _sub2 { ... }; I'm not entirely sure on the syntax for this? $self->{'tests'} = [ $self->_sub1 ,$self->_sub2 ]; or $self->{'tests'} = [ \&{$self->_sub1} ,\&{$self->_sub2} ]; or $self->{'tests'} = [ \&{_sub1} ,\&{_sub2} ]; I don't seem to be able to get this to work within an OO package, whereas it's quite straightforward in a procedural fashion, and I haven't found any examples for OO. Any help is much appreciated, Iain

    Read the article

  • How many developers before continuous integration becomes effective for us?

    - by Carnotaurus
    There is an overhead associated with continuous integration, e.g., set up, re-training, awareness activities, stoppage to fix "bugs" that turn out to be data issues, enforced separation of concerns programming styles, etc. At what point does continuous integration pay for itself? EDIT: These were my findings The set-up was CruiseControl.Net with Nant, reading from VSS or TFS. Here are a few reasons for failure, which have nothing to do with the setup: Cost of investigation: The time spent investigating whether a red light is due a genuine logical inconsistency in the code, data quality, or another source such as an infrastructure problem (e.g., a network issue, a timeout reading from source control, third party server is down, etc., etc.) Political costs over infrastructure: I considered performing an "infrastructure" check for each method in the test run. I had no solution to the timeout except to replace the build server. Red tape got in the way and there was no server replacement. Cost of fixing unit tests: A red light due to a data quality issue could be an indicator of a badly written unit test. So, data dependent unit tests were re-written to reduce the likelihood of a red light due to bad data. In many cases, necessary data was inserted into the test environment to be able to accurately run its unit tests. It makes sense to say that by making the data more robust then the test becomes more robust if it is dependent on this data. Of course, this worked well! Cost of coverage, i.e., writing unit tests for already existing code: There was the problem of unit test coverage. There were thousands of methods that had no unit tests. So, a sizeable amount of man days would be needed to create those. As this would be too difficult to provide a business case, it was decided that unit tests would be used for any new public method going forward. Those that did not have a unit test were termed 'potentially infra red'. An intestesting point here is that static methods were a moot point in how it would be possible to uniquely determine how a specific static method had failed. Cost of bespoke releases: Nant scripts only go so far. They are not that useful for, say, CMS dependent builds for EPiServer, CMS, or any UI oriented database deployment. These are the types of issues that occured on the build server for hourly test runs and overnight QA builds. I entertain that these to be unnecessary as a build master can perform these tasks manually at the time of release, esp., with a one man band and a small build. So, single step builds have not justified use of CI in my experience. What about the more complex, multistep builds? These can be a pain to build, especially without a Nant script. So, even having created one, these were no more successful. The costs of fixing the red light issues outweighed the benefits. Eventually, developers lost interest and questioned the validity of the red light. Having given it a fair try, I believe that CI is expensive and there is a lot of working around the edges instead of just getting the job done. It's more cost effective to employ experienced developers who do not make a mess of large projects than introduce and maintain an alarm system. This is the case even if those developers leave. It doesn't matter if a good developer leaves because processes that he follows would ensure that he writes requirement specs, design specs, sticks to the coding guidelines, and comments his code so that it is readable. All this is reviewed. If this is not happening then his team leader is not doing his job, which should be picked up by his manager and so on. For CI to work, it is not enough to just write unit tests, attempt to maintain full coverage, and ensure a working infrastructure for sizable systems. The bottom line: One might question whether fixing as many bugs before release is even desirable from a business prespective. CI involves a lot of work to capture a handful of bugs that the customer could identify in UAT or the company could get paid for fixing as part of a client service agreement when the warranty period expires anyway.

    Read the article

  • Eclipse doesn't see my new junit test

    - by morgancodes
    I'm using eclipse to run the tests in a single junit(4) test class. The tests in the class all run just fine. Then I add an additional test and run the class through the test running in ecplise again. Only the old tests are run. The new test isn't seen by eclipse. There's no error or anything, it's just as if eclipse is looking at an old version of the test. If I run the tests using maven, everything works fine. Additionally, after I run the tests in maven, ecplipse can see and run the new test correctly. Any ideas what's going on? Any ideas how to get ecplipse's test runner to see my new test cases?

    Read the article

  • Maven - Selenium - Possible to run only one test

    - by Jonas Söderström
    Hi We are using JUnit - Selenium for our web tests. We use Maven to start them and build a surefire report. The test suite is pretty large and takes a while to run and sometimes single tests fail because the browser won't start. I want to be able run a SINGLE test using maven so I retest the tests that fail and update the report. I can use mvn test -Dtest=TESTCLASSNAME to run all the tests in one test class, but this is not good enough since it takes about 10 minutes to run all the tests in our most complicated test classes and it's very likely that some other test will fail (because the browser wont start) and this will mess up my report. I know I can run one test from Eclipse but that is not what I am looking for. Any help on this would be very appriciated

    Read the article

  • Integrating Hudson with MS Test?

    - by hangy
    Is it possible to integrate Hudson with MS Test? I am setting up a smaller CI server on my development machine with Hudson right now, just so that I can have some statistics (ie. FxCop and compiler warnings). Of course, it would also be nice if it could just run my unit tests and present their output. Up to now, I have added the following batch task to Hudson, which makes it run the tests properly. "%PROGRAMFILES%\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Common7\IDE\MSTest.exe" /runconfig:LocalTestRun.testrunconfig /testcontainer:Tests\bin\Debug\Tests.dll However, as far as I know, Hudson does not support analysis of MS Test results, yet. Does anyone know whether the TRX files generated by MSTest.exe can be transformed to the JUnit or NUnit result format (because those are supported by Hudson), or whether there is any other way to integrate MS Test unit tests with Hudson?

    Read the article

  • BDD-testing using a UI driver (e.g. Selenium for a web-application)

    - by jonathanconway
    Can BDD (Behavior Driven Design) tests be implemented using a UI driver? For example, given a web application, instead of: Writing tests for the back-end, and then more tests in Javascript for the front-end Should I: Write the tests as Selenium macros, which simulate mouse-clicks, etc in the actual browser? The advantages I see in doing it this way are: The tests are written in one language, rather than several They're focussed on the UI, which gets developers thinking outside-in They run in the real execution environment (the browser), which allows us to Test different browsers Test different servers Get insight into real-world performance Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Specify test method name prefix for test suite in junit 3

    - by Marko Kocic
    Is it possible to tell JUnit 3 to use additional method name prefix when looking up test method names? The goal is to have additional tests running locally that should not be run on continuous integration server. CI server doesn't use test suites, it look up for all classes which name ends with "Test" and execute all methods that begins with "test". The goal is to be able to locally run not only tests run by integration server, but also tests which method name starts with, for example "nocitest" or something like that. I don't mind having to organize tests into tests suite locally, since CI is just ignoring them.

    Read the article

  • JUnit 4 test suite problems

    - by Hypnus
    Hi, i have a problem with some JUnit 4 tests that i run with a test suite. If i run the tests individually they work with no problems but when run in a suite most of them, 90% of the test methods, fail with errors. What i noticed is that always the first tests works fine but the rest are failing. Another thing is that a few of the tests the methods are not executed in the right order (the reflection does not work as aspected - or it does because the retrieval of the methods is not necessarily in the created order). This usually happens if there is more than one test with methods that have the same name. I tried to debug some of the tests and it seems that from a line to the next the value of some attributes gets null. Does anyone know what is the problem, or if the behavior is "normal"? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Should I demand unit-testing from programmers?

    - by Morten
    I work at a place, where we buy a lot of IT-projects. We are currently producing a standard for systems-requirements for the requisition of future projects. In that process, We are discussing whether or not we can demand automated unit testing from our suppliers. I firmly believe, that proper automated unit-testing is the only way to document the quality and stability of the code. Everyone else seems to think that unit-testing is an optional method that concerns the supplier alone. Thus, we will make no demands of automated unit-testing, continous testing, coverage-reports, inspections of unit-tests or any of the kind. I find this policy extremely frustrating. Am I totally out of line here? Please provide me with arguments for any of the oppinions.

    Read the article

  • How can I remove packages using preseed?

    - by Jorge Castro
    I'm setting up an automated "no questions asked" preseed system and using Dustin Kirkland's server preseed as an example. He uses the following line to install three packages as part of the automated install: d-i pkgsel/include string byobu vim openssh-server I am looking for the inverse of this, basically be able to remove packages as part of the automated install. I've checked the Installation Guide I've checked this example preseed, but it's not clear if this is the canonical list of every single option available. I am thinking I need to to use d-i preseed/late_command string apt-remove packagename to clean up stuff I don't want when the install is done, but I am not sure

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >