Search Results

Search found 23949 results on 958 pages for 'test me'.

Page 41/958 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

  • Does TDD's "Obvious Implementation" mean code first, test after?

    - by natasky
    My friend and I are relatively new TDD and have a dispute about the "Obvious Implementation" technique (from "TDD By Example" by Kent Beck). My friend says it means that if the implementation is obvious, you should go ahead and write it - before any test for that new behavior. And indeed the book says: How do you implement simple operations? Just implement them. Also: Sometimes you are sure you know how to implement an operation. Go ahead. I think what the author means is you should test first, and then "just implement" it - as opposed to the "Fake It ('Till You Make It)" and other techniques, which require smaller steps in the implementation stage. Also after these quotes the author talks about getting "red bars" (failing tests) when doing "Obvious Implementation" - how can you get a red bar without a test?. Yet I couldn't find any quote from the book saying "obvious" still means test first. What do you think? Should we test first or after when the implementation is "obvious" (according to TDD, of course)? Do you know a book or blog post saying just that?

    Read the article

  • Should I make a seperate unit test for a method, if it only modifies the parent state?

    - by Dante
    Should classes, that modify the state of the parent class, but not itself, be unit tested separately? And by separately, I mean putting the test in the corresponding unit test class, that tests that specific class. I'm developing a library based on chained methods, that return a new instance of a new type in most cases, where a chained method is called. The returned instances only modify the root parent state, but not itself. Overly simplified example, to get the point across: public class BoxedRabbits { private readonly Box _box; public BoxedRabbits(Box box) { _box = box; } public void SetCount(int count) { _box.Items += count; } } public class Box { public int Items { get; set; } public BoxedRabbits AddRabbits() { return new BoxedRabbits(this); } } var box = new Box(); box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14); Say, if I write a unit test under the Box class unit tests: box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14) I could effectively say, that I've already tested the BoxedRabbits class as well. Is this the wrong way of approaching this, even though it's far simpler to first write a test for the above call, then to first write a unit test for the BoxedRabbits separately?

    Read the article

  • protected abstract override Foo(); &ndash; er... what?

    - by Muljadi Budiman
    A couple of weeks back, a co-worker was pondering a situation he was facing.  He was looking at the following class hierarchy: abstract class OriginalBase { protected virtual void Test() { } } abstract class SecondaryBase : OriginalBase { } class FirstConcrete : SecondaryBase { } class SecondConcrete : SecondaryBase { } Basically, the first 2 classes are abstract classes, but the OriginalBase class has Test implemented as a virtual method.  What he needed was to force concrete class implementations to provide a proper body for the Test method, but he can’t do mark the method as abstract since it is already implemented in the OriginalBase class. One way to solve this is to hide the original implementation and then force further derived classes to properly implemented another method that will replace it.  The code will look like the following: abstract class OriginalBase { protected virtual void Test() { } } abstract class SecondaryBase : OriginalBase { protected sealed override void Test() { Test2(); } protected abstract void Test2(); } class FirstConcrete : SecondaryBase { // Have to override Test2 here } class SecondConcrete : SecondaryBase { // Have to override Test2 here } With the above code, SecondaryBase class will seal the Test method so it can no longer be overridden.  Then it also made an abstract method Test2 available, which will force the concrete classes to override and provide the proper implementation.  Calling Test will properly call the proper Test2 implementation in each respective concrete classes. I was wondering if there’s a way to tell the compiler to treat the Test method in SecondaryBase as abstract, and apparently you can, by combining the abstract and override keywords.  The code looks like the following: abstract class OriginalBase { protected virtual void Test() { } } abstract class SecondaryBase : OriginalBase { protected abstract override void Test(); } class FirstConcrete : SecondaryBase { // Have to override Test here } class SecondConcrete : SecondaryBase { // Have to override Test here } The method signature makes it look a bit funky, because most people will treat the override keyword to mean you then need to provide the implementation as well, but the effect is exactly as we desired.  The concepts are still valid: you’re overriding the Test method from its original implementation in the OriginalBase class, but you don’t want to implement it, rather you want to classes that derive from SecondaryBase to provide the proper implementation, so you also make it as an abstract method. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this before in the wild, so it was pretty neat to find that the compiler does support this case.

    Read the article

  • Un ordinateur réussit pour la première fois le test de Turing en se faisant passer pour un garçon de 13 ans

    Un ordinateur réussit pour la première fois le test de Turing en se faisant passer pour un garçon de 13 ansUn ordinateur grâce à un programme informatique a réussi pour la première fois à convaincre des chercheurs qu'il était un enfant de 13 ans, devenant ainsi la première machine à passer le test Turing.L'exploit réalisé par cette machine marque une date qui sera probablement écrite dans les annales de l'informatique et plus précisément de l'intelligence artificielle. Le test de Turing a été établi...

    Read the article

  • Is the test, which touches the filenames under directory, a kind of unittest? [on hold]

    - by Chen OT
    I was told that unittest is fast and the tests which touches DB, across network, and touches FileSystem are not unittest. In one of my testcases, its input are the file names (amount about 300~400) under a specific folder. Although these input are part of file system, the execution time of this test is very fast. Should I moved this test, which is fast but touches file system, to higher level test?

    Read the article

  • How best to construct our test subjects in unit tests?

    - by Liath
    Some of our business logic classes require quite a few dependencies (in our case 7-10). As such when we come to unit test these the creation become quite complex. In most tests these dependencies are often not required (only some dependencies are required for particular methods). As a result unit tests often require a significant number of lines of code to mock up these useless dependencies (which can't be null because of null checks). For example: [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = new Sut(new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, new Mock<IDependency3>().Object, new Mock<IDependency4>().Object, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } In this example almost half the test is taken up creating dependencies which aren't used. I've investigated an approach where I have a helper method. [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = CreateSut(null, null, null, null, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } private Sut CreateSut(IDependency1 d1, IDependency2 d2...) { return new Sut(d1 ?? new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, d2 ?? new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, } But these often grow very complicated very quickly. What is the best way to create these BLL classes in test classes to reduce complexity and simplify tests?

    Read the article

  • How do I use MediaRecorder to record video without causing a segmentation fault?

    - by rabidsnail
    I'm trying to use android.media.MediaRecorder to record video, and no matter what I do the android runtime segmentation faults when I call prepare(). Here's an example: public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { Log.i("video test", "making recorder"); MediaRecorder recorder = new MediaRecorder(); contentResolver = getContentResolver(); try { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); Log.i("video test", "--------------START----------------"); SurfaceView target_view = new SurfaceView(this); Log.i("video test", "making surface"); Surface target = target_view.getHolder().getSurface(); Log.i("video test", target.toString()); Log.i("video test", "new recorder"); recorder = new MediaRecorder(); Log.i("video test", "set display"); recorder.setPreviewDisplay(target); Log.i("video test", "pushing surface"); setContentView(target_view); Log.i("video test", "set audio source"); recorder.setAudioSource(MediaRecorder.AudioSource.MIC); Log.i("video test", "set video source"); recorder.setVideoSource(MediaRecorder.VideoSource.DEFAULT); Log.i("video test", "set output format"); recorder.setOutputFormat(MediaRecorder.OutputFormat.THREE_GPP); Log.i("video test", "set audio encoder"); recorder.setAudioEncoder(MediaRecorder.AudioEncoder.AMR_NB); Log.i("video test", "set video encoder"); recorder.setVideoEncoder(MediaRecorder.VideoEncoder.MPEG_4_SP); Log.i("video test", "set max duration"); recorder.setMaxDuration(3600); Log.i("video test", "set on info listener"); recorder.setOnInfoListener(new listener()); Log.i("video test", "set video size"); recorder.setVideoSize(320, 240); Log.i("video test", "set video frame rate"); recorder.setVideoFrameRate(15); Log.i("video test", "set output file"); recorder.setOutputFile(get_path(this, "foo.3gp")); Log.i("video test", "prepare"); recorder.prepare(); Log.i("video test", "start"); recorder.start(); Log.i("video test", "sleep"); Thread.sleep(3600); Log.i("video test", "stop"); recorder.stop(); Log.i("video test", "release"); recorder.release(); Log.i("video test", "-----------------SUCCESS------------------"); finish(); } catch (Exception e) { Log.i("video test", e.toString()); recorder.reset(); recorder.release(); Log.i("video tets", "-------------------FAIL-------------------"); finish(); } } public static String get_path (Context context, String fname) { String path = context.getFileStreamPath("foo").getParentFile().getAbsolutePath(); String res = path+"/"+fname; Log.i("video test", "path: "+res); return res; } class listener implements MediaRecorder.OnInfoListener { public void onInfo(MediaRecorder recorder, int what, int extra) { Log.i("video test", "Video Info: "+what+", "+extra); } }

    Read the article

  • AssemblyCleanup() after test fail/exception

    - by Tommy Jakobsen
    Hello, I'm running a few unit tests that requires a connection to the database. When my test project get initialized, a snapshot of the database is created, and when tests are done the database gets restored back to the snapshot. Here is the implementation: [TestClass] public static class AssemblyInitializer { [AssemblyInitialize()] public static void AssemblyInit(TestContext context) { var dbss = new DatabaseSnapshot(...); dbss.CreateSnapshot(); } [AssemblyCleanup()] public static void AssemblyCleanup() { var dbss = new DatabaseSnapshot(...); dbss.RevertDatabase(); } } Now this all works, but my problem arise when I have a failing test or some exception. The AssemblyCleanup is of course not invoked, so how can I solve this problem? No matter what happens, the snapshot has to be restored. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2010 and TFS 2008: Building unit test projects

    - by Peter
    Hi, We are currently taking VS2010 for a testdrive and so far we are a little stumped with how it just won't cooperate with our existing Team Foundation Server 2008. We still have all our projects on .NET 3.5 and whenever we are now building a solution that contains a unit test project (which automatically builds in .NET 4.0) the TFS won't build it. The .NET 4.0 framework is installed on the TFS 2008. The error we're receiving is: [Any CPU/Release] c:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\Microsoft.Common.targets(0,0): warning MSB3245: Could not resolve this reference. Could not locate the assembly "Microsoft.VisualStudio.QualityTools.UnitTestFramework, Version=10.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a, processorArchitecture=MSIL". Check to make sure the assembly exists on disk. If this reference is required by your code, you may get compilation errors. As a temporary workaround we are now forced to remove all our test projects in order for our solutions to build.

    Read the article

  • Identify in a unit test if Jetbrains IntelliJ IDEA 8 or 9 is running

    - by Ran Biron
    I need to know, in a context of a unit test, if Jetbrains IntelliJ idea is the test initiator and if it is, which version is running (or at least if it's "9" or earlier). I don't mind doing dirty tricks (reflection, filesystem, environment...) but I do need this to work "out-of-the-box" (without each developer having to setup something special). I've tried some reflection but couldn't find a unique identifier I could latch onto. Any idea? Oh - the language is Java.

    Read the article

  • Making ehcache read-write for test code and read-only for production code

    - by Rick
    I would like to annotate many of my Hibernate entities that contain reference data and/or configuration data with @Cache(usage = CacheConcurrencyStrategy.READ_ONLY) However, my JUnit tests are setting up and tearing down some of this reference/configuration data using the Hibernate entities. Is there a recommended way of having entities be read-write during test setup and teardown but read-only for production code? Two of my immediate thoughts for non-ideal workarounds are: Using NONSTRICT_READ_WRITE, but I am not sure what the hidden downsides are. Creating subclassed entities in my test code to override the read-only cache annotation. Any recommendations on the cleanest way to handle this? (Note: Project uses maven.)

    Read the article

  • Best way to unit-test WCF REST/SOAP service while dynamically generating stubs

    - by James Black
    I have a webservice written with WCF 4.0 that exposes REST and SOAP functions, and I want to set up my unit tests so that as I work on my web services I can quickly test by having the test framework start up the service, outside of IIS, and then do the tests. I want it to be dynamically generated as I am not certain what the interface will look like, and it is easier to not worry about having to generate the stubs before I start the tests. But, I couldn't get Groovy to work with my web service, so I am curious if Iron Python or Iron Ruby would work well for this, or is there another .NET language that may work well for this.

    Read the article

  • Migrating test cases & defects from Quality Center to TFS 2008/2010

    - by stackoverflowuser
    Tool that can be used to migrate (or even better..synchronize) test cases and bugs between: TFS 2008 and Quality Center 9.2 (or later) TFS 2010 and Quality Center 9.2 (or later) I am aware of the following tools: Test Case Migrator (Excel/MHT) Tool TFS Bug Item Synchronizer 2.2 for Quality Center Also shai raiten mentions on his blog about QC 2 Team System 2010 migration tool that he has been working on and its done. But could not find any link for downloading the tool. http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/shair/archive/2009/12/31/quality-center-migration-to-team-system-2010-done.aspx Before jumping on coding with TFS SDK and QC components to come up with my own tool I need some inputs from the stackoverflow community.

    Read the article

  • How to Test a Multi-Tenant App with support for multiple domains

    - by asifch
    HI, we are building a multi-tenant application, which will support that each tenant can have a unique top level domain, the application is build using the asp.net 3.5 and SQL servr 2005, while each tenant will have different database. I have seen a number of questions about the similar applications on the StackOverFlow, but none of them is related to the Testing, I want to know is how one can test the application in a development environment, specially How can we test that each customer connects to his own DB based on the URL. how can we emulate different domains on the local system. like abc.com and xyz.com all goes to dev machine's IIS. Any recommendations which might help us in the developing process of such an application.

    Read the article

  • Test (with RSpec) a controller outside of a Rails environment

    - by ramon.tayag
    I'm creating a gem that will generate a controller for the Rails app that will use it. It's been a trial and error process for me when trying to test a controller. When testing models, it's been pretty easy, but when testing controllers, ActionController::TestUnit is not included (as described here). I've tried requiring it, and all similar sounding stuff in Rails but it hasn't worked. What would I need to require in the spec_helper to get the test to work? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • double.NaN Equality in MS Test

    - by RichK
    Why am I getting this result? [TestMethod] public void nan_test() { Assert.AreEqual(1, double.NaN, 1E-1); <-- Passes Assert.AreEqual(1, double.NaN); <-- Fails } What difference does the delta have in asserting NaN equals a number? Surely it should always return false. I am aware of IsNaN, but that's not useful here (see below). Background: I have a function returning NaN (erroneously) , it was meant to be a real number but the test still passed. I'm using the delta because it's double precision equality, the original test used 1E-9.

    Read the article

  • having a test debug app and a released debug app side by side

    - by Tristan
    Yo! When I download my app from the iStore, the latest test version installed to my phone gets over written. Does anyone know how to have two versions of the same app side by side? On a test project, I edited the build settings so that "realease" and "debug" have different product names. This seemed to solve my problem, however when I try this same trick on my actual project, the two overwrite each other again. Does anyone have a recommendation? I don't mind how it's done. Thanks! Tristan

    Read the article

  • XMLReader in silverlight <test /> type tag problem

    - by Ummar
    Hi I am parsing XML in silverlight, in my XML I have one tag is like <test attribute1="123" /> <test1 attribute2="345">abc text</test1> I am using XMLReader to parse xml like using (XmlReader reader = XmlReader.Create(new StringReader(xmlString))) { // Parse the file and display each of the nodes. while (reader.Read()) { switch (reader.NodeType) { case XmlNodeType.Element: //process start tag here break; case XmlNodeType.Text: //process text here break; case XmlNodeType.XmlDeclaration: case XmlNodeType.ProcessingInstruction: break; case XmlNodeType.Comment: break; case XmlNodeType.EndElement: //process end tag here break; } } } but the problem is that for test tag no EndElement is received? which is making my whole program logic wrong. (for test1 tag all works fine). Please help me out.

    Read the article

  • How to test custom template tags in Django?

    - by Mark Lavin
    I'm adding a set of template tags to a Django application and I'm not sure how to test them. I've used them in my templates and they seem to be working but I was looking for something more formal. The main logic is done in the models/model managers and has been tested. The tags simply retrieve data and store it in a context variable such as {% views_for_object widget as views %} """ Retrieves the number of views and stores them in a context variable. """ # or {% most_viewed_for_model main.model_name as viewed_models %} """ Retrieves the ViewTrackers for the most viewed instances of the given model. """ So my question is do you typically test your template tags and if you do how do you do it?

    Read the article

  • Getting HTTP 406 when trying to test facebooker application with cucumber

    - by Waseem
    I am trying to test facebook api calls with cucumber. Here is the code. # app/controller/facebook_users_controller.rb class FacebookUsersController < ApplicationController def create fb_user = facebook_session.user user = User.new(:facebook_uid => fb_user.uid, :facebook_session_key => facebook_session.session_key respond_to do |format| if user.save format.json { render :json => { :status => 'ok' }.to_json } end end end end # features/steps/facebook_connect_step.rb Given /^I am a facebook connected user$/ do mock_session = Facebooker::MockSession.create post('/facebook_user.json') puts response.code end When I run the cucumber step for above step definition, I get a response code of 406 instead of 200. This happens in the cucumber test environment only and not in the browser(development/production).

    Read the article

  • TFS Build Configuration Vs Test Manager

    - by Ben
    Hi, I have been tasked with setting up TFS 2010 for my company. After setting up TFS and configuring the basics (New collection, project, adding solution to souce control), i thought i would try out some unit testing with it. I configured the Build Controller and Agent for my solution and added in some basic unit tests. These ran ok and did exactly what i would expect (i broke the build then ran the Build Definition, and it showed me where the errors were). My question is, what advantages (apart from the "Black box call stack logger") does Test Manager have over the TFS builds? Is it worth the extra effort of setting that up and configuring it? Only knowing the basics of what Test Manager is, that may be a very naive question to ask, and i appoligise if it is. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Implementing a Stack using Test-Driven Development

    - by devoured elysium
    I am doing my first steps with TDD. The problem is (as probably with everyone starting with TDD), I never know very well what kind of unit tests to do when I start working in my projects. Let's assume I want to write a Stack class with the following methods(I choose it as it's an easy example): Stack<T> - Push(element : T) - Pop() : T - Seek() : T - Count : int - IsEmpty : boolean How would you approch this? I never understood if the idea is to test a few corner cases for each method of the Stack class or start by doing a few "use cases" with the class, like adding 10 elements and removing them. What is the idea? To make code that uses the Stack as close as possible to what I'll use in my real code? Or just make simple "add one element" unit tests where I test if IsEmpty and Count were changed by adding that element? How am I supposed to start with this?

    Read the article

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