Search Results

Search found 9492 results on 380 pages for 'logic unit'.

Page 43/380 | < Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >

  • test coverage reality

    - by iPhoneDeveloper
    I am NOT doing test driven development and I write my test classes after the actual code is written. In my current project I have a test coverage of(Line coverage) %70 for 3000 lines of Java code.(Using JUnit, Mockito and Sonar for testing) But while I feel actually I am not covering and catching %70 of the problems that can occur. So my question is in theory is that possible to have a %100 Line coverage but in reality it is meaningless because of low quality of the test code and maybe a %40 well written test code is much better than a bad %100 coverage? or we can always say line coverage more or less gives the percentage of all covered issues?

    Read the article

  • "TDD is about design, not verification"; concretely, what does that mean?

    - by sigo
    I've been wondering about this. What do we exactly mean by design and verification. Should I just apply TDD to make sure my code is SOLID and not check if it's external behaviour is correct? Should I use BDD for verifying the behaviour is correct? Where I get confused also is regarding TDD code Katas, to me they looked like more about verification than design; shouldn't they be called BDD Katas instead of TDD Katas? I reckon that for example the Uncle Bob bowling Kata leads in the end to a simple and nice internal design but I felt that most of the process was centred more around verification than design. Design seemed to be a side effect of testing the external behaviour incrementally. I didn't feel so much that we were focusing most of our efforts on design but more on verification. While normally we are told the contrary, that in TDD, verification is a side effect, design is the main purpose. So my question is what should I focus on exactly, when I do TDD: SOLID, external API usability, or something else? And how can I do that without being focused on verification? What do you guys focus your energy on when you are practising TDD?

    Read the article

  • rotating an object on an arc

    - by gardian06
    I am trying to get a turret to rotate on an arc, and have hit a wall. I have 8 possible starting orientations for the turrets, and want them to rotate on a 90 degree arc. I currently take the starting rotation of the turret, and then from that derive the positive, and negative boundary of the arc. because of engine restrictions (Unity) I have to do all of my tests against a value which is between [0,360], and due to numerical precision issues I can not test against specific values. I would like to write a general test without having to go in, and jury rig cases //my current test is: // member variables public float negBound; public float posBound; // found in Start() function (called immediately after construction) // eulerAngles.y is the the degree measure of the starting y rotation negBound = transform.eulerAngles.y-45; posBound = transform.eulerAngles.y+45; // insure that values are within bounds if(negBound<0){ negBound+=360; }else if(posBound>360){ posBound-=360; } // called from Update() when target not in firing line void Rotate(){ // controlls what direction if(transform.eulerAngles.y>posBound){ dir = -1; } else if(transform.eulerAngles.y < negBound){ dir = 1; } // rotate object } follows is a table of values for my different cases (please excuse my force formatting) read as base is the starting rotation of the turret, neg is the negative boundry, pos is the positive boundry, range is the acceptable range of values, and works is if it performs as expected with the current code. |base-|-neg-|-pos--|----------range-----------|-works-| |---0---|-315-|--45--|-315-0,0-45----------|----------| |--45--|---0---|--90--|-0-45,54-90----------|----x----| |-135-|---90--|-180-|-90-135,135-180---|----x----| |-180-|--135-|-225-|-135-180,180-225-|----x----| |-225-|--180-|-270-|-180-225,225-270-|----x----| |-270-|--225-|-315-|-225-270,270-315-|----------| |-315-|--270-|---0---|--270-315,315-0---|----------| I will need to do all tests from derived, or stored values, but can not figure out how to get all of my cases to work simultaneously. //I attempted to concatenate the 2 tests: if((transform.eulerAngles.y>posBound)&&(transform.eulerAngles.y < negBound)){ dir *= -1; } this caused only the first case to be successful // I attempted to store a opposite value, and do a void Rotate(){ // controlls what direction if((transform.eulerAngles.y > posBound)&&(transform.eulerAngles.y<oposite)){ dir = -1; } else if((transform.eulerAngles.y < negBound)&&(transform.eulerAngles.y>oposite)){ dir = 1; } // rotate object } this causes the opposite situation as indicated on the table. What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • AND is better or using Internal "IF"

    - by BDotA
    In a situation like this:" if ((metadata != null) && (metadata.TypeEnum != VariantInfoMetadata.CellTypeEnum.Status)) do you recommend to keep the code as it is above or do you think it is better to make an internal "if" statement and brake that AND into two sections where "outer if" makes sure metadata is not null and inner if does the rest of the checking. I think this way will take care of possible null refrence exception if value of metadata gets null?

    Read the article

  • How do functional languages handle a mocking situation when using Interface based design?

    - by Programmin Tool
    Typically in C# I use dependency injection to help with mocking; public void UserService { public UserService(IUserQuery userQuery, IUserCommunicator userCommunicator, IUserValidator userValidator) { UserQuery = userQuery; UserValidator = userValidator; UserCommunicator = userCommunicator; } ... public UserResponseModel UpdateAUserName(int userId, string userName) { var result = UserValidator.ValidateUserName(userName) if(result.Success) { var user = UserQuery.GetUserById(userId); if(user == null) { throw new ArgumentException(); user.UserName = userName; UserCommunicator.UpdateUser(user); } } ... } ... } public class WhenGettingAUser { public void AndTheUserDoesNotExistThrowAnException() { var userQuery = Substitute.For<IUserQuery>(); userQuery.GetUserById(Arg.Any<int>).Returns(null); var userService = new UserService(userQuery); AssertionExtensions.ShouldThrow<ArgumentException>(() => userService.GetUserById(-121)); } } Now in something like F#: if I don't go down the hybrid path, how would I test workflow situations like above that normally would touch the persistence layer without using Interfaces/Mocks? I realize that every step above would be tested on its own and would be kept as atomic as possible. Problem is that at some point they all have to be called in line, and I'll want to make sure everything is called correctly.

    Read the article

  • Should the test and the fix be written by different people?

    - by Nutel
    There is a common practice in TDD to write a test before fix to avoid regression and simplify fixing. I just wonder what if the test and fix will be written by different people, total spent time will be almost the same but as now three people will think about possible failures (+tester) we increase probability that fix will cover all possible failure scenarios. Does this practice make sense or it will just waste additional time needed for one more person to familiarize with bug?

    Read the article

  • If you should only have one assertion per test; how to test multiple inputs?

    - by speg
    I'm trying to build up some test cases, and have read that you should try and limit the number of assertions per test case. So my question is, what is the best way to go about testing a function w/ multiple inputs. For example, I have a function that parses a string from the user and returns the number of minutes. The string can be in the form "5w6h2d1m", where w, h, d, m correspond to the number of weeks, hours, days, and minutes. If I wanted to follow the '1 assertion per test rule' I'd have to make multiple tests for each variation of input? That seems silly so instead I just have something like: self.assertEqual(parse_date('5m'), 5) self.assertEqual(parse_date('5h'), 300) self.assertEqual(parse_date('5d') ,7200) self.assertEqual(parse_date('1d4h20m'), 1700) In the one test case. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Save Zone Implementation in Asteroids

    - by Moaz
    I would like to implement a safe zone for asteroids so that when the ship gets destroyed, it shouldn't be there unless it is safe from other asteroids. I tried to check the distance between each asteroid and the ship, and if it is above threshold, it sets a flag to the ship that's a safe zone, but sometimes it work and sometimes it doesn't for (list<Asteroid>::iterator itr_astroid = asteroids.begin(); itr_astroid!=asteroids.end(); ) { if(currentShip.m_state == Ship::Ship_Dead) { float distance = itr_astroid->getCenter().distance(Vec2f(getWindowWidth()/2,getWindowHeight()/2)); if( distance>200) { currentShip.m_saveField = true; break; } else { currentShip.m_saveField = false; itr_astroid++; } } else { itr_astroid++; } }

    Read the article

  • Using NSpec at various architectural layers

    - by nono
    Having read the quick start at nspec.org, I realized that NSpec might be a useful tool in a scenario which was becoming a bit cumbersome with NUnit alone. I'm adding an OAuth (or, DotNetOpenAuth) to a website and quickly made a mess of writing test methods such as [Test] public void UserIsLoggedInLocallyPriorToInvokingExternalLoginAndExternalLoginSucceedsAndExternalProviderIdIsNotAlreadyAssociatedWithUserAccount() { ... } ... and I wound up with maybe a dozen permutations of this theme, for the user already being logged in locally and not locally, the external login succeeding or failing, etc. Not only were the method names unwieldy, but every test needed a setup that contained parts in common with a different set of other tests. I realized that NSpec's incremental setup capabilities would work great for this, and for a while I was trucking a long wonderfully, with code like act = () => { actionResult = controller.ExternalLoginCallback(returnUrl); }; context["The user is already logged in"] = () => { before = () => identity.Setup(x => x.IsAuthenticated).Returns(true); context["The external login succeeds"] = () => { before = () => oauth.Setup(x => x.VerifyAuthentication(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(new AuthenticationResult(true, providerName, "provideruserid", "username", new Dictionary<string, string>())); context["External login already exists for current user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Should add 'login sucessful' alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("Login successful"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Success); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; context["External login already exists for another user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForAnyOtherUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Adds an error alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("The external login you requested is already associated with a different user account"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Error); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; This approach seemed to work magnificently until I prepared to write test code for my ApplicationServices layer, to which I delegate viewmodel manipulation from my MVC controllers, and which coordinates the operations of the lower data repository layer: public void CreateUserAccountFromExternalLogin(RegisterExternalLoginModel model) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void AssociateExternalLoginWithUser(string userName, string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public string GetLocalUserName(string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } I have no idea what in the world to name the test class, the test methods, or even if I should perhaps include the testing for this layer into the test class from my large code snippet above, so that a single feature or user action could be tested without regard to architectural layering. I can't find any tutorials or blog posts which cover more than simple examples, so I would appreciate any recommendations or pointing in the right direction. I would even welcome "your question is invalid"-type answers as long as some explanation is provided.

    Read the article

  • How to implement isValid correctly?

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to provide a mechanism for validating my object like this: class SomeObject { private $_inputString; private $_errors=array(); public function __construct($inputString) { $this->_inputString = $inputString; } public function getErrors() { return $this->_errors; } public function isValid() { $isValid = preg_match("/Some regular expression here/", $this->_inputString); if($isValid==0){ $this->_errors[]= 'Error was found in the input'; } return $isValid==1; } } Then when I'm testing my code I'm doing it like this: $obj = new SomeObject('an INVALID input string'); $isValid = $obj->isValid(); $errors=$obj->getErrors(); $this->assertFalse($isValid); $this->assertNotEmpty($errors); Now the test passes correctly, but I noticed a design problem here. What if the user called $obj->getErrors() before calling $obj->isValid()? The test will fail because the user has to validate the object first before checking the error resulting from validation. I think this way the user depends on a sequence of action to work properly which I think is a bad thing because it exposes the internal behaviour of the class. How do I solve this problem? Should I tell the user explicitly to validate first? Where do I mention that? Should I change the way I validate? Is there a better solution for this? UPDATE: I'm still developing the class so changes are easy and renaming functions and refactoring them is possible.

    Read the article

  • Unittest test case only touches the file name

    - 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 should UI layer pass user input to BL layer?

    - by BornToCode
    I'm building an n-tier application, I have UI, BL, DAL & Entities (built from POCO) projects. (All projects have a reference to the Entities). My question is - how should I pass user input from the UI to the BL, as a bunch of strings passed to the BL method and the BL will build the object from the parameters, or should I build the objects inside the UI submit_function and send objects as parameters? EDIT: I wrote n-tier application, but what I actually meant was just layers.

    Read the article

  • Using Cpp Unit with visual studio 2010 [closed]

    - by Deepak
    I have downloaded "cppunit-cvs-repo-archive.tar.bz2" from http://sourceforge.net/projects/cppunit/ Now after unzipping the above .tar.bz2 what to do next? On searching on internet, it is mentioned that open the CppUnitLibraries.dsw project under cppunit-cvs-repo-archive\cppunit\src folder but the same file is existing with name "CppUnitLibraries.dsw,v" and on changing its extension to .dsw and on opening again it displays the message invalid project file.

    Read the article

  • I want to start using TDD. Any tips for a beginner?

    - by Mike42
    I never used an automated test mechanism in any of my projects and I feel I'm missing a lot. I want to improve myself, so I have to start tackling some issues I've been neglecting like this and trying Git instead of being stuck on SVN. What's a good way to learn TDD? I'll probably be using Eclipse to program in Java. I've heard of JUnit, but I don't know if there's anything else I should consider.

    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

  • Improve Your Database Unit Testing Skills and Win Free Stuff

    As the SQL Developer community grows to embrace the benefits of test-driven development for databases, so the importance of learning to do it properly increases. One way of learning effective TDD is by the use of code kata – short practice sessions that encourage test-first development in baby steps. I have a limited number of licences for SQL Test to give away free – just for practicing a bit of TDD and telling me about it. Keep your database and application development in syncSQL Connect is a Visual Studio add-in that brings your databases into your solution. It then makes it easy to keep your database in sync, and commit to your existing source control system. Find out more.

    Read the article

  • Coded UI Test Method failed inconsistently

    - by Sunitha M
    The following exception failing my UI automation test. Message: Test method CodedUITestMethod1 throw exception: The playback failed to find the control with the given search properties. Additional Details: TechnologyName: 'UIA' ControlType: 'MenuItem' Name: 'MyViewModel' ---> system.runtime.interopservices.comexception error hresult e_fail has been returned from a call to a COM component please any one give me a solution for these type of exceptions.

    Read the article

  • Calculate Quantity Available for POS - Inventory [closed]

    - by tunmise fasipe
    From what I have read Quantity on Hand is the physical number of Items in stock http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/quantity-on-hand.html Quantity Available is Quantity On Hand minus outbound items (e.g Ordered Quantity) http://community.intuit.com/posts/quantity-on-hand-vs-quantity-available-2 Does this still hold for POS? Can there be outbound items in POS system since items are picked up immediately? If not does that mean QtyOnHand = QtyAvailable for POS?

    Read the article

  • Tips for Making this Code Testable [migrated]

    - by Jesse Bunch
    So I'm writing an abstraction layer that wraps a telephony RESTful service for sending text messages and making phone calls. I should build this in such a way that the low-level provider, in this case Twilio, can be easily swapped without having to re-code the higher level interactions. I'm using a package that is pre-built for Twilio and so I'm thinking that I need to create a wrapper interface to standardize the interaction between the Twilio service package and my application. Let us pretend that I cannot modify this pre-built package. Here is what I have so far (in PHP): <?php namespace Telephony; class Provider_Twilio implements Provider_Interface { public function send_sms(Provider_Request_SMS $request) { if (!$request->is_valid()) throw new Provider_Exception_InvalidRequest(); $sms = \Twilio\Twilio::request('SmsMessage'); $response = $sms->create(array( 'To' => $request->to, 'From' => $request->from, 'Body' => $request->body )); if ($this->_did_request_fail($response)) { throw new Provider_Exception_RequestFailed($response->message); } $response = new Provider_Response_SMS(TRUE); return $response; } private function _did_request_fail($api_response) { return isset($api_response->status); } } So the idea is that I can write another file like this for any other telephony service provided that it implements Provider_Interface making them swappable. Here are my questions: First off, do you think this is a good design? How could it be improved? Second, I'm having a hard time testing this because I need to mock out the Twilio package so that I'm not actually depending on Twilio's API for my tests to pass or fail. Do you see any strategy for mocking this out? Thanks in advance for any advice!

    Read the article

  • Applying business logic to form elements in ASP.NET MVC

    - by Brettski
    I am looking for best practices in applying business logic to form elements in an ASP.NET MVC application. I assume the concepts would apply to most MVC patterns. The goal is to have all the business logic stem from the same place. I have a basic form with four elements: Textbox: for entering data Checkbox: for staff approval Checkbox: for client approval Button: for submitting form The textbox and two check boxes are fields in a database accessed using LINQ to SQL. What I want to do is put logic around the check boxes on who can check them and when. True table (little silly but it's an example): when checked || may check Staff || may check Client Staff | Client || Staff | Client || Staff | Client 0 0 || 1 0 0 1 0 1 || 0 0 0 1 1 0 || 1 0 0 1 1 1 || 0 0 0 1 There are to security roles, staff and client; a person's role determines who they are, the roles are maintained in the database alone with current state of the check boxes. So I can simply store the users roll in the view class and enable and disable check boxes based on their role, but this doesn't seem proper. That is putting logic in UI to control of which actions can be taken. How do I get most of this control down into the model? I mean I need to control which check boxes are enabled and then check the results in the model when the form is posted, so it seems the best place for it to originate. I am looking for a good approach to constructing this, something to follow as I build the application. If you know of some great references which explain these best practices that is really appreciated too.

    Read the article

  • Place the business logic in Java Beans?

    - by Lirik
    I was reading this page and I found the following statement: MVC in Java Server Pages Now that we have a convenient architucture to separate the view, how can we leverage that? Java Server Pages (JSP) becomes more interesting because the HTML content can be separated from the Java business objects. JSP can also make use of Java Beans. The business logic could be placed inside Java Beans. If the design is architected correctly, a Web Designer could work with HTML on the JSP site without interfering with the Java developer. Interestingly in my textbook I pulled the following quote: In the MVC architecture... the original request is always handled by a servlet. The servlet invokes the business logic and data access code and creates beans to represent the results (that’s the model). Then, the servlet decides which Java Server Page is appropriate to present those particular results and forwards the request there (the JSP is the view). The servlet decides what business logic code applies and which JSP should present the results (the servlet is the controller). The two statements seem slightly contradicting. What is the best way to use beans: should we place business logic in them or should we only place results in them? Are there ways in which beans are inadequate for representing a model?

    Read the article

  • jQuery logic firing twice from a Usercontrol when used in a jQueryUI modal dialog

    - by AaronS
    I have an asp.net usercontrol that I'm using to put a bunch of HTML and Jquery logic into to be shared on several pages. This usercontrol has some dropdown boxes loaded from json calls and has no added codebehind logic. When I use this usercontrol on a normal page it works perfectly fine, and no issues at all. However, when I wrap the usercontrol in a div, and use a jqueryUI modal dialog, everything in the usercontrol fires twice. Not only code in the initial $(document).ready(function() {});, but also every function is also fired twice when called. Debugging this in Visual Studio, I see that everything is first being called from the external JS file, and then again from a "script block" file that is somehow getting generated on the fly. This script block file isn't getting generated on a page that doesn't wrap the user control in a modal. The same happens if I use IISExpress or IIS7. The question is, why is this script block file getting created, and why is all my jQuery logic firing twice? --edit-- Here is the div: <div id="divMyDiv" title="MyDiv"> <uc1:MyUserControl runat="server" ID="MyUsercontrol" /> </div> Here is the modal logic that uses it: $("#divMyDiv").dialog({ autoOpen: false, height: 400, width: 400, modal: true, open: function (type, data) { $(this).parent().appendTo("form"); } }); Note: The problm still occurs, even if I remove the "open:" function. But, it does not occur if I remove the entire dialog block, so it is specific to this dialog call.

    Read the article

  • HAProxy create custom routing logic

    - by kumar
    Is it possible to write a custom routing logic for HAProxy. I need it in such a way that each application server is allocated a max on 1000 TCP connections then only should the loadbalancer try to route next TCP request to next application server. if not with HAProxy if there any other Load balancer that can do it please let me know. Can persistence be applied to TCP connections. There will no HTTP request. thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >