Search Results

Search found 10178 results on 408 pages for 'testing metaprogramming'.

Page 44/408 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

• Is it bad practice to use Reflection in Unit testing?

  - by Sebi

  During the last years I always thought that in Java, Reflection is widely used during Unit testing. Since some of the variables/methods which have to be checked are private, it is somehow necessary to read the values of them. I always thought that the Reflection API is also used for this purpose. Last week i had to test some packages and therefore write some JUnit tests. As always i used Reflection to access private fields and methods. But my supervisor who checked the code wasn't really happy with that and told me that the Reflection API wasn't meant to use for such "hacking". Instead he suggested to modifiy the visibility in the production code. Is it really bad practice to use Reflection? I can't really believe that

  Read the article

• Can I accesss an external file when testing an R package?

  - by Abe

  I am using the testthat package to test an R package that is within a larger repository. I would like to test the contents of a file outside of the R package. Can I reference a file that is located outside of an R package while testing? What I have tried A reproducible example can be downloaded as MyRepo.tar.gz My repository is called "myRepo", and it includes an R package, "myRpkg" and a folder full of miscellaneous scripts ~/MyRepo/ ~/MyRepo/MyRpkg ~/MyRepo/Scripts The tests in "MyRpkg" are in the /tests/ folder ~/myRepo/myRpkg/tests/test.myscript.R And I want to be able to test a file in the Scripts folder: ~/MyRepo/Scripts/myscript.sh I would like to read the script to test the contents of the first line doing something like this: check.script <- readLines("../../../Scripts/myscript.sh")[1] expect_true(grepl("echo", check.script)) This works fine if I start from the MyRepo directory: cd ~/MyRepo R CMD check MyRpkg But if I move to another directory, it fails: cd R CMD check MyRepo/MyRpkg

  Read the article

• C++ MPL or_, and_ implementations

  - by KRao

  Hi, I am trying to read the boost headers to figure out how they managed to implement the or_<...> and and_<...> metafunctions so that: 1) They can have an arbitrary number of arguments (ok, say up to 5 arguments) 2) They have short circuit behavior, for example: or_<false_,true_,...> does not instantiate whatever is after true_ (so it can also be declared but not defined) Unfortunately the pre-processor metaprogramming is making my task impossible for me :P Thank you in advance for any help/suggestion.

  Read the article

• Unit Testing.... a data provider ?

  - by TomTom

  Given problem: I like unit tests. I develop connectivity software to external systems that pretty much and often use a C++ library The return of this systems is nonndeterministic. Data is received while running, but making sure it is all correctly interpreted is hard. How can I test this properly? I can run a unit test that does a connect. Sadly, it will then process a life data stream. I can say I run the test for 30 or 60 seconds before disconnecting, but getting code ccoverage is impossible - I simply dont even comeclose to get all code paths EVERY ONCE PER DAY (error code paths are rarely run). I also can not really assert every result. Depending on the time of the day we talk of 20.000 data callbacks per second - all of which are not relly determined good enough to validate each of them for consistency. Mocking? Well, that would leave me testing an empty shell of myself because the code handling the events basically is the to be tested case, and in many cases we talk here of a COMPLEX c level structure - hard to have mocking frameworks that integrate from Csharp to C++ Anyone any idea? I am short on giving up using unit tests for this part of the application.

  Read the article

• GH-Unit for unit testing Objective-C code, why am I getting linking errors?

  - by djhworld

  Hi there, I'm trying to dive into the quite frankly terrible world of unit testing using Xcode (such a convoluted process it seems.) Basically I have this test class, attempting to test my Show.h class #import <GHUnit/GHUnit.h> #import "Show.h" @interface ShowTest : GHTestCase { } @end @implementation ShowTest - (void)testShowCreate { Show *s = [[Show alloc] init]; GHAssertNotNil(s,@"Was nil."); } @end However when I try to build and run my tests it moans with this error: - Undefined symbols: "_OBJC_CLASS_$_Show", referenced from: __objc_classrefs__DATA@0 in ShowTest.o ld: symbol(s) not found collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Now I'm presuming this is a linking error. I tried following every step in the instructions located here: - http://github.com/gabriel/gh-unit/blob/master/README.md And step 2 of these instructions confused me: - In the Target 'Tests' Info window, General tab: Add a linked library, under Mac OS X 10.5 SDK section, select GHUnit.framework Add a linked library, select your project. Add a direct dependency, and select your project. (This will cause your application or framework to build before the test target.) How am I supposed to add my project to the linked library list when all it accepts it .dylib, .framework and .o files. I'm confused! Thanks for any help that is received.

  Read the article

• Silverlight unit testing. Error while running tests.

  - by 1gn1ter

  I'm using VS2010. Silverlight 4, NUnit 2.5.5, and TypeMock TypemockIsolatorSetup6.0.3.619.msi In the test project MVVM is implemented, PeopleViewModel is a ViewModel which I want to test. Please advise if you use other products for unit testing of MVVM Silverlight. Or please help to win this TypeMock. TIA This is the code of the test: [Test] [SilverlightUnitTest] public void SomeTestAgainstSilverlight() { PeopleViewModel o = new PeopleViewModel(); var res = o.People; Assert.AreEqual(15, res.Count()); } While running the test in ReSharper i get the following error: TestA.SomeTestAgainstSilverlight : Failed****************************************** *Loading Silverlight Isolation Aspects...* ****************************************** TEST RESULTS: --------------------------------------------- System.MissingMethodException : Method not found: 'hv TypeMock.ArrangeActAssert.Isolate.a(System.Delegate)'. at a4.a(ref Delegate A_0) at a4.a(Boolean A_0) at il.b() at CThru.Silverlight.SilverlightUnitTestAttribute.Init() at CThru.Silverlight.SilverlightUnitTestAttribute.Execute() at TypeMock.MockManager.a(String A_0, String A_1, Object A_2, Object A_3, Boolean A_4, Object[] A_5) at TypeMock.InternalMockManager.getReturn(Object that, String typeName, String methodName, Object methodParameters, Boolean isInjected) at Tests.TestA.SomeTestAgainstSilverlight() in TestA.cs: line 21 While running test in NUnit i get: Tests.TestA.SomeTestAgainstSilverlight: System.DllNotFoundException : Unable to load DLL 'agcore': The specified module could not be found. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007007E) at MS.Internal.XcpImports.Application_GetCurrentNative(IntPtr context, IntPtr& obj) at MS.Internal.XcpImports.Application_GetCurrent(IntPtr& pApp) at System.Windows.Application.get_Current() at ViewModelExample.ViewModel.ViewModelBase.get_IsDesignTime() in C:\Documents and Settings\USER\Desktop\ViewModelExample\ViewModelExample\ViewModel\ViewModelBase.cs:line 20 at ViewModelExample.ViewModel.PeopleViewModel..ctor(IServiceAgent serviceAgent) in C:\Documents and Settings\USER\Desktop\ViewModelExample\ViewModelExample\ViewModel\PeopleViewModel.cs:line 28 at ViewModelExample.ViewModel.PeopleViewModel..ctor() in C:\Documents and Settings\USER\Desktop\ViewModelExample\ViewModelExample\ViewModel\PeopleViewModel.cs:line 24 at Tests.TestA.SomeTestAgainstSilverlight() in C:\Documents and Settings\USER\Desktop\ViewModelExample\Tests\TestA.cs:line 22

  Read the article

• Why should I bother with unit testing if I can just use integration tests?

  - by CodeGrue

  Ok, I know I am going out on a limb making a statement like that, so my question is for everyone to convince me I am wrong. Take this scenario: I have method A, which calls method B, and they are in different layers. So I unit test B, which delivers null as a result. So I test that null is returned, and the unit test passes. Nice. Then I unit test A, which expects an empty string to be returned from B. So I mock the layer B is in, an empty string is return, the test passes. Nice again. (Assume I don't realize the relationship of A and B, or that maybe two differente people are building these methods) My concern is that we don't find the real problem until we test A and B togther, i.e. Integration Testing. Since an integration test provides coverage over the unit test area, it seems like a waste of effort to build all these unit tests that really don't tell us anything (or very much) meaningful. Why am I wrong?

  Read the article

• What is the best testing pattern for checking that parameters are being used properly?

  - by Joseph

  I'm using Rhino Mocks to try to verify that when I call a certain method, that the method in turn will properly group items and then call another method. Something like this: //Arrange var bucketsOfFun = new BucketGame(); var balls = new List<IBall> { new Ball { Color = Color.Red }, new Ball { Color = Color.Blue }, new Ball { Color = Color.Yellow }, new Ball { Color = Color.Orange }, new Ball { Color = Color.Orange } }; //Act bucketsOfFun.HaveFunWithBucketsAndBalls(balls); //Assert ??? Here is where the trouble begins for me. My method is doing something like this: public void HaveFunWithBucketsAndBalls(IList<IBall> balls) { //group all the balls together according to color var blueBalls = GetBlueBalls(balls); var redBalls = GetRedBalls(balls); // you get the idea HaveFunWithABucketOfBalls(blueBalls); HaveFunWithABucketOfBalls(redBalls); // etc etc with all the different colors } public void HaveFunWithABucketOfBalls(IList<IBall> colorSpecificBalls) { //doing some stuff here that i don't care about //for the test i'm writing right now } What I want to assert is that each time I call HaveFunWithABucketOfBalls that I'm calling it with a group of 1 red ball, then 1 blue ball, then 1 yellow ball, then 2 orange balls. If I can assert that behavior then I can verify that the method is doing what I want it to do, which is grouping the balls properly. Any ideas of what the best testing pattern for this would be?

  Read the article

• With Google Website Optimizer's multivariate testing, can I vary multiple css classes on a single di

  - by brahn

  I would like to use Google Website Optimizer (GWO)'s multivariate tests to test some different versions of a web page. I can change from version to version just by varying some class tags on a div, i.e. the different versions are of this form: <div id="testing" class="foo1 bar1">content</div> <div id="testing" class="foo1 bar2">content</div> <div id="testing" class="foo2 bar1">content</div> <div id="testing" class="foo2 bar2">content</div> In the ideal, I would be able to use GWO section code in place of each class, and google would just swap in the appropriate tags (foo1 or foo2, bar1 or bar2). However, naively doing this results in horribly malformed code because I would be trying to put <script> tags inside the div's class attribute: <div id="testing" class=" <script>utmx_section("foo-class")</script>foo1</noscript> <script>utmx_section("bar-class")</script>bar1</noscript> "> content </div> And indeed, the browser chokes all over it. My current best approach is just to use a different div for each variable in the test, as follows: <script>utmx_section("foo-class-div")</script> <div class="foo1"> </noscript> <script>utmx_section("bar-class-div")</script> <div class="bar1"> </noscript> content </div> </div> So testing multiple variables requires layer of div-nesting per variable, and it all seems rather awkward. Is there a better approach that I could use in which I just vary the classes on a single div?

  Read the article

• What are the best practices for unit testing properties with code in the setter?

  - by nportelli

  I'm fairly new to unit testing and we are actually attempting to use it on a project. There is a property like this. public TimeSpan CountDown { get { return _countDown; } set { long fraction = value.Ticks % 10000000; value -= TimeSpan.FromTicks(fraction); if(fraction > 5000000) value += TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1); if(_countDown != value) { _countDown = value; NotifyChanged("CountDown"); } } } My test looks like this. [TestMethod] public void CountDownTest_GetSet_PropChangedShouldFire() { ManualRafflePresenter target = new ManualRafflePresenter(); bool fired = false; string name = null; target.PropertyChanged += new PropertyChangedEventHandler((o, a) => { fired = true; name = a.PropertyName; }); TimeSpan expected = new TimeSpan(0, 1, 25); TimeSpan actual; target.CountDown = expected; actual = target.CountDown; Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); Assert.IsTrue(fired); Assert.AreEqual("CountDown", name); } The question is how do I test the code in the setter? Do I break it out into a method? If I do it would probably be private since no one else needs to use this. But they say not to test private methods. Do make a class if this is the only case? would two uses of this code make a class worthwhile? What is wrong with this code from a design standpoint. What is correct?

  Read the article

• How to setup and teardown temporary django db for unit testing?

  - by blokeley

  I would like to have a python module containing some unit tests that I can pass to hg bisect --command. The unit tests are testing some functionality of a django app, but I don't think I can use hg bisect --command manage.py test mytestapp because mytestapp would have to be enabled in settings.py, and the edits to settings.py would be clobbered when hg bisect updates the working directory. Therefore, I would like to know if something like the following is the best way to go: import functools, os, sys, unittest sys.path.append(path_to_myproject) os.environ['DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE'] = 'myapp.settings' def with_test_db(func): """Decorator to setup and teardown test db.""" @functools.wraps def wrapper(*args, **kwargs): try: # Set up temporary django db func(*args, **kwargs) finally: # Tear down temporary django db class TestCase(unittest.TestCase): @with_test_db def test(self): # Do some tests using the temporary django db self.fail('Mark this revision as bad.') if '__main__' == __name__: unittest.main() I should be most grateful if you could advise either: If there is a simpler way, perhaps subclassing django.test.TestCase but not editing settings.py or, if not; What the lines above that say "Set up temporary django db" and "Tear down temporary django db" should be?

  Read the article

• Testing Hibernate DAO, without building the universe around it.

  - by Varun Mehta

  We have an application built using spring/Hibernate/MySQL, now we want to test the DAO layer, but here are a few shortcomings we face. Consider the use case of multiple objects connected to one another, eg: Book has Pages. The Page object cannot exist without the Book as book_id is mandatory FK in Page. For testing a Page I have to create a Book. This simple usecase is easy to manage, but if you start building a Library, till you don't create the whole universe surrounding the Book and Page, you cannot test it! So to test Page; Create Library Create Section Create Genre Create Author Create Book Create Page Now test Page. Is there an easy way to by pass this "universe creation" and just test he page object in isolation. I also want to be able to test HQLs related to Page. eg: SELECT new com.test.BookPage (book.id, page.name) FROM Book book, Page page. JUnit is supposed to run in isolation, so I have to write the whole test case to create the Page. Any tips will be useful.

  Read the article

• How to install 32-bit libraries using Debian Testing

  - by bgoodr

  Question: What is the way to determine, ahead of time and without doing a full install of 64-bit Debian Testing NETINST, when Debian Testing has 32-bit libraries available and fully working and installable so that the following command works without broken package errors?: apt-get install ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk The errors that occur when 32-bit libraries are not available, still in some broken state, or whatever is broken are detailed below. I already have concluded that "Just install Stable" is my stop-gap measure for now, but I would like to know the answer to the above question so as to avoid a lengthy installation process only to run into these problems at the very end. Details: I downloaded the 64-bit Debian Testing netinst a couple of days ago. This was "Jessie" built 20131014-06:07 via http://tinyurl.com/lejpa. This is weekly testing build. Yes, I know I should expect problems, and I did. I managed to get it completely installed and was able to invoke into GNOME, but not get past the 32-bit library problem. The problems starts when I attempt to install the 32-bit libraries via: apt-get install ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk that returns: root@breath:~# apt-get install ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: ia32-libs : Depends: ia32-libs-i386 but it is not installable ia32-libs-gtk : Depends: ia32-libs-i386 but it is not installable Depends: ia32-libs-gtk-i386 but it is not installable E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. I then found an old (2012 is old to me) answer at ia32-libs : Depends: ia32-libs-i386 but it is not installable and even tried what they suggested there which was dpkg --add-architecture i386 apt-get update After executing the above, I tried again but got: root@breath:~# apt-get install ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: ia32-libs : Depends: ia32-libs-i386 ia32-libs-gtk : Depends: ia32-libs-i386 E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. root@breath:~# And then tried this: root@breath:~# dpkg --get-selections | grep hold And that returned nothing. Not only is there broken packages, the system doesn't even know what packages are broken, so Debian Stable is my only solution I know of right now. Hence my question above.

  Read the article

• How to manage two separate testing teams using different test tracking tools

  - by newuser

  I have two independent testing teams currently testing the same application. One team is using ClearQuest, and the other is using Mantis. It has been a huge effort to manage all of the duplicate reported bugs. What options would improve this situation? My constraint is that the ClearQuest team will not change test reporting tools. The migration to ClearQuest also comes with a large training effort.

  Read the article

• T-4 Templates for ASP.NET Web Form Databound Control Friendly Logical Layers

  - by joycsharp

  I just released an open source project at codeplex, which includes a set of T-4 templates to enable you to build logical layers (i.e. DAL/BLL) with just few clicks! The logical layers implemented here are  based on Entity Framework 4.0, ASP.NET Web Form Data Bound control friendly and fully unit testable. In this open source project you will get Entity Framework 4.0 based T-4 templates for following types of logical layers: Data Access Layer: Entity Framework 4.0 provides excellent ORM data access layer. It also includes support for T-4 templates, as built-in code generation strategy in Visual Studio 2010, where we can customize default structure of data access layer based on Entity Framework. default structure of data access layer has been enhanced to get support for mock testing in Entity Framework 4.0 object model. Business Logic Layer: ASP.NET web form based data bound control friendly business logic layer, which will enable you few clicks to build data bound web applications on top of ASP.NET Web Form and Entity Framework 4.0 quickly with great support of mock testing. Download it to make your web development productive. Enjoy!

  Read the article

• How to search for a tester?

  - by MainMa

  As a freelance developer, a few times I tried to find some testers to be able to let them test my software/web applications. If I try to find them, it's because most of the customers are not intended to hire external testers and don't see why this can benefit to them, so products are UI-untested and buggy. I tried lots of things. Discussion boards for IT people, specific websites for people who search for a job. Every time I clearly precise that I'm looking for product testers. I completely failed to find anybody for this job. I found instead two types of people: Non IT people who try to qualify as testers, but don't have enough skills for that, and don't really know what testing is and how to do it, Programmers, who are skilled as programmers, but not as testers, and who mostly don't understand neither what testing is about (or think it's the same thing as code review, or it consists in writing unit tests). Of course, they submit general programmers resumes, where they describe their high experience in Assembler and C++, but don't tell anything about anything related to the job of a tester. What I'm doing wrong? Isn't it called "tester"? Is there at least a tester job, different from general programming job? Is there any precise requirement to require from each candidate which can eliminate non IT people and general programmers?

  Read the article

• Have unit test generators helped you when working with legacy code?

  - by Duncan Bayne

  I am looking at a small (~70kLOC including generated) C# (.NET 4.0, some Silverlight) code-base that has very low test coverage. The code itself works in that it has passed user acceptance testing, but it is brittle and in some areas not very well factored. I would like to add solid unit test coverage around the legacy code using the usual suspects (NMock, NUnit, StatLight for the Silverlight bits). My normal approach is to start working through the project, unit testing & refactoring, until I am satisfied with the state of the code. I've done this many times in the past, and it's worked well. However, this time I'm thinking of using a test generator (in particular Pex) to create the test framework, then manually fleshing it out. My question is: have you used unit test generators in the past when commencing work on a legacy codebase, and if so, would you recommend them? My fear is that the generated tests will miss the semantic nuances of the code-base, leading to the dreaded situation of having tests for the sake of the coverage metric, rather than tests which clearly express the intended behaviour in code.

  Read the article

• System testing - making sure the system conforms to specification. Validation?

  - by user970696

  After weeks of research I have nearly completed my thesis, yet I am unable to clear up my confusion contained in all previous threads here (and in many books): During system testing, we check the system function against system analysis (functional system design) - but that would fit to a definition of verification according to many books. But I follow ISO12207, which considers all testing as validation (making sure work product meets requirement for intended use). How can I justify that unit testing or system testing is validation, even though when I check it against specification? Which fullfils the definiton of verification? When testing that e.g. "Save button" works, is it validation? This picture shows my understanding of V&V, so different from many other sources, including ISTQB etc. Essential problem I have is that a book using the same picture also states on another place that: test activities in the area of validation are usability, alpha and beta testing. For verification, testable system requirements are defined whose correct implementation can be tested through system tests. Isn't that the opposite of what the picture says? Most books present the following picture, where validation is just making sure that customer needs are satisfied. Mind you that according to ISO, validation activity is testing.

  Read the article

• How can I reduce the amount of time it takes to fully regression test an application ready for release?

  - by DrLazer

  An app I work on is being developed with a modified version of scrum. If you are not familiar with scrum, it's just an alternative approach to a more traditional watefall model, where a series of features are worked on for a set amount of time known as a sprint. The app is written in C# and makes use of WPF. We use Visual C# 2010 Express edition as an IDE. If we work on a sprint and add in a few new features, but do not plan to release until a further sprint is complete, then regression testing is not an issue as such. We just test the new features and give the app a good once over. However, if a release is planned that our customers can download - a full regression test is factored in. In the past this wasn't a big deal, it took 3 or 4 days and the devs simply fix up any bugs found in the regression phase, but now, as the app is getting larger and larger and incorporating more and more features, the regression is spanning out for weeks. I am interested in any methods that people know of or use that can decrease this time. At the moment the only ideas I have are to either start writing Unit Tests, which I have never fully tried out in a commercial environment, or to research the possibilty of any UI Automation API's or tools that would allow me to write a program to perform a series of batch tests. I know literally nothing about the possibilities of UI automation so any information would be valuable. I don't know that much about Unit testing either, how complicated can the tests be? Is it possible to get Unit tests to use the UI? Are there any other methods I should consider? Thanks for reading, and for any advice in advance. Edit: Thanks for the information. Does anybody know of any alternatives to what has been mentioned so far (NUnit, RhinoMocks and CodedUI)?

  Read the article

• How would you TDD the functionality of getting the corresponding process of a running windows service?

  - by Matt Spinelli

  Purpose Over the last year or more I've been learning unit testing via books I've read recently like The Art of Unit Testing, Working Effectively with Legacy Code, and others. I've also been using unit tests, mocking frameworks, and the like, periodically at work and definitely see the value. However, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around TDD (as opposed to TAD) when the situation calls for code that is gong to mostly use external API calls. Problem to solve Get the process associated with a windows service using the service name. example: Function GetProcess(ByVal serviceName As String) As Process Rules Show each major iteration in production & test code using TDD No need to see any other code or configuration that is required to get things to run. Just curious about the interfaces, concrete classes, and test methods. C# or VB.NET Must use the .Net framework regarding services/processes (i.e. System.Diagnostics.Process) Test Frameworks: Nunit or MSTest Isolation Frameworks: Moq, Rhino Mock, or Microsoft Moles Must write true unit tests (no integration tests) Additional notes As far as I can tell there are two approaches design wise. Use an Inversion of Control approach along with using the Adapter and/or Facade patterns to wrap the underlying .net framework objects dealing with processes and services. Keep the .net framework code in the class containing the Get Process method and use code detouring (interception) via Microsoft Moles to isolate the hard dependencies from the method under test.

  Read the article

• Copy-and-Pasted Test Code: How Bad is This?

  - by joshin4colours

  My current job is mostly writing GUI test code for various applications that we work on. However, I find that I tend to copy and paste a lot of code within tests. The reason for this is that the areas I'm testing tend to be similar enough to need repetition but not quite similar enough to encapsulate code into methods or objects. I find that when I try to use classes or methods more extensively, tests become more cumbersome to maintain and sometimes outright difficult to write in the first place. Instead, I usually copy a big chunk of test code from one section and paste it to another, and make any minor changes I need. I don't use more structured ways of coding, such as using more OO-principles or functions. Do other coders feel this way when writing test code? Obviously I want to follow DRY and YAGNI principles, but I find that test code (automated test code for GUI testing anyway) can make these principles tough to follow. Or do I just need more coding practice and a better overall system of doing things? EDIT: The tool I'm using is SilkTest, which is in a proprietary language called 4Test. As well, these tests are mostly for Windows desktop applications, but I also have tested web apps using this setup as well.

  Read the article

• How to refactor a myriad of similar classes

  - by TobiMcNamobi

  I'm faced with similar classes A1, A2, ..., A100. Believe it or not but yeah, there are roughly hundred classes that almost look the same. None of these classes are unit tested (of course ;-) ). Each of theses classes is about 50 lines of code which is not too much by itself. Still this is way too much duplicated code. I consider the following options: Writing tests for A1, ..., A100. Then refactor by creating an abstract base class AA. Pro: I'm (near to totally) safe by the tests that nothing goes wrong. Con: Much effort. Duplication of test code. Writing tests for A1, A2. Abstracting the duplicated test code and using the abstraction to create the rest of the tests. Then create AA as in 1. Pro: Less effort than in 1 but maintaining a similar degree of safety. Con: I find generalized test code weird; it often seems ... incoherent (is this the right word?). Normally I prefer specialized test code for specialized classes. But that requires a good design which is my goal of this whole refactoring. Writing AA first, testing it with mock classes. Then inheriting A1, ..., A100 successively. Pro: Fastest way to eliminate duplicates. Con: Most Ax classes look very much the same. But if not, there is the danger of changing the code by inheriting from AA. Other options ... At first I went for 3. because the Ax classes are really very similar to each other. But now I'm a bit unsure if this is the right way (from a unit testing enthusiast's perspective).

  Read the article

• Do you write unit tests for all the time in TDD?

  - by mcaaltuntas

  I have been designing and developing code with TDD style for a long time. What disturbs me about TDD is writing tests for code that does not contain any business logic or interesting behaviour. I know TDD is a design activity more than testing but sometimes I feel it's useless to write tests in these scenarios. For example I have a simple scenario like "When user clicks check button, it should check file's validity". For this scenario I usually start writing tests for presenter/controller class like the one below. @Test public void when_user_clicks_check_it_should_check_selected_file_validity(){ MediaService service =mock(MediaService); View view =mock(View); when(view.getSelectedFile).thenReturns("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); MediaController controller =new MediaController(service,view); controller.check(); verify(service).check("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); } As you can see there is no design decision or interesting code to verify behaviour. I am testing values from view passed to MediaService. I usually write but don't like these kind of tests. What do yo do about these situations ? Do you write tests for all the time ? UPDATE : I have changed the test name and code after complaints. Some users said that you should write tests for the trivial cases like this so in the future someone might add interesting behaviour. But what about “Code for today, design for tomorrow.” ? If someone, including myself, adds more interesting code in the future the test can be created for it then. Why should I do it now for the trivial cases ?

  Read the article

• Is wrapping a third party code the only solution to unit test its consumers? [closed]

  - by Songo

  I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Now some people argue that if a library is stable enough and won't change often then there is no need to wrap it. So assuming that Zend_Mail is stable and won't change and it fits my needs entirely, then I won't need a wrapper for it. Now take a look at my class Logger that depends on Zend_Mail: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Now is wrapping Zend_Mail the only solution or is there a better approach to this problem? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

  Read the article

• How can I reduce the amount of time it takes to fully regression test an application ready for release?

  - by DrLazer

  An app I work on is being developed with a modified version of scrum. If you are not familiar with scrum, it's just an alternative approach to a more traditional watefall model, where a series of features are worked on for a set amount of time known as a sprint. The app is written in C# and makes use of WPF. We use Visual C# 2010 Express edition as an IDE. If we work on a sprint and add in a few new features, but do not plan to release until a further sprint is complete, then regression testing is not an issue as such. We just test the new features and give the app a good once over. However, if a release is planned that our customers can download - a full regression test is factored in. In the past this wasn't a big deal, it took 3 or 4 days and the devs simply fix up any bugs found in the regression phase, but now, as the app is getting larger and larger and incorporating more and more features, the regression is spanning out for weeks. I am interested in any methods that people know of or use that can decrease this time. At the moment the only ideas I have are to either start writing Unit Tests, which I have never fully tried out in a commercial environment, or to research the possibilty of any UI Automation API's or tools that would allow me to write a program to perform a series of batch tests. I know literally nothing about the possibilities of UI automation so any information would be valuable. I don't know that much about Unit testing either, how complicated can the tests be? Is it possible to get Unit tests to use the UI? Are there any other methods I should consider? Thanks for reading, and for any advice in advance.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >