Search Results

Search found 12476 results on 500 pages for 'unit testing'.

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

Page 46/500 | < Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >

  • How do I mock/fake/replace/stub a base class at unit-test time in C#?

    - by MatthewMartin
    UPDATE: I've changed the wording of the question. Previously it was a yes/no question about if a base class could be changed at runtime. I may be working on mission impossible here, but I seem to be getting close. I want to extend a ASP.NET control, and I want my code to be unit testable. Also, I'd like to be able to fake behaviors of a real Label (namely things like ID generation, etc), which a real Label can't do in an nUnit host. Here a working example that makes assertions on something that depends on a real base class and something that doesn't-- in a more realistic unit test, the test would depend on both --i.e. an ID existing and some custom behavior. Anyhow the code says it better than I can: public class LabelWrapper : Label //Runtime //public class LabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } //Ugh, now I have to test FakeLabelWrapper public class FakeLabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } [TestFixture] public class UnitTest { [Test] public void Test() { //Wish this was LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(new FakeBase()) LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(); //FakeLabelWrapper label = new FakeLabelWrapper(); label.Text = "ToUpper"; Assert.AreEqual("TOUPPER",label.Text); StringWriter stringWriter = new StringWriter(); HtmlTextWriter writer = new HtmlTextWriter(stringWriter); label.RenderControl(writer); Assert.AreEqual(1,label.ID); Assert.AreEqual("<span>TOUPPER</span>", stringWriter.ToString()); } } public class FakeLabel { virtual public string Text { get; set; } public void RenderControl(TextWriter writer) { writer.Write("<span>" + Text + "</span>"); } } //System Under Test internal class LabelLogic { internal string ProcessGetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } internal string ProcessSetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } }

    Read the article

  • Reducing the pain writing integration and system tests

    - by mdma
    I would like to make integration tests and system tests for my applications but producing good integration and system tests have often needed so much effort that I have not bothered. The few times I tried, I wrote custom, application-specific test harnesses, which felt like re-inventing the wheel each time. I wonder if this is the wrong approach. Is there a "standard" approach to integration and full system testing? EDIT: To clarify, it's automated tests, for desktop and web applications. Ideally a complete test suite that exercises the full functionality of the application.

    Read the article

  • Pro's and Con's of unit testing after the fact.

    - by scope-creep
    I have a largish complex app around 27k lines. Its essentially a rule drive multithreaded processing engine, without giving too much away Its been partially tested as it's been built, certain components. Question I have, is what is the pro's and con's of doing unit testing on after the fact, so to speak, after its been implemented. It is clear that traditional testing is going to take 2-3+ months to test every facet, and it all needs to work, and that time is not available really. I've done a fair bit of unit testing in the past, but generally it's been on desktop automation or LOB apps, which are fairly simple. The app is itself is highly componentized internally, interface driven really. I've not decided on what particular framework to use. Any advice would be appreciated. What say you.

    Read the article

  • C# testing framework that works like JUnit in Eclipse?

    - by bluebomber357
    Hello all, I come from a Java/Eclipse background and I fear that I am spoiled by how easy it is to get JUnit and JMock running in Eclipse, and have that GUI with the bar and pass/fail information pop up. It just works with no hassle. I see a lot of great options for testing in C# with Visual Studio. NUnit looks really nice because it contains unit and mock testing all in one. The trouble is, I can't figure out how to get the IDE display my results. The NUnit documentation seems to show that it doesn't automatically show results through the VS IDE. I found http://testdriven.net/, which seems to trumpet that is makes VS display these stats and work with multiple frameworks, but it isn't open source. Is there anyway to get unit and mock testing working with the VS IDE like it does in Java with Eclipse?

    Read the article

  • How do you run your unit tests? Compiler flags? Static libraries?

    - by Christopher Gateley
    I'm just getting started with TDD and am curious as to what approaches others take to run their tests. For reference, I am using the google testing framework, but I believe the question is applicable to most other testing frameworks and to languages other than C/C++. My general approach so far has been to do either one of three things: Write the majority of the application in a static library, then create two executables. One executable is the application itself, while the other is the test runner with all of the tests. Both link to the static library. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and enable or disable the testing code using compiler flags. This is probably the best approach I've used so far, but clutters up the code a bit. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and, given certain command-line switches either run the application itself or run the tests embedded in the application. None of these solutions are particularly elegant... How do you do it?

    Read the article

  • C#: How to unit test a method that relies on another method within the same class?

    - by michael paul
    I have a class similar to the following: public class MyProxy : ClientBase<IService>, IService { public MyProxy(String endpointConfiguration) : base(endpointConfiguration) { } public int DoSomething(int x) { int result = DoSomethingToX(x); //This passes unit testing int result2 = ((IService)this).DoWork(x) //do I have to extract this part into a separate method just //to test it even though it's only a couple of lines? //Do something on result2 int result3 = result2 ... return result3; } int IService.DoWork(int x) { return base.Channel.DoWork(x); } } The problem lies in the fact that when testing I don't know how to mock the result2 item without extracting the part that gets result3 using result2 into a separate method. And, because it is unit testing I don't want to go that deep as to test what result2 comes back as... I'd rather mock the data somehow... like, be able to call the function and replace just that one call.

    Read the article

  • Sneak peek at next generation Three MiFi unit – Huawei E585

    - by Liam Westley
    Last Wednesday I was fortunate to be invited to a sneak preview of the next generation Three MiFi unit, the Huawei E585. Many thanks to all those who posted questions both via this blog or via @westleyl on Twitter. I think I made sure I asked every question posed to the MiFi product manager from Three UK, and so here's the answers you were after. What is a MiFi? For those who are wondering, a MiFi unit is a 3G broadband modem combined with a WiFi access point, providing 3G broadband data access to up to five devices simultaneously via standard WiFi connections. What is different? It appears the prime task of enhancing the MiFi was to improve the user experience and user interface, both in terms of the device hardware and within the management software to configure the device.  I think this was a very sensible decision as these areas had substantial room for improvement. Single button operation to switch on, enable WiFi and connect to 3G Improved OELD display (see below), replacing the multi coloured LEDs; including signal strength, SMS notifications, the number of connected clients and data usage Management is via a web based dashboard accessible from any web browser. This is a big win for those running Linux, Mac OS/X, iPad users and, for me, as I can now configure the device from Windows 7 64-bit Charging is via micro USB, the new standard for small USB devices; you cannot use your old charger for the new MiFi unit Automatic reconnection when regaining a signal Improved charging time, which should allow recharging of the device when in use Although subjective, the black and silver design does look more classy than the silver and white plastic of the original MiFi What is the same? Virtually the same size and weight The battery is the same unit as the original MiFi so you’ll have a handy spare if you upgrade Data plans remain the same as the current MiFi, so cheapest price for upgraders will be £49 pay as you go Still only works on 3G networks, with no fallback to GPRS or EDGE There is no specific upgrade path for existing three customers, either from dongle or from the original MiFi My opinion I think three have concentrated on the correct areas of usability and user experience rather than trying to add new whizz bang technology features which aren’t of interest to mainstream users. The one button operation and the improved device display will make it much easier to use when out and about. If the automatic reconnection proves reliable that will remove a major bugbear that I experienced the previous evening when travelling on the First Great Western line from Paddington to Didcot Parkway.  The signal was repeatedly lost as we sped through tunnels and cuttings, and without automatic reconnection is was a real pain to keep pressing the data button on the MiFi to re-establish my data connection. And finally, the web based dashboard will mean I no longer need to resort to my XP based netbook to configure the SSID and password. My everyday laptop runs Windows 7 64-bit which appears to confuse the older 3 WiFi manager which cannot locate the MiFi when connected. Links to other sites, and other images of the device Good first impressions from Ben Smith, http://thereallymobileproject.com/2010/06/3uk-announce-a-new-mifi-with-a-screen/ Also, a round up of other sneak preview posts, http://www.3mobilebuzz.com/2010/06/11/mifi-round-two-your-view/ Pictures Here is a comparison of the old MiFi device next to the new device, complete with OLED display and the Huawei logo now being a prominent feature on the front of the device. One of my fellow bloggers had a Linux based netbook, showing off the web based dashboard complete with Text messages panel to manage SMS. And finally, I never thought that my blog sub title would ever end up printed onto a cup cake, ... and here's some of the other cup cakes ...

    Read the article

  • FREE eBook: .NET Performance Testing and Optimization (Part 1)

    In this this first part of complete guide to performance profiling, Paul Glavich and Chris Farrell explain why performance testing is a good idea and walk you through everything you need to know to set up a test environment. This comprehensive guide to getting started is an essential handbook to any programmer looking to set up a .NET testing environment and get the best results out of it. Download your free copy now span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • When does depth testing happen?

    - by Utkarsh Sinha
    I'm working with 2D sprites - and I want to do 3D style depth testing with them. When writing a pixel shader for them, I get access to the semantic DEPTH0. Would writing to this value help? It seems it doesn't. Maybe it's done before the pixel shader step? Or is depth testing only done when drawing 3D things (I'm using SpriteBatch)? Any links/articles/topics to read/search for would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to unit test with lots of IO

    - by Eric
    I write Linux embedded software which closely integrates with hardware. My modules are such as : -CMOS video input with kernel driver (v4l2) -Hardware h264/mpeg4 encoders (texas instuments) -Audio Capture/Playback (alsa) -Network IO I'd like to have automated testing for those functionalities, such as integration testing. I am not sure how I can automate this process since most of the top level functionalities I face are IO bound. Sure, it is easy to test functions individually, but whole process checking means depending on tons of external dependencies only available at runtime.

    Read the article

  • A Skill Testing (Search Engine) Calculation

    - by Ken Cox [MVP]
    To claim a contest prize, I had to answer the following skill-testing question: 1000 - 50 / 2 x 10 Okay, it’s not a problem as long as you know about operator precedence. As a developer, my brain automatically supplied brackets. I was curious as to whether this exact skill-testing question is commonly-used in online contests, so I Googled the formula. To my amazement, Google returned the result of the calculation – complete with brackets: 1 000 - ((50 / 2) x 10) = 750 (Google) Bing also has a calculator...(read more)

    Read the article

  • What arguments can I use to "sell" the BDD concept to a team reluctant to adopt it?

    - by S.Robins
    I am a bit of a vocal proponent of the BDD methodology. I've been applying BDD for a couple of years now, and have adopted StoryQ as my framework of choice when developing DotNet applications. Even though I have been unit testing for many years, and had previously shifted to a test-first approach, I've found that I get much more value out of using a BDD framework, because my tests capture the intent of the requirements in relatively clear English within my code, and because my tests can execute multiple assertions without ending the test halfway through - meaning I can see which specific assertions pass/fail at a glance without debugging to prove it. This has really been the tip of the iceberg for me, as I've also noticed that I am able to debug both test and implementation code in a more targeted manner, with the result that my productivity has grown significantly, and that I can more easily determine where a failure occurs if a problem happens to make it all the way to the integration build due to the output that makes its way into the build logs. Further, the StoryQ api has a lovely fluent syntax that is easy to learn and which can be applied in an extraordinary number of ways, requiring no external dependencies in order to use it. So with all of these benefits, you would think it an easy to introduce the concept to the rest of the team. Unfortunately, the other team members are reluctant to even look at StoryQ to evaluate it properly (let alone entertain the idea of applying BDD), and have convinced each other to try and remove a number of StoryQ elements from our own core testing framework, even though they originally supported the use of StoryQ, and that it doesn't impact on any other part of our testing system. Doing so would end up increasing my workload significantly overall and really goes against the grain, as I am convinced through practical experience that it is a better way to work in a test-first manner in our particular working environment, and can only lead to greater improvements in the quality of our software, given I've found it easier to stick with test first using BDD. So the question really comes down to the following: What arguments can I use to really drive the point home that it would be better to use StoryQ, or at the very least apply the BDD methodology? Can you point me to any anecdotal evidence that I can use to support my argument to adopt BDD as our standard method of choice? What counter arguments can you think of that could suggest that my wish to convert the team efforts to BDD might be in error? Yes, I'm happy to be proven wrong provided the argument is a sound one. NOTE: I am not advocating that we rewrite our tests in their entirety, but rather to simply start working in a different manner for all future testing work.

    Read the article

  • FREE eBook: .NET Performance Testing and Optimization (Part 1)

    In this this first part of complete guide to performance profiling, Paul Glavich and Chris Farrell explain why performance testing is a good idea and walk you through everything you need to know to set up a test environment. This comprehensive guide to getting started is an essential handbook to any programmer looking to set up a .NET testing environment and get the best results out of it. Download your free copy now span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • PluralSight video on Automated Web Testing with Selenium

    - by TATWORTH
    I am part-way through an excellent video at http://www.pluralsight.com/training/Courses/TableOfContents/selenium on Automated Web Testing with SeleniumSo far everything I have seen leads me to consider that this is an excellent demonstration of Selenium and I recommend to all ASP.NET developers who want to be able to automate testing of their web pages.Selenium is a free tool you can download from http://seleniumhq.org/download/

    Read the article

  • Testing and Validation – You Really Do Have The Time

    - by BuckWoody
    One of the great advantages in my role as a Technical Specialist here at Microsoft is that I get to work with so many great clients. I get to see their environments and how they use them, and the way they work with SQL Server. I’ve been a data professional myself for many years. Over that time I’ve worked with many database platforms, lots of client applications, and written a lot of code in many industries. For a while I was also a consultant, so I got to see how other shops did things as well. But because I now focus on a “set” base of clients (over 500 professionals in over 150 companies) I get to see them over a longer period of time. Many of them help me understand how they use the product in their projects, and I even attend some DBA regular meetings. I see the way the product succeeds, and I see when it fails. Something that has really impacted my way of thinking is the level of importance any given shop is able to place on testing and validation. I’ve always been a big proponent of setting up a test system and following a very disciplined regimen to make sure it will work in production for any new projects, and then taking the lessons learned into production as standards. I know, I know – there’s never enough time to do things right like this. Yet the shops I see that do it have the same level of work that they output as the shops that don’t. They just make the time to do the testing and validation and create a standard that they will follow in production. And what I’ve found (surprise surprise) is that they have fewer production problems. OK, that might seem obvious – but I’ve actually tracked it and those places that do the testing and best practices really do save stress, time and trouble from that effort. We all think that’s a good idea, but we just “don’t have time”. OK – but from what I’m seeing, you can gain time if you spend a little up front. You may find that you’re actually already spending the same amount of time that you would spend in doing the testing, you’re just doing it later, at night, under the gun. Food for thought.  Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • System testing hangs inexplicably

    - by Jamess
    I read that I can upload system testing reports to ubuntu site and was excited with it. But my last three efforts looks like gives me a hung 'system testing' process or it appears so for about an hour each. How I can find out what is happening and if it indeed hung? https://launchpad.net/+login says I am already logged in, but I do not see any progress (or even unable to close the window as well) I am attaching the Screen shot as well:

    Read the article

  • Strangling the life out of Software Testing

    - by MarkPearl
    I recently did a course at the local university on Software Engineering. At the beginning of the course I looked over the outline of the subject and there seemed to be some really good content. It covered traditional & agile project methodologies, some general communication and modelling chapters and finished off with testing. I was particularly excited to see the section on testing as this was something I learnt on my own and see great value in. The course has now just ended and I am very disappointed. I now know one of the reasons why so few people i.e. in my region do Test Driven Development, or perform even basic testing methodologies. The topic was to academic! Yes, you might be able to list 4 different types of black box test approaches vs. white box test approaches and describe the characteristics of Smoke Tests, but never during course did we see an example of an actual test or how it might be implemented! In fact, if I did not have personal experience of applying testing in actual projects, I wouldn’t even know what a unit test looked like. Now, what worries me is the following… It took us 6 months to cover the course material, other students more than likely came out of that course with little appreciation of the subject – in fact they now have a very complex view of what a test is – so complex that I think most of them will never attempt it again on their own. Secondly, imagine studying to be a dentist without ever actually seeing a tooth? Yes, you might be able to describe a tooth, and know what it is made out of – but nobody would want a dentist who has never seen a tooth to operate on them. Yet somehow we expect people studying software engineering to do the same? This is not right. Now, before I finish my rant let me say that I know this is not the same everywhere in the world, and that there needs to be a balance on practical implementation and academic understanding – I am just disappointed that this does not seem to be happening at the institution that I am currently studying at ;-( Please, if you happen to be a lecturer or teacher reading this post – a combination of theory and practical's goes a long way. We need to up the quality of software being produced and that starts at learner level!

    Read the article

  • On The Question Of Automated Website Testing

    Almost all webmasters (or at least "quite a lot of webmasters") have heard about the significance of website testing before the production. Having developed a website or a web application, most authors want to publish it immediately and see how people like it. If they ignore prior website testing, the project may appear unprepared for real Internet activity and reveal awful performance.

    Read the article

  • Oracle Application Testing Suite 12.1 ??????????

    - by user773457
    Oracle Application Testing Suite 12.1 ??????????? http://japanmediacentre.oracle.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=1692???????????????? ?JD Edwards EnterpriseOne????????????????????????????????????? ?Oracle Application Testing Suite 12.1????????????????????????(IE9?Linux) ??????????????Oracle Enterprise Manager????????Oracle Cloud???????????????? ???????SQL?????????SELECT???????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? ???? ATS-Tech ??????????

    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

  • Bad linking in Qt unit test -- missing the link to the moc file?

    - by dwj
    I'm trying to unit test a class that inherits QObject; the class itself is located up one level in my directory structure. When I build the unit test I get the standard unresolved errors if a class' MOC file cannot be found: test.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "public: virtual void * __thiscall UnitToTest::qt_metacast(char const *)" (?qt_metacast@UnitToTest@@UAEPAXPBD@Z) + 2 missing functions The MOC file is created but appears to not be linking. I've been poking around SO, the web, and Qt's docs for quite a while and have hit a wall. How do I get the unit test to include the MOC file in the link? ==== My project file is dead simple: TEMPLATE = app TARGET = test DESTDIR = . CONFIG += qtestlib INCLUDEPATH += . .. DEPENDPATH += . HEADERS += test.h SOURCES += test.cpp ../UnitToTest.cpp stubs.cpp DEFINES += UNIT_TEST My directory structure and files: C:. | UnitToTest.cpp | UnitToTest.h | \---test | test.cpp (Makefiles removed for clarity) | test.h | test.pro | stubs.cpp | +---debug | UnitToTest.obj | test.obj | test.pdb | moc_test.cpp | moc_test.obj | stubs.obj Edit: Additional information The generated Makefile.Debug shows the moc file missing: SOURCES = test.cpp \ ..\test.cpp \ stubs.cpp debug\moc_test.cpp OBJECTS = debug\test.obj \ debug\UnitToTest.obj \ debug\stubs.obj \ debug\moc_test.obj

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >