Search Results

Search found 10206 results on 409 pages for 'tooling and testing'.

Page 47/409 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

  • Must all new features go through betatest?

    - by LTR
    Obviously, small usability fixes and bugfixes go directly into the stable product. What about small new features? Can you afford to just release them after internal testing, or do they have to be betatested by customers first? Situation: This is a young commercial project, produced by a one-person company. It has an existing userbase and is at it's second major version. Previous betatests have produced some results, however most feedback came from the stable product and not from beta versions.

    Read the article

  • Are my other partitions safe from harm from an alpha/beta release?

    - by Marcappuccino
    I am quite intrested in testing the latest alpha-3 of Ubuntu, however, performance in VirtualBox is slow and somewhat buggy (I know! It's an Alpha) - guest additions wern't installing, bad mouse intergration, etc. I would now like to test this release on my hard drive. But my main system (12.04) is also on this very same hard drive. Is this safe? Can the alpha touch my main partition? Are there any other risks?

    Read the article

  • Need to test .properties one by one in every possibility?

    - by ??? Shengyuan Lu
    For example, there are some key-value configuration in .properties file. Such like someFeatureEnable=true. It must be bool type value which will be parsed by framework, in my case it's typical Java Spring configuration. Spring will handle the configuration and throw Exception when users set someFeatureEnable=123. My question is: if there many properties in .properties file, Is it worth testing them one by one? It's quite troublesome and low priority. The .properties file is always configured by tech administrator stuff. Limited chances that they will mess up the configuration. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio Load Tests Virtual Users Simulation

    - by Eldar
    Hello, I'm currently working on writing a load testing application that takes advantage of Load Test using Visual Studio 2010. The load test will simulate 20 users on the same machine, and I need some data to be shared in-memory between all simulated users. I was suprised I couldn't find documentation answering the following question: What seperates each virtual user's running context from the other? Does each virtual user runs the tests in its own process? Maybe in its own app domain? Or just on its own thread? I need to know because if each user is running tests in its own process then all the in-memory cache isn't shared and is created for each user instead of one time for all of them, which is bad for me.

    Read the article

  • What Does It Usually Mean for a Feature to be "Supported"?

    - by joshin4colours
    I'm currently working some testing for a particular area of an application. I had to write some automated tests for a particular feature but due to the circumstances, this was not easy to do. When I asked one of the other testers about it, he mentioned that the same features exist in a sister application our company produces but isn't documented anywhere (end-user documentation or otherwise). He also said that the feature doesn't typically get tested at all in the sister application and isn't usually tested in the application I work on. Apparently this feature isn't heavily used but removing it would require a fair bit of work so the benefit-cost ratio doesn't work out. All of this has left me with some questions. Other than "The documentation says so" or "We told the client it is", what usually makes a feature "supported" versus an unsupported feature?

    Read the article

  • Should I pass an object into a constructor, or instantiate in class?

    - by Prisoner
    Consider these two examples: Passing an object to a constructor class ExampleA { private $config; public function __construct($config) { $this->config = $config; } } $config = new Config; $exampleA = new ExampleA($config); Instantiating a class class ExampleB { private $config; public function __construct() { $this->config = new Config; } } $exampleA = new ExampleA(); Which is the correct way to handle adding an object as a property? When should I use one over the other? Does unit testing affect what I should use?

    Read the article

  • What is the effect of creating unit tests during development on time to develop as well as time spent in maintenance activities?

    - by jgauffin
    I'm a consultant and I am going to introduce unit tests to all developers at my client site. My goal is to ensure that all new applications should have unit tests for all classes created. The client has a problem with high maintenance costs from fixing bugs in their existing applications. Their applications have a life span from between 5-15 years in which they continuously add new features. I'm quite confident that they will benefit greatly from starting with unit tests. I'm interested in the effect of unit tests on the time and cost of development: How much time will writing unit tests as part of the development process add? How much time will be saved in maintenance activities (testing and debugging) by having good unit tests?

    Read the article

  • Making Separate Assemblies For Different Types Of Tests For The Same Component?

    - by sooprise
    I was told by a few members here that splitting up my unit tests into different assemblies for different components is the best way to structure unit tests. Now, I have a few questions about that idea. What are the advantages of this? Organization, and isolation of errors? Let's say I have a component named "calculator", and I create an assembly for the unit tests on "calculator". Would I create a separate assembly for the integration tests I want to run on "calculator"? Or is the definition of an integration test a test across multiple components, like "calculator" and whatever else, which would require a separate assembly to test both of them together? In that case, would I have one assembly to do all of the integration testing for every component combination?

    Read the article

  • Is asking for control totals on a file an outdated means of verifying a file?

    - by CTKeane
    I'm in a new position where I need to process a flat files on a regular basis. The last time I did this was 5 or 6 years ago but as part of the file layout I received control totals. It gave me simplistic information on the file like the total number of records as well as sums of the important fields. This helped me during testing then also during production to verify the file arrived and has correct information. I have asked for similar data for this new project and have hit a wall of no. Is this no longer a standard practice? Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Lessons from rewriting POP Forums for MVC, open source-like

    - by Jeff
    It has been a ton of work, interrupted over the last two years by unemployment, moving, a baby, failing to sell houses and other life events, but it's really exciting to see POP Forums v9 coming together. I'm not even sure when I decided to really commit to it as an open source project, but working on the same team as the CodePlex folks probably had something to do with it. Moving along the roadmap I set for myself, the app is now running on a quasi-production site... we launched MouseZoom last weekend. (That's a post-beta 1 build of the forum. There's also some nifty Silverlight DeepZoom goodness on that site.)I have to make a point to illustrate just how important starting over was for me. I started this forum thing for my sites in old ASP more than ten years ago. What a mess that stuff was, including SQL injection vulnerabilities and all kinds of crap. It went to ASP.NET in 2002, but even then, it felt a little too much like script. More than a year later, in 2003, I did an honest to goodness rewrite. If you've been in this business of writing code for any amount of time, you know how much you hate what you wrote a month ago, so just imagine that with seven years in between. The subsequent versions still carried a fair amount of crap, and that's why I had to start over, to make a clean break. Mind you, much of that crap is still running on some of my production sites in a stable manner, but it's a pain in the ass to maintain.So with that clean break, there is much that I have learned. These are a few of those lessons, in no particular order...Avoid shiny object syndromeOver the years, I've embraced new things without bothering to ask myself why. I remember spending the better part of a year trying to adapt this app to use the membership and profile API's in ASP.NET, just because they were there. They didn't solve any known problem. Early on in this version, I dabbled in exotic ORM's, even though I already had the fundamental SQL that I knew worked. I bloated up the client side code with all kinds of jQuery UI and plugins just because, and it got in the way. All the new shiny can be distracting, and I've come to realize that I've allowed it to be a distraction most of my professional life.Just query what you needI've spent a lot of time over-thinking how to query data. In the SQL world, this means exotic joins, special caches, the read-update-commit loop of ORM's, etc. There are times when you have to remind yourself that you aren't Facebook, you'll never be Facebook, and that databases are in fact intended to serve data. In a lot of projects, back in the day, I used to have these big, rich data objects and pass them all over the place, through various application tiers, when in reality, all I needed was some ID from the entity. I try to be mindful of how many queries hit the database on a given request, but I don't obsess over it. I just get what I need.Don't spend too much time worrying about your unit testsIf you've looked at any of the tests for POP Forums, you might offer an audible WTF. That's OK. There's a whole lot of mocking going on. In some cases, it points out where you're doing too much, and that's good for improving your design. In other cases it shows where your design sucks. But the biggest trap of unit testing is that you worry it should be prettier. That's a waste of time. When you write a test, in many cases before the production code, the important part is that you're testing the right thing. If you have to mock up a bunch of stuff to test the outcome, so be it, but it's not wasted time. You're still doing up the typical arrange-action-assert deal, and you'll be able to read that later if you need to.Get back to your HTTP rootsASP.NET Webforms did a reasonably decent job at abstracting us away from the stateless nature of the Web. A lot of people criticize it, but I think it all worked pretty well. These days, with MVC, jQuery, REST services, and what not, we've gone back to thinking about the wire. The nuts and bolts passing between our Web browser and server matters. This doesn't make things harder, in my opinion, it makes them easier. There is something incredibly freeing about how we approach development of Web apps now. HTTP is a really simple protocol, and the stuff we push through it, in particular HTML and JSON, are pretty simple too. The debugging points are really easy to trap and trace.Premature optimization is prematureI'll go back to the data thing for a moment. I've been known to look at a particular action or use case and stress about the number of calls that are made to the database. I'm not suggesting that it's a bad thing to keep these in mind, but if you worry about it outside of the context of the actual impact, you're wasting time. For example, I query the database for last read times in a forum separately of the user and the list of forums. The impact on performance barely exists. If I put it under load, exceeding the kind of load I expect, it still barely has an impact. Then consider it only counts for logged in users. The context of this "inefficient" action is that it doesn't matter. Did I mention I won't be Facebook?Solve your own problems firstThis is another trap I've fallen into. I've often thought about what other people might need for some feature or aspect of the app. In other words, I was willing to make design decisions based on non-existent data. How stupid is that? When I decided to truly open source this thing, building for myself first was a stated design goal. This app has to server the audiences of CoasterBuzz, MouseZoom and other sites first. In this development scenario, you don't have access to mountains of usability studies or user focus groups. You have to start with what you know.I'm sure there are other points I could make too. It has been a lot of fun to work on, and I look forward to evolving the UI as time goes on. That's where I hope to see more magic in the future.

    Read the article

  • PHP/MySQL Performance Testing with Just PHP

    - by Mike Gifford
    I'm trying to diagnose a server where the website is loading very slowly, but unfortunately my client has only provided me with FTP access. I've got FTP access so I can upload PHP scripts, but can't set up any other server side tools. I have access to phpMyAdmin, but not direct access to the MySQL server. It is also unfortunately a Windows server (and we've been a Linux shop for over a decade now). So, if I wan to evaluate MySQL & disk speed performance through PHP on a generic server, what is the best way to do this? There are already tools like: https://github.com/raphaelm/php-benchmark or https://github.com/InfinitySoft/php-benchmark But I'm surprised there isn't something that someone has already set up & configured to just run through and do some basic testing of a server's responsiveness. Every time we evaluate a new server environment it's handy to be able to compare it to an existing one quickly to see if there are any anomalies. I guess I'd just hoped that someone else had written up a script to do this already. I know I have, but that was before Github when there was a handy place to post scraps of code like this. Originally posted in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12321498/php-mysql-performance-testing-with-just-php but it was recommended that I re-post it here.

    Read the article

  • Debian Wheezy (testing) df reported volume size

    - by TheRoadrunner
    I am a bit confused about the /dev/sda* references since I installed Wheezy instead of Squeeze on a testing box. fdisk -l returns: Disk /dev/sda: 250.1 GB, 250059350016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488397168 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x000e9623 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 480278527 240138240 83 Linux /dev/sda2 480280574 488396799 4058113 5 Extended /dev/sda5 480280576 488396799 4058112 82 Linux swap / Solaris This seems correct. But df -h /dev/sda (and /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2 and /dev/sda5) returns: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on udev 10M 0 10M 0% /dev The same happens with every entry under /dev/disk/by-id and /dev/disk/by-path. Only one of two entries under /dev/disk/by-uuid returns the correct volume size: df -h /dev/disk/by-uuid/cacdbad6-7e6b-4e80-84ba-e3c77ef48796 Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/disk/by-uuid/cacdbad6-7e6b-4e80-84ba-e3c77ef48796 229G 22G 196G 11% / Contents of /etc/fstab: # /etc/fstab: static file system information. # # Use 'blkid' to print the universally unique identifier for a # device; this may be used with UUID= as a more robust way to name devices # that works even if disks are added and removed. See fstab(5). # # <file system> <mount point> <type> <options> <dump> <pass> # / was on /dev/sda1 during installation UUID=cacdbad6-7e6b-4e80-84ba-e3c77ef48796 / ext4 errors=remount-ro 0 1 # swap was on /dev/sda5 during installation UUID=45840d13-ee36-4e77-8e73-16cbdff25eb1 none swap sw 0 0 /dev/sr0 /media/cdrom0 udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0 /dev/fd0 /media/floppy0 auto rw,user,noauto 0 0 It seems all other references than the uuid points to the swap partition. Is this because Wheezy is in testing, and should it be reported as an error?

    Read the article

  • Keyboard locking up in Visual Studio 2010

    - by Jim Wang
    One of the initiatives I’m involved with on the ASP.NET and Visual Studio teams is the Tactical Test Team (TTT), which is a group of testers who dedicate a portion of their time to roaming around and testing different parts of the product.  What this generally translates to is a day and a bit a week helping out with areas of the product that have been flagged as risky, or tackling problems that span both ASP.NET and Visual Studio.  There is also a separate component of this effort outside of TTT which is to help with customer scenarios and design. I enjoy being on TTT because it allows me the opportunity to look at the entire product and gain expertise in a wide range of areas.  This week, I’m looking at Visual Studio 2010 performance problems, and this gem with the keyboard in Visual Studio locking up ended up catching my attention. First of all, here’s a link to one of the many Connect bugs describing the problem: Microsoft Connect I like this problem because it really highlights the challenges of reproducing customer bugs.  There aren’t any clear steps provided here, and I don’t know a lot about your environment: not just the basics like our OS version, but also what third party plug-ins or antivirus software you might be running that might contribute to the problem.  In this case, my gut tells me that there is more than one bug here, just by the sheer volume of reports.  Here’s another thread where users talk about it: Microsoft Connect The volume and different configurations are staggering.  From a customer perspective, this is a very clear cut case of basic functionality not working in the product, but from our perspective, it’s hard to find something reproducible: even customers don’t quite agree on what causes the problem (installing ReSharper seems to cause a problem…or does it?). So this then, is the start of a QA investigation. If anybody has isolated repro steps (just comment on this post) that they can provide this will immensely help us nail down the issue(s), but I’ll be doing a multi-part series on my progress and methodologies as I look into the problem.

    Read the article

  • Keyboard locking up in Visual Studio 2010, Part 2

    - by Jim Wang
    Last week I posted about looking into the keyboard locking up issue in Visual Studio.  So far it looks like not a lot of people have replied to provide concrete repro steps, which confirms my suspicion that this is somewhat of a random issue. So at this point, I have a couple of choices.  I can either wait for somebody in the community to provide a repro of the problem that I can reliably run into, or I can do the work myself. I’m going to do both, so while I’m waiting for more possible bug reports, I’m going to write a tool that models the behavior of a typical Visual Studio user and use that to hopefully isolate the problem. I’ve chosen to go with this path since given the information in the bug reports, it seems people hit the issue with many different configurations in many different scenarios.  This means that me sitting down without any solid repro steps is likely not going to be a good use of time.  Instead, I’m going to go with a model-based testing approach where I will define a series of actions that a user in VS can do, and then proceed to run my model.  I’ll let you guys know how this works out for isolating bugs :) I’m using an internal tool for the model engine and AutoIt for the UI automation (I want something lightweight for a one-off).  One of the challenges will be getting feedback: AutoIt is great at driving, but not so great at understanding what success and failure means.

    Read the article

  • Continuous Integration using Docker

    - by Leon Mergen
    One of the main advantages of Docker is the isolated environment it brings, and I want to leverage that advantage in my continuous integration workflow. A "normal" CI workflow goes something like this: Poll repository for changes Pull from repository Install dependencies Run tests In a Dockerized workflow, it would be something like this: Poll repository for changes Pull from repository Build docker image Run docker image as container Run tests Kill docker container My problem is with the "run tests" step: since Docker is an isolated environment, intuitively I would like to treat it as one; this means the preferred method of communication are sockets. However, this only works well in certain situations (a webapp, for example). When testing different kind of services (for example, a background service that only communicated with a database), a different approach would be required. What is the best way to approach this problem? Is it a problem with my application's design, and should I design it in a more TDD, service-oriented way that always listens on some socket? Or should I just give up on isolation, and do something like this: Poll repository for changes Pull from repository Build docker image Run docker image as container Open SSH session into container Run tests Kill docker container SSH'ing into the container seems like an ugly solution to me, since it requires deep knowledge of the contents of the container, and thus break the isolation. I would love to hear SO's different approaches to this problem.

    Read the article

  • How to Be a Software Engineer?

    - by Mistrio
    My problem is kind of weird so please bear with me. I have been working in a start up concerned basically with mobile development since my graduation 2 years ago. I develop apps for iOS but it's not really relevant. The start up structure is simply founders developers, with no middle-tier technical supervision or project management whatsoever. A typical project cycle of ours is like this: meet with a client send very vague recruitment to an outsourced graphics designer dig in development right after we get the design, no questions asked then improvise improvise improvise! It's not that we are unaware that stuff like requirements analysis, UML, design patterns, source code control, testing, development methodologies... etc. exist, we just simply don't use them, and I mean like never. The result is usually a clunk of hardly-maintainable yet working code. Despite everything we are literally flourishing with many successful apps on all platforms and bigger clients each project. The thing is, we want the chaos and we're looking for advice. How would you fix our company technically? Given that you can't hire project managers or team leaders just because we are barely 5 developers, so it wouldn't be a justified cost for the founders, but one-time things like courses, books, private training... etc is an option. Lastly, if it's relevant, we are based in Egypt. Thank you a lot in advance.

    Read the article

  • Test a simple multi-player (upto four players) Android game in single developer machine

    - by Kush
    I'm working on a multi-player Android game (very simple it is that it doesn't have any game-engine used). The game is based on Java Socket. Four devices will connect the game server and a new thread will manage their session. The game server will server many such sessions (having 4 players each). What I'm worried about is the testing of this game. I know it is possible to run multiple android emulators, but my development laptop is very limited in capabilities (3 GB RAM, 2 Ghz Intel Core2Duo and on-board Graphics). And I'm already using Ubuntu to develop the game so that I have more user memory available than I'd have with Windows. Hence, the laptop will burn-to-death on running 4 emulator instances. I don't have access to any android device, neither I have another machine with higher configuration. And I still have to develop and test this game. P.S. : I'm a CS student, and currently don't work anywhere, and this game is college project, so if there are any paid solutions, I cannot afford it. What can I do to test the app seamlessly? ability to test even only 4 clients (i.e. only 1 session) would suffice, its alright if I can't simulate real environment with some 10-20 active game sessions (having 4 players each).

    Read the article

  • Unit Tests as a learning tool - a good idea?

    - by Ekkehard.Horner
    I'm interested in ways and means for learning (a) programming language(s) efficiently. I believe that using Unit Test concepts and infrastructure early in that process is a good thing, even better than starting with "Hello world". Why: To write a decent program even for a toy/restricted problem in a new language, you'll have to master many heterogenous concepts (control flow & variables & IO ...), you are tempted to glance over details just to get your program 'to work'. Putting (your understanding of) the facts about the new language in assertions with good descriptions (=success messages) enforces thinking thru/clearness/precision. Grouping topics and adding assertions to such groups is much easier than incorporation features from the 2. chapter of your "Learning X" book to your chapter 1 program. Why not: 'Real' Unit Tests are meant to output "1234 tests ok; 1 failure: saveWorld() chokes on negative input"; 'didactic' Unit Tests should output relevant facts about the new language like perl6 10-string.t # ### p5chop ... ok 13 - p5chop( "cbä" ) returns "ä" ok 14 - after that, victim is changed to "cb" # ### (p6) chop ... ok 27 - (p6) chop( "cbä" ) returns chopped copy: "cb" ok 18 - after that, victim is unchanged: "cbä" # ### chomp ... So (mis?)using Unit Tests may be counterproductive - practicing actions while learning you wouldn't use professionally. How: Writing 'didactic' Unit Tests in languages with lightweight testing systems (Perl 5/6) is easy; (mis?)using more elaborate systems (JUnit, CppUnit) may be not worth the effort or not suitable for a person just starting with a new language. So Is using Unit Tests as a learning tool a bad idea? Can the Unit Test tool(s) of your favourite language(s) used didactically? Should implementation details (eventually) be discussed here or over at stackoverflow.com?

    Read the article

  • When creating an library published on CodePlex, how "bad" would it be for the unit-test projects to rely on commercial products?

    - by Lasse V. Karlsen
    I have started a project on CodePlex for a WebDAV server implementation for .NET, so that I can host a WebDAV server in my own programs. This is both a learning/research project (WebDAV + server portion) as well as a project I think I can have much fun with, both in terms of making it and using it. However, I see a need to do mocking of types here in order to unit-testing properly. For instance, I will be relying on HttpListener for the web server portion of the WebDAV server, and since this type has no interface, and is sealed, I cannot easily make mocks or stubs out of it. Unless I use something like TypeMock. So if I used TypeMock in the unit-test projects on this library, how bad would this be for potential users? The projects are made in C# 3.5 for .NET 3.5 and 4.0, and the project files was created with Visual Studio 2010 Professional. The actual class libraries you would end up referencing in your software would of course not be encumbered with anything remotely like this, only the unit-test libraries. What's your thoughts on this? As an example, I have in my old code-base, which is private, the ability to just initiate a WebDAV server with just this: var server = new WebDAVServer(); This constructs, and owns, a HttpListener instance internally, and I would like to verify through unit-tests that if I dispose of this server object, the internal listener is disposed of. If, on the other hand, I use the overload where I hand it a listener object, this object should not be disposed of. Short of exposing the internal listener object to the outside world, something I'm a bit loath to do, how can I in a good way ensure that the object was disposed of? With TypeMock I can mock away parts of this object even though it isn't accessed through interfaces. The alternative would be for me to wrap everything in wrapper classes, where I have complete control.

    Read the article

  • How to analyze a scenario where a bug didn't get caught and adjust development workflow to prevent similar errors

    - by durron597
    I had a bug that was really difficult to track down, because all the unit tests were green, but the production application didn't work properly. Here's what happened: I had a filter class that set my application to ignore data that was not in some specified time windows. The unit test, which seemed thorough to me, turned green. Additionally, my integration tests also produced results as expected. Production, however, did not work. As a result of the first two bullets, this problem was very difficult to find. It turned out the problem was that my test dates were using my time zone (America/Chicago) but the production data was providing dates in UTC, which I did not realize, and the logic for the filter wasn't correct for UTC dates. (I was using joda time DateTime objects). Where did my workflow break down? Did I fail to produce a spec that specified that the logic needed to handle dates in any time zone? Did I fail to thoroughly consider all cases at the unit test level? Did I fail to insure the integration test was sufficiently similar to production? Other? What changes can I make to my workflow to better prevent this sort of mistake in the future? How can I more effectively debug a problem when there is an issue in production but not in testing?

    Read the article

  • Is there value in having new developers (graduates) start as testers / bug-fixers?

    - by Nico Huysamen
    Hi Programmers Community. What are your thoughts on the following: Is there value in having new developers (graduates) start as testers / bug-fixers? There are two schools of thought here that I have come across. Having new developers (graduates) start as testers / bug-fixers / doing SLA (Service Level Agreement) work, get's them familiar with the code base. It also allows them the opportunity to learn how to read [other people's] code. Further more, by fixing bugs, they will learn certain bad and good practices, which could hopefully help them in the future. The other way of thinking though, is that if you immediately start new developers on something like testing / bug-fixing / SLA work, their appetite for the development world might go away, and/or they might leave the company and you potentially loose out on a great future resource. Is there a balance that should be kept between these two? Currently where I work there is no clear-cut definition of what new starters do. Some go directly on to client work, while some fall in to the SLA world. Should companies have such a policy? Or should it be handled on a case-by-case or opportunity-based basis? Hope to hear from some of you that have experience in this field. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to test the tests?

    - by Ryszard Szopa
    We test our code to make it more correct (actually, less likely to be incorrect). However, the tests are also code -- they can also contain errors. And if your tests are buggy, they hardly make your code better. I can think of three possible types of errors in tests: Logical errors, when the programmer misunderstood the task at hand, and the tests do what he thought they should do, which is wrong; Errors in the underlying testing framework (eg. a leaky mocking abstraction); Bugs in the tests: the test is doing slightly different than what the programmer thinks it is. Type (1) errors seem to be impossible to prevent (unless the programmer just... gets smarter). However, (2) and (3) may be tractable. How do you deal with these types of errors? Do you have any special strategies to avoid them? For example, do you write some special "empty" tests, that only check the test author's presuppositions? Also, how do you approach debugging a broken test case?

    Read the article

  • Mock the window.setTimeout in a Jasmine test to avoid waiting

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2014/08/21/mock-the-window.settimeout-in-a-jasmine-test-to-avoid-waiting.aspxJasmine has a clock mocking feature, but I was unable to make it work in a function that I’m calling and want to test. The example only shows using clock for a setTimeout in the spec tests and I couldn’t find a good example. Here is my current and slightly limited approach.   If we have a method we want to test: var test = function(){ var self = this; self.timeoutWasCalled = false; self.testWithTimeout = function(){ window.setTimeout(function(){ self.timeoutWasCalled = true; }, 6000); }; }; Here’s my testing code: var realWindowSetTimeout = window.setTimeout; describe('test a method that uses setTimeout', function(){ var testObject; beforeEach(function () { // force setTimeout to be called right away, no matter what time they specify jasmine.getGlobal().setTimeout = function (funcToCall, millis) { funcToCall(); }; testObject = new test(); }); afterEach(function() { jasmine.getGlobal().setTimeout = realWindowSetTimeout; }); it('should call the method right away', function(){ testObject.testWithTimeout(); expect(testObject.timeoutWasCalled).toBeTruthy(); }); }); I got a good pointer from Andreas in this StackOverflow question. This would also work for window.setInterval. Other possible approaches: create a wrapper module of setTimeout and setInterval methods that can be mocked. This can be mocked with RequireJS or passed into the constructor. pass the window.setTimeout function into the method (this could get messy)

    Read the article

  • Is this method of writing Unit Tests correct?

    - by aspdotnetuser
    I have created a small C# project to help me learn how to write good unit tests. I know that one important rule of unit testing is to test the smallest 'unit' of code possible so that if it fails you know exactly what part of the code needs to fixed. I need help with the following before I continue to implement more unit tests for the project: If I have a Car class, for example, that creates a new Car object which has various attributes that are calculated when its' constructor method is called, would the two following tests be considered as overkill? Should there be one test that tests all calculated attributes of the Car object instead? [Test] public void CarEngineCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.GreaterOrEqual(car.Engine, 1); } [Test] public void CarNameCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.IsNotNull(car.Name); } Should I have the above two test methods to test these things or should I have one test method that asserts the Car object has first been created and then test these things in the same test method?

    Read the article

  • Implementing a ILogger interface to log data

    - by Jon
    I have a need to write data to file in one of my classes. Obviously I will pass an interface into my class to decouple it. I was thinking this interface will be used for testing and also in other projects. This is my interface: //This could be used by filesystem, webservice public interface ILogger { List<string> PreviousLogRecords {get;set;} void Log(string Data); } public interface IFileLogger : ILogger { string FilePath; bool ValidFileName; } public class MyClassUnderTest { public MyClassUnderTest(IFileLogger logger) {....} } [Test] public void TestLogger() { var mock = new Mock<IFileLogger>(); mock.Setup(x => x.Log(Is.Any<string>).AddsDataToList()); //Is this possible?? var myClass = new MyClassUnderTest(mock.Object); myClass.DoSomethingThatWillSplitThisAndLog3Times("1,2,3"); Assert.AreEqual(3,mock.PreviousLogRecords.Count); } This won't work I don't believe as nothing is storing the items so is this possible using Moq and also what do you think of the design of the interface?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >