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 50/500 | < Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >

  • What's the state of PHP unit testing frameworks in 2010?

    - by Pekka
    As far as I can see, PHPUnit is the only serious product in the field at the moment. It is widely used, is integrated into Continuous Integration suites like phpUnderControl, and well regarded. The thing is, I don't really like working with PHPUnit. I find it hard to set up (PEAR is the only officially supported installation method, and I hate PEAR), sometimes complicated to work with and, correct me if I'm wrong, lacking executability from a web page context (i.e. no CLI, which would really be nice when developing a web app.) The only competition to I can see is Simpletest, which looks very nice but hasn't seen a new release for almost two years, which tends to rule it out for me - Unit Testing is quite a static field, true, but as I will be deploying those tests alongside web applications, I would like to see active development on the project, at least for security updates and such. There is a SO question that pretty much confirms what I'm saying: Simple test vs PHPunit Seeing that that is almost two years old as well, though, I think it's time to ask again: Does anybody know any other serious feature-complete unit testing frameworks? Am I wrong in my criticism of PHPUnit? Is there still development going on for SimpleTest?

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test new code that uses a bunch of classes that cannot be instantiated in a test har

    - by trendl
    I'm writing a messaging layer that should handle communication with a third party API. The API has a bunch of classes that cannot be easily (if at all) instantiated in a test harness. I decided to wrap each class that I need in my unit tests with an adapter/wrapper and expose the members I need through this adapter class. Often I need to expose the wrapped type as well which I do by exposing it as an object. I have also provided an interface for for each or the adapter classes to be able to use them with a mocking framework. This way I can substitute the classes in test for whatever I need. The downside is that I have a bunch of adapter classes that so far server no other reason but testing. For me this is a good reason by itself but others may find this not enough. Possibly, when I write an implementation for another third party vendor's API, I may be able to reuse much of my code and only provide the adapters specific to the vendor's API. However, this is a bit of a long shot and I'm not actually sure it will work. What do you think? Is this approach viable or am I writing unnecessary code that serves no real purpose? Let me say that I do want to write unit tests for my messaging layer and I do now know how to do it otherwise.

    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

  • Can anyone recommend a good "Torture Test" website that I can mirror for testing a webserver [closed]

    - by Itsme2003
    I am testing some software that offers as one of its features serving web pages from folders on a server. Is there is any "test site" that has been set up as part of a webserver test suite that I can mirror onto my server that would contain large files, small files, files of many different extensions, combinations of encoded characters, double encoded characters, and any other file or folder names that might trip up a misbehaving web server.

    Read the article

  • InvalidProgramException Running Unit Test (Bug Closed)

    - by Anthony Trudeau
    In a previous post I reported an InvalidProgramException that occurs in a certain circumstance with unit tests involving accessors on a private generic method.  It turns out that Bug #635093 reported through Microsoft Connect will not be fixed. The reason cited is that private accessors have been discontinued.  And why have private accessors been discontinued?  They don't have time is the reason listed in the blog post titled "Generation of Private Accessors (Publicize) and Code Generation for Visual Studio 2010". In my opinion, it's a piss poor decision to discontinue support for a feature that they're still using within automatically generated unit tests against private classes and methods.  But, I think what is worse is the lack of guidance cited in the aforementioned blog post.  Their advice?  Use the PrivateObject to help, but develop your own framework. At the end of the day what Microsoft is saying is, "I know you spent a lot of money for this product.  I know that you don't have time to develop a framework to deal with this.  We don't have time and that is all that's important."

    Read the article

  • Unit testing ASP.NET Web API controllers that rely on the UrlHelper

    - by cibrax
    UrlHelper is the class you can use in ASP.NET Web API to automatically infer links from the routing table without hardcoding anything. For example, the following code uses the helper to infer the location url for a new resource,public HttpResponseMessage Post(User model) { var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, user); var link = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = id, controller = "Users" }); response.Headers.Location = new Uri(link); return response; } That code uses a previously defined route “DefaultApi”, which you might configure in the HttpConfiguration object (This is the route generated by default when you create a new Web API project). The problem with UrlHelper is that it requires from some initialization code before you can invoking it from a unit test (for testing the Post method in this example). If you don’t initialize the HttpConfiguration and Request instances associated to the controller from the unit test, it will fail miserably. After digging into the ASP.NET Web API source code a little bit, I could figure out what the requirements for using the UrlHelper are. It relies on the routing table configuration, and a few properties you need to add to the HttpRequestMessage. The following code illustrates what’s needed,var controller = new UserController(); controller.Configuration = new HttpConfiguration(); var route = controller.Configuration.Routes.MapHttpRoute( name: "DefaultApi", routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{id}", defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional } ); var routeData = new HttpRouteData(route, new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "id", "1" }, { "controller", "Users" } } ); controller.Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost:9091/"); controller.Request.Properties.Add(HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, controller.Configuration); controller.Request.Properties.Add(HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, routeData);  The HttpRouteData instance should be initialized with the route values you will use in the controller method (“id” and “controller” in this example). Once you have correctly setup all those properties, you shouldn’t have any problem to use the UrlHelper. There is no need to mock anything else. Enjoy!!.

    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

  • Need help understanding Mocks and Stubs

    - by Theomax
    I'm new to use mocking frameworks and I have a few questions on the things that I am not clear on. I'm using Rhinomocks to generate mock objects in my unit tests. I understand that mocks can be created to verify interactions between methods and they record the interactions etc and stubs allow you to setup data and entities required by the test but you do not verify expectations on stubs. Looking at the recent unit tests I have created, I appear to be creating mocks literally for the purpose of stubbing and allowing for data to be setup. Is this a correct usage of mocks or is it incorrect if you're not actually calling verify on them? For example: user = MockRepository.GenerateMock<User>(); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid()); user.Stub(x => x.Name = "User1"); In the above code I generate a new user mock object, but I use a mock so I can stub the properties of the user because in some cases if the properties do not have a setter and I need to set them it seems the only way is to stub the property values. Is this a correct usage of stubbing and mocking? Also, I am not completely clear on what the difference between the following lines is: user.Stub(x => x.Id).Return(new Guid()); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid());

    Read the article

  • Classes as a compilation unit

    - by Yannbane
    If "compilation unit" is unclear, please refer to this. However, what I mean by it will be clear from the context. Edit: my language allows for multiple inheritance, unlike Java. I've started designing+developing my own programming language for educational, recreational, and potentially useful purposes. At first, I've decided to base it off Java. This implied that I would have all the code be written inside classes, and that code compiles to classes, which are loaded by the VM. However, I've excluded features such as interfaces and abstract classes, because I found no need for them. They seemed to be enforcing a paradigm, and I'd like my language not to do that. I wanted to keep the classes as the compilation unit though, because it seemed convenient to implement, familiar, and I just liked the idea. Then I noticed that I'm basically left with a glorified module system, where classes could be used either as "namespaces", providing constants and functions using the static directive, or as templates for objects that need to be instantiated ("actual" purpose of classes in other languages). Now I'm left wondering: what are the benefits of having classes as compilation units? (Also, any general commentary on my design would be much appreciated.)

    Read the article

  • Doing unit and integration tests with the Web API HttpClient

    - by cibrax
    One of the nice things about the new HttpClient in System.Net.Http is the support for mocking responses or handling requests in a http server hosted in-memory. While the first option is useful for scenarios in which we want to test our client code in isolation (unit tests for example), the second one enables more complete integration testing scenarios that could include some more components in the stack such as model binders or message handlers for example.   The HttpClient can receive a HttpMessageHandler as argument in one of its constructors. public class HttpClient : HttpMessageInvoker { public HttpClient(); public HttpClient(HttpMessageHandler handler); public HttpClient(HttpMessageHandler handler, bool disposeHandler); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } For the first scenario, you can create a new HttpMessageHandler that fakes the response, which you can use in your unit test. The only requirement is that you somehow inject an HttpClient with this custom handler in the client code. public class FakeHttpMessageHandler : HttpMessageHandler { HttpResponseMessage response; public FakeHttpMessageHandler(HttpResponseMessage response) { this.response = response; } protected override Task<HttpResponseMessage> SendAsync(HttpRequestMessage request, System.Threading.CancellationToken cancellationToken) { var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<HttpResponseMessage>(); tcs.SetResult(response); return tcs.Task; } } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } In an unit test, you can do something like this. var fakeResponse = new HttpResponse(); var fakeHandler = new FakeHttpMessageHandler(fakeResponse); var httpClient = new HttpClient(fakeHandler); var customerService = new CustomerService(httpClient); // Do something // Asserts .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } CustomerService in this case is the class under test, and the one that receives an HttpClient initialized with our fake handler. For the second scenario in integration tests, there is a In-Memory host “System.Web.Http.HttpServer” that also derives from HttpMessageHandler and you can use with a HttpClient instance in your test. This has been discussed already in these two great posts from Pedro and Filip. 

    Read the article

  • SQL database testing: How to capture state of my database for rollback.

    - by Rising Star
    I have a SQL server (MS SQL 2005) in my development environment. I have a suite of unit tests for some .net code that will connect to the database and perform some operations. If the code under test works correctly, then the database should be in the same (or similar) state to how it was before the tests. However, I would like to be able to roll back the database to its state from before the tests run. One way of doing this would be to programmatically use transactions to roll back each test operation, but this is difficult and cumbersome to program; it could easily lead to errors in the test code. I would like to be able to run my tests confidently knowing that if they destroy my tables, I can quickly restore them? What is a good way to save a snapshot of one of my databases with its tables so that I can easily restore the database to it's state from before the test?

    Read the article

  • rake test:units fails with status ()

    - by ander163
    New user, haven't been building tests as I go, so I'm an idiot. The application is running, but the tests fail. Here is what appears to be relevant: .... ** Execute test:units /usr/local/bin/ruby -I"lib:test" "/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/unit/event_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/calendar1_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/events_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/homepage_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/main_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/mobile_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/notes_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/password_resets_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/projects_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/search_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/start_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/superadmin_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/tasks_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/user_sessions_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/users_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/note_test.rb" "test/unit/notifier_test.rb" "test/unit/project_test.rb" "test/unit/task_test.rb" "test/unit/user_session_test.rb" "test/unit/user_test.rb" /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.5/lib/rails/gem_dependency.rb:119:Warning: Gem::Dependency#version_requirements is deprecated and will be removed on or after August 2010. Use #requirement /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hpricot-0.6.164/lib/universal-java1.6/fast_xs.bundle: [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.8.7 (2009-06-12 patchlevel 174) [i686-darwin10.2.0] rake aborted! Command failed with status (): [/usr/local/bin/ruby -I"lib:test" "/usr/loc...] /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:995:in sh' /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:1010:incall'

    Read the article

  • What is the best server or Ip address to use for prolonged testing?

    - by eldorel
    I usually run uptime/latency tests against (and from) two servers that we own at different sites and until recently I've used the google dns servers as a control group. However, I've realized there is a potential problem with monitoring latency over extended periods of time. Almost all of the major service providers are using ANYCAST. For short tests this doesn't matter, but I need to run a set of tests for at least a week to try and catch an intermittent problem, and a change in the anycast priority while trying to test latency will cause the latency values for that server to change accordingly. Since I'm submitting graphs of this data to the ISP, I need to avoid/account for as many variables as possible. Spikes in the data for only one of the tested servers will only cause headaches. So can anyone recommend servers that: are not using anycast are owned by an entity that has a good uptime reputation (so they can't claim that the problem is server-side) will respond to ICMP requests Have an available service that runs on TCP/UDP (http or dns preferably) Wont consider an automated request every 10 minutes to be abuse Are accessible from anywhere in the world Are not local to the isp ( consider this an investigation of a hostile party ) Thanks in advance. Edit: added #6 and #7 above. More info: I am attempting to demonstrate a network problem for an entire node of our local ISP's network. They are actively blaming the issue on the equipment installed at the customer sites (our backup site is one of these), and refuse to escalate the problem. (even though 2 of these businesses have ISP provided modems, and all of us have completely different routers/services running) I am already quite familiar with the need to test an isp controlled IP, but they are actively dropping all packets targeted at gateway ip addresses and are only passing traffic addressed beyond the gateways. So to demonstrate the issue, I am sending packets to other systems in the same node, systems one hop away from the affected node, and systems completely outside the network. Unfortunately, all of the systems I have currently are either administered directly by myself, or by people who are biased enough to assist me. I need to have several systems included in the trace/log/graphs that are 100% not in the control of either myself or the isp so that the graphs have a stable/unbiased control group. These requirements are straight from legal, I'm just trying to make sure that everything that could be argued to invalidate the data is already covered. In Summary: I need to be able to show tcp/udp/icmp as 3 separate data points, and I need to be able to show the connections inside the local node, from local node to another nearby node, from those 2 nodes to the internet, and through the internet to both verifiable servers and a control group that I have no control over whatsoever. Again, Google/opendns/yahoo/msn/facebook/etc all use anycast, which throws the numbers off every time the anycast caches expire, so I need suggestions of an IP or server that is available for this type of testing. I was hoping someone knew of a system run by someone such as ISC or ICANN, or perhaps even a .gov server (fcc or nsa maybe?) setup for this type of testing. Thanks again.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing - how do I test a function that returns random output?

    - by Extrakun
    I have a function which takes in two parameters, and returns one or the other 50% of the time. The unit test for this should determine that both parameters could be returned. Luckily, I don't need to prove that the probability for each is 50% but I do need to show that both parameters are possible to be returned. How do I write a test case for this function?

    Read the article

  • Using Python, what's the best way to create a set of files on disk for testing?

    - by Chris R
    I'm looking for a way to create a tree of test files to unit test a packaging tool. Basically, I want to create some common file system structures -- directories, nested directories, symlinks within the selected tree, symlinks outside the tree, &c. Ideally I want to do this with as little boilerplate as possible. Of course, I could hand-write the set of files I want to see, but I'm thinking that somebody has to have automated this for a test suite somewhere. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • How to unit tests functions which return results asyncronously in XCode?

    - by DevDevDev
    I have something like - (void)getData:(SomeParameter*)param { // Remotely call out for data returned asynchronously // returns data via a delegate method } - (void)handleDataDelegateMethod:(NSData*)data { // Handle returned data } I want to write a unit test for this, how can I do something better than NSData* returnedData = nil; - (void)handleDataDelegateMethod:(NSData*)data { returnedData = data; } - (void)test { [obj getData:param]; while (!returnedData) { [NSThread sleep:1]; } // Make tests on returnedData }

    Read the article

  • Do you do unit tests for non production code?

    - by Ikaso
    I am interested in the following scenario specifically. Suppose you have team that writes production code and a team that writes automatic tests. The team that writes automatic tests has a dedicated framework intended to write the automatic tests. Should the testing team write unit tests for their framework although the framework is not used in production?

    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 | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >