Search Results

Search found 13653 results on 547 pages for 'integration testing'.

Page 54/547 | < Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >

  • In what ways can I test an image slideshow javascript code?

    - by Rahul
    I have a slideshow of images (and links) on a page. These images are part of a JSON response to a request sent after the page loads. The slideshow is set to play at an interval of 2 seconds. The slideshow can be paused, played over, and all other controls a normal slideshow would have. As a Rails dev, I proposed cucumber but the javascript guys in the team are not comfortable with ruby. I saw some cucumber for javascript libraries coming up, still in experimental stage. I checked out jasmine and related tutorials but all I could get from them is how I can carry out any internal functional testing such as credit-cart validation, etc. - which I think could actually be handled in unit testing? (Screw the research I did and) How should I go about testing this and similar components?

    Read the article

  • Math behind multivariate testing for website optimization

    - by corkjack
    I am looking for theoretical resources (books, tutorials, etc.) to learn about making sound statistical inferences given (plenty of) multivariate website conversion data. I'm after the math involved, and cannot find any good non-marketing stuff on the web. The sort of questions I want to answer: how much impact does a single variable (e.g. color of text) have? what is the correlation between variables? what type of distribution is used for modelling (Gaussian, Binomial, etc.)? When using statistics to analyze results - what should be considered as a random variable - the web-page element that gets different variations or the binary conversion-or-no-conversion outcome of an impression? There's plenty of information about different website optimization testing methods and their benefits\pitfalls, plenty of information about multivariate statistics in general, do you guys know of resources that discuss statistics in this specific context of website optimization ? Thanks for any info!

    Read the article

  • Advise how to write a simple test for this javascript snippet?

    - by resting
    I'm trying to start unit testing (not using any testing frameworks) for my javascripts. Here's one example of it. var obj = {}; obj.disableBtn = function ($btn, style) { $btn.attr('disabled','disabled').addClass('disabled').removeClass(style); }; The use case is as such: obj.disableBtn($('.submit'), 'btn-blue'); What it does is simply add the disabled attribute, add the disabled class, and remove the btn-blue style. Please advise how would a typical test case look like in this case. I have a little knowledge on testing using assert(), but have no idea how to go about it when it involves verifying the result on HTML elements.

    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

  • Can an internally developed fast evolving, agile, short sprint web application lend itself to offshoring?

    - by Gavin Howden
    I have recently been set a target to achieve readiness to successfully manage and deliver results through the usage of offshore teams on our mainline development project within 12 months. Our mainline is a multi-thousand user highly available web application, and various related SAAS components delivered through the above mentioned web application. We work agile on the mainline with a rapid 1 week sprint using continuous integration. Our delivery platform is a bespoke php framework, although we have some .net services and components in the mix. My view is: an offshore team could work if we either ship out an entire isolated project for offshore development, or we specify a component for our system in huge detail up front. But we don't currently work like that, and it will conflict with the in-house method, and unless the off-shore is working within our team, with our development/deployment chain it could be an integration nightmare. So my question is, given we have a closed source bespoke framework (Private IP) which we train our developers to use, and we work agile minimising documentation, maximising communication and responding to rapidly changing requirements, and much of the quality control is via team skills building and peer review, how can I make off-shoring work on our main line development?

    Read the article

  • Performance issues with jms and spring integration. What is wrong with the following configuration?

    - by user358448
    I have a jms producer, which generates many messages per second, which are sent to amq persistent queue and are consumed by single consumer, which needs to process them sequentially. But it seems that the producer is much faster than the consumer and i am having performance and memory problems. Messages are fetched very very slowly and the consuming seems to happen on intervals (the consumer "asks" for messages in polling fashion, which is strange?!) Basically everything happens with spring integration. Here is the configuration at the producer side. First stake messages come in stakesInMemoryChannel, from there, they are filtered throw the filteredStakesChannel and from there they are going into the jms queue (using executor so the sending will happen in separate thread) <bean id="stakesQueue" class="org.apache.activemq.command.ActiveMQQueue"> <constructor-arg name="name" value="${jms.stakes.queue.name}" /> </bean> <int:channel id="stakesInMemoryChannel" /> <int:channel id="filteredStakesChannel" > <int:dispatcher task-executor="taskExecutor"/> </int:channel> <bean id="stakeFilterService" class="cayetano.games.stake.StakeFilterService"/> <int:filter input-channel="stakesInMemoryChannel" output-channel="filteredStakesChannel" throw-exception-on-rejection="false" expression="true"/> <jms:outbound-channel-adapter channel="filteredStakesChannel" destination="stakesQueue" delivery-persistent="true" explicit-qos-enabled="true" /> <task:executor id="taskExecutor" pool-size="100" /> The other application is consuming the messages like this... The messages come in stakesInputChannel from the jms stakesQueue, after that they are routed to 2 separate channels, one persists the message and the other do some other stuff, lets call it "processing". <bean id="stakesQueue" class="org.apache.activemq.command.ActiveMQQueue"> <constructor-arg name="name" value="${jms.stakes.queue.name}" /> </bean> <jms:message-driven-channel-adapter channel="stakesInputChannel" destination="stakesQueue" acknowledge="auto" concurrent-consumers="1" max-concurrent-consumers="1" /> <int:publish-subscribe-channel id="stakesInputChannel" /> <int:channel id="persistStakesChannel" /> <int:channel id="processStakesChannel" /> <int:recipient-list-router id="customRouter" input-channel="stakesInputChannel" timeout="3000" ignore-send-failures="true" apply-sequence="true" > <int:recipient channel="persistStakesChannel"/> <int:recipient channel="processStakesChannel"/> </int:recipient-list-router> <bean id="prefetchPolicy" class="org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQPrefetchPolicy"> <property name="queuePrefetch" value="${jms.broker.prefetch.policy}" /> </bean> <bean id="connectionFactory" class="org.springframework.jms.connection.CachingConnectionFactory"> <property name="targetConnectionFactory"> <bean class="org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory"> <property name="brokerURL" value="${jms.broker.url}" /> <property name="prefetchPolicy" ref="prefetchPolicy" /> <property name="optimizeAcknowledge" value="true" /> <property name="useAsyncSend" value="true" /> </bean> </property> <property name="sessionCacheSize" value="10"/> <property name="cacheProducers" value="false"/> </bean>

    Read the article

  • CI - How long is continous?

    - by Andy
    We currently are using CCNet as our continous integration server. Most projects check for changes every 30 seconds (the default) and if needed perform a build (unit tests, stylecop, fxcop, etc). We've gotten quite a few projects now, and the server spends most of its time near 100% cpu utilization. This has alarmed some of the development team, even though the server is responsive and builds are still about the same length of time they've always been. Its been suggested that we lower the check interval to about five minutes. To me that seems too long, and we risk people committing code and then going home for the weekend and now there's a broken build possibly holding up others. In response, the suggestion is that if someone needs to know the results they can force the build. But that seems to defeat the purpose of CI, as I thought it was supposed to be automated. My proposed solution is just to get another build server and split the builds amongst the servers. Am I thinking about this the wrong way, or is there a point where if integration isn't often enough you're not really doing CI anymore?

    Read the article

  • Testing home directory scripts by setting $HOME to the location of the test directory

    - by intuited
    I have an interdependent collection of scripts in my ~/bin directory as well as a developed ~/.vim directory and some other libraries and such in other subdirectories. I've been versioning all of this using git, and have realized that it would be potentially very easy and useful to do development and testing of new and existing scripts, vim plugins, etc. using a cloned repo, and then pull the working code into my actual home directory with a merge. The easiest way to do this would seem to be to just change & export $HOME, eg cd ~/testing; git clone ~ home export HOME=~/testing/home cd ~ screen -S testing-home # start vim, write/revise plugins, edit scripts, etc. # test revisions However since I've never tried this before I'm concerned that some programs, environment variables, etc., may end up using my actual home directory instead of the exported one. Is this a viable strategy? Are there just a few outliers that I should be careful about? Is there a much better way to do this sort of thing?

    Read the article

  • Install Previous Version of PHP Package from Debian Testing Using Apt

    - by Metric Scantlings
    Is there a way to install an older Debian testing repository version of a package using apt-get? Specifically, I am looking to install the latest version of PHP 5.2.x on Debian Lenny. The last time I set up an environment, 5.2.12 just happened to be the version in Debian testing. That was perfect, convenient. Now, testing is at 5.3.x which won't work for my purposes, and my attempts at sudo apt-get -t testing install php5=5.2.12* are answered with E: Version '5.2.12*' for 'php5' was not found.

    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

  • Should Development / Testing / QA / Staging environments be similar?

    - by Walter White
    Hi all, After much time and effort, we're finally using maven to manage our application lifecycle for development. We still unfortunately use ANT to build an EAR before deploying to Test / QA / Staging. My question is, while we made that leap forward, developers are still free to do as they please for testing their code. One issue that we have is half our team is using Tomcat to test on and the other half is using Jetty. I prefer Jetty slightly over Tomcat, but regardless we using WAS for all the other environments. My question is, should we develop on the same application server we're deploying to? We've had numerous bugs come up from these differences in environments. Tomcat, Jetty, and WAS are different under the hood. My opinion is that we all should develop on what we're deploying to production with so we don't have the problem of well, it worked fine on my machine. While I prefer Jetty, I just assume we all work on the same environment even if it means deploying to WAS which is slow and cumbersome. What are your team dynamics like? Our lead developers stepped down from the team and development has been a free for all since then. Walter

    Read the article

  • Testing Routes in ASP.NET MVC with MvcContrib

    - by Guilherme Cardoso
    I've decide to write about unit testing in the next weeks. If we decide to develop with Test-Driven Developement pattern, it's important to not forget the routes. This article shows how to test routes. I'm importing my routes from my RegisterRoutes method from the Global.asax of Project.Web created by default (in SetUp). I'm using ShouldMapTp() from MvcContrib: http://mvccontrib.codeplex.com/ The controller is specified in the ShouldMapTo() signature, and we use lambda expressions for the action and parameters that are passed to that controller. [SetUp] public void Setup() { Project.Web.MvcApplication.RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes); } [Test] public void Should_Route_HomeController() { "~/Home" .ShouldMapTo<HomeController>(action => action.Index()); } [Test] public void Should_Route_EventsController() { "~/Events" .ShouldMapTo<EventsController>(action => action.Index()); "~/Events/View/44/Concert-DevaMatri-22-January-" .ShouldMapTo<EventosController>(action => action.Read(1, "Title")); // In this example,44 is the Id for my Event and "Concert-DevaMatri-22-January" is the title for that Event } [TearDown] public void teardown() { RouteTable.Routes.Clear(); }

    Read the article

  • A Reusable Builder Class for Javascript Testing

    - by Liam McLennan
    Continuing on my series of builders for C# and Ruby here is the solution in Javascript. This is probably the implementation with which I am least happy. There are several parts that did not seem to fit the language. This time around I didn’t bother with a testing framework, I just append some values to the page with jQuery. Here is the test code: var initialiseBuilder = function() { var builder = builderConstructor(); builder.configure({ 'Person': function() { return {name: 'Liam', age: 26}}, 'Property': function() { return {street: '127 Creek St', manager: builder.a('Person') }} }); return builder; }; var print = function(s) { $('body').append(s + '<br/>'); }; var build = initialiseBuilder(); // get an object liam = build.a('Person'); print(liam.name + ' is ' + liam.age); // get a modified object liam = build.a('Person', function(person) { person.age = 999; }); print(liam.name + ' is ' + liam.age); home = build.a('Property'); print(home.street + ' manager: ' + home.manager.name); and the implementation: var builderConstructor = function() { var that = {}; var defaults = {}; that.configure = function(d) { defaults = d; }; that.a = function(type, modifier) { var o = defaults[type](); if (modifier) { modifier(o); } return o; }; return that; }; I still like javascript’s syntax for anonymous methods, defaults[type]() is much clearer than the Ruby equivalent @defaults[klass].call(). You can see the striking similarity between Ruby hashes and javascript objects. I also prefer modifier(o) to the equivalent Ruby, yield o.

    Read the article

  • Step by Step screencasts to do Behavior Driven Development on WCF and UI using xUnit

    - by oazabir
    I am trying to encourage my team to get into Behavior Driven Development (BDD). So, I made two quick video tutorials to show how BDD can be done from early requirement collection stage to late integration tests. It explains breaking user stories into behaviors, and then developers and test engineers taking the behavior specs and writing a WCF service and unit test for it, in parallel, and then eventually integrating the WCF service and doing the integration tests. It introduces how mocking is done using the Moq library. Moreover, it shows a way how you can write test once and do both unit and integration tests at the flip of a config setting. Watch the screencast here: Doing BDD with xUnit, Subspec and on a WCF Service  Warning: you might hear some noise in the audio in some places. Something wrong with audio bit rate. I suggest you let the video download for a while and then play it. If you still get noise, go back couple of seconds earlier and then resume play. It eliminates the noise.  The next video tutorial is about doing BDD to do automated UI tests. It shows how test engineers can take behaviors and then write tests that tests a prototype UI in isolation (just like Service Contract) in order to ensure the prototype conforms to the expected behaviors, while developers can write the real code and build the real product in parallel. When the real stuff is done, the same test can test the real stuff and ensure the agreed behaviors are satisfied. I have used WatiN to automate UI and test UI for expected behaviors. Doing BDD with xUnit and WatiN on a ASP.NET webform Hope you like it!

    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

  • Service Testing made easy with SO-Aware Test Workbench

    - by cibrax
    I happy to announce today a new addition to our SO-Aware service repository toolset, SO-Aware Test Workbench, a WPF desktop application for doing functional and load testing against existing WCF Services. This tool is completely integrated to the SO-Aware service repository, which makes configuring new load and functional tests for WCF Soap and REST services a breeze. From now on, the service repository can play a very important role in an organization by facilitating collaboration between developers and testers. Developers can create and register new services in the repository with all the related artifacts like configuration. On the other hand, Testers can just pick one of the existing services in the repository and create functional or load tests from there, with no need to deal with specific details of the service implementation, location or configuration settings. Developers and Testers can later use the result of those tests to modify the services or adjust different settings on the tests or service configuration. Gustavo Machado, one of the developers behind this project, has written an excellent post describing all the functionality that can find today in the tool. You can also see the tool in action in this Endpoint Tv episode with Jesus and Ron Jacobs.

    Read the article

  • BizTalk 2009 - Error when Testing Map with Flat File Source Schema

    - by StuartBrierley
    I have recently been creating some flat file schemas using the BizTalk Server 2009 Flat File Schema Wizard.  I have then been mapping these flat file schemas to a "normal" xml schema format. I have not previsouly had any cause to map flat files and ran into some trouble when testing the first of these flat file maps; with an instance of the flat file as the source it threw an XSL transform error: Test Map.btm: error btm1050: XSL transform error: Unable to write output instance to the following <file:///C:\Documents and Settings\sbrierley\Local Settings\Temp\_MapData\Test Mapping\Test Map_output.xml>. Data at the root level is invalid. Line 1, position 1. Due to the complexity of the map in question I decided to created a small test map using the same source and destination schemas to see if I could pinpoint the problem.  Although the source message instance vaildated correctly against the flat file schema, when I then tested this simplified map I got the same error. After a time of fruitless head scratching and some serious google time I figured out what the problem was. Looking at the map properties I noticed that I had the test map input set to "XML" - for a flat file instance this should be set to "native".

    Read the article

  • Supporting and testing multiple versions of a software library in a Maven project

    - by Duncan Jones
    My company has several versions of its software in use by our customers at any one time. My job is to write bespoke Java software for the customers based on the version of software they happen to be running. I've created a Java library that performs many of the tasks I regularly require in a normal project. This is a Maven project that I deploy to our local Artifactory and pull down into other Maven projects when required. I can't decide the best way to support the range of software versions used by our customers. Typically, we have about three versions in use at any one time. They are normally backwards compatible with one another, but that cannot be guaranteed. I have considered the following options for managing this issue: Separate editions for each library version I make a separate release of my library for each version of my company software. Using some Maven cunningness I could automatically produce a tested version linked to each of the then-current company software versions. This is feasible, but not without its technical challenges. The advantage is that this would be fairly automatic and my unit tests have definitely executed against the correct software version. However, I would have to keep updating the versions supported and may end up maintaining a large collection of libraries. One supported version, but others tested I support the oldest software version and make a release against that. I then perform tests with the newer software versions to ensure it still works. I could try and make this testing automatic by having some non-deployed Maven projects that import the software library, the associated test JAR and override the company software version used. If those projects build, then the library is compatible. I could ensure these meta-projects are included in our CI server builds. I welcome comments on which approach is better or a suggestion for a different approach entirely. I'm leaning towards the second option.

    Read the article

  • Testing a codebase with sequential cohesion

    - by iveqy
    I've this really simple program written in C with ncurses that's basically a front-end to sqlite3. I would like to implement TDD to continue the development and have found a nice C unit framework for this. However I'm totally stuck on how to implement it. Take this case for example: A user types a letter 'l' that is captured by ncurses getch(), and then an sqlite3 query is run that for every row calls a callback function. This callback function prints stuff to the screen via ncurses. So the obvious way to fully test this is to simulate a keyboard and a terminal and make sure that the output is the expected. However this sounds too complicated. I was thinking about adding an abstraction layer between the database and the UI so that the callback function will populate a list of entries and that list will later be printed. In that case I would be able to check if that list contains the expected values. However, why would I struggle with a data structure and lists in my program when sqlite3 already does this? For example, if the user wants to see the list sorted in some other way, it would be expensive to throw away the list and repopulate it. I would need to sort the list, but why should I implement sorting when sqlite3 already has that? Using my orginal design I could just do an other query sorted differently. Previously I've only done TDD with command line applications, and there it's really easy to just compare the output with what I'm expected. An other way would be to add CLI interface to the program and wrap a test program around the CLI to test everything. (The way git.git does with it's test-framework). So the question is, how to add testing to a tightly integrated database/UI.

    Read the article

  • Am I just not understanding TDD unit testing (Asp.Net MVC project)?

    - by KallDrexx
    I am trying to figure out how to correctly and efficiently unit test my Asp.net MVC project. When I started on this project I bought the Pro ASP.Net MVC, and with that book I learned about TDD and unit testing. After seeing the examples, and the fact that I work as a software engineer in QA in my current company, I was amazed at how awesome TDD seemed to be. So I started working on my project and went gun-ho writing unit tests for my database layer, business layer, and controllers. Everything got a unit test prior to implementation. At first I thought it was awesome, but then things started to go downhill. Here are the issues I started encountering: I ended up writing application code in order to make it possible for unit tests to be performed. I don't mean this in a good way as in my code was broken and I had to fix it so the unit test pass. I mean that abstracting out the database to a mock database is impossible due to the use of linq for data retrieval (using the generic repository pattern). The reason is that with linq-sql or linq-entities you can do joins just by doing: var objs = select p from _container.Projects select p.Objects; However, if you mock the database layer out, in order to have that linq pass the unit test you must change the linq to be var objs = select p from _container.Projects join o in _container.Objects on o.ProjectId equals p.Id select o; Not only does this mean you are changing your application logic just so you can unit test it, but you are making your code less efficient for the sole purpose of testability, and getting rid of a lot of advantages using an ORM has in the first place. Furthermore, since a lot of the IDs for my models are database generated, I proved to have to write additional code to handle the non-database tests since IDs were never generated and I had to still handle those cases for the unit tests to pass, yet they would never occur in real scenarios. Thus I ended up throwing out my database unit testing. Writing unit tests for controllers was easy as long as I was returning views. However, the major part of my application (and the one that would benefit most from unit testing) is a complicated ajax web application. For various reasons I decided to change the app from returning views to returning JSON with the data I needed. After this occurred my unit tests became extremely painful to write, as I have not found any good way to write unit tests for non-trivial json. After pounding my head and wasting a ton of time trying to find a good way to unit test the JSON, I gave up and deleted all of my controller unit tests (all controller actions are focused on this part of the app so far). So finally I was left with testing the Service layer (BLL). Right now I am using EF4, however I had this issue with linq-sql as well. I chose to do the EF4 model-first approach because to me, it makes sense to do it that way (define my business objects and let the framework figure out how to translate it into the sql backend). This was fine at the beginning but now it is becoming cumbersome due to relationships. For example say I have Project, User, and Object entities. One Object must be associated to a project, and a project must be associated to a user. This is not only a database specific rule, these are my business rules as well. However, say I want to do a unit test that I am able to save an object (for a simple example). I now have to do the following code just to make sure the save worked: User usr = new User { Name = "Me" }; _userService.SaveUser(usr); Project prj = new Project { Name = "Test Project", Owner = usr }; _projectService.SaveProject(prj); Object obj = new Object { Name = "Test Object" }; _objectService.SaveObject(obj); // Perform verifications There are many issues with having to do all this just to perform one unit test. There are several issues with this. For starters, if I add a new dependency, such as all projects must belong to a category, I must go into EVERY single unit test that references a project, add code to save the category then add code to add the category to the project. This can be a HUGE effort down the road for a very simple business logic change, and yet almost none of the unit tests I will be modifying for this requirement are actually meant to test that feature/requirement. If I then add verifications to my SaveProject method, so that projects cannot be saved unless they have a name with at least 5 characters, I then have to go through every Object and Project unit test to make sure that the new requirement doesn't make any unrelated unit tests fail. If there is an issue in the UserService.SaveUser() method it will cause all project, and object unit tests to fail and it the cause won't be immediately noticeable without having to dig through the exceptions. Thus I have removed all service layer unit tests from my project. I could go on and on, but so far I have not seen any way for unit testing to actually help me and not get in my way. I can see specific cases where I can, and probably will, implement unit tests, such as making sure my data verification methods work correctly, but those cases are few and far between. Some of my issues can probably be mitigated but not without adding extra layers to my application, and thus making more points of failure just so I can unit test. Thus I have no unit tests left in my code. Luckily I heavily use source control so I can get them back if I need but I just don't see the point. Everywhere on the internet I see people talking about how great TDD unit tests are, and I'm not just talking about the fanatical people. The few people who dismiss TDD/Unit tests give bad arguments claiming they are more efficient debugging by hand through the IDE, or that their coding skills are amazing that they don't need it. I recognize that both of those arguments are utter bullocks, especially for a project that needs to be maintainable by multiple developers, but any valid rebuttals to TDD seem to be few and far between. So the point of this post is to ask, am I just not understanding how to use TDD and automatic unit tests?

    Read the article

  • Announcing SO-Aware Test Workbench

    - by gsusx
    Yesterday was a big day for Tellago Studios . After a few months hands down working, we announced the release of the SO-Aware Test Workbench tool which brings sophisticated performance testing and test visualization capabilities to theWCF world. This work has been the result of the feedback received by many of our SO-Aware and Tellago customers in terms of how to improve the WCF testing. More importantly, with the SO-Aware Test Workbench we are trying to address what has been one of the biggest challenges...(read more)

    Read the article

  • A Reusable Builder Class for .NET testing

    - by Liam McLennan
    When writing tests, other than end-to-end integration tests, we often need to construct test data objects. Of course this can be done using the class’s constructor and manually configuring the object, but to get many objects into a valid state soon becomes a large percentage of the testing effort. After many years of painstakingly creating builders for each of my domain objects I have finally become lazy enough to bother to write a generic, reusable builder class for .NET. To use it you instantiate a instance of the builder and configuring it with a builder method for each class you wish it to be able to build. The builder method should require no parameters and should return a new instance of the type in a default, valid state. In other words the builder method should be a Func<TypeToBeBuilt>. The best way to make this clear is with an example. In my application I have the following domain classes that I want to be able to use in my tests: public class Person { public string Name { get; set; } public int Age { get; set; } public bool IsAndroid { get; set; } } public class Building { public string Street { get; set; } public Person Manager { get; set; } } The builder for this domain is created like so: build = new Builder(); build.Configure(new Dictionary<Type, Func<object>> { {typeof(Building), () => new Building {Street = "Queen St", Manager = build.A<Person>()}}, {typeof(Person), () => new Person {Name = "Eugene", Age = 21}} }); Note how Building depends on Person, even though the person builder method is not defined yet. Now in a test I can retrieve a valid object from the builder: var person = build.A<Person>(); If I need a class in a customised state I can supply an Action<TypeToBeBuilt> to mutate the object post construction: var person = build.A<Person>(p => p.Age = 99); The power and efficiency of this approach becomes apparent when your tests require larger and more complex objects than Person and Building. When I get some time I intend to implement the same functionality in Javascript and Ruby. Here is the full source of the Builder class: public class Builder { private Dictionary<Type, Func<object>> defaults; public void Configure(Dictionary<Type, Func<object>> defaults) { this.defaults = defaults; } public T A<T>() { if (!defaults.ContainsKey(typeof(T))) throw new ArgumentException("No object of type " + typeof(T).Name + " has been configured with the builder."); T o = (T)defaults[typeof(T)](); return o; } public T A<T>(Action<T> customisation) { T o = A<T>(); customisation(o); return o; } }

    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

  • Which devices is my app working on

    - by Woojah
    My team is developing an app that will work on about 100 (or more) different android devices. We are having trouble testing it since we are not sure how to verify if it works on all the different devices. Can anybody suggest some best practices, a testing framework, or some sort of way to give us feedback on how to test our app and/or get feedback from our users so they can tell us the problems they are having?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >