Search Results

Search found 7245 results on 290 pages for 'meta tests'.

Page 6/290 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Do Repeat Yourself in Unit Tests

    - by João Angelo
    Don’t get me wrong I’m a big supporter of the DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) Principle except however when it comes to unit tests. Why? Well, in my opinion a unit test should be a self-contained group of actions with the intent to test a very specific piece of code and should not depend on externals shared with other unit tests. In a typical unit test we can divide its code in two major groups: Preparation of preconditions for the code under test; Invocation of the code under test. It’s in the first group that you are tempted to refactor common code in several unit tests into helper methods that can then be called in each one of them. Another way to not duplicate code is to use the built-in infrastructure of some unit test frameworks such as SetUp/TearDown methods that automatically run before and after each unit test. I must admit that in the past I was guilty of both charges but what at first seemed a good idea since I was removing code duplication turnout to offer no added value and even complicate the process when a given test fails. We love unit tests because of their rapid feedback when something goes wrong. However, this feedback requires most of the times reading the code for the failed test. Given this, what do you prefer? To read a single method or wander through several methods like SetUp/TearDown and private common methods. I say it again, do repeat yourself in unit tests. It may feel wrong at first but I bet you won’t regret it later.

    Read the article

  • Link between tests and user stories

    - by Sardathrion
    I have not see these links explicitly stated in the Agile literature I have read. So, I was wondering if this approach was correct: Let a story be defined as "In order to [RESULT], [ROLE] needs to [ACTION]" then RESULT generates system tests. ROLE generates acceptance tests. ACTION generates component and unit tests. Where the definitions are the ones used in xUnit Patterns which to be fair are fairly standard. Is this a correct interpretation or did I misunderstand something?

    Read the article

  • Isolating test data in acceptance tests

    - by Matt Phillips
    I'm looking for guidance on how to keep my acceptance tests isolated. Right now the issue I'm having with being able to run the tests in parallel is the database records that are manipulated in the tests. I've written helpers that take care of doing inserts and deletes before tests are executed, to make sure the state is correct. But now I can't run them in parallel against the same database without uniquely generating the test data fields for each test. For example. Testing creating a row i'll delete everything where column A = foo and column B = bar Then I'll navigate through the UI in the test and create a record with column A = foo and column B = bar. Testing that a duplicate row is not allowed to be created. I'll insert a row with column A = foo and column B = bar and then use the UI to try and do the exact same thing. This will display an error message in the UI as expected. These tests work perfectly when ran separately and serially. But I can't run them at the same time for fear that one will create or delete a record the other is expecting. Any tips on how to structure them better so they can be run in parallel?

    Read the article

  • Quality of Code in unit tests?

    - by m3th0dman
    Is it worth to spend time when writing unit tests in order that the code written there has good quality and is very easy to read? When writing this kinds of tests I break very often the Law of Demeter, for faster writing and not using so many variables. Technically, unit tests are not reused directly - are strictly bound to the code so I do not see any reason for spending much time on them; they only need to be functionaly.

    Read the article

  • TDD: Write a separate test for object initialization or relying on other tests exercising it

    - by DXM
    This seems to be the common pattern that's emerging in some of the tests I've worked on lately. We have a class, and quite often this is legacy code whose design can't be easily altered, which has a bunch of member variables. There's some kind of "Initialize" or "Load" function which would put an object into a valid state. Only after it is initialized/loaded, are the members in the proper state so that other methods can be exercised. So when we start writing tests, first test is "TestLoad" and all we put in there is exercising initialization logic. Then we might add one (or few) TestLoadFailureXXX tests and those are definitely valuable. Then we start writing tests to verify other behaviors but all of them require the object to be loaded. So they all start by running exactly the same code as "TestLoad". So my question: Is TestLoad even necessary? Do you take it and let other tests simply exercise the loading? Or leave it so things are more explicit? I know that each unit test function should have no (or as little as possible) overlap with other test functions, but it seems like in cases of loading, this is unavoidable. And whether we like it or not, if something in the loading code breaks, we will end up with a whole test suite of failures. Is there another approach that I might be missing here? Thank you for the responses. It definitely makes sense that you want to see "InitializationTest" and if that fails you know where to start looking. In case it matters, this question is mostly about C++ and we use CppUnit framework. And now, thanks to sleske, I'll be constantly wishing that CppUnit supported test dependencies. Might have to hack something in one of these days :)

    Read the article

  • Executes a function until it returns a nil, collecting its values into a list

    - by Baldur
    I got this idea from XKCD's Hofstadter comic; what's the best way to create a conditional loop in (any) Lisp dialect that executes a function until it returns NIL at which time it collects the returned values into a list. For those who haven't seen the joke, it's goes that Douglas Hofstadter's “eight-word” autobiography consists of only six words: “I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym” containing continuation of the joke: (some odd meta-paraprosdokian?) “Is Meta” — the joke being that the autobiography is actually “I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym Is Meta”. But why not go deeper? Assume the acronymizing function META that creates an acronym from a string and splits it into words, returns NIL if the string contains but one word: (meta "I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym") ? "Is Meta" (meta (meta "I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym")) ? "Im" (meta (meta (meta "I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym"))) ? NIL (meta "GNU is Not UNIX") ? "GNU" (meta (meta "GNU is Not UNIX")) ? NIL Now I'm looking for how to implement a function so that: (so-function #'meta "I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym") ? ("I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym" "Is Meta" "Im") (so-function #'meta "GNU is Not Unix") ? ("GNU is Not Unix" "GNU") What's the best way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Allen for Umbraco with location EXIF meta data

    - by Vizioz Limited
    The latest version of Allen for Umbraco has now hit the Apple App store, we have managed to add some nice improvements to this version that include:Storing location and direction information when photos are taken within the AppEmbedding EXIF data into the images when they are uploadBackground UploadingPull to refresh the media tree Location and DirectionBy default when the camera is used within an application the location and direction that the camera is pointing is not stored within the image meta data. We have now added full support so that this data is now added. We have added a setting which allows you to prevent this data from being uploaded to your website if you do not want the location data to be sent you can turn it off within Allen, Note: Please don't forget that location services do need to be turned on to allow the app to access the images in the phone's asset library.We have had quite a few ideas from users already for using this location data, including logging free parking in Denmark to geo-tagging holiday photos and linking the photos to Google street view. Embedding EXIF dataWe now embed all the meta data available on the iPhone into the image when it is uploaded to your server, this allows you to pull the data out and use it within your site. Have a look at Cultiv's Photo Meta Data package for great example code that allows you to automatically pull this data out and populate properties on your Umbraco media item.We slightly modified the source code of this package to allow the package to always extract the image data, as the default package requires a property to allow the data to be extracted, it's an easy change, if you get stuck add a comment to this post. Background UploadingIf you try to upload multiple images and need to start doing something else on your phone, you can now click the home button and the application will continue to upload your images in the background. As soon as it has finished you will receive a standard Apple notification. Pull to RefreshOur final enhancement has been to add "Pull to refresh" to the media trees, just pull the tree downwards with your finger and it will refresh, this is useful if you are adding items to your media tree while testing your site with Allen for Umbraco. Future enhancements.. your ideas?If you have any ideas for future enhancement feel free to add a comment below!

    Read the article

  • Automated UAT/functional tests on Swing applications without source code

    - by jas
    Our team is now working on a big Swing application. Our job basically focuses on writing extensions to the existing framework. A typical job would be adding a new panel/ or adding a new tab with some extra functionalities that suit our need. It seems FEST can help a lot in terms of unit-test our code. I am going to try it out this week. But the question here is if there is a way to do automated functional testing on the whole application. In another word, we do not only need to test our code but also the framework. After all, UAT is the most important part. I am currently considering decompiling the jar files we got into source code then we can identify the components and then use FEST. So, before I get started to give this approach a shot, I think I just ask for ideas and inspirations here. There must be people who have done similar things before. Would be nice if I could learn from the veterans who fought against this before . Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Fitnesse - multiple tests but only the last test being executed

    - by simon_bellis
    I have a Fitnesse test that I want to run twice. Once in firefox and once in ie. The test is below. The problem I am having is that only the second test is being executed by fitnesse !define COMMAND_PATTERN {%m %p} !define TEST_RUNNER {dotnet2\FitServer.exe} !****>Global Variables !define testUrl {http://localhost:1516/Web.App/Login.aspx} *****! !define browserToUse (IE) !include -c -seamless .FrontPage.LoginTests !define browserToUse (FireFox) !include -c -seamless .FrontPage.LoginTests

    Read the article

  • How To Run integrational Tests

    - by Vladimir
    In our project we have a plenty of Unit Tests. They help to keep project rather well-tested. Besides them we have a set of tests which are unit tests, but depends on some kind of external resource. We call them external tests. They can access web-service sometimes or similar. While unit tests is easy to run the integrational tests couldn't pass sometimes - for example due to timeout error. Also these tests can take too much time to run. Currently we keep integration/external unit tests just to run them when developing corresponding functionality. For plain unit tests we use TeamCIty for continuous integration. How do you run the integration unit tests and when do you run them?

    Read the article

  • assistance with classifying tests

    - by amateur
    I have a .net c# library that I have created that I am currently creating some unit tests for. I am at present writing unit tests for a cache provider class that I have created. Being new to writing unit tests I have 2 questions These being: My cache provider class is the abstraction layer to my distributed cache - AppFabric. So to test aspects of my cache provider class such as adding to appfabric cache, removing from cache etc involves communicating with appfabric. Therefore the tests to test for such, are they still categorised as unit tests or integration tests? The above methods I am testing due to interacting with appfabric, I would like to time such methods. If they take longer than a specified benchmark, the tests have failed. Again I ask the question, can this performance benchmark test be classifed as a unit test? The way I have my tests set up I want to include all unit tests together, integration tests together etc, therefore I ask these questions that I would appreciate input on.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET 4.0 meta tags and Search engine optimisation

    - by nikolaosk
    I am thinking to create a new series of posts regarding ASP.NET and SEO (Search Engine Optimisation). I am going to start with this post , talking about some new features that make our asp.net apps more SEO friendly. At the end of the day, there is no point having a great application and somehow "scare" the search engines away. This is going to be a short post so let's quickly have a look at meta keywords and ASP.NET 4.0. Meta keywords and description are important elements of a page and make it...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Meta description not displaying in custom site search results page

    - by Stephen Connolly
    We have Google Custom Site Search implemented on our company website. When I'm looking at the results page, I noticed that the Meta Description is not being displayed. It just seems to be reading the links titles from our drop down menu and using this as a description. When I search for the same page via google.com, the meta description is pulled in correctly. Any thoughts why this might be happening. I can't see anything in the Custom Site Search settings.

    Read the article

  • Change from static HTML file to meta tag for Google Webmaster verification

    - by Wilfred Springer
    I started verifying the server by putting a couple of static HTMLs in place. Then I noticed that Google wants you to keep these files in place. I didn't want to keep the static HTMLs in, so I want to switch to an alternative verification mechanism, and include the meta tags on the home page. Unfortunately, once your site is verified, you never seem to be able to change to an alternative way of verification. I tried removing the HTML pages. No luck whatsoever. Google still considers the site to be 'verified'. Does anybody know how to undo this? All I want to do is switch to the meta tag based method of site ownership verification.

    Read the article

  • AGLS Metadata - Is it widely adopted?

    - by Brandrally
    Recently, I have seen in a couple sites around Australia's meta data AGLS tags. <meta name="AGLS.Audience" scheme="agls-audience" content="All"/> <meta name="DC.Publisher" scheme="AglsAgent" content="Hyundai"/> I have never seen this kind of mark-up before and discovered: http://www.agls.gov.au/ Just wondering whether there is a big community / support out there for the adopting these tags? Any thoughts would be great.

    Read the article

  • Australian Government Locator Service (AGLS) Metadata - Is it widely adopted?

    - by Brandrally
    Recently, I have seen in a couple sites around Australia's meta data AGLS tags. <meta name="AGLS.Audience" scheme="agls-audience" content="All"/> <meta name="DC.Publisher" scheme="AglsAgent" content="Hyundai"/> I have never seen this kind of mark-up before and discovered: http://www.agls.gov.au/ Just wondering whether there is a big community / support out there for the adopting these tags? Any thoughts would be great.

    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

  • unit testing variable state explicit tests in dynamically typed languages

    - by kris welsh
    I have heard that a desirable quality of unit tests is that they test for each scenario independently. I realised whilst writing tests today that when you compare a variable with another value in a statement like: assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); You are really testing three things: The variable you are testing exists and is within scope. The variable you are testing is the expected type. The variable you are testing's value is what you expect it to be. Which to me raises the question of whether you should test for each of these implicitly so that a test fail would occur on the specific line that tests for that problem: assertTrue(stringFoo); assertTrue(stringFoo.typeOf() == "String"); assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); For example if the variable was an integer instead of a string the test case failure would be on line 2 which would give you more feedback on what went wrong. Should you test for this kind of thing explicitly or am i overthinking this?

    Read the article

  • Isolated Unit Tests and Fine Grained Failures

    - by Winston Ewert
    One of the reasons often given to write unit tests which mock out all dependencies and are thus completely isolated is to ensure that when a bug exists, only the unit tests for that bug will fail. (Obviously, an integration tests may fail as well). That way you can readily determine where the bug is. But I don't understand why this is a useful property. If my code were undergoing spontaneous failures, I could see why its useful to readily identify the failure point. But if I have a failing test its either because I just wrote the test or because I just modified the code under test. In either case, I already know which unit contains a bug. What is the useful in ensuring that a test only fails due to bugs in the unit under test? I don't see how it gives me any more precision in identifying the bug than I already had.

    Read the article

  • Are unit tests really used as documentation?

    - by stijn
    I cannot count the number of times I read statements in the vein of 'unit tests are a very important source of documentation of the code under test'. I do not deny they are true. But personally I haven't found myself using them as documentation, ever. For the typical frameworks I use, the method declarations document their behaviour and that's all I need. And I assume the unit tests backup everything stated in that documentation, plus likely some more internal stuff, so on one side it duplicates the ducumentation while on the other it might add some more that is irrelevant. So the question is: when are unit tests used as documentation? When the comments do not cover everything? By developpers extending the source? And what do they expose that can be useful and relevant that the documentation itself cannot expose?

    Read the article

  • Problems with data driven testing in MSTest

    - by severj3
    Hello, I am trying to get data driven testing to work in C# with MSTest/Selenium. Here is a sample of some of my code trying to set it up: [TestClass] public class NewTest { private ISelenium selenium; private StringBuilder verificationErrors; [DeploymentItem("GoogleTestData.xls")] [DataSource("System.Data.OleDb", "Provider=Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0;Data Source=GoogleTestData.xls;Persist Security Info=False;Extended Properties='Excel 8.0'", "TestSearches$", DataAccessMethod.Sequential)] [TestMethod] public void GoogleTest() { selenium = new DefaultSelenium("localhost", 4444, "*iehta", http://www.google.com); selenium.Start(); verificationErrors = new StringBuilder(); var searchingTerm = TestContext.DataRow["SearchingString"].ToString(); var expectedResult = TestContext.DataRow["ExpectedTextResults"].ToString(); Here's my error: Error 3 An object reference is required for the non-static field, method, or property 'Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TestContext.DataRow.get' E:\Projects\SeleniumProject\SeleniumProject\MaverickTest.cs 32 33 SeleniumProject The error is underlining the "TestContext.DataRow" part of both statements. I've really been struggling with this one, thanks!

    Read the article

  • Extracting dates from html meta data in FAST-ESP

    - by Neil
    During document processing I want to extract all dates from html meta data and then identify the latest date which will be used to populate a date field (dtgeneric1). <meta name="OriginalPublicationDate" content="2010/04/21 12:06:36" /> <meta name="LastModificationDate" content="2010/04/22 14:10:16" /> + other non-date meta data Inspection using spy stages shows that our pipeline already adds meta_* attributes but the meta data names will be different across documents from different sources. #### ATTRIBUTE meta_originalpublicationdate <class 'docproc.DocumentAttributes.TextChunks'>: 2010/04/21 12:06:36 #### ATTRIBUTE meta_lastmodificationdate <class 'docproc.DocumentAttributes.TextChunks'>: 2010/04/22 14:10:16 + other non-date meta attributes Ideally we would like to pass all the meta_* attributes to a Python stage and use that to work out which are dates and which is the largest but there seems to be no way of specifying "all meta attributes" as input. Has anyone done something similar and can offer any advice on the best way to do this. Thanks Neil

    Read the article

  • How to unit test image processing code?

    - by rold2007
    I'm working in image processing (mainly OCR) and I wonder how I should integrate unit tests in my development. I'm already using unit tests for more "common" type of code but when dealing with image processing code I'm not sure how to deal with it. This kind of code always need some image data input/output and mocking this is not obvious. For now I'm mostly doing integration tests but they take a while to run and I would like some ideas on how to break down this kind of code into unit tests so that I can run them more quickly.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >