Search Results

Search found 5783 results on 232 pages for 'translation unit'.

Page 6/232 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Configuring TeamCity + NUnit unit tests so files can be loaded properly

    - by Dave
    In a nutshell, I have a solution that builds fine in the IDE, and the unit tests all run fine with the NUnit GUI (via the NUnitit VS2008 plugin). However, when I execute my TeamCity build runner, all unit tests that require file access (e.g. for running tests against specific XML files), I just get System.IO.DirectoryNotFoundExceptions. The reason for this is clear: it's looking for those supporting XML files loaded by various unit tests in the wrong folder. The way my unit tests are structured looks like this: +-- project folder +-- unit tests folder +-- test.xml +-- test.cs +-- project file.xaml +-- project file.xaml.cs All of my projects own their own UnitTests folder, which contains the .cs file and any XML files, XML Schemas, etc that are necessary to run the tests. So when I write my test.cs, I have it look for "test.xml" in the code because they are in the same folder (actually, I do something like ....\unit tests\test.xml, but that's kind of silly). As I said before, the tests run great in NUnit. But that's because the unit tests are part of the project. When running the unit tests from TeamCity, I am executing them against the assemblies that get copied to the main app's output folder. These unit test XML files should not be copied willy-nilly to the output folder just to make the tests pass. Can anyone suggest a better method of organizing my unit tests in each project (which are dependencies for the main app), such that I can execute the unit tests from NUnit and from the TeamCity build runner? The only other option I can come up with is to just put the testing XML data in code, rather than loading it from a file. I would rather not do this.

    Read the article

  • How to make Unit Tests to make sure stored procedure is deleting row from the database?

    - by aspdotnetuser
    I'm new to unit testing and I need some help with the following. I have created a small project to help me learn how to make Unit Tests. The functionality for one of the forms in my application deletes a user from the User table (and other rows in mapping tables). Currently, the unit test I have created to test this sets up the required objects and then calls the business rules method (passing in the user id) which calls the data access method to execute the stored procedure that deletes the rows in the tables. Is this the correct method to test whether something is being deleted successfully? Should the unit test / setup method first insert some test data which the unit test then deletes?

    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

  • Simple web general localization/translation backend (using mysql)?

    - by Hendrik
    Hi is there a free avaible translation backend with database avaible which can handle multiple users(no login needed), multiple languages (UTF-8) and provides automatic google translation? I just need this tool to fill a database (preferable mysql) with simple tables like this: language | label | text english | _helloworld | Hello World! german | _helloworld | Hallo Welt! I don't care about export since this will have to be created anyways.. Thanks it would be a real timesaver if something with an usable UI exists already.

    Read the article

  • Where should I draw the line between unit tests and integration tests? Should they be separate?

    - by Earlz
    I have a small MVC framework I've been working on. It's code base definitely isn't big, but it's not longer just a couple of classes. I finally decided to take the plunge and start writing tests for it(yes, I know I should've been doing that all along, but it's API was super unstable up until now) Anyway, my plan is to make it extremely easy to test, including integration tests. An example integration test would go something along these lines: Fake HTTP request object - MVC framework - HTTP response object - check the response is correct Because this is all doable without any state or special tools(browser automation etc), I could actually do this with ease with regular unit test frameworks(I use NUnit). Now the big question. Where exactly should I draw the line between unit tests and integration tests? Should I only test one class at a time(as much as possible) with unit tests? Also, should integration tests be placed in the same testing project as my unit testing project?

    Read the article

  • Is it useful to unit test methods where the only logic is guards?

    - by Vaccano
    Say I have a method like this: public void OrderNewWidget(Widget widget) { if ((widget.PartNumber > 0) && (widget.PartAvailable)) { WigdetOrderingService.OrderNewWidgetAsync(widget.PartNumber); } } I have several such methods in my code (the front half to an async Web Service call). I am debating if it is useful to get them covered with unit tests. Yes there is logic here, but it is only guard logic. (Meaning I make sure I have the stuff I need before I allow the web service call to happen.) Part of me says "sure you can unit test them, but it is not worth the time" (I am on a project that is already behind schedule). But the other side of me says, if you don't unit test them, and someone changes the Guards, then there could be problems. But the first part of me says back, if someone changes the guards, then you are just making more work for them (because now they have to change the guards and the unit tests for the guards). For example, if my service assumes responsibility to check for Widget availability then I may not want that guard any more. If it is under unit test, I have to change two places now. I see pros and cons in both ways. So I thought I would ask what others have done.

    Read the article

  • Is it dangerous to substitute unit tests for user testing? [closed]

    - by MushinNoShin
    Is it dangerous to substitute unit tests for user testing? A co-worker believes we can reduce the manual user testing we need to do by adding more unit tests. Is this dangerous? Unit tests seem to have a very different purpose than user testing. Aren't unit tests to inform design and allow breaking changes to be caught early? Isn't that fundamentally different than determining if an aspect of the system is correct as a whole of the system? Is this a case of substituting apples for oranges?

    Read the article

  • Should I make a seperate unit test for a method, if it only modifies the parent state?

    - by Dante
    Should classes, that modify the state of the parent class, but not itself, be unit tested separately? And by separately, I mean putting the test in the corresponding unit test class, that tests that specific class. I'm developing a library based on chained methods, that return a new instance of a new type in most cases, where a chained method is called. The returned instances only modify the root parent state, but not itself. Overly simplified example, to get the point across: public class BoxedRabbits { private readonly Box _box; public BoxedRabbits(Box box) { _box = box; } public void SetCount(int count) { _box.Items += count; } } public class Box { public int Items { get; set; } public BoxedRabbits AddRabbits() { return new BoxedRabbits(this); } } var box = new Box(); box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14); Say, if I write a unit test under the Box class unit tests: box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14) I could effectively say, that I've already tested the BoxedRabbits class as well. Is this the wrong way of approaching this, even though it's far simpler to first write a test for the above call, then to first write a unit test for the BoxedRabbits separately?

    Read the article

  • What's wrong performing unit test against concrete implementation if your frameworks are not going to change?

    - by palm snow
    First a bit of background: We are re-architecting our product suite that was written 10 years ago and served its purpose. One thing that we cannot change is the database schema as we have 500+ client base using this system. Our db schema has over 150+ tables. We have decided on using Entity Framework 4.1 as DAL and still evaluating various frameworks for storing our business logic. I am investigation to bring unit testing into the mix but I also confused as to how far I need to go with setting up a full blown TDD environment. One aspect of setting up unit testing is by getting into implementing Repository, unit of work and mocking frameworks etc. This mean there will be cost and investment on the code-bloat associated with all these frameworks. I understand some of this could be auto-generated but when it comes to things like behaviors, that will be mostly hand written. Just to be clear, I am not questioning the important of unit testing your code. I am just not sure we need all its components (like repository, mocking etc.) when we are fairly certain of storage mechanism/framework (SQL Server/Entity Framework). All that code bloat with generic repositories make sense when you need a generic layers with ability to change this whenever you like however its very likely a YAGNI in our case. What we need is more of integration testing where we can unit-test our code with concrete repository objects and test data in database. In this scenario, just running integration test seem to be more beneficial in our case. Any thoughts if I am missing any thing here?

    Read the article

  • Do you use unit tests at work? What benefits do you get from them?

    - by Anonymous
    I had planned to study and apply unit testing to my code, but after talking with my colleagues, some of them suggested to me that it's not necessary and it has a very little benefit. They also claim that only a few companies actually do unit testing with production software. I am curious how people have applied unit testing at work and what benefits they are getting from using them, e.g., better code quality, reduced development time in the long term, etc.

    Read the article

  • Problem with apt-get update: failed to fetch error

    - by user171447
    I run an Ubuntu Server 12.04.3 LTS. Today, I wanted to update it, but I did not managed it (yes...), however upgrading worked well. I don't want you to solve my problem but it would be greatful if you could give me some hints. I googled hours, I fould a lot of this kind of errors, but not exactly this. Here is the output of apt-get update: Hit http://filepile.fastit.net precise Release.gpg Hit http://filepile.fastit.net precise Release Hit http://filepile.fastit.net precise/main amd64 Packages Hit http://filepile.fastit.net precise/restricted amd64 Packages Hit http://filepile.fastit.net precise/universe amd64 Packages Hit http://filepile.fastit.net precise/multiverse amd64 Packages Hit http://filepile.fastit.net precise/main i386 Packages Hit http://filepile.fastit.net precise/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://filepile.fastit.net precise/universe i386 Packages Hit http://filepile.fastit.net precise/multiverse i386 Packages Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/main TranslationIndex Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/multiverse TranslationIndex Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/restricted TranslationIndex Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/universe TranslationIndex Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/main Translation-en_GB Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/main Translation-en Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/main Translation-en_GB.UTF-8 Hit http://archive.canonical.com precise Release.gpg Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/multiverse Translation-en_GB Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/multiverse Translation-en Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/multiverse Translation-en_GB.UTF-8 Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/restricted Translation-en_GB Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/restricted Translation-en Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/restricted Translation-en_GB.UTF-8 Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/universe Translation-en_GB Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/universe Translation-en Ign http://filepile.fastit.net precise/universe Translation-en_GB.UTF-8 Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise Release.gpg Hit http://archive.canonical.com precise Release Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise Release Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/main Sources Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/restricted Sources Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/main i386 Packages Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/multiverse i386 Packages Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/main TranslationIndex Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/multiverse TranslationIndex Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/restricted TranslationIndex Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/main Translation-en_GB Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/main Translation-en Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/multiverse Translation-en_GB Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/multiverse Translation-en Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/restricted Translation-en_GB Hit http://archive.ubuntu.com precise/restricted Translation-en Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security Release.gpg Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates Release.gpg Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security Release Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates Release Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/main amd64 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/restricted amd64 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/universe amd64 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/multiverse amd64 Packages :W: Failed to fetch http://archive.canonical.com/dists/precise/Release Unable to find expected entry 'main/binary-amd64/Packages' in Release file (Wrong sources.list entry or malformed file) E: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones used instead. Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/main i386 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/universe i386 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/multiverse i386 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/main TranslationIndex Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/multiverse TranslationIndex Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/restricted TranslationIndex Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/universe TranslationIndex Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/main amd64 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/restricted amd64 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/universe amd64 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/multiverse amd64 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/main i386 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/universe i386 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/multiverse i386 Packages Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/main TranslationIndex Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/multiverse TranslationIndex Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/restricted TranslationIndex Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/universe TranslationIndex Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/main Translation-en Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/multiverse Translation-en Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/restricted Translation-en Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-security/universe Translation-en Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/main Translation-en_GB Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/main Translation-en Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/multiverse Translation-en_GB Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/multiverse Translation-en Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/restricted Translation-en_GB Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/restricted Translation-en Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/universe Translation-en_GB Hit http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com precise-updates/universe Translation-en And here is my /etc/apt/sources.list: ###### Ubuntu Main Repos deb http://filepile.fastit.net/ubuntu/ precise main restricted universe multiverse # deb http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise main restricted universe multiverse deb http://archive.canonical.com/ precise main restricted universe multiverse ###### Ubuntu Update Repos deb http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-security main restricted universe multiverse deb http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates main restricted universe multiverse deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise main restricted multiverse deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main restricted multiverse Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • Rails 2.3.5 model name translation problem in error messages

    - by Jason Nerer
    Hi Rails'ers, I encountered some problem while trying to translate my model's names and attributes in a Rails 2.3.5 app. I have the following model: class BillingPlan < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :billing_option_id belongs_to :order belongs_to :user belongs_to :billing_option end When validation fails, my models attributes are translated correctly, but the modelname itself is not. I use the following translation skeleton in de.yml de: activerecord: models: shipping_plan: "Versandart" billing_plan: "Rechnungsart" attributes: shipping_plan: shipping_option_id: "Versandoption" billing_plan: billing_option_id: "Rechnungsoption" Basis for my translation file is: http://github.com/svenfuchs/rails-i18n/blob/master/rails/locale/de.yml Can anyone help? Thx in advance J.

    Read the article

  • Where do you put your unit test?

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewers?

    Read the article

  • organizing unit test

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewing developers?

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Unit testing

    - by Walter
    My company is fairly new to unit testing our code. I've been reading about TDD and unit testing for some time and am convinced of their value. I've attempted to convince our team that TDD is worth the effort of learning and changing our mindsets on how we program but it is a struggle. Which brings me to my question(s). There are many in the TDD community who are very religious about writing the test and then the code (and I'm with them), but for a team that is struggling with TDD does a compromise still bring added benefits? I can probably succeed in getting the team to write unit tests once the code is written (perhaps as a requirement for checking in code) and my assumption is that there is still value in writing those unit tests. What's the best way to bring a struggling team into TDD? And failing that is it still worth writing unit tests even if it is after the code is written? EDIT What I've taken away from this is that it is important for us to start unit testing, somewhere in the coding process. For those in the team who pickup the concept, start to move more towards TDD and testing first. Thanks for everyone's input. FOLLOW UP We recently started a new small project and a small portion of the team used TDD, the rest wrote unit tests after the code. After we wrapped up the coding portion of the project, those writing unit tests after the code were surprised to see the TDD coders already done and with more solid code. It was a good way to win over the skeptics. We still have a lot of growing pains ahead, but the battle of wills appears to be over. Thanks for everyone who offered advice!

    Read the article

  • Unit testing opaque structure based C API

    - by Nicolas Goy
    I have a library I wrote with API based on opaque structures. Using opaque structures has a lot of benefits and I am very happy with it. Now that my API are stable in term of specifications, I'd like to write a complete battery of unit test to ensure a solid base before releasing it. My concern is simple, how do you unit test API based on opaque structures where the main goal is to hide the internal logic? For example, let's take a very simple object, an array with a very simple test: WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); int foo = 5; WSArrayAppendValue(a, &foo); int *bar = WSArrayGetValueAtIndex(a, 0); if(&foo != bar) printf("Eroneous value returned\n"); else printf("Good value returned\n"); WSRelease(a); Of course, this tests some facts, like the array actually acts as wanted with 1 value, but when I write unit tests, at least in C, I usualy compare the memory footprint of my datastructures with a known state. In my example, I don't know if some internal state of the array is broken. How would you handle that? I'd really like to avoid adding codes in the implementation files only for unit testings, I really emphasis loose coupling of modules, and injecting unit tests into the implementation would seem rather invasive to me. My first thought was to include the implementation file into my unit test, linking my unit test statically to my library. For example: #include <WS/WS.h> #include <WS/Collection/Array.c> static void TestArray(void) { WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); /* Structure members are available because we included Array.c */ printf("%d\n", a->count); } Is that a good idea? Of course, the unit tests won't benefit from encapsulation, but they are here to ensure it's actually working.

    Read the article

  • what appropriate "Allocation Unit Size" for an exFAT SD card with ReadyBoost

    - by Revolter
    I've brought an 4GB SD card and I'm dedicating it for use by ReadyBoost (on Windows7) Im looking to get the most profit on performance, so i've formatted it with exFAT (as recommended by Microsoft) but I have some doubts to define what best .Allocation Unit Size* I should choose. Since I can't get how ReadyBoost/SD card exactly read/seek the data, can someone tell what make choosing an Allocation Unit Size in favor of another for this scheme ? Apparently, ReadyBoost is allocating all the free space in SD card as one huge file, so a big Allocation Unit Size is advised for fastest reading time. I'm not confusing with ordinary HDD's ?

    Read the article

  • Google Translation API Integration in .NET

    - by Jalpesh P. Vadgama
    This blog has been quite for some time because i was very busy at professional font but now I have decided to post on this blog too. I am constantly posting my article on my personal blog at http://jalpesh.blogspot.com. But now this blog will also have same blog post so i can reach to more community. Language localization is one of important thing of site of application nowadays. If you want your site or application more popular then other then it should support more then language. Some time it becomes difficult to translate all the sites into other languages so for i have found a great solution. Now you can use Google Translation API to translate your site or application dynamically. Here are steps you required to follow to integrate Google Translation API into Microsoft.NET Applications. First you need download class library dlls from the following site. http://code.google.com/p/google-language-api-for-dotnet/ Go this site and download GoogleTranslateAPI_0.1.zip. Then once you have done that you need to add reference GoogleTranslateAPI.dll like following. Now you are ready to use the translation API from Google. Here is the code for that. string Text = "This is a string to translate"; Console.WriteLine("Before Translation:{0}", Text); Text=Google.API.Translate.Translator.Translate(Text,Google.API.Translate.Language.English,Google.API.Translate.Language.French); Console.WriteLine("Before Translation:{0}", Text); That’s it it will return the string translated from English to French. But make you are connected to internet :)… Happy Programming Technorati Tags: GoogleAPI,Translate

    Read the article

  • English-Focused Translation Bookmarklet for Your Browser

    - by Asian Angel
    Are you wanting a translation bookmarklet that just focuses on translating websites into English? Then you will want to take a look at the To English Bookmarklet. Get the Bookmarklet To install the To English Bookmarklet visit the webpage at Lifehacker (link below), grab the bookmarklet with your mouse, and drag it to your “Bookmarks Toolbar”. Now you are ready for one-click translation into English. To English in Action We decided to test our new bookmarklet on two different International Mozilla websites. The first one was in Swedish… One click and there it is. Notice that there is a “translation bar frame” that will still let you choose yet another language to translate the webpage into if you desire. Definitely a nice touch… Our second example was in Russian. Once again a single click and… The website is now in English. On this particular page the “central green graphic” was affected by the translation and the two sidebar buttons are “pre-made” but that is ok. You can read what you need to without any problems. Conclusion If you have been wanting a bookmarklet that just focuses on translating into English then this should be perfect for you. If you are looking for a bookmarklet that gives you access to a Google Translation Bar then be certain to see our article here. Links Add the To English Bookmarklet to Your Browser Similar Articles Productive Geek Tips Add a Google Translation Bar to Your Favorite BrowserSkip “Next Links” with the PageZipper BookmarkletCreate Shortened goo.gl URLs in Your Favorite BrowserQuickly Translate Text to Another Language in Word 2007See Where Shortened URLs “Link To” in Your Favorite Browser TouchFreeze Alternative in AutoHotkey The Icy Undertow Desktop Windows Home Server – Backup to LAN The Clear & Clean Desktop Use This Bookmarklet to Easily Get Albums Use AutoHotkey to Assign a Hotkey to a Specific Window Latest Software Reviews Tinyhacker Random Tips DVDFab 6 Revo Uninstaller Pro Registry Mechanic 9 for Windows PC Tools Internet Security Suite 2010 Find Downloads and Add-ins for Outlook Recycle ! Find That Elusive Icon with FindIcons Looking for Good Windows Media Player 12 Plug-ins? Find Out the Celebrity You Resemble With FaceDouble Whoa !

    Read the article

  • Language Translation API

    - by kandarp
    How can i convert language in my Java? Is there any API exist, which convert any language to any other language? I am using Google Translate API, but it giving me below exception. java.lang.Exception: [google-api-translate-java] Error retrieving translation. at com.google.api.GoogleAPI.retrieveJSON(GoogleAPI.java:123) at com.google.api.translate.Translate.execute(Translate.java:69) at com.nextenders.client.beans.ruleengine.RuleEngineTest.main(RuleEngineTest.java:27) Caused by: java.net.ConnectException: Connection timed out: connect at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.socketConnect(Native Method) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.doConnect(Unknown Source) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connectToAddress(Unknown Source) at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connect(Unknown Source) at java.net.SocksSocketImpl.connect(Unknown Source) at java.net.Socket.connect(Unknown Source) at java.net.Socket.connect(Unknown Source) at sun.net.NetworkClient.doConnect(Unknown Source) at sun.net.www.http.HttpClient.openServer(Unknown Source) at sun.net.www.http.HttpClient.openServer(Unknown Source) at sun.net.www.http.HttpClient.(Unknown Source) at sun.net.www.http.HttpClient.New(Unknown Source) at sun.net.www.http.HttpClient.New(Unknown Source) at sun.net.www.protocol.http.HttpURLConnection.getNewHttpClient(Unknown Source) at sun.net.www.protocol.http.HttpURLConnection.plainConnect(Unknown Source) at sun.net.www.protocol.http.HttpURLConnection.connect(Unknown Source) null at sun.net.www.protocol.http.HttpURLConnection.getOutputStream(Unknown Source) at com.google.api.GoogleAPI.retrieveJSON(GoogleAPI.java:107) ... 2 more If anybody knows any API for translation, please tell me.

    Read the article

  • How do you set a custom session when unit testing with wicket?

    - by vagabond
    I'm trying to run some unit tests on a wicket page that only allows access after you've logged in. In my JUnit test I cannot start the page or render it without setting the session. How do you set the session? I'm having problems finding any documentation on how to do this. WicketTester tester = new WicketTester(new MyApp()); ((MyCustomSession)tester.getWicketSession()).setItem(MyFactory.getItem("abc")); //Fails to start below, no session seems to be set tester.startPage(General.class); tester.assertRenderedPage(General.class);

    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

  • Unit testing methods decorated with custom attributes

    - by Joel Cunningham
    I am trying to retrofit unit tests on to some existing code base. Both the class and method I want to unit test is decorated with custom attributes. These attributes are fairly sophisticated and I dont want them to run as part of the unit test. The only solution I have come up with is to compile the attribute out when I want to unit test. I dont really like this solution and would prefer to either replace it with a mocked attribute at runtime or prevent the attribute from running in a more elegant way. How do you unit test code that has class and method attributes that you dont want to run as part of a unit test? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Performance Testing Versus Unit Testing

    - by Mystagogue
    I'm reading Osherove's "The Art of Unit Testing," and though I've not yet seen him say anything about performance testing, two thoughts still cross my mind: Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance tests generally need to run for long periods of time. Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance issues too often manifest at an integration or system level (or at least the logic of a single unit test needed to re-create the performance of the integration environment would be too involved to be a unit test). Particularly for the first reason stated above, I doubt it makes sense for performance tests to be handled by a unit testing framework (such as NUnit). My question is: do my findings / leanings correspond with the thoughts of the community?

    Read the article

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