Search Results

Search found 12476 results on 500 pages for 'unit testing'.

Page 6/500 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Unit testing to prove balanced tree

    - by Darrel Hoffman
    I've just built a self-balancing tree (red-black) in Java (language should be irrelevant for this question though), and I'm trying to come up with a good means of testing that it's properly balanced. I've tested all the basic tree operations, but I can't think of a way to test that it is indeed well and truly balanced. I've tried inserting a large dictionary of words, both pre-sorted and un-sorted. With a balanced tree, those should take roughly the same amount of time, but an unbalanced tree would take significantly longer on the already-sorted list. But I don't know how to go about testing for that in any reasonable, reproducible way. (I've tried doing millisecond tests on these, but there's no noticeable difference - probably because my source data is too small.) Is there a better way to be sure that the tree is really balanced? Say, by looking at the tree after it's created and seeing how deep it goes? (That is, without modifying the tree itself by adding a depth field to each node, which is just wasteful if you don't need it for anything other than testing.)

    Read the article

  • Implementing unit testing at a company that doesn't do it

    - by Pete
    My company's head of software development just "resigned" (i.e. fired) and we are now looking into improving the development practices at our company. We want to implement unit testing in all software created from here on out. Feedback from the developers is this: We know testing is valuable But, you are always changing the specs so it'd be a waste of time And, your deadlines are so tight we don't have enough time to test anyway Feedback from the CEO is this: I would like our company to have automated testing, but I don't know how to make it happen We don't have time to write large specification documents How do developers get the specs now? Word of mouth or PowerPoint slide. Obviously, that's a big problem. My suggestion is this: Let's also give the developers a set of test data and unit tests That's the spec. It's up to management to be clear and quantitative about what it wants. The developers can put it whatever other functionality they feel is needed and it need not be covered by tests Well, if you've ever been in a company that was in this situation, how did you solve the problem? Does this approach seem reasonable?

    Read the article

  • The importance of Unit Testing in BI

    - by Davide Mauri
    One of the main steps in the process we internally use to develop a BI solution is the implementation of Unit Test of you BI Data. As you may already know, I’ve create a simple (for now) tool that leverages NUnit to allow us to quickly create Unit Testing without having to resort to use Visual Studio Database Professional: http://queryunit.codeplex.com/ Once you have a tool like this one, you can start also to make sure that your BI solution (DWH and CUBE) is not only structurally sound (I mean, the cube or the report gets processed correctly), but you can also check that the logical integrity of your business rules is enforced. For example let’s say that the customer tell you that they will never create an invoice for a specific product-line in 2010 since that product-line is dismissed and will never be sold again. Ok we know that this in theory is true, but a lot of this business rule effectiveness depends on the fact the people does not do a mistake while inserting new orders/invoices and the ERP used implements a check for this business logic. Unfortunately these last two hypotesis are not always true, so you may find yourself really having some invoices for a product line that doesn’t exists anymore. Maybe this kind of situation in future will be solved using Master Data Management but, meanwhile, how you can give and idea of the data quality to your customers? How can you check that logical integrity of the analytical data you produce is exactly what you expect? Well, Unit Testing of a DWH or a CUBE can be a solution. Once you have defined your test suite, by writing SQL and MDX queries that checks that your data is what you expect to be, if you use NUnit (and QueryUnit does), you can then use a tool like NUnit2Report to create a nice HTML report that can be shipped via email to give information of data quality: In addition to that, since NUnit produces an XML file as a result, you can also import it into a SQL Server Database and then monitor the quality of data over time. I’ll be speaking about this approach (and more in general about how to “engineer” a BI solution) at the next European SQL PASS Adaptive BI Best Practices http://www.sqlpass.org/summit/eu2010/Agenda/ProgramSessions/AdaptiveBIBestPratices.aspx I’ll enjoy discussing with you all about this, so see you there! And remember: “if ain't tested it's broken!” (Sorry I don’t remember how said that in first place :-)) Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • The importance of Unit Testing in BI

    - by Davide Mauri
    One of the main steps in the process we internally use to develop a BI solution is the implementation of Unit Test of you BI Data. As you may already know, I’ve create a simple (for now) tool that leverages NUnit to allow us to quickly create Unit Testing without having to resort to use Visual Studio Database Professional: http://queryunit.codeplex.com/ Once you have a tool like this one, you can start also to make sure that your BI solution (DWH and CUBE) is not only structurally sound (I mean, the cube or the report gets processed correctly), but you can also check that the logical integrity of your business rules is enforced. For example let’s say that the customer tell you that they will never create an invoice for a specific product-line in 2010 since that product-line is dismissed and will never be sold again. Ok we know that this in theory is true, but a lot of this business rule effectiveness depends on the fact the people does not do a mistake while inserting new orders/invoices and the ERP used implements a check for this business logic. Unfortunately these last two hypotesis are not always true, so you may find yourself really having some invoices for a product line that doesn’t exists anymore. Maybe this kind of situation in future will be solved using Master Data Management but, meanwhile, how you can give and idea of the data quality to your customers? How can you check that logical integrity of the analytical data you produce is exactly what you expect? Well, Unit Testing of a DWH or a CUBE can be a solution. Once you have defined your test suite, by writing SQL and MDX queries that checks that your data is what you expect to be, if you use NUnit (and QueryUnit does), you can then use a tool like NUnit2Report to create a nice HTML report that can be shipped via email to give information of data quality: In addition to that, since NUnit produces an XML file as a result, you can also import it into a SQL Server Database and then monitor the quality of data over time. I’ll be speaking about this approach (and more in general about how to “engineer” a BI solution) at the next European SQL PASS Adaptive BI Best Practices http://www.sqlpass.org/summit/eu2010/Agenda/ProgramSessions/AdaptiveBIBestPratices.aspx I’ll enjoy discussing with you all about this, so see you there! And remember: “if ain't tested it's broken!” (Sorry I don’t remember how said that in first place :-)) Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • How to fix “Unit Test Runner failed to load test assembly”

    - by ybbest
    I encountered this issue a couple times during my recent project, every time I forgot what actually cause the issue. Therefore, I decide to write a quick blog post to make sure I can identify the issue quickly. Problem: Run unit test using a test runner and received a Unit Test Runner failed to load test assembly exception. Analysis: Basically, I have changed some code and start the test runner to run tests. The same dll have already been deployed to GAC. So the test runner actually tries to use the old version of the assembly thus could not load the assembly. Solution: Deploy the current version of dll to the GAC and re-run your test, it works like a charm.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing time-bound code

    - by maasg
    I'm currently working on an application that does a lot of time-bound operations. That is, based on long now = System.currentTimeMillis();, and combined with an scheduler, it will calculate periods of time that parametrize the execution of some operations. e.g.: public void execute(...) { // executed by an scheduler each x minutes final int now = (int) TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS.toSeconds(System.currentTimeMillis()); final int alignedTime = now - now % getFrequency() ; final int startTime = alignedTime - 2 * getFrequency(); final int endTimeSecs = alignedTime - getFrequency(); uploadData(target, startTime, endTimeSecs); } Most parts of the application are unit-tested independently of time (in this case, uploadData has a natural unit test), but I was wondering about best practices for testing time-bound parts that rely on System.currentTimeMillis() ?

    Read the article

  • How does one unit test an algorithm

    - by Asa Baylus
    I was recently working on a JS slideshow which rotates images using a weighted average algorithm. Thankfully, timgilbert has written a weighted list script which implements the exact algorithm I needed. However in his documentation he's noted under todos: "unit tests!". I'd like to know is how one goes about unit testing an algorithm. In the case of a weighted average how would you create a proof that the averages are accurate when there is the element of randomness? Code samples of similar would be very helpful to my understanding.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing a text index

    - by jplot
    Consider a text index such as a suffix tree or a suffix array supporting Count queries (number of occurrences of a pattern) and Locate queries (the positions of all the occurrences of a pattern) over a given text. How would you go about unit testing such a class ? What I have in mind is to generate a big random string then extract a random substring from this big string and compare the results of both queries with naive implementations (such as string::find). Another idea I have is to find the most frequent substring of length l appearing in the original string (using perhaps a naive method) and use these substrings for testing the index. This isn't the best way, so what would be a good design of the unit tests for a text index ? In case it matters, this is in C++ using google test.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing multiple conditions in an IF statement

    - by bwalk2895
    I have a chunk of code that looks something like this: function bool PassesBusinessRules() { bool meetsBusinessRules = false; if (PassesBusinessRule1 && PassesBusinessRule2 && PassesBusinessRule3) { meetsBusinessRules= true; } return meetsBusinessRules; } I believe there should be four unit tests for this particular function. Three to test each of the conditions in the if statement and ensure it returns false. And another test that makes sure the function returns true. Question: Should there actually be ten unit tests instead? Nine that checks each of the possible failure paths. IE: False False False False False True False True False And so on for each possible combination. I think that is overkill, but some of the other members on my team do not. The way I look at it is if BusinessRule1 fails then it should always return false, it doesn't matter if it was checked first or last.

    Read the article

  • c# Unit Test: Writing to Settings in unit test does not save values in user.config

    - by HorstWalter
    I am running a c# unit test (VS 2008). Within the test I do write to the settings, which should result in saving the data to the user.config. Settings.Default.X = "History"; // X is string Settings.Default.Save(); But this simply does not create the file (I have crosschecked under "C:\Documents and Settings\HW\Local Settings\Application Data"). If I create the same stuff as a Console application, there is no problem persisting the data (same code). Is there something special I need to consider doing this in a UnitTest?

    Read the article

  • unit testing methods with arrays as argument

    - by Ryan
    I am porting over some C++ assembly to VB that performs demodulation of various waveforms. I decided to go the unit test route instead of building a test app to get a feel for how testing is performed. The original demodulation code accepts an array that is the waveform along with some other arguments. How should one go about performing a test on something that has an array as an argument? Is it acceptable to generate fake data in a file and read it in at the beginning of the test? On a side note - The original C++ code was written because we were performing math that we couldn't do in VB6 so we had to cross boundaries between C++ and VB6 and arrays were used. Is there a "better" way of handling large amounts of data in the .NET world that us VB6 programmers may not yet be privy to? Or if we aren't crossing that managed/un-managed boundary, should we be representing our data as objects instead? Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • What should be tested in Javascript?

    - by Nathan Hoad
    At work, we've just started on a heavily Javascript based application (actually using Coffeescript, but still), of which I've been implementing an automated test system using JsTestDriver and fabric. We've never written something with this much Javascript, so up until now we've never done any Javascript testing. I'm unsure what exactly we should be testing in our unit tests. We've written JQuery plugins for various things, so it's quite obvious that they should be verified for correctness as much as possible with JsTestDriver, but everyone else in my team seems to think that we should be testing the page level Javascript as well. I don't think we should be testing page level Javascript as unit tests, but instead using a system like Selenium to verify everything works as expected. My main reasoning for this is that at the moment, page level Javascript tests are guaranteed to fail through JsTestDriver, because they're trying to access elements on the DOM that can't possibly exist. So, what should be unit tested in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • Is verification and validation part of testing process?

    - by user970696
    Based on many sources I do not believe the simple definition that aim of testing is to find as many bugs as possible - we test to ensure that it works or that it does not. E.g. followint are goals of testing form ISTQB: Determine that (software products) satisfy specified requirements ( I think its verificication) Demonstrate that (software products) are fit for purpose (I think that is validation) Detect defects I would agree that testing is verification, validation and defect detection. Is that correct?

    Read the article

  • Which unit test framework for c++ based games?

    - by jmp97
    Which combination of testing tools do you feel is best? Given the framework / library of your choice you might consider: suitability for TDD ease of use / productivity dealing with mock objects setup with continuous integration error reporting Note: While this is potentially a generic question like the one on SO I would argue that game development is usually bound to a specific work flow which influences the choice for testing. For a higher-level perspective, see question Automated testing of games.

    Read the article

  • Mock Objects for Testing - Test Automation Engineer Perspective

    - by user9009
    Hello How often QA engineers are responsible for developing Mock Objects for Unit Testing. So dealing with Mock Objects is just developer job ?. The reason i ask is i'm interested in QA as my career and am learning tools like JUnit , TestNG and couple of frameworks. I just want to know until what level of unit testing is done by developer and from what point QA engineer takes over testing for better test coverage ? Thanks Edit : Based on the answers below am providing more details about what QA i was referring to . I'm interested in more of Test Automation rather than simple QA involved in record and play of script. So Test Automation engineers are responsible for developing frameworks ? or do they have a team of developers dedicated in Framework development ? Yes i was asking about usage of Mock Objects for testing from Test Automation engineer perspective.

    Read the article

  • Pair programming and unit testing

    - by TheSilverBullet
    My team follows the Scrum development cycle. We have received feedback that our unit testing coverage is not very good. A team member is suggesting the addition of an external testing team to assist the core team, but I feel this will backfire in a bad way. I am thinking of suggesting pair programming approach. I have a feeling that this should help the code be more "test-worthy" and soon the team can move to test driven development! What are the potential problems that might arise out of pair programming??

    Read the article

  • What is the aim of software testing?

    - by user970696
    Having read many books, there is a basic contradiction: Some say, "the goal of testing is to find bugs" while other say "the goal of the testing is to equalize the quality of the product", meaning that bugs are its by-products. I would also agree that if testing would be aimed primarily on a bug hunt, who would do the actual verification and actually provided the information, that the software is ready? Even e.g. Kaner changed his original definiton of testing goal from bug hunting to quality assesement provision but I still cannot see the clear difference. I percieve both as equally important. I can verify software by its specification to make sure it works and in that case, bugs found are just by products. But also I perform tests just to brake things. Also what definition is more accurate?

    Read the article

  • Code testing practice

    - by Robin Castlin
    So now I have come to the conclusion like many others that having some way of constantly testing your code is good practice since it enables fewer people to be involved (colleges and customers alike) by simply knowing what's wrong before someone else finds out the hard way. I've heard and read some about Unit Testing and understand what it's supposed to do and all. The there are so many different types of bugs. It can be everything from web browser not being able not being able to send correct values, javascript failing, a global function messing up a piece of code somewhere to a change that looked good when testing it out but fails in some special case which was hard to anticipate. My simply finding these errors I learn to rarely repeat them again, but there seems to always be new bugs to be found and learnt from. I would guess maybe the best practice would be to run every page and it's functions a couple of times, witness the result and repeat this in Firefox, Chrome and Internet Explorer (and all smartphones apparently) to make sure it works as intended. However this would take quite some time to do consider I don't work with patches/versions and do little fixes here and there a couple of times per week. What I prefer would be some kind of page I can just load that tests as much things as possible to make sure the site works as intended. Basicly just run a lot of cURL's with POST-values and see if I get expected result. But how would I preferably not increase the IDs of every mysql rows if I delete these testing rows? It feels silly to be on ID 1000 with maybe 50 rows in total. If I could build a new project from scratch I would probably implement some kind of smooth way to return a "TRUE" on testing instead of the actual page. But this solution would for the moment being have to be passed on existing projects. My question What would you recommend to be the best way to test my site to make sure that existing functions does their job upon editing the code? Should I consider to implement a lot of edits first, then test manually the entire code to make sure it still works? Is there any nice way of testing codes without "hurting" the ID columns? Extra thoughs Would it be a good idea to associate all of my files to the different parts of my site which they affect? For instance if I edit home.php I will through documentation test if my homepage's start works as intended since it's the only part of my site it should affect.

    Read the article

  • Oracle 64-bit assembly throws BadImageFormatException when running unit tests

    - by pjohnson
    We recently upgraded to the 64-bit Oracle client. Since then, Visual Studio 2010 unit tests that hit the database (I know, unit tests shouldn't hit the database--they're not perfect) all fail with this error message:Test method MyProject.Test.SomeTest threw exception: System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. ---> System.BadImageFormatException: Could not load file or assembly 'Oracle.DataAccess, Version=4.112.3.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=89b483f429c47342' or one of its dependencies. An attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format.I resolved this by changing the test settings to run tests in 64-bit. From the Test menu, go to Edit Test Settings, and pick your settings file. Go to Hosts, and change the "Run tests in 32 bit or 64 bit process" dropdown to "Run tests in 64 bit process on 64 bit machine". Now your tests should run.This fix makes me a little nervous. Visual Studio 2010 and earlier seem to change that file for no apparent reason, add more settings files, etc. If you're not paying attention, you could have TestSettings1.testsettings through TestSettings99.testsettings sitting there and never notice the difference. So it's worth making a note of how to change it in case you have to redo it, and being vigilant about files VS tries to add.I'm not entirely clear on why this was even a problem. Isn't that the point of an MSIL assembly, that it's not specific to the hardware it runs on? An IL disassembler can open the Oracle.DataAccess.dll in question, and in its Runtime property, I see the value "v4.0.30319 / x64". So I guess the assembly was specifically build to target 64-bit platforms only, possibly due to a 64-bit-specific difference in the external Oracle client upon which it depends. Most other assemblies, especially in the .NET Framework, list "msil", and a couple list "x86". So I guess this is another entry in the long list of ways Oracle refuses to play nice with Windows and .NET.If this doesn't solve your problem, you can read others' research into this error, and where to change the same test setting in Visual Studio 2012.

    Read the article

  • Automated testing tool development challenges (for embedded software)

    - by Karthi prime
    My boss want to come up with the proposal for the following tool: An IDE: Able to build, compile, debug, via JTAG programming for the micro-controller. A Test Suite, reads the code in the IDE, auto generates the test cases, and it gives the in-target unit testing results(which is done by controlling code execution in the micro-controller via IDE). A no-overhead code coverage tool which interacts with the test suite and IDE. My work is to obtain the high level architecture of this tool, so as to proceed further. My current knowledge: There are tool-chains available from the chip manufacturer for the micro-controllers which can be utilized along with an open-source IDE like Eclipse, and along with an open-source burner, a complete IDE for a micro-controller can be done. Test cases can be auto-generated by reading the source file through the process of parsing, scripting, based on keywords. Test suite must be able to command the IDE to control, through breakpoints, and read the register contents from the microcontroller - This enables the in-target unit testing. An no-overhead code coverage should be done by no-overhead code instrumentation so as to execute those in the resource constraint environment of the micro-controller. I have the following questions: Any advice on the validity of my understanding? What are the challenges I will have during the development? What are the helpful open-source tools regarding this? What is the development time for this software? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Zend Framework: How to start PHPUnit testing Forms?

    - by Andrew
    I am having trouble getting my filters/validators to work correctly on my form, so I want to create a Unit test to verify that the data I am submitting to my form is being filtered and validated correctly. I started by auto-generating a PHPUnit test in Zend Studio, which gives me this: <?php require_once 'PHPUnit/Framework/TestCase.php'; /** * Form_Event test case. */ class Form_EventTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase { /** * @var Form_Event */ private $Form_Event; /** * Prepares the environment before running a test. */ protected function setUp () { parent::setUp(); // TODO Auto-generated Form_EventTest::setUp() $this->Form_Event = new Form_Event(/* parameters */); } /** * Cleans up the environment after running a test. */ protected function tearDown () { // TODO Auto-generated Form_EventTest::tearDown() $this->Form_Event = null; parent::tearDown(); } /** * Constructs the test case. */ public function __construct () { // TODO Auto-generated constructor } /** * Tests Form_Event->init() */ public function testInit () { // TODO Auto-generated Form_EventTest->testInit() $this->markTestIncomplete( "init test not implemented"); $this->Form_Event->init(/* parameters */); } /** * Tests Form_Event->getFormattedMessages() */ public function testGetFormattedMessages () { // TODO Auto-generated Form_EventTest->testGetFormattedMessages() $this->markTestIncomplete( "getFormattedMessages test not implemented"); $this->Form_Event->getFormattedMessages(/* parameters */); } } so then I open up terminal, navigate to the directory, and try to run the test: $ cd my_app/tests/unit/application/forms $ phpunit EventTest.php Fatal error: Class 'Form_Event' not found in .../tests/unit/application/forms/EventTest.php on line 19 So then I add a require_once at the top to include my Form class and try it again. Now it says it can't find another class. I include that one and try it again. Then it says it can't find another class, and another class, and so on. I have all of these dependencies on all these other Zend_Form classes. What should I do? How should I go about testing my Form to make sure my Validators and Filters are being attached correctly, and that it's doing what I expect it to do. Or am I thinking about this the wrong way?

    Read the article

  • Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-After

    - by Timothy Klenke
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-after.aspxIn this post I’m going to outline a few common methods that can be used to increase the coverage of of your test suite.  This won’t be yet another post on why you should be doing testing; there are plenty of those types of posts already out there.  Assuming you know you should be testing, then comes the problem of how do I actual fit that into my day job.  When the opportunity to automate testing comes do you take it, or do you even recognize it? There are a lot of ways (workflows) to go about creating automated tests, just like there are many workflows to writing a program.  When writing a program you can do it from a top-down approach where you write the main skeleton of the algorithm and call out to dummy stub functions, or a bottom-up approach where the low level functionality is fully implement before it is quickly wired together at the end.  Both approaches are perfectly valid under certain contexts. Each approach you are skilled at applying is another tool in your tool belt.  The more vectors of attack you have on a problem – the better.  So here is a short, incomplete list of some of the workflows that can be applied to increasing the amount of automation in your testing and level of quality in general.  Think of each workflow as an opportunity that is available for you to take. Test workflows basically fall into 2 categories:  test first or test after.  Test first is the best approach.  However, this post isn’t about the one and only best approach.  I want to focus more on the lesser known, less ideal approaches that still provide an opportunity for adding tests.  In this post I’ll enumerate some test-after workflows.  In my next post I’ll cover test-first. Bug Reporting When someone calls you up or forwards you a email with a vague description of a bug its usually standard procedure to create or verify a reproduction plan for the bug via manual testing and log that in a bug tracking system.  This can be problematic.  Often reproduction plans when written down might skip a step that seemed obvious to the tester at the time or they might be missing some crucial environment setting. Instead of data entry into a bug tracking system, try opening up the test project and adding a failing unit test to prove the bug.  The test project guarantees that all aspects of the environment are setup properly and no steps are missing.  The language in the test project is much more precise than the English that goes into a bug tracking system. This workflow can easily be extended for Enhancement Requests as well as Bug Reporting. Exploratory Testing Exploratory testing comes in when you aren’t sure how the system will behave in a new scenario.  The scenario wasn’t planned for in the initial system requirements and there isn’t an existing test for it.  By definition the system behaviour is “undefined”. So write a new unit test to define that behaviour.  Add assertions to the tests to confirm your assumptions.  The new test becomes part of the living system specification that is kept up to date with the test suite. Examples This workflow is especially good when developing APIs.  When you are finally done your production API then comes the job of writing documentation on how to consume the API.  Good documentation will also include code examples.  Don’t let these code examples merely exist in some accompanying manual; implement them in a test suite. Example tests and documentation do not have to be created after the production API is complete.  It is best to write the example code (tests) as you go just before the production code. Smoke Tests Every system has a typical use case.  This represents the basic, core functionality of the system.  If this fails after an upgrade the end users will be hosed and they will be scratching their heads as to how it could be possible that an update got released with this core functionality broken. The tests for this core functionality are referred to as “smoke tests”.  It is a good idea to have them automated and run with each build in order to avoid extreme embarrassment and angry customers. Coverage Analysis Code coverage analysis is a tool that reports how much of the production code base is exercised by the test suite.  In Visual Studio this can be found under the Test main menu item. The tool will report a total number for the code coverage, which can be anywhere between 0 and 100%.  Coverage Analysis shouldn’t be used strictly for numbers reporting.  Companies shouldn’t set minimum coverage targets that mandate that all projects must have at least 80% or 100% test coverage.  These arbitrary requirements just invite gaming of the coverage analysis, which makes the numbers useless. The analysis tool will break down the coverage by the various classes and methods in projects.  Instead of focusing on the total number, drill down into this view and see which classes have high or low coverage.  It you are surprised by a low number on a class this is an opportunity to add tests. When drilling through the classes there will be generally two types of reaction to a surprising low test coverage number.  The first reaction type is a recognition that there is low hanging fruit to be picked.  There may be some classes or methods that aren’t being tested, which could easy be.  The other reaction type is “OMG”.  This were you find a critical piece of code that isn’t under test.  In both cases, go and add the missing tests. Test Refactoring The general theme of this post up to this point has been how to add more and more tests to a test suite.  I’ll step back from that a bit and remind that every line of code is a liability.  Each line of code has to be read and maintained, which costs money.  This is true regardless whether the code is production code or test code. Remember that the primary goal of the test suite is that it be easy to read so that people can easily determine the specifications of the system.  Make sure that adding more and more tests doesn’t interfere with this primary goal. Perform code reviews on the test suite as often as on production code.  Hold the test code up to the same high readability standards as the production code.  If the tests are hard to read then change them.  Look to remove duplication.  Duplicate setup code between two or more test methods that can be moved to a shared function.  Entire test methods can be removed if it is found that the scenario it tests is covered by other tests.  Its OK to delete a test that isn’t pulling its own weight anymore. Remember to only start refactoring when all the test are green.  Don’t refactor the tests and the production code at the same time.  An automated test suite can be thought of as a double entry book keeping system.  The unchanging, passing production code serves as the tests for the test suite while refactoring the tests. As with all refactoring, it is best to fit this into your regular work rather than asking for time later to get it done.  Fit this into the standard red-green-refactor cycle.  The refactor step no only applies to production code but also the tests, but not at the same time.  Perhaps the cycle should be called red-green-refactor production-refactor tests (not quite as catchy).   That about covers most of the test-after workflows I can think of.  In my next post I’ll get into test-first workflows.

    Read the article

  • iOS - Unit tests for KVO/delegate codes

    - by ZhangChn
    I am going to design a MVC pattern. It could be either designed as a delegate pattern, or a Key-Value-Observing(KVO), to notify the controller about changing models. The project requires certain quality control procedures to conform to those verification documents. My questions: Does delegate pattern fit better for unit testing than KVO? If KVO fits better, would you please suggest some sample codes?

    Read the article

  • Testing sample code in python modules

    - by Andrew Walker
    I'm in the process of writing a python module that includes some samples. These samples aren't unit-tests, and they are too long and complex to be doctests. I'm interested in best practices for automatically checking that these samples run. My current project layout is pretty standard, except that there is an extra top level makefile that has build, install, unittest, coverage and profile targets, that delegate responsibility to setup.py and nose as required. projectname/ Makefile README setup.py samples/ foo-sample foobar-sample projectname/ __init__.py foo.py bar.py tests/ test-foo.py test-bar.py I've considered adding a sampletest module, or adding nose.tools.istest decorators to the entry-point functions of the samples, but for a small number of samples, these solutions sound a bit ugly. This question is similar to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/301365/automatically-unit-test-example-code, but I assume python best practices will differ from C#

    Read the article

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