Search Results

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

Page 60/232 | < Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >

  • Start dependent application with eunit

    - by ruslander
    I start lager as a dependent application when I run a unit test but for some reason the code under test does not see it. -module(main_tests). -include_lib("eunit/include/eunit.hrl"). main_test_() -> {foreach, fun distr_setup/0, fun distr_cleanup/1, [ fun must_retain/1 ]}. must_retain(_) -> {"Should do ping pong when is fully initialized", fun() -> ?assertEqual(pong, abuse_counter:ping()) end}. %%------------------------------------------------------------------ distr_setup() -> abuse_counter:start_link(), ok. distr_cleanup(_) -> abuse_counter:stop(), ok. Here is the output of the log which is complaining that lager is not defined {undef,[{lager,info,["up and running"],[]} though in the run output is definitely there. Here is how I run it: erl -pa ebin/ ../../deps/*/ebin -s lager -eval 'eunit:test(main_tests,[verbose]), init:stop().' Fails with the output Eshell V5.10.2 (abort with ^G) 1> 17:13:31.506 [info] Application lager started on node nonode@nohost ======================== EUnit ======================== module 'main_tests' undefined 17:13:31.528 [error] CRASH REPORT Process <0.57.0> with 1 neighbours exited with reason: call to undefined function lager:info("up and running") in gen_server:init_it/6 line 328 *unexpected termination of test process* ::**{undef,[{lager,info,["up and running"],[]}**, {abuse_counter,init,1,[{file,"src/abuse_counter.erl"},{line,37}]}, {gen_server,init_it,6,[{file,"gen_server.erl"},{line,304}]}, {proc_lib,init_p_do_apply,3,[{file,"proc_lib.erl"},{line,239}]}]} ======================================================= Failed: 0. Skipped: 0. Passed: 0. One or more tests were cancelled. Already spent 3-4h hours on google and stack overflow but nothing seems to work. One option is to hide this call behind a ?INFO(Mgs) macro but do not like the idea. Any help will be highly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Auto increment with a Unit Of Work

    - by Derick
    Context I'm building a persistence layer to abstract different types of databases that I'll be needing. On the relational part I have mySQL, Oracle and PostgreSQL. Let's take the following simplified MySQL tables: CREATE TABLE Contact ( ID varchar(15), NAME varchar(30) ); CREATE TABLE Address ( ID varchar(15), CONTACT_ID varchar(15), NAME varchar(50) ); I use code to generate system specific alpha numeric unique ID's fitting 15 chars in this case. Thus, if I insert a Contact record with it's Addresses I have my generated Contact.ID and Address.CONTACT_IDs before committing. I've created a Unit of Work (amongst others) as per Martin Fowler's patterns to add transaction support. I'm using a key based Identity Map in the UoW to track the changed records in memory. It works like a charm for the scenario above, all pretty standard stuff so far. The question scenario comes in when I have a database that is not under my control and the ID fields are auto-increment (or in Oracle sequences). In this case I do not have the db generated Contact.ID beforehand, so when I create my Address I do not have a value for Address.CONTACT_ID. The transaction has not been started on the DB session since all is kept in the Identity Map in memory. Question: What is a good approach to address this? (Avoiding unnecessary db round trips) Some ideas: Retrieve the last ID: I can do a call to the database to retrieve the last Id like: SELECT Auto_increment FROM information_schema.tables WHERE table_name='Contact'; But this is MySQL specific and probably something similar can be done for the other databases. If do this then would need to do the 1st insert, get the ID and then update the children (Address.CONTACT_IDs) – all in the current transaction context.

    Read the article

  • Testing a method used from an abstract class

    - by Bas
    I have to Unit Test a method (runMethod()) that uses a method from an inhereted abstract class to create a boolean. The method in the abstract class uses XmlDocuments and nodes to retrieve information. The code looks somewhat like this (and this is extremely simplified, but it states my problem) namespace AbstractTestExample { public abstract class AbstractExample { public string propertyValues; protected XmlNode propertyValuesXML; protected string getProperty(string propertyName) { XmlDocument doc = new XmlDocument(); doc.Load(new System.IO.StringReader(propertyValues)); propertyValuesXML= doc.FirstChild; XmlNode node = propertyValuesXML.SelectSingleNode(String.Format("property[name='{0}']/value", propertyName)); return node.InnerText; } } public class AbstractInheret : AbstractExample { public void runMethod() { bool addIfContains = (getProperty("AddIfContains") == null || getProperty("AddIfContains") == "True"); //Do something with boolean } } } So, the code wants to get a property from a created XmlDocument and uses it to form the result to a boolean. Now my question is, what is the best solution to make sure I have control over the booleans result behaviour. I'm using Moq for possible mocking. I know this code example is probably a bit fuzzy, but it's the best I could show. Hope you guys can help.

    Read the article

  • Understanding how software testing works and what to test.

    - by RHaguiuda
    Intro: I've seen lots of topics here on SO about software testing and other terms I don't understand. Problem: As a beginner developer I, unfortunately, have no idea how software testing works, not even how to test a simple function. This is a shame, but thats the truth. I also hope this question can help others beginners developers too. Question: Can you help me to understand this subject a little bit more? Maybe some questions to start would help: When I develop a function, how should I test it? For example: when working with a sum function, should I test every input value possible or just some limits? How about testing functions with strings as parameters? In a big program, do I have to test every single piece of code of it? When you guys program do you test every code written? How automated test works and how can I try one? How tools for automated testing works and what they do? I`ve heard about unit testing. Can I have a brief explanation on this? What is a testing framework? If possible please post some code with examples to clarify the ideas. Any help on this topic is very welcome! Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How do I run NUnit in debug mode from Visual Studio?

    - by Jon Cage
    I've recently been building a test framework for a bit of C# I've been working on. I have NUnit set up and a new project within my workspace to test the component. All works well if I load up my unit tests from Nunit (v2.4), but I've got to the point where it would be really useful to run in debug mode and set some break points. I've tried the suggestions from several guides which all suggest changing the 'Debug' properties of the test project: Start external program: C:\Program Files\NUnit 2.4.8\bin\nunit-console.exe Command line arguments: /assembly: <full-path-to-solution>\TestDSP\bin\Debug\TestDSP.dll I'm using the console version there, but have tried the calling the GUI as well. Both give me the same error when I try and start debugging: Cannot start test project 'TestDSP' because the project does not contain any tests. Is this because I normally load \DSP.nunit into the Nunit GUI and that's where the tests are held? I'm beginning to think the problem may be that VS wants to run it's own test framework and that's why it's failing to find the NUnit tests? [Edit] To those asking about test fixtures, one of my .cs files in the TestDSP project looks roughly like this: namespace Some.TestNamespace { // Testing framework includes using NUnit.Framework; [TestFixture] public class FirFilterTest { /// <summary> /// Tests that a FirFilter can be created /// </summary> [Test] public void Test01_ConstructorTest() { ...some tests... } } } ...I'm pretty new to C# and the Nunit test framework so it's entirely possible I've missed some crucial bit of information ;-) [FINAL SOLUTION] The big problem was the project I'd used. If you pick: Other Languages->Visual C#->Test->Test Project ...when you're choosing the project type, Visual Studio will try and use it's own testing framework as far as I can tell. You should pick a normal c# class library project instead and then the instructions in my selected answer will work.

    Read the article

  • NUnit doesn't work well with Assert.AreEqual

    - by stasal
    Hi! I'm new to unit-testing and NUit in particular. I'm just typing some examples from the book which refers to Java and JUnit. But I'm using C# instead. The problem is: I've got a class with overriden methods such as Equals() and GetHashCode(), but when I am trying to compare two objects of this class with Assert.AreEqual() my code is not called, so I get an exception. Assert.True(MyClass.Equals(MyClass2)) does work well. But I don't wanna use this construction instead of Assert.AreEqual(). Where the problem can be? Here is the class: public class Money { public int amount; protected string currency; public Money(int amount, string currency) { this.amount = amount; this.currency = currency; } public new bool Equals(object obj) { if (obj == null) return false; Money money = (Money)obj; return (amount == money.amount) && (Currency().Equals(money.Currency())); } public new int GetHashCode() { return (string.Format("{0}{1}", amount, currency)).GetHashCode(); } public static Money Dollar(int amount) { return new Money(amount, "USD"); } public static Money Franc(int amount) { return new Money(amount, "CHF"); } public Money Times(int multiplier) { return new Money(amount * multiplier, currency); } public string Currency() { return currency; } } And the test method itself: [TestFixture] public class DollarTest { [Test] public void TestMultiplication() { Money five = Money.Dollar(5); Assert.True(Money.Dollar(10).Equals(five.Times(2))); // ok Assert.AreEqual(Money.Dollar(10), five.Times(2)); // fails } } Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Convincing why testing is good

    - by FireAphis
    Hello, In my team of real-time-embedded C/C++ developers, most people don't have any culture of testing their code beyond the casual manual sanity checks. I personally strongly believe in advantages of autonomous automatic tests, but when I try to convince I get some reappearing arguments like: We will spend more time on writing the tests than writing the code. It takes a lot of effort to maintain the tests. Our code is spaghetti; no way we can unit-test it. Our requirement are not sealed – we’ll have to rewrite all the tests every time the requirements are changed. Now, I'd gladly hear any convincing tips and advises, but what I am really looking for are references to researches, articles, books or serious surveys that show (preferably in numbers) how testing is worth the effort. Something like "We in IBM/Microsoft/Google, surveying 3475 active projects, found out that putting 50% more development time into testing decreased by 75% the time spent on fixing bugs" or "after half a year, the time needed to write code with test was only marginally longer than what used to take without tests". Any ideas? P.S.: I'm adding C++ tag too in case someone has a specific experience with convincing this, usually elitist, type of developers :-)

    Read the article

  • CodeIgniter and SimpleTest -- How to make my first test?

    - by Smandoli
    I'm used to web development using LAMP, PHP5, MySQL plus NetBeans with Xdebug. Now I want to improve my development, by learning how to use (A) proper testing and (B) a framework. So I have set up CodeIgniter, SimpleTest and the easy Xdebug add-in for Firefox. This is great fun because maroonbytes provided me with clear instructions and a configured setup ready for download. I am standing on the shoulders of giants, and very grateful. I've used SimpleTest a bit in the past. Here is a the kind of thing I wrote: <?php require_once('../simpletest/unit_tester.php'); require_once('../simpletest/reporter.php'); class TestOfMysqlTransaction extends UnitTestCase { function testDB_ViewTable() { $this->assertEqual(1,1); // a pseudo-test } } $test = new TestOfMysqlTransaction(); $test->run(new HtmlReporter()) ?> So I hope I know what a test looks like. What I can't figure out is where and how to put a test in my new setup. I don't see any sample tests in the maroonbytes package, and Google so far has led me to posts that assume unit testing is already functionally available. What do I do?

    Read the article

  • Advanced All In One .NET Framework (should i go for a software factory ?)

    - by alfredo dobrekk
    Hi, i m starting a new project that would basically take input from user and save them to database among about 30 screens, and i would like to find a framework that will allow the maximum number of these features out of the box : .net c#. windows form. unit testing continuous integration logging screens with lists, combo boxes, text boxes, add, delete, save, cancel that are easy to update when you add a property to your classes or a field to your database. auto completion on controls to help user find its way use of an orm like nhibernate easy multithreading and display of wait screens for user easy undo redo tabbed child windows search forms ability to grant access to some functionnalities according to user profiles mvp/mvvm or whatever design patterns either some code generation from database to c# classe or generation of database schema from c# classes some kind of database versioning / upgrade to easily update database when i release patches to application once in production automatic control resizing code metrics analysis some code generator i can use against my entities that would generate some rough form i can rearrange after code documentation generator ... At this point i have 3 options : Build from scratch on top of clr :( Find functionnalities among several open source framework and use them as a stack for infrastucture Find a "software factory" I know its lot but i really would like to use existing code to build upon so i can focus on business rules. What open source tools would u use to achieve these ?

    Read the article

  • Breaking dependencies when you can't make changes to other files?

    - by codemuncher
    I'm doing some stealth agile development on a project. The lead programmer sees unit testing, refactoring, etc as a waste of resources and there is no way to convince him otherwise. His philosophy is "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and I understand his point of view. He's been working on the project for over a decade and knows the code inside and out. I'm not looking to debate development practices. I'm new to the project and I've been tasked with adding a new feature. I've worked on legacy projects before and used agile development practices with good result but those teams were more receptive to the idea and weren't afraid of making changes to code. I've been told I can use whatever development methodology I want but I have to limit my changes to only those necessary to add the feature. I'm using tdd for the new classes I'm writing but I keep running into road blocks caused by the liberal use of global variables and the high coupling in the classes I need to interact with. Normally I'd start extracting interfaces for these classes and make their dependence on the global variables explicit by injecting them as constructor arguments or public properties. I could argue that the changes are necessary but considering the lead never had to make them I doubt he would see it my way. What techniques can I use to break these dependencies without ruffling the lead developer's feathers? I've made some headway using: Extract Interface (for the new classes I'm creating) Extend and override the wayward classes with test stubs. (luckily most methods are public virtual) But these two can only get me so far.

    Read the article

  • Testing When Correctness is Poorly Defined?

    - by dsimcha
    I generally try to use unit tests for any code that has easily defined correct behavior given some reasonably small, well-defined set of inputs. This works quite well for catching bugs, and I do it all the time in my personal library of generic functions. However, a lot of the code I write is data mining code that basically looks for significant patterns in large datasets. Correct behavior in this case is often not well defined and depends on a lot of different inputs in ways that are not easy for a human to predict (i.e. the math can't reasonably be done by hand, which is why I'm using a computer to solve the problem in the first place). These inputs can be very complex, to the point where coming up with a reasonable test case is near impossible. Identifying the edge cases that are worth testing is extremely difficult. Sometimes the algorithm isn't even deterministic. Usually, I do the best I can by using asserts for sanity checks and creating a small toy test case with a known pattern and informally seeing if the answer at least "looks reasonable", without it necessarily being objectively correct. Is there any better way to test these kinds of cases?

    Read the article

  • Are TestContext.Properties usable ?

    - by DBJDBJ
    Using Visual Studio generate Test Unit class. Then comment in, the class initialization method. Inside it add your property, using the testContext argument. Upon test app startup this method is indeed called by the testing infrastructure. //Use ClassInitialize to run code before running the first test in the class [ClassInitialize()] public static void MyClassInitialize(TestContext testContext) { /* * Any user defined testContext.Properties * added here will be erased after this method exits */ testContext.Properties.Add("key", 1 ) ; // place the break point here } After leaving MyClassInitialize, any properties added by user are lost. Only the 10 "official" ones are left. Actually TestContext gets overwritten, with the inital offical one, each time before each test method is called. It it not overwritten only if user has test initialization method, the changes made over there are passed to the test. //Use TestInitialize to run code before running each test [TestInitialize()]public void MyTestInitialize(){ this.TestContext.Properties.Add("this is preserved",1) ; } This effectively means TestContext.Properties is "mostly" read only, for users. Which is not clearly documented in MSDN. It seems to me this is very messy design+implementation. Why having TestContext.Properties as an collection, at all ? Users can do many other solutions to have class wide initialization. Please discuss. --DBJ

    Read the article

  • How to test a Grails Service that utilizes a criteria query (with spock)?

    - by user569825
    I am trying to test a simple service method. That method mainly just returns the results of a criteria query for which I want to test if it returns the one result or not (depending on what is queried for). The problem is, that I am unaware of how to right the corresponding test correctly. I am trying to accomplish it via spock, but doing the same with any other way of testing also fails. Can one tell me how to amend the test in order to make it work for the task at hand? (BTW I'd like to keep it a unit test, if possible.) The EventService Method public HashSet<Event> listEventsForDate(Date date, int offset, int max) { date.clearTime() def c = Event.createCriteria() def results = c { and { le("startDate", date+1) // starts tonight at midnight or prior? ge("endDate", date) // ends today or later? } maxResults(max) order("startDate", "desc") } return results } The Spock Specification package myapp import grails.plugin.spock.* import spock.lang.* class EventServiceSpec extends Specification { def event def eventService = new EventService() def setup() { event = new Event() event.publisher = Mock(User) event.title = 'et' event.urlTitle = 'ut' event.details = 'details' event.location = 'location' event.startDate = new Date(2010,11,20, 9, 0) event.endDate = new Date(2011, 3, 7,18, 0) } def "list the Events of a specific date"() { given: "An event ranging over multiple days" when: "I look up a date for its respective events" def results = eventService.listEventsForDate(searchDate, 0, 100) then: "The event is found or not - depending on the requested date" numberOfResults == results.size() where: searchDate | numberOfResults new Date(2010,10,19) | 0 // one day before startDate new Date(2010,10,20) | 1 // at startDate new Date(2010,10,21) | 1 // one day after startDate new Date(2011, 1, 1) | 1 // someday during the event range new Date(2011, 3, 6) | 1 // one day before endDate new Date(2011, 3, 7) | 1 // at endDate new Date(2011, 3, 8) | 0 // one day after endDate } } The Error groovy.lang.MissingMethodException: No signature of method: static myapp.Event.createCriteria() is applicable for argument types: () values: [] at myapp.EventService.listEventsForDate(EventService.groovy:47) at myapp.EventServiceSpec.list the Events of a specific date(EventServiceSpec.groovy:29)

    Read the article

  • What would be a better implementation of shared variable among subclass

    - by Churk
    So currently I have a spring unit testing application. And it requires me to get a session cookie from a foreign authentication source. Problem what that is, this authentication process is fairly expensive and time consuming, and I am trying to create a structure where I am authenticate once, by any subclass, and any subsequent subclass is created, it will reuse this session cookie without hitting the authentication process again. My problem right now is, the static cookie is null each time another subclass is created. And I been reading that using static as a global variable is a bad idea, but I couldn't think of another way to do this because of Spring framework setting things during run time and how I would set the cookie so that all other classes can use it. Another piece of information. The variable is being use, but is change able during run time. It is not a single user being signed in and used across the board. But more like a Sub1 would call login, and we have a cookie. Then multiple test will be using that login until SubX will come in and say, I am using different credential, so I need to login as something else. And repeats. Here is a outline of my code: public class Parent implements InitializingBean { protected static String BASE_URL; public static Cookie cookie; ... All default InitializingBean methods ... afterPropertiesSet() { cookie = // login process returns a cookie } } public class Sub1 extends Parent { @resource public String baseURL; @PostConstruct public void init() { // set parents with my baseURL; BASE_URL = baseURL; } public void doSomething() { // Do something with cookie, because it should have been set by parent class } } public class Sub2 extends Parent { @resource public String baseURL; @PostConstruct public void init() { // set parents with my baseURL; BASE_URL = baseURL; } public void doSomethingElse() { // Do something with cookie, because it should have been set by parent class } }

    Read the article

  • White-box testing in Javascript - how to deal with privacy?

    - by Max Shawabkeh
    I'm writing unit tests for a module in a small Javascript application. In order to keep the interface clean, some of the implementation details are closed over by an anonymous function (the usual JS pattern for privacy). However, while testing I need to access/mock/verify the private parts. Most of the tests I've written previously have been in Python, where there are no real private variables (members, identifiers, whatever you want to call them). One simply suggests privacy via a leading underscore for the users, and freely ignores it while testing the code. In statically typed OO languages I suppose one could make private members accessible to tests by converting them to be protected and subclassing the object to be tested. In Javascript, the latter doesn't apply, while the former seems like bad practice. I could always wall back to black box testing and simply check the final results. It's the simplest and cleanest approach, but unfortunately not really detailed enough for my needs. So, is there a standard way of keeping variables private while still retaining some backdoors for testing in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • How to skip certain tests with Test::Unit

    - by Daniel Abrahamsson
    In one of my projects I need to collaborate with several backend systems. Some of them somewhat lacks in documentation, and partly therefore I have some test code that interact with some test servers just to see everything works as expected. However, accessing these servers is quite slow, and therefore I do not want to run these tests every time I run my test suite. My question is how to deal with a situation where you want to skip certain tests. Currently I use an environment variable 'BACKEND_TEST' and a conditional statement which checks if the variable is set for each test I would like to skip. But sometimes I would like to skip all tests in a test file without having to add an extra row to the beginning of each test. The tests which have to interact with the test servers are not many, as I use flexmock in other situations. However, you can't mock yourself away from reality. As you can see from this question's title, I'm using Test::Unit. Additionally, if it makes any difference, the project is a Rails project.

    Read the article

  • Where to start with the development of first database driven Web App (long question)?

    - by Ryan
    Hi all, I've decided to develop a database driven web app, but I'm not sure where to start. The end goal of the project is three-fold: 1) to learn new technologies and practices, 2) deliver an unsolicited demo to management that would show how information that the company stores as office documents spread across a cumbersome network folder structure can be consolidated and made easier to access and maintain and 3) show my co-workers how Test Drive Development and prototyping via class diagrams can be very useful and reduces future maintenance headaches. I think this ends up being a basic CMS to which I have generated a set of features, see below. 1) Create a database to store the site structure (organized as a tree with a 'project group'-project structure). 2) Pull the site structure from the database and display as a tree using basic front end technologies. 3) Add administrator privileges/tools for modifying the site structure. 4) Auto create required sub pages* when an admin adds a new project. 4.1) There will be several sub pages under each project and the content for each sub page is different. 5) add user privileges for assigning read and write privileges to sub pages. What I would like to do is use Test Driven Development and class diagramming as part of my process for developing this project. My problem; I'm not sure where to start. I have read on Unit Testing and UML, but never used them in practice. Also, having never worked with databases before, how to I incorporate these items into the models and test units? Thank you all in advance for your expertise.

    Read the article

  • Why does false invalidate validates_presence_of?

    - by DJTripleThreat
    Ok steps to reproduce this: prompt> rails test_app prompt> cd test_app prompt> script/generate model event_service published:boolean then go into the migration and add not null and default published to false: class CreateEventServices < ActiveRecord::Migration def self.up create_table :event_services do |t| t.boolean :published, :null => false, :default => false t.timestamps end end def self.down drop_table :event_services end end now migrate your changes and run your tests: prompt>rake db:migrate prompt>rake You should get no errors at this time. Now edit the model so that you validate_presence_of published: class EventService < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :published end Now edit the unit test event_service_test.rb: require 'test_helper' class EventServiceTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase test "the truth" do e = EventServer.new e.published = false assert e.valid? end end and run rake: prompt>rake You will get an error in the test. Now set e.published to true and rerun the test. IT WORKS! I think this probably has something to do with the field being boolean but I can't figure it out. Is this a bug in rails? or am I doing something wrong?

    Read the article

  • Rx framework: How to wait for an event to be triggered in silverlight test

    - by user324255
    Hi, I have a ViewModel that starts loading the Model async in the constructor, and triggers an event when the Model is loaded. I got a test working with the silverlight unit test framework, like this : bool done = false; [TestMethod] [Asynchronous] public void Test_NoCustomerSelected() { ProjectListViewModel viewModel = null; EnqueueCallback(() => viewModel = new ProjectListViewModel()); EnqueueCallback(() => viewModel.ModelLoaded += new EventHandler<EventArgs>(viewModel_ModelLoaded)); EnqueueConditional(() => done); EnqueueCallback(() => Assert.IsNotNull(viewModel.FilteredProjectList)); EnqueueCallback(() => Assert.AreEqual(4, viewModel.FilteredProjectList.Count)); EnqueueTestComplete(); } void viewModel_ModelLoaded(object sender, EventArgs e) { done = true; } But I'm beginning playing with Rx Framework, and trying to get my test to work, but so far I have no luck. Here's 2 attempts : public void Test_NoCustomerSelected2() { ProjectListViewModel viewModel = null; viewModel = new ProjectListViewModel(eventAggregatorMock.Object, moduleManagerMock.Object); IObservable<IEvent<EventArgs>> eventAsObservable = Observable.FromEvent<EventArgs>( ev => viewModel.ModelLoaded += ev, ev => viewModel.ModelLoaded -= ev); eventAsObservable.Subscribe(args => viewModel_ModelLoaded(args.Sender, args.EventArgs)); eventAsObservable.First(); Assert.IsNotNull(viewModel.Model); Assert.AreEqual(4, viewModel.Model.Count); } [TestMethod] public void Test_NoCustomerSelected3() { ProjectListViewModel viewModel = null; var o = Observable.Start(() => viewModel = new ProjectListViewModel(eventAggregatorMock.Object, moduleManagerMock.Object)); IObservable<IEvent<EventArgs>> eventAsObservable = Observable.FromEvent<EventArgs>( ev => viewModel.ModelLoaded += ev, ev => viewModel.ModelLoaded -= ev); o.TakeUntil(eventAsObservable) .First(); Assert.IsNotNull(viewModel.Model); Assert.AreEqual(4, viewModel.Model.Count); } The first test goes in waiting forever, the second doesn't work because the viewModel is null when it does the FromEvent. Anyone has a clue on how to do this properly?

    Read the article

  • Count number of queries executed by NHibernate in a unit test

    - by Bittercoder
    In some unit/integration tests of the code we wish to check that correct usage of the second level cache is being employed by our code. Based on the code presented by Ayende here: http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2006/09/07/MeasuringNHibernatesQueriesPerPage.aspx I wrote a simple class for doing just that: public class QueryCounter : IDisposable { CountToContextItemsAppender _appender; public int QueryCount { get { return _appender.Count; } } public void Dispose() { var logger = (Logger) LogManager.GetLogger("NHibernate.SQL").Logger; logger.RemoveAppender(_appender); } public static QueryCounter Start() { var logger = (Logger) LogManager.GetLogger("NHibernate.SQL").Logger; lock (logger) { foreach (IAppender existingAppender in logger.Appenders) { if (existingAppender is CountToContextItemsAppender) { var countAppender = (CountToContextItemsAppender) existingAppender; countAppender.Reset(); return new QueryCounter {_appender = (CountToContextItemsAppender) existingAppender}; } } var newAppender = new CountToContextItemsAppender(); logger.AddAppender(newAppender); logger.Level = Level.Debug; logger.Additivity = false; return new QueryCounter {_appender = newAppender}; } } public class CountToContextItemsAppender : IAppender { int _count; public int Count { get { return _count; } } public void Close() { } public void DoAppend(LoggingEvent loggingEvent) { if (string.Empty.Equals(loggingEvent.MessageObject)) return; _count++; } public string Name { get; set; } public void Reset() { _count = 0; } } } With intended usage: using (var counter = QueryCounter.Start()) { // ... do something Assert.Equal(1, counter.QueryCount); // check the query count matches our expectations } But it always returns 0 for Query count. No sql statements are being logged. However if I make use of Nhibernate Profiler and invoke this in my test case: NHibernateProfiler.Intialize() Where NHProf uses a similar approach to capture logging output from NHibernate for analysis via log4net etc. then my QueryCounter starts working. It looks like I'm missing something in my code to get log4net configured correctly for logging nhibernate sql ... does anyone have any pointers on what else I need to do to get sql logging output from Nhibernate?

    Read the article

  • Seeding repository Rhino Mocks

    - by ahsteele
    I am embarking upon my first journey of test driven development in C#. To get started I'm using MSTest and Rhino.Mocks. I am attempting to write my first unit tests against my ICustomerRepository. It seems tedious to new up a Customer for each test method. In ruby-on-rails I'd create a seed file and load the customer for each test. It seems logical that I could put this boiler plate Customer into a property of the test class but then I would run the risk of it being modified. What are my options for simplifying this code? [TestMethod] public class CustomerTests : TestClassBase { [TestMethod] public void CanGetCustomerById() { // arrange var customer = new Customer() { CustId = 5, DifId = "55", CustLookupName = "The Dude", LoginList = new[] { new Login { LoginCustId = 5, LoginName = "tdude" } } }; var repository = Stub<ICustomerRepository>(); // act repository.Stub(rep => rep.GetById(5)).Return(customer); // assert Assert.AreEqual(customer, repository.GetById(5)); } [TestMethod] public void CanGetCustomerByDifId() { // arrange var customer = new Customer() { CustId = 5, DifId = "55", CustLookupName = "The Dude", LoginList = new[] { new Login { LoginCustId = 5, LoginName = "tdude" } } }; var repository = Stub<ICustomerRepository>(); // act repository.Stub(rep => rep.GetCustomerByDifID("55")).Return(customer); // assert Assert.AreEqual(customer, repository.GetCustomerByDifID("55")); } [TestMethod] public void CanGetCustomerByLogin() { // arrange var customer = new Customer() { CustId = 5, DifId = "55", CustLookupName = "The Dude", LoginList = new[] { new Login { LoginCustId = 5, LoginName = "tdude" } } }; var repository = Stub<ICustomerRepository>(); // act repository.Stub(rep => rep.GetCustomerByLogin("tdude")).Return(customer); // assert Assert.AreEqual(customer, repository.GetCustomerByLogin("tdude")); } } Test Base Class public class TestClassBase { protected T Stub<T>() where T : class { return MockRepository.GenerateStub<T>(); } } ICustomerRepository and IRepository public interface ICustomerRepository : IRepository<Customer> { IList<Customer> FindCustomers(string q); Customer GetCustomerByDifID(string difId); Customer GetCustomerByLogin(string loginName); } public interface IRepository<T> { void Save(T entity); void Save(List<T> entity); bool Save(T entity, out string message); void Delete(T entity); T GetById(int id); ICollection<T> FindAll(); }

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection and Unit of Work pattern

    - by sunwukung
    I have a dilemma. I've used DI (read: factory) to provide core components for a homebrew ORM. The container provides database connections, DAO's,Mappers and their resultant Domain Objects on request. Here's a basic outline of the Mappers and Domain Object classes class Mapper{ public function __constructor($DAO){ $this->DAO = $DAO; } public function load($id){ if(isset(Monitor::members[$id]){ return Monitor::members[$id]; $values = $this->DAO->selectStmt($id); //field mapping process omitted for brevity $Object = new Object($values); return $Object; } } class User(){ public function setName($string){ $this->name = $string; //mark modified by means fair or foul } } The ORM also contains a class (Monitor) based on the Unit of Work pattern i.e. class Monitor(){ private static array modified; private static array dirty; public function markClean($class); public function markModified($class); } The ORM class itself simply co-ordinates resources extracted from the DI container. So, to instantiate a new User object: $Container = new DI_Container; $ORM = new ORM($Container); $User = $ORM->load('user',1); //at this point the container instantiates a mapper class //and passes a database connection to it via the constructor //the mapper then takes the second argument and loads the user with that id $User->setName('Rumpelstiltskin');//at this point, User must mark itself as "modified" My question is this. At the point when a user sets values on a Domain Object class, I need to mark the class as "dirty" in the Monitor class. I have one of three options as I can see it 1: Pass an instance of the Monitor class to the Domain Object. I noticed this gets marked as recursive in FirePHP - i.e. $this-Monitor-markModified($this) 2: Instantiate the Monitor directly in the Domain Object - does this break DI? 3: Make the Monitor methods static, and call them from inside the Domain Object - this breaks DI too doesn't it? What would be your recommended course of action (other than use an existing ORM, I'm doing this for fun...)

    Read the article

  • Mock Object and Interface

    - by tunl
    I'm a newbie in Unit Test with Mock Object. I use EasyMock. I try to understand this example: import java.io.IOException; public interface ExchangeRate { double getRate(String inputCurrency, String outputCurrency) throws IOException; } import java.io.IOException; public class Currency { private String units; private long amount; private int cents; public Currency(double amount, String code) { this.units = code; setAmount(amount); } private void setAmount(double amount) { this.amount = new Double(amount).longValue(); this.cents = (int) ((amount * 100.0) % 100); } public Currency toEuros(ExchangeRate converter) { if ("EUR".equals(units)) return this; else { double input = amount + cents/100.0; double rate; try { rate = converter.getRate(units, "EUR"); double output = input * rate; return new Currency(output, "EUR"); } catch (IOException ex) { return null; } } } public boolean equals(Object o) { if (o instanceof Currency) { Currency other = (Currency) o; return this.units.equals(other.units) && this.amount == other.amount && this.cents == other.cents; } return false; } public String toString() { return amount + "." + Math.abs(cents) + " " + units; } } import junit.framework.TestCase; import org.easymock.EasyMock; import java.io.IOException; public class CurrencyTest extends TestCase { public void testToEuros() throws IOException { Currency testObject = new Currency(2.50, "USD"); Currency expected = new Currency(3.75, "EUR"); ExchangeRate mock = EasyMock.createMock(ExchangeRate.class); EasyMock.expect(mock.getRate("USD", "EUR")).andReturn(1.5); EasyMock.replay(mock); Currency actual = testObject.toEuros(mock); assertEquals(expected, actual); } } So, i wonder how to Currency use ExchangeRate in toEuros(..) method. rate = converter.getRate(units, "EUR"); The behavior of getRate(..) method is not specified because ExchangeRate is an interface.

    Read the article

  • using a Singleton to pass credentials in a multi-tenant application a code smell?

    - by Hans Gruber
    Currently working on a multi-tenant application that employs Shared DB/Shared Schema approach. IOW, we enforce tenant data segregation by defining a TenantID column on all tables. By convention, all SQL reads/writes must include a Where TenantID = '?' clause. Not an ideal solution, but hindsight is 20/20. Anyway, since virtually every page/workflow in our app must display tenant specific data, I made the (poor) decision at the project's outset to employ a Singleton to encapsulate the current user credentials (i.e. TenantID and UserID). My thinking at the time was that I didn't want to add a TenantID parameter to each and every method signature in my Data layer. Here's what the basic pseudo-code looks like: public class UserIdentity { public UserIdentity(int tenantID, int userID) { TenantID = tenantID; UserID = userID; } public int TenantID { get; private set; } public int UserID { get; private set; } } public class AuthenticationModule : IHttpModule { public void Init(HttpApplication context) { context.AuthenticateRequest += new EventHandler(context_AuthenticateRequest); } private void context_AuthenticateRequest(object sender, EventArgs e) { var userIdentity = _authenticationService.AuthenticateUser(sender); if (userIdentity == null) { //authentication failed, so redirect to login page, etc } else { //put the userIdentity into the HttpContext object so that //its only valid for the lifetime of a single request HttpContext.Current.Items["UserIdentity"] = userIdentity; } } } public static class CurrentUser { public static UserIdentity Instance { get { return HttpContext.Current.Items["UserIdentity"]; } } } public class WidgetRepository: IWidgetRepository{ public IEnumerable<Widget> ListWidgets(){ var tenantId = CurrentUser.Instance.TenantID; //call sproc with tenantId parameter } } As you can see, there are several code smells here. This is a singleton, so it's already not unit test friendly. On top of that you have a very tight-coupling between CurrentUser and the HttpContext object. By extension, this also means that I have a reference to System.Web in my Data layer (shudder). I want to pay down some technical debt this sprint by getting rid of this singleton for the reasons mentioned above. I have a few thoughts on what an better implementation might be, but if anyone has any guidance or lessons learned they could share, I would be much obliged.

    Read the article

  • Any suggestions for improvement on this style for BDD/TDD?

    - by Sean B
    I was tinkering with doing the setups with our unit test specifciations which go like Specification for SUT when behaviour X happens in scenario Y Given that this thing And also this other thing When I do X... Then It should do ... And It should also do ... I wrapped each of the steps of the GivenThat in Actions... any feed back whether separating with Actions is good / bad / or better way to make the GivenThat clear? /// <summary> /// Given a product is setup for injection /// And Product Image Factory Is Stubbed(); /// And Product Size Is Stubbed(); /// And Drawing Scale Is Stubbed(); /// And Product Type Is Stubbed(); /// </summary> protected override void GivenThat() { base.GivenThat(); Action givenThatAProductIsSetupforInjection = () => { var randomGenerator = new RandomGenerator(); this.Position = randomGenerator.Generate<Point>(); this.Product = new Diffuser { Size = new RectangularProductSize( 2.Inches()), Position = this.Position, ProductType = Dep<IProductType>() }; }; Action andProductImageFactoryIsStubbed = () => Dep<IProductBitmapImageFactory>().Stub(f => f.GetInstance(Dep<IProductType>())).Return(ExpectedBitmapImage); Action andProductSizeIsStubbed = () => { Stub<IDisplacementProduct, IProductSize>(p => p.Size); var productBounds = new ProductBounds(Width.Feet(), Height.Feet()); Dep<IProductSize>().Stub(s => s.Bounds).Return(productBounds); }; Action andDrawingScaleIsStubbed = () => Dep<IDrawingScale>().Stub(s => s.PixelsPerFoot).Return(PixelsPerFoot); Action andProductTypeIsStubbed = () => Stub<IDisplacementProduct, IProductType>(p => p.ProductType); givenThatAProductIsSetupforInjection(); andProductImageFactoryIsStubbed(); andProductSizeIsStubbed(); andDrawingScaleIsStubbed(); andProductTypeIsStubbed(); }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >