Search Results

Search found 6839 results on 274 pages for 'functional tests'.

Page 7/274 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • How to design database for tests in online test application

    - by Kien Thanh
    I'm building an online test application, the purpose of app is, it can allow teacher create courses, topics of course, and questions (every question has mark), and they can create tests for students and students can do tests online. To create tests of any courses for students, first teacher need to create a test pattern for that course, test pattern actually is a general test includes the number of questions teacher want it has, then from that test pattern, teacher will generate number of tests corresponding with number of students will take tests of that course, and every test for student will has different number of questions, although the max mark of test in every test are the same. Example if teacher generate tests for two students, the max mark of test will be 20, like this: Student A take test with 20 questions, student B take test only has 10 questions, it means maybe every question in test of student A only has mark is 1, but questions in student B has mark is 2. So 20 = 10 x 2, sorry for my bad English but I don't know how to explain it better. I have designed tables for: - User (include students and teachers account) - Course - Topic - Question - Answer But I don't know how to define associations between user and test pattern, test, question. Currently I only can think these: Test pattern table: name, description, dateStart, dateFinish, numberOfMinutes, maxMarkOfTest Test table: test_pattern_id And when user (is Student) take tests, I think i will have one more table: Result: user_id, test_id, mark but I can't set up associations among test pattern and test and question. How to define associations?

    Read the article

  • How to write your unit tests to switch between NUnit and MSTest

    - by Justin Jones
    On my current project I found it useful to use both NUnit and MsTest for unit testing. When using ReSharper for running unit tests, it just simply works better with NUnit, and on large scale projects NUnit tends to run faster. We would have just simply used NUnit for everything, but MSTest gave us a few bonuses out of the box that were hard to pass up. Namely code coverage (without having to shell out thousands of extra dollars for the privilege) and integrated tests into the build process. I’m one of those guys who wants the build to fail if the unit tests don’t pass. If they don’t pass, there’s no point in sending that build on to QA. So making the build work with MsTest is easiest if you just create a unit test project in your solution. This adds the right references and project type Guids in the project file so that everything just automagically just works. Then (using NuGet of course) you add in NUnit. At the top of your test file, remove the using statements that refer to MsTest and replace it with the following: #if NUNIT using NUnit.Framework; #else using TestFixture = Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TestClassAttribute; using Test = Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TestMethodAttribute; using TestFixtureSetUp = Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TestInitializeAttribute; using SetUp = Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TestInitializeAttribute; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; #endif Basically I’m taking the NUnit naming conventions, and redirecting them to MsTest. You can go the other way, of course. I only chose this direction because I had already written the tests as NUnit tests. NUnit and MsTest provide largely the same functionality with slightly differing class names. There’s few actual differences between then, and I have not run into them on this project so far. To run the tests as NUnit tests, simply open up the project properties tab and add the compiler directive NUNIT. Remove it, and you’re back in MsTest land.

    Read the article

  • Skip CodedUI Tests, use Selenium for Web Automation

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/10/31/skip-codedui-tests-use-selenium-for-web-automation.aspxI recently joined a team that was using Agile Methodologies to create a new product. They have a working beta product after 10 or so 2 week sprints and already had UI’s that had changed several times as they went through iterations of their UI. As a result, the QA team was falling behind with automated tests and I was tasked to help them catch up and expand their tests. The project is a website. I heard many complaints about how hard it is to work with CodedUI (writing our own code, not relying on the recorder as we wanted re-usable and more maintainable code) then it took me 4+ hours to fix one issue. It was hard to traverse the key and debugging the objects with breakpoints… I said out loud “there has to be a better way or a framework the uses jQuery to run through the tests.” Plus it seemed really slow (wait… finding the object … wait… start putting in text…). Plus some tests would randomly fail on the test agents (using the test settings and an automated build, they are run on VMs using Microsoft test agents). Enough complaining. Selenium to the rescue (mostly). The lead QA guy decided to try it out and we haven’t turned back. We are now running tests in Chrome and Firefox and they run a lot faster. We had IE running to, but some of the tests were running fine locally, but hanging on the test agents. I’ll add some hints and lessons learned in a later post.

    Read the article

  • Group testNG tests without annotations

    - by diy
    Hi gents and ladies, I'm responsible for allowing unit tests for one of ETL components.I want to acomplish this using testNG with generic java test class and number of test definitions in testng.xmlpassing various parameters to the class.Oracle and ETL guys should be able to add new tests without changing the java code, so we need to use xml suite file instead of annotations. Question Is there a way to group tests in testng.xml?(similarly to how it is done with annotations) I mean something like <group name="first_group"> <test> <class ...> <parameter ...> </test> </group> <group name="second_group"> <test> <class ...> <parameter ...> </test> </group> I've checked the testng.dtd as figured out that similar syntax is not allowed.But is therea workaround to allow grouping? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Need a push in the right direction, to write my first functional test in Rails

    - by Jason
    I've read quiet a bit of documentation over the last few days about testing in Rails, I'm sitting down to write my first real test and not 100% sure how to tie what I have learned together to achieve the following functional test (testing a controller) I need to send a GET request to a URL and pass 3 parameters (simple web-service), if the functionality works the keyword true is simply returned, otherwise the keyword false is returned - its in only value returned & not contained in any <div>, <span> or other tags. The test should assert that if "true" is returned the test is successful. This is probably very simple so apologies for such a non-challenging question. If anyone could point me in the write direction on how I can get started, particularly how I can test the response, I'd be very grateful!

    Read the article

  • Where should Acceptance tests be written against?

    - by Jonn
    I'm starting to get into writing automated Acceptance tests and I'm quite confused where to write these tests against, specifically what layer in the app. Most examples I've seen are Acceptance tests written against the Domain but how about tests like: Given Incorrect Data When the user submits the form Then Play an Error Beep These seem to be fit for the UI and not for the Domain, or probably even the Service layer.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Efficiency of purely functional programming

    - by Sid
    Does anyone know what is the worst possible asymptotic slowdown that can happen when programming purely functionally as opposed to imperatively (i.e. allowing side-effects)? Clarification from comment by itowlson: is there any problem for which the best known non-destructive algorithm is asymptotically worse than the best known destructive algorithm, and if so by how much?

    Read the article

  • Database Functional Programming in Clojure

    - by Ralph
    "It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." - Abraham Maslow I need to write a tool to dump a large hierarchical (SQL) database to XML. The hierarchy consists of a Person table with subsidiary Address, Phone, etc. tables. I have to dump thousands of rows, so I would like to do so incrementally and not keep the whole XML file in memory. I would like to isolate non-pure function code to a small portion of the application. I am thinking that this might be a good opportunity to explore FP and concurrency in Clojure. I can also show the benefits of immutable data and multi-core utilization to my skeptical co-workers. I'm not sure how the overall architecture of the application should be. I am thinking that I can use an impure function to retrieve the database rows and return a lazy sequence that can then be processed by a pure function that returns an XML fragment. For each Person row, I can create a Future and have several processed in parallel (the output order does not matter). As each Person is processed, the task will retrieve the appropriate rows from the Address, Phone, etc. tables and generate the nested XML. I can use a a generic function to process most of the tables, relying on database meta-data to get the column information, with special functions for the few tables that need custom processing. These functions could be listed in a map(table name -> function). Am I going about this in the right way? I can easily fall back to doing it in OO using Java, but that would be no fun. BTW, are there any good books on FP patterns or architecture? I have several good books on Clojure, Scala, and F#, but although each covers the language well, none look at the "big picture" of function programming design.

    Read the article

  • Debugging F# code and functional style

    - by Roger Alsing
    I'm new to funcctional programming and have some questions regarding coding style and debugging. I'm under the impression that one should avoid storing results from funcction calls in a temp variable and then return that variable e.g. let someFunc foo = let result = match foo with | x -> ... | y -> ... result And instead do it like this (I might be way off?): let someFunc foo = match foo with | x -> ... | y -> ... Which works fine from a functionallity perspective, but it makes it way harder to debug. I have no way to examine the result if the right hand side of - does some funky stuff. So how should I deal with this kind of scenarios?

    Read the article

  • Persistent (purely functional) Red-Black trees on disk performance

    - by Waneck
    I'm studying the best data structures to implement a simple open-source object temporal database, and currently I'm very fond of using Persistent Red-Black trees to do it. My main reasons for using persistent data structures is first of all to minimize the use of locks, so the database can be as parallel as possible. Also it will be easier to implement ACID transactions and even being able to abstract the database to work in parallel on a cluster of some kind. The great thing of this approach is that it makes possible implementing temporal databases almost for free. And this is something quite nice to have, specially for web and for data analysis (e.g. trends). All of this is very cool, but I'm a little suspicious about the overall performance of using a persistent data structure on disk. Even though there are some very fast disks available today, and all writes can be done asynchronously, so a response is always immediate, I don't want to build all application under a false premise, only to realize it isn't really a good way to do it. Here's my line of thought: - Since all writes are done asynchronously, and using a persistent data structure will enable not to invalidate the previous - and currently valid - structure, the write time isn't really a bottleneck. - There are some literature on structures like this that are exactly for disk usage. But it seems to me that these techniques will add more read overhead to achieve faster writes. But I think that exactly the opposite is preferable. Also many of these techniques really do end up with a multi-versioned trees, but they aren't strictly immutable, which is something very crucial to justify the persistent overhead. - I know there still will have to be some kind of locking when appending values to the database, and I also know there should be a good garbage collecting logic if not all versions are to be maintained (otherwise the file size will surely rise dramatically). Also a delta compression system could be thought about. - Of all search trees structures, I really think Red-Blacks are the most close to what I need, since they offer the least number of rotations. But there are some possible pitfalls along the way: - Asynchronous writes -could- affect applications that need the data in real time. But I don't think that is the case with web applications, most of the time. Also when real-time data is needed, another solutions could be devised, like a check-in/check-out system of specific data that will need to be worked on a more real-time manner. - Also they could lead to some commit conflicts, though I fail to think of a good example of when it could happen. Also commit conflicts can occur in normal RDBMS, if two threads are working with the same data, right? - The overhead of having an immutable interface like this will grow exponentially and everything is doomed to fail soon, so this all is a bad idea. Any thoughts? Thanks! edit: There seems to be a misunderstanding of what a persistent data structure is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_data_structure

    Read the article

  • minimal cover for functional dependencies

    - by user2975836
    I have the following problem: AB -> CD H->B G ->DA CD-> EF A -> HJ J>G I understand the first step (break down right hand side) and get the following results: AB -> C AB -> D H -> B G -> D G -> A CD -> E CD -> F A -> H A -> J J -> G I understand that A - h and h - b, therefore I can remove the B from AB - c and ab - D, to get: A -> C A -> D H -> B G -> D G -> A CD -> E CD -> F A -> H A -> J J -> G The step that follows is what I can't compute (reduce the left hand side) Any help will be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Serializing persistent/functional data structures

    - by Rob
    Persistent data structures depend on the sharing of structure for efficiency. For an example, see here. How can I preserve the structure sharing when I serialize the data structures and write them to a file or database? If I just naively traverse the datastructures, I'll store the correct values, but I'll lose the structure sharing. I'd like to be able to save data-structures with shared components to a file, restore them, and still have most of the structure shared in the restored data.

    Read the article

  • Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle EBS Now Available

    - by Anne Carlson (Oracle Development)
    There’s new news about automated testing of E-Business Suite using the Oracle Application Testing Suite, a.k.a, “OATS”. E-Business Suite Development is pleased to announce the availability of the new Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite. The new pack, available with the latest release of Oracle Application Testing Suite (12.4.0.2), provides pre-built test components and flows to automate the in-depth testing of Oracle E-Business Suite applications. Designed for use with the Oracle Application Testing Suite and its Oracle Flow Builder capability, these pre-built components and flows can help Oracle E-Business Suite customers to significantly reduce the time and effort needed to create and maintain automated test scripts. The Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite is available now for EBS 12.1.3, and availability for EBS 12.2 is planned. Some Background on Automating Testing with Oracle Application Testing Suite and Oracle Flow Builder      Testing complex packaged applications like Oracle E-Business Suite can be time-consuming and challenging for organizations, hampering their ability to upgrade to latest releases or apply latest patches. Oracle Application Testing Suite offers organizations a unique and powerful testing platform for Oracle E-Business Suite and other Oracle applications. With the 12.3.0.1 release of Oracle Application Testing Suite, we introduced the Oracle Flow Builder testing framework and accompanying starter pack of pre-built test components and flows. The starter pack, which contains over 2000 components and 200 flows, provides broad coverage of commonly-used base functionality and is designed to jump-start the test automation effort. Using Oracle Flow Builder, even non-technical testers can create working test scripts using the pre-built components that Oracle provides. Each component represents an atomic test operation such as “create an invoice batch” or “apply an invoice hold.” Testers can assemble the pre-built components into test flows, and combine test flows with spreadsheet data to drive the testing of multiple data conditions. The Oracle Flow Builder framework allows customers to add, modify and extend the pre-built components to address new functionality and customizations of the Oracle E-Business Suite. Using Oracle Flow Builder’s component-based test generation framework instead of a traditional record/playback approach has allowed the EBS Quality Assurance team to reduce their test automation effort by 60%. E-Business Suite customers can significantly reduce their test automation effort using Oracle Application Testing Suite with Oracle Flow Builder and the pre-built test components and flows that Oracle provides. Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite Improves Test Coverage With the Oracle Application Testing Suite 12.4.0.2 and the new Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite, we are now delivering a significant number of additional test components and flows beyond those contained in the Oracle Flow Builder starter pack. These additional test components and flows provide 70-80% test coverage and enable the automation of detailed and complex test flows across the following Oracle E-Business Suite products: Oracle Asset Lifecycle Management Oracle Channel Revenue Management Oracle Discrete Manufacturing Oracle Incentive Compensation Oracle Lease and Finance Management Oracle Process Manufacturing Oracle Procurement Oracle Project Management Oracle Property Manager Oracle Service Downloads You can download the Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite from the Oracle Technology Network. References Oracle Applications Testing Suite YouTube: Oracle Flow Builder Training YouTube: Oracle Applications Testing Suite and Flow Builder Demonstration Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack Readme for E-Business Suite, id=1905989.1">Note 1905989.1 Related Articles Automate Testing Using Oracle Application Testing Suite with Flow Builder for E-Business Suite EBS 12.1.1 Test Starter Kit Now Available for Oracle Applications Testing Suite Oracle Application Testing Suite 9.0 Supported with Oracle E-Business Suite Using the Oracle Application Testing Suite with EBS: Interim Update #1

    Read the article

  • Investigating Strategies For Functional Decomposition

    - by Liam McLennan
    Introducing Functional Decomposition Before I begin I must apologise. I think I am using the term ‘functional decomposition’ loosely, and probably incorrectly. For the purpose of this article I use functional decomposition to mean the recursive splitting of a large problem into increasingly smaller ones, so that the one large problem may be solved by solving a set of smaller problems. The justification for functional decomposition is that the decomposed problem is more easily solved. As software developers we recognise that the smaller pieces are more easily tested, since they do less and are more cohesive. Functional decomposition is important to all scientific pursuits. Once we understand natural selection we can start to look for humanities ancestral species, once we understand the big bang we can trace our expanding universe back to its origin. Isaac Newton acknowledged the compositional nature of his scientific achievements: If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants   The Two Strategies For Functional Decomposition of Computer Programs Private Methods When I was working on my undergraduate degree I was taught to functionally decompose problems by using private methods. Consider the problem of painting a house. The obvious solution is to solve the problem as a single unit: public void PaintAHouse() { // all the things required to paint a house ... } We decompose the problem by breaking it into parts: public void PaintAHouse() { PaintUndercoat(); PaintTopcoat(); } private void PaintUndercoat() { // everything required to paint the undercoat } private void PaintTopcoat() { // everything required to paint the topcoat } The problem can be recursively decomposed until a sufficiently granular level of detail is reached: public void PaintAHouse() { PaintUndercoat(); PaintTopcoat(); } private void PaintUndercoat() { prepareSurface(); fetchUndercoat(); paintUndercoat(); } private void PaintTopcoat() { fetchPaint(); paintTopcoat(); } According to Wikipedia, at least one computer programmer has referred to this process as “the art of subroutining”. The practical issues that I have encountered when using private methods for decomposition are: To preserve the top level API all of the steps must be private. This means that they can’t easily be tested. The private methods often have little cohesion except that they form part of the same solution. Decomposing to Classes The alternative is to decompose large problems into multiple classes, effectively using a class instead of each private method. The API delegates to related classes, so the API is not polluted by the sub-steps of the problem, and the steps can be easily tested because they are each in their own highly cohesive class. Additionally, I think that this technique facilitates better adherence to the Single Responsibility Principle, since each class can be decomposed until it has precisely one responsibility. Revisiting my previous example using class composition: public class HousePainter { private undercoatPainter = new UndercoatPainter(); private topcoatPainter = new TopcoatPainter(); public void PaintAHouse() { undercoatPainter.Paint(); topcoatPainter.Paint(); } } Summary When decomposing a problem there is more than one way to represent the sub-problems. Using private methods keeps the logic in one place and prevents a proliferation of classes (thereby following the four rules of simple design) but the class decomposition is more easily testable and more compatible with the Single Responsibility Principle.

    Read the article

  • Facebook rend open source Ringmark, sa suite de tests pour applications Web mobiles, plus de 400 tests disponibles

    Facebook rend open source Ringmark sa suite de tests pour applications Web mobiles, plus de 400 tests disponibles Facebook a publié sous une licence open source le code de Ringmark, une suite de tests pour les navigateurs mobiles pour la création d'applications mobiles Web. Ringmark avait été présenté pour la première fois il y a quelques semaines lors de l'événement Mobile World Congres de Barcelone. L'outil est conçu pour fournir aux développeurs des fonctionnalités de tests de base qu'ils ont besoin pour construire des applications Web mobiles conformes aux standards. La suite de tests va aider ceux-ci à mieux comprendre comment les navigateurs mobiles prennent en charge...

    Read the article

  • Writing the tests for FluentPath

    - by Bertrand Le Roy
    Writing the tests for FluentPath is a challenge. The library is a wrapper around a legacy API (System.IO) that wasn’t designed to be easily testable. If it were more testable, the sensible testing methodology would be to tell System.IO to act against a mock file system, which would enable me to verify that my code is doing the expected file system operations without having to manipulate the actual, physical file system: what we are testing here is FluentPath, not System.IO. Unfortunately, that is not an option as nothing in System.IO enables us to plug a mock file system in. As a consequence, we are left with few options. A few people have suggested me to abstract my calls to System.IO away so that I could tell FluentPath – not System.IO – to use a mock instead of the real thing. That in turn is getting a little silly: FluentPath already is a thin abstraction around System.IO, so layering another abstraction between them would double the test surface while bringing little or no value. I would have to test that new abstraction layer, and that would bring us back to square one. Unless I’m missing something, the only option I have here is to bite the bullet and test against the real file system. Of course, the tests that do that can hardly be called unit tests. They are more integration tests as they don’t only test bits of my code. They really test the successful integration of my code with the underlying System.IO. In order to write such tests, the techniques of BDD work particularly well as they enable you to express scenarios in natural language, from which test code is generated. Integration tests are being better expressed as scenarios orchestrating a few basic behaviors, so this is a nice fit. The Orchard team has been successfully using SpecFlow for integration tests for a while and I thought it was pretty cool so that’s what I decided to use. Consider for example the following scenario: Scenario: Change extension Given a clean test directory When I change the extension of bar\notes.txt to foo Then bar\notes.txt should not exist And bar\notes.foo should exist This is human readable and tells you everything you need to know about what you’re testing, but it is also executable code. What happens when SpecFlow compiles this scenario is that it executes a bunch of regular expressions that identify the known Given (set-up phases), When (actions) and Then (result assertions) to identify the code to run, which is then translated into calls into the appropriate methods. Nothing magical. Here is the code generated by SpecFlow: [NUnit.Framework.TestAttribute()] [NUnit.Framework.DescriptionAttribute("Change extension")] public virtual void ChangeExtension() { TechTalk.SpecFlow.ScenarioInfo scenarioInfo = new TechTalk.SpecFlow.ScenarioInfo("Change extension", ((string[])(null))); #line 6 this.ScenarioSetup(scenarioInfo); #line 7 testRunner.Given("a clean test directory"); #line 8 testRunner.When("I change the extension of " + "bar\\notes.txt to foo"); #line 9 testRunner.Then("bar\\notes.txt should not exist"); #line 10 testRunner.And("bar\\notes.foo should exist"); #line hidden testRunner.CollectScenarioErrors();} The #line directives are there to give clues to the debugger, because yes, you can put breakpoints into a scenario: The way you usually write tests with SpecFlow is that you write the scenario first, let it fail, then write the translation of your Given, When and Then into code if they don’t already exist, which results in running but failing tests, and then you write the code to make your tests pass (you implement the scenario). In the case of FluentPath, I built a simple Given method that builds a simple file hierarchy in a temporary directory that all scenarios are going to work with: [Given("a clean test directory")] public void GivenACleanDirectory() { _path = new Path(SystemIO.Path.GetTempPath()) .CreateSubDirectory("FluentPathSpecs") .MakeCurrent(); _path.GetFileSystemEntries() .Delete(true); _path.CreateFile("foo.txt", "This is a text file named foo."); var bar = _path.CreateSubDirectory("bar"); bar.CreateFile("baz.txt", "bar baz") .SetLastWriteTime(DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(-2)); bar.CreateFile("notes.txt", "This is a text file containing notes."); var barbar = bar.CreateSubDirectory("bar"); barbar.CreateFile("deep.txt", "Deep thoughts"); var sub = _path.CreateSubDirectory("sub"); sub.CreateSubDirectory("subsub"); sub.CreateFile("baz.txt", "sub baz") .SetLastWriteTime(DateTime.Now); sub.CreateFile("binary.bin", new byte[] {0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, 0x05, 0xFF}); } Then, to implement the scenario that you can read above, I had to write the following When: [When("I change the extension of (.*) to (.*)")] public void WhenIChangeTheExtension( string path, string newExtension) { var oldPath = Path.Current.Combine(path.Split('\\')); oldPath.Move(p => p.ChangeExtension(newExtension)); } As you can see, the When attribute is specifying the regular expression that will enable the SpecFlow engine to recognize what When method to call and also how to map its parameters. For our scenario, “bar\notes.txt” will get mapped to the path parameter, and “foo” to the newExtension parameter. And of course, the code that verifies the assumptions of the scenario: [Then("(.*) should exist")] public void ThenEntryShouldExist(string path) { Assert.IsTrue(_path.Combine(path.Split('\\')).Exists); } [Then("(.*) should not exist")] public void ThenEntryShouldNotExist(string path) { Assert.IsFalse(_path.Combine(path.Split('\\')).Exists); } These steps should be written with reusability in mind. They are building blocks for your scenarios, not implementation of a specific scenario. Think small and fine-grained. In the case of the above steps, I could reuse each of those steps in other scenarios. Those tests are easy to write and easier to read, which means that they also constitute a form of documentation. Oh, and SpecFlow is just one way to do this. Rob wrote a long time ago about this sort of thing (but using a different framework) and I highly recommend this post if I somehow managed to pique your interest: http://blog.wekeroad.com/blog/make-bdd-your-bff-2/ And this screencast (Rob always makes excellent screencasts): http://blog.wekeroad.com/mvc-storefront/kona-3/ (click the “Download it here” link)

    Read the article

  • VS 2010 Coded UI Test - Launch Referenced Application

    - by Cory
    I'm using Visuial Studio's Coded UI Tests to run Automated UI tests on a WPF Application everytime a build runs on my TFS server. The problem I am running into is dynamically launching the executable based on the path where it was just built to, including the configuration(x86, x64). Is there any way to get the path to an executable in a referenced project so that I can launch the application dynamically from my test project?

    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

  • How to test the tests?

    - by Ryszard Szopa
    We test our code to make it more correct (actually, less likely to be incorrect). However, the tests are also code -- they can also contain errors. And if your tests are buggy, they hardly make your code better. I can think of three possible types of errors in tests: Logical errors, when the programmer misunderstood the task at hand, and the tests do what he thought they should do, which is wrong; Errors in the underlying testing framework (eg. a leaky mocking abstraction); Bugs in the tests: the test is doing slightly different than what the programmer thinks it is. Type (1) errors seem to be impossible to prevent (unless the programmer just... gets smarter). However, (2) and (3) may be tractable. How do you deal with these types of errors? Do you have any special strategies to avoid them? For example, do you write some special "empty" tests, that only check the test author's presuppositions? Also, how do you approach debugging a broken test case?

    Read the article

  • How do you write your QTP Tests?

    - by Josh Harris
    I am experimenting with using QTP for some webapp ui automation testing and I was wondering how people usually write their QTP tests. Do you use the object map, descriptive programming, a combination or some other way all together? Any little code example would be appreciated, Thank you

    Read the article

  • Automated regression tests for java applets?

    - by Roy Tang
    We're working on a project with a number of applets that has to work across a large range of OS (WIndows, Mac, Linux), browsers (IE, FF, Safari, etc) and Java versions (1.5+), and it often happens that a fix we apply will cause some sort of security exception an another platform or some other error. Is there any way for us to prepare automated tests to immediately catch those problems in different platforms? I think it's not necessary to check that the gui parts are appearing as intended, but just to detect whether unexpected exceptions are occuring.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >