Search Results

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

Page 7/232 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Unit test class inherited from ContextBoundObject and decorated with ContextAttribute

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

    Read the article

  • How often should we write unit tests?

    - by Midnight Blue
    Hi, I am recently introduced to the test-driven approach to development by my mentor at work, and he encourages me to write an unit-test whenenver "it makes sense." I understand some benefits of having a throughout unit-test suite for both regression testing and refractoring, but I do wonder how often and how throughout we should write unit-test. My mentor/development lead asks me to write a new unit test-case for a newly written control flow in a method that is already being tested by the exsisting test class, and I think it is an overkill. How often do you write your unit tests, and how detailed do you think your unit tests should be? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Automark model names/attributes for translation

    - by Saosin
    Is there any way one could automatically mark all model names and attributes for translation, without specifying verbose_name/_plural on each one of them? Doesn't feel very DRY to do this every time: class Profile(models.Model): length = models.IntegerField(_('length')) weight = models.IntegerField(_('weight')) favorite_movies = models.CharField(_('favorite movies'), max_length=100) favorite_quote = models.CharField(_('favorite quote'), max_length=30) religious_views = models.CharField(_('religious views'), max_length=30) political_views = models.CharField(_('political views'), max_length=30) class Meta: verbose_name = _('profile') verbose_name_plural = _('profiles')

    Read the article

  • How can I unit test a class which requires a web service call?

    - by Chris Cooper
    I'm trying to test a class which calls some Hadoop web services. The code is pretty much of the form: method() { ...use Jersey client to create WebResource... ...make request... ...do something with response... } e.g. there is a create directory method, a create folder method etc. Given that the code is dealing with an external web service that I don't have control over, how can I unit test this? I could try and mock the web service client/responses but that breaks the guideline I've seen a lot recently: "Don't mock objects you don't own". I could set up a dummy web service implementation - would that still constitute a "unit test" or would it then be an integration test? Is it just not possible to unit test at this low a level - how would a TDD practitioner go about this?

    Read the article

  • why my unit testing taken more than normal time to run in VS 2010 Premium [on hold]

    - by kombo
    I have only 4 proeject in my solutions. Am trying to run a unit test for one of my class in one of the project. I Create the unit test by: Right clicking on the class choose the create unit test option. I followed the wizard to the end.which resulting the test creation. I just pass the values of the parameter and run the test. but my test keep running. Both surprisingly it runs on other developers pc. NB:My class is connecting to the database and my application is asp.net web form. i know this is not recommended but i want to have my test running now. i have tried alot of samples on the internet but still my problem persist. Could any one tell me the cause of the extreme slowness(more than 30 minutes)

    Read the article

  • Web Application Translation, methods and tools

    - by CiscoIPPhone
    I've developed a web application. It needs to be translated to languages other than English in the future, and ideally the translators shouldn't need to know HTML/JS/C++ to provide the translation. The server side of the web application is written in C++ and the majority of the localised text is in the HTML files. My question is: What approaches are there to translating web applications? - Are there any existing tools that would enable a translator who doesn't understand HTML to translate a site? Should I write an application that extracts the localised text from a html file and can re-substitute translated text? Do you just provide the html file to your translators to be localised? I'm aware the question isn't strictly programming related but the solution may involve programming and it may require some software engineering.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing-- fundamental goal?

    - by David
    Me and my co-workers had a bit of a disagreement last night about unit testing in our PHP/MySQL application. Half of us argued that when unit testing a function within a class, you should mock everything outside of that class and its parents. The other half of us argued that you SHOULDN'T mock anything that is a direct dependancy of the class either. The specific example was our logging mechanism, which happened through a static Logging class, and we had a number of Logging::log() calls in various locations throughout our application. The first half of us said the Logging mechanism should be faked (mocked) because it would be tested in the Logging unit tests. The second half of us argued that we should include the original Logging class in our unit test so that if we make a change to our logging interface, we'll be able to see if it creates problems in other parts of the application due to failing to update the call interface. So I guess the fundamental question is-- do unit tests serve to test the functionality of a single unit in a closed environment, or show the consequences of changes to a single unit in a larger environment? If it's one of these, how do you accomplish the other?

    Read the article

  • Google Translation API not working for even one page long documents

    - by Saubhagya
    I'm using Google Translation API to translate text from Chinese Simplified to English in my C# program. The problem is if the text is small (around one line) the API is able to translate it, but if the text is larger (more than 3 lines) is gives an exception saying "The remote server returned an unexpected response: (414) Request-URI Too Large.". However if I use translate.google.com in my browser that works fine. Please tell me how can I process large documents using Google Translate API in my desktop application written in C#.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing in python?

    - by yossi.ittach
    Hey - I'm new to python , and I'm having a hard time grasping the concept of Unit testing in python. I'm coming from Java - so unit testing makes sense because - well , there you actually have a unit - A Class. But a Python class is not necessarily the same as a Java class , and the way I use Python - as a scripting language - is more functional then OOP - So what do you "unit test" in Python ? A flow? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Unit testing an iPhone static library with XCode 3

    - by teabot
    I am writing a number of static libraries for the iPhone and wish also to have suites of unit tests. XCode 3 provides templates for both static libraries and unit tests but I am wondering how they should fit together in a static library project? In my static library project I have created a target for unit testing but expect to also create an executable to kick off the unit tests than run against the classes in the static library. What is the procedure for doing this?

    Read the article

  • Are unit tests also used to find bugs?

    - by Draco
    I was reading the following article and the author made it quite clear that unit tests are NOT used to find bugs. I would like to know what your thoughts are on this. I do know that unit tests makes the design of your application much more robust but isn't it the fact that finding bugs through unit tests that make the application robust, besides its other advantages? http://blog.stevensanderson.com/2009/08/24/writing-great-unit-tests-best-and-worst-practises/

    Read the article

  • How to unit test business rules?

    - by Robert Lamb
    I need a unit test to make sure I am accumulating vacation hours properly. But vacation hours accumulate according to a business rule, if the rule changes, then the unit test breaks. Is this acceptable? Should I expose the rule through a method and then call that method from both my code and my test to ensure that the unit test isn't so fragile? My question is: What is the right way to unit test business rules that may change?

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test your T-SQL

    - by AlexKuznetsov
    How do you unit test your T-SQL? Which libraries/tools do you use? What percentage of your code is covered by unit tests and how do you measure it? Do you think the time and effort which you invested in your unit testing harness has paid off or not? If you do not use unit testing, can you explain why not?

    Read the article

  • Is Debug.Assert obsolete if you write unit tests?

    - by Justin Pihony
    Just like the question asks, is there a need to add Debug.Assert into your code if you are writing unit tests (which has its own assertions)? I could see that this might make the code more obvious without having to go into the tests, however it just seems that you might end up with duplicated asserts. It seems to me that Debug.Assert was helpful before unit-testing became more prevalent, but is now unnecessary. Or, am I not thinking of some use case?

    Read the article

  • Should library classes be wrapped before using them in unit testing?

    - by Songo
    I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Example: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Does that mean that I can never use a library class directly and must always wrap it in a class of my own? Example: interface Mailer{ public function setTo($to); public function setSubject($subject); public function setBody($body); public function send(); } class MyMailer implements Mailer{ private $mailer; function __construct(){ $this->mail=new Zend_Mail; //The class isn't injected this time } function setTo($to){ $this->mailer->setTo($to); } //implement the rest of the interface functions similarly } And now my Logger class can be happy :D class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Mailer $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } //rest of the code unchanged } Questions: Although I solved the mocking problem by introducing an interface, I have created a totally new class Mailer that now needs to be unit tested although it only wraps Zend_Mail which is already unit tested by the Zend team. Is there a better approach to all this? Zend_Mail's send() function could actually have a Zend_Transport object when called (i.e. public function send($transport = null)). Does this make the idea of a wrapper class more appealing? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

    Read the article

  • "Translator by Moth"

    - by Daniel Moth
    This article serves as the manual for the free Windows Phone 7 app called "Translator by Moth". The app is available from the following link (browse the link on your Window Phone 7 phone, or from your PC with zune software installed): http://social.zune.net/redirect?type=phoneApp&id=bcd09f8e-8211-e011-9264-00237de2db9e   Startup At startup the app makes a connection to the bing Microsoft Translator service to retrieve the available languages, and also which languages offer playback support (two network calls total). It populates with the results the two list pickers ("from" and "to") on the "current" page. If for whatever reason the network call fails, you are informed via a message box, and the app keeps trying to make a connection every few seconds. When it eventually succeeds, the language pickers on the "current" page get updated. Until it succeeds, the language pickers remain blank and hence no new translations are possible. As you can guess, if the Microsoft Translation service add more languages for textual translation (or enables more for playback) the app will automatically pick those up. "current" page The "current" page is the main page of the app with language pickers, translation boxes and the application bar. Language list pickers The "current" page allows you to pick the "from" and "to" languages, which are populated at start time. Until these language get populated with the results of the network calls, they remain empty and disabled. When enabled, tapping on either of them brings up on a full screen popup the list of languages to pick from, formatted as English Name followed by Native Name (when the latter is known). The "to" list, in addition to the language names, indicates which languages have playback support via a * in front of the language name. When making a selection for the "to" language, and if there is text entered for translation, a translation is performed (so there is no need to tap on the "translate" application bar button). Note that both language choices are remembered between different launches of the application.   text for translation The textbox where you enter the translation is always enabled. When there is nothing entered in it, it displays (centered and in italics) text prompting you to enter some text for translation. When you tap on it, the prompt text disappears and it becomes truly empty, waiting for input via the keyboard that automatically pops up. The text you type is left aligned and not in italic font. The keyboard shows suggestions of text as you type. The keyboard can be dismissed either by tapping somewhere else on the screen, or via tapping on the Windows Phone hardware "back" button, or via taping on the "enter" key. In the latter case (tapping on the "enter" key), if there was text entered and if the "from" language is not blank, a translation is performed (so there is no need to tap on the "translate" application bar button). The last text entered is remembered between application launches. translated text The translated text appears below the "to" language (left aligned in normal font). Until a translation is performed, there is a message in that space informing you of what to expect (translation appearing there). When the "current" page is cleared via the "clear" application bar button, the translated text reverts back to the message. Note a subtle point: when a translation has been performed and subsequently you change the "from" language or the text for translation, the translated text remains in place but is now in italic font (attempting to indicate that it may be out of date). In any case, this text is not remembered between application launches. application bar buttons and menus There are 4 application bar buttons and 4 application bar menus. "translate" button takes the text for translation and translates it to the translated text, via a single network call to the bing Microsoft Translator service. If the network call fails, the user is informed via a message box. The button is disabled when there is no "from" language available or when there is not text for translation entered. "play" button takes the translated text and plays it out loud in a native speaker's voice (of the "to" language), via a single network call to the bing Microsoft Translator service. If the network call fails, the user is informed via a message box. The button is disabled when there is no "to" language available or when there is no translated text available. "clear" button clears any user text entered in the text for translation box and any translation present in the translated text box. If both of those are already empty, the button is disabled. It also stops any playback if there is one in flight. "save" button saves the entire translation ("from" language, "to" language, text for translation, and translated text) to the bottom of the "saved" page (described later), and simultaneously switches to the "saved" page. The button is disabled if there is no translation or the translation is not up to date (i.e. one of the elements have been changed). "swap to and from languages" menu swaps around the "from" and "to" languages. It also takes the translated text and inserts it in the text for translation area. The translated text area becomes blank. The menu is disabled when there is no "from" and "to" language info. "send translation via sms" menu takes the translated text and creates an SMS message containing it. The menu is disabled when there is no translation present. "send translation via email" menu takes the translated text and creates an email message containing it (after you choose which email account you want to use). The menu is disabled when there is no translation present. "about" menu shows the "about" page described later. "saved" page The "saved" page is initially empty. You can add translations to it by translating text on the "current" page and then tapping the application bar "save" button. Once a translation appears in the list, you can read it all offline (both the "from" and "to" text). Thus, you can create your own phrasebook list, which is remembered between application launches (it is stored on your device). To listen to the translation, simply tap on it – this is only available for languages that support playback, as indicated by the * in front of them. The sound is retrieved via a single network call to the bing Microsoft Translator service (if it fails an appropriate message is displayed in a message box). Tap and hold on a saved translation to bring up a context menu with 4 items: "move to top" menu moves the selected item to the top of the saved list (and scrolls there so it is still in view) "copy to current" menu takes the "from" and "to" information (language and text), and populates the "current" page with it (switching at the same time to the current page). This allows you to make tweaks to the translation (text or languages) and potentially save it back as a new item. Note that the action makes a copy of the translation, so you are not actually editing the existing saved translation (which remains intact). "delete" menu deletes the selected translation. "delete all" menu deletes all saved translations from the "saved" page – there is no way to get that info back other than re-entering it, so be cautious. Note: Once playback of a translation has been retrieved via a network call, Windows Phone 7 caches the results. What this means is that as long as you play a saved translation once, it is likely that it will be available to you for some time, even when there is no network connection.   "about" page The "about" page provides some textual information (that you can view in the screenshot) including a link to the creator's blog (that you can follow on your Windows Phone 7 device). Use that link to discover the email for any feedback. Other UI design info As you can see in the screenshots above, "Translator by Moth" has been designed from scratch for Windows Phone 7, using the nice pivot control and application bar. It also supports both portrait and landscape orientations, and looks equally good in both the light and the dark theme. Other than the default black and white colors, it uses the user's chosen accent color (which is blue in the screenshot examples above). Feedback and support Please report (via the email on the blog) any bugs you encounter or opportunities for performance improvements and they will be fixed in the next update. Suggestions for new features will be considered, but given that the app is FREE, no promises are made. If you like the app, don't forget to rate "Translator by Moth" on the marketplace. Comments about this post welcome at the original blog.

    Read the article

  • What's a unit test? [closed]

    - by Tyler
    Possible Duplicates: What is unit testing and how do you do it? What is unit testing? I recognize that to 95% of you, this is a very WTF question. So. What's a unit test? I understand that essentially you're attempting to isolate atomic functionality but how do you test for that? When is it necessary? When is it ridiculous? Can you give an example? (Preferably in C? I mostly hear about it from Java devs on this site so maybe this is specific to Object Oriented languages? I really don't know.) I know many programmers swear by unit testing religiously. What's it all about? EDIT: Also, what's the ratio of time you typically spend writing unit tests to time spent writing new code?

    Read the article

  • Is mocking for unit testing appropriate in this scenario?

    - by Vinoth Kumar
    I have written around 20 methods in Java and all of them call some web services. None of these web services are available yet. To carry on with the server side coding, I hard-coded the results that the web-service is expected to give. Can we unit test these methods? As far as I know, unit testing is mocking the input values and see how the program responds. Are mocking both input and ouput values meaningful? Edit : The answers here suggest I should be writing unit test cases. Now, how can I write it without modifying the existing code ? Consider the following sample code (hypothetical code) : public int getAge() { Service s = locate("ageservice"); // line 1 int age = s.execute(empId); // line 2 return age; // line 3 } Now How do we mock the output ? Right now , I am commenting out 'line 1' and replacing line 2 with int age= 50. Is this right ? Can anyone point me to the right way of doing it ?

    Read the article

  • Have unit test generators helped you when working with legacy code?

    - by Duncan Bayne
    I am looking at a small (~70kLOC including generated) C# (.NET 4.0, some Silverlight) code-base that has very low test coverage. The code itself works in that it has passed user acceptance testing, but it is brittle and in some areas not very well factored. I would like to add solid unit test coverage around the legacy code using the usual suspects (NMock, NUnit, StatLight for the Silverlight bits). My normal approach is to start working through the project, unit testing & refactoring, until I am satisfied with the state of the code. I've done this many times in the past, and it's worked well. However, this time I'm thinking of using a test generator (in particular Pex) to create the test framework, then manually fleshing it out. My question is: have you used unit test generators in the past when commencing work on a legacy codebase, and if so, would you recommend them? My fear is that the generated tests will miss the semantic nuances of the code-base, leading to the dreaded situation of having tests for the sake of the coverage metric, rather than tests which clearly express the intended behaviour in code.

    Read the article

  • Practical refactoring using unit tests

    - by awhite
    Having just read the first four chapters of Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code, I embarked on my first refactoring and almost immediately came to a roadblock. It stems from the requirement that before you begin refactoring, you should put unit tests around the legacy code. That allows you to be sure your refactoring didn't change what the original code did (only how it did it). So my first question is this: how do I unit-test a method in legacy code? How can I put a unit test around a 500 line (if I'm lucky) method that doesn't do just one task? It seems to me that I would have to refactor my legacy code just to make it unit-testable. Does anyone have any experience refactoring using unit tests? And, if so, do you have any practical examples you can share with me? My second question is somewhat hard to explain. Here's an example: I want to refactor a legacy method that populates an object from a database record. Wouldn't I have to write a unit test that compares an object retrieved using the old method, with an object retrieved using my refactored method? Otherwise, how would I know that my refactored method produces the same results as the old method? If that is true, then how long do I leave the old deprecated method in the source code? Do I just whack it after I test a few different records? Or, do I need to keep it around for a while in case I encounter a bug in my refactored code? Lastly, since a couple people have asked...the legacy code was originally written in VB6 and then ported to VB.NET with minimal architecture changes.

    Read the article

  • Unit tests - The benefit from unit tests with contract changes?

    - by Stefan Hendriks
    Recently I had an interesting discussion with a colleague about unit tests. We where discussing when maintaining unit tests became less productive, when your contracts change. Perhaps anyone can enlight me how to approach this problem. Let me elaborate: So lets say there is a class which does some nifty calculations. The contract says that it should calculate a number, or it returns -1 when it fails for some reason. I have contract tests who test that. And in all my other tests I stub this nifty calculator thingy. So now I change the contract, whenever it cannot calculate it will throw a CannotCalculateException. My contract tests will fail, and I will fix them accordingly. But, all my mocked/stubbed objects will still use the old contract rules. These tests will succeed, while they should not! The question that rises, is that with this faith in unit testing, how much faith can be placed in such changes... The unit tests succeed, but bugs will occur when testing the application. The tests using this calculator will need to be fixed, which costs time and may even be stubbed/mocked a lot of times... How do you think about this case? I never thought about it thourougly. In my opinion, these changes to unit tests would be acceptable. If I do not use unit tests, I would also see such bugs arise within test phase (by testers). Yet I am not confident enough to point out what will cost more time (or less). Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing a method with many possible outcomes

    - by Cthulhu
    I've built a simple~ish method that constructs an URL out of approximately 5 parts: base address, port, path, 'action', and a set of parameters. Out of these, only the address part is mandatory, the other parts are all optional. A valid URL has to come out of the method for each permutation of input parameters, such as: address address port address port path address path address action address path action address port action address port path action address action params address path action params address port action params address port path action params andsoforth. The basic approach for this is to write one unit test for each of these possible outcomes, each unit test passing the address and any of the optional parameters to the method, and testing the outcome against the expected output. However, I wonder, is there a Better (tm) way to handle a case like this? Are there any (good) unit test patterns for this? (rant) I only now realize that I've learned to write unit tests a few years ago, but never really (feel like) I've advanced in the area, and that every unit test is a repeat of building parameters, expected outcome, filling mock objects, calling a method and testing the outcome against the expected outcome. I'm pretty sure this is the way to go in unit testing, but it gets kinda tedious, yanno. Advice on that matter is always welcome. (/rant) (note) christmas weekend approaching, probably won't reply to suggestions until next week. (/note)

    Read the article

  • C# why unit test has this strange behaviour?

    - by 5YrsLaterDBA
    I have a class to encrypt the connectionString. public class SKM { private string connStrName = "AndeDBEntities"; internal void encryptConnStr() { if(isConnStrEncrypted()) return; ... } private bool isConnStrEncrypted() { bool status = false; // Open app.config of executable. System.Configuration.Configuration config = ConfigurationManager.OpenExeConfiguration(ConfigurationUserLevel.None); // Get the connection string from the app.config file. string connStr = config.ConnectionStrings.ConnectionStrings[connStrName].ConnectionString; status = !(connStr.Contains("provider")); Log.logItem(LogType.DebugDevelopment, "isConnStrEncrypted", "SKM::isConnStrEncrypted()", "isConnStrEncrypted=" + status); return status; } } Above code works fine in my application. But not in my unit test project. In my unit test project, I test the encryptConnStr() method. it will call isConnStrEncrypted() method. Then exception (null pointer) will be thrown at this line: string connStr = config.ConnectionStrings.ConnectionStrings[connStrName].ConnectionString; I have to use index like this to pass the unit test: string connStr = config.ConnectionStrings.ConnectionStrings[0].ConnectionString; I remember it worked several days ago at the time I added above unit test. But now it give me an error. The unit test is not integrated with our daily auto build yet. We only have ONE connectionStr. It works with product but not in unit test. Don't know why. Anybody can explain to me?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for debug Asserts during Unit testing

    - by Steve Steiner
    Does heavy use of unit tests discourage the use of debug asserts? It seems like a debug assert firing in the code under test implies the unit test shouldn't exist or the debug assert shouldn't exist. "There can be only one" seems like a reasonable principle. Is this the common practice? Or do you disable your debug asserts when unit testing, so they can be around for integration testing? Edit: I updated 'Assert' to debug assert to distinguish an assert in the code under test from the lines in the unit test that check state after the test has run. Also here is an example that I believe shows the dilema: A unit test passes invalid inputs for a protected function that asserts it's inputs are valid. Should the unit test not exist? It's not a public function. Perhaps checking the inputs would kill perf? Or should the assert not exist? The function is protected not private so it should be checking it's inputs for safety.

    Read the article

  • Finding patterns of failure in a Unit Test

    - by Pekka
    I'm new to Unit Testing, and I'm only getting into the routine of building test suites. I have what is going to be a rather large project that I want to build tests for from the start. I'm trying to figure out general strategies and patterns for building test suites. When you look at a class, many tests come to you obviously due to the nature of the class. Say for a "user account" class with basic CRUD operations, being related to a database table, we will want to test - well, the CRUD. creating an object and seeing whether it exists query its properties change some properties change some properties to incorrect values and delete it again. As for how to break things, there are "fail" tests common to most CRUD classes like: Invalid input data types A number as the ID key that exceeds the range of the chosen data type Input in an incorrect character encoding Input that is too long And so on and so on. For a unit test concerned with file operations, the list of "breaking things" could be Invalid characters in file name File name too long File name uses incorrect protocol or path I'm pretty sure similar patterns - applicable beyond the unit test one is currently working on - can be found for most units that are being tested. Now my question is: Am I correct in seeing such "breaking patterns"? Or am I getting something completely wrong about Unit testing, and if I did it right, this wouldn't be an issue at all? Is Unit Testing as a process of finding as many ways to break the unit as possible the right way to go? If I am correct: Are there existing definitions, lists, cheat sheets for such patterns? Are there any provisions (mainly in PHPUnit, as that's the framework I'm working in) to automate such patterns? Is there any assistance - in the form of check lists, or software - to aid in writing complete tests?

    Read the article

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