Search Results

Search found 7802 results on 313 pages for 'unit tests'.

Page 7/313 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • organizing unit test

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

    Read the article

  • rake test:units fails with status ()

    - by ander163
    New user, haven't been building tests as I go, so I'm an idiot. The application is running, but the tests fail. Here is what appears to be relevant: .... ** Execute test:units /usr/local/bin/ruby -I"lib:test" "/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/unit/event_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/calendar1_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/events_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/homepage_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/main_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/mobile_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/notes_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/password_resets_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/projects_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/search_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/start_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/superadmin_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/tasks_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/user_sessions_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/users_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/note_test.rb" "test/unit/notifier_test.rb" "test/unit/project_test.rb" "test/unit/task_test.rb" "test/unit/user_session_test.rb" "test/unit/user_test.rb" /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.5/lib/rails/gem_dependency.rb:119:Warning: Gem::Dependency#version_requirements is deprecated and will be removed on or after August 2010. Use #requirement /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/hpricot-0.6.164/lib/universal-java1.6/fast_xs.bundle: [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.8.7 (2009-06-12 patchlevel 174) [i686-darwin10.2.0] rake aborted! Command failed with status (): [/usr/local/bin/ruby -I"lib:test" "/usr/loc...] /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:995:in sh' /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:1010:incall'

    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

  • Unit tests and fixtures

    - by Wizzard
    We have a bunch of unit tests which test a lot of webpages and REST API services. Currently when our tests run it pulls from these pages live but this can take ages to run sometimes, and it also feels like the tests should be testing more of our code - not just relying on them being up and responding (if that makes sense..). Is it better practice to save a valid api response and with the unit tests load this in during setup? Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Unit testing

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

    Read the article

  • Generic unit test scheduling

    - by Raphink
    Hello, I'm (re)writing a program that does generic unit test scheduling. The current program is a mono-threaded Perl program, but I'm willing to modularize it and parallelize the tests. I'm also considering rewriting it in Python. Here is what I need to do: I have a list of tests, with the following attributes: uri: a URI to test (could be HTTP/HTTPS/SSH/local) ; depends: an associative array of tests/values that this test depends on ; join: a list of DB joints to be added when selecting items to process in this test ; depends_db: additional conditions to add to the DB request when selecting items to process in this test. The program builds a dependency tree, beginning with the tests that have no dependencies ; for each test: a list of items is selected from the database using the conditions (results of depending tests, joints and depends_db) ; the list of items is sent to the URI (using POST or stdin) ; the result is retrived as a YAML file listing the state and comments for the test for each tested item ; the results are stored in the DB ; the test returns, allowing depending tests to be performed. the program generates reports (CSV, DB, graphviz) of the performed tests. The primary use of this program currently is to test a fleet of machines against services such as backup, DNS, etc. The tests can then be: - backup: hosted on the backup machine(s), called through HTTP, checks if the machines' backup went well ; - DNS: hosted on the local machine, called via stdin, checks if the machines' fqdn have a valid DNS entry. Does such a tool/module already exist? What would be the best implementation to achieve this (using Perl or Python)?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing opaque structure based C API

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Good tools which generate NUnit unit tests for .NET assemblies in Visual Studio 2008

    - by andy
    Hey guys, I'm pretty new to Unit Testing so bare with me. I realize that best best practice is not to auto generate unit tests, however I'd like to use Code Generation to set-up the basic skeleton of the tests. Now, I know Visual Studio 2008 already has the built in "create tests", however, it just creates a flat list of all the classes it's going to test... and it's not for NUnit right? Ideally, I'd like the code generation to follow the folder AND namespace structure of the assembly its generating tests for. Can you guys recommend any good tools which generate NUnit unit tests for .NET assemblies in Visual Studio 2008? cheers!

    Read the article

  • Python unit-testing with nose: Making sequential tests

    - by cool-RR
    I am just learning how to do unit-testing. I'm on Python / nose / Wing IDE. (The project that I'm writing tests for is a simulations framework, and among other things it lets you run simulations both synchronously and asynchronously, and the results of the simulation should be the same in both.) The thing is, I want some of my tests to use simulation results that were created in other tests. For example, synchronous_test calculates a certain simulation in synchronous mode, but then I want to calculate it in asynchronous mode, and check that the results came out the same. How do I structure this? Do I put them all in one test function, or make a separate asynchronous_test? Do I pass these objects from one test function to another? Also, keep in mind that all these tests will run through a test generator, so I can do the tests for each of the simulation packages included with my program.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Writing Unit Tests for ASP.NET Web API Controller

    - by shiju
    In this blog post, I will write unit tests for a ASP.NET Web API controller in the EFMVC reference application. Let me introduce the EFMVC app, If you haven't heard about EFMVC. EFMVC is a simple app, developed as a reference implementation for demonstrating ASP.NET MVC, EF Code First, ASP.NET Web API, Domain-Driven Design (DDD), Test-Driven Development (DDD). The current version is built with ASP.NET MVC 4, EF Code First 5, ASP.NET Web API, Autofac, AutoMapper, Nunit and Moq. All unit tests were written with Nunit and Moq. You can download the latest version of the reference app from http://efmvc.codeplex.com/ Unit Test for HTTP Get Let’s write a unit test class for verifying the behaviour of a ASP.NET Web API controller named CategoryController. Let’s define mock implementation for Repository class, and a Command Bus that is used for executing write operations.  [TestFixture] public class CategoryApiControllerTest { private Mock<ICategoryRepository> categoryRepository; private Mock<ICommandBus> commandBus; [SetUp] public void SetUp() {     categoryRepository = new Mock<ICategoryRepository>();     commandBus = new Mock<ICommandBus>(); } The code block below provides the unit test for a HTTP Get operation. [Test] public void Get_All_Returns_AllCategory() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()                 {                     Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }                 }     };     // Act     var categories = controller.Get();     // Assert     Assert.IsNotNull(categories, "Result is null");     Assert.IsInstanceOf(typeof(IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense>),categories, "Wrong Model");             Assert.AreEqual(3, categories.Count(), "Got wrong number of Categories"); }        The GetCategories method is provided below: private static IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> GetCategories() {     IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = new List<CategoryWithExpense> {     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=1, CategoryName = "Test1", Description="Test1Desc", TotalExpenses=1000},     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=2, CategoryName = "Test2", Description="Test2Desc",TotalExpenses=2000},     new CategoryWithExpense { CategoryId=3, CategoryName = "Test3", Description="Test3Desc",TotalExpenses=3000}       }.AsEnumerable();     return fakeCategories; } In the unit test method Get_All_Returns_AllCategory, we specify setup on the mocked type ICategoryrepository, for a call to GetCategoryWithExpenses method returns dummy data. We create an instance of the ApiController, where we have specified the Request property of the ApiController since the Request property is used to create a new HttpResponseMessage that will provide the appropriate HTTP status code along with response content data. Unit Tests are using for specifying the behaviour of components so that we have specified that Get operation will use the model type IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> for sending the Content data. The implementation of HTTP Get in the CategoryController is provided below: public IQueryable<CategoryWithExpense> Get() {     var categories = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().AsQueryable();     return categories; } Unit Test for HTTP Post The following are the behaviours we are going to implement for the HTTP Post: A successful HTTP Post  operation should return HTTP status code Created An empty Category should return HTTP status code BadRequest A successful HTTP Post operation should provide correct Location header information in the response for the newly created resource. Writing unit test for HTTP Post is required more information than we write for HTTP Get. In the HTTP Post implementation, we will call to Url.Link for specifying the header Location of Response as shown in below code block. var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category); string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId }); response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri); return response; While we are executing Url.Link from unit tests, we have to specify HttpRouteData information from the unit test method. Otherwise, Url.Link will get a null value. The code block below shows the unit tests for specifying the behaviours for the HTTP Post operation. [Test] public void Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();          var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Post(category);               // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.Created, response.StatusCode);     var newCategory = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryModel>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(string.Format("http://localhost/api/category/{0}", newCategory.CategoryId), response.Headers.Location.ToString()); } [Test] public void Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 0;     category.CategoryName = "";     // The ASP.NET pipeline doesn't run, so validation don't run.     controller.ModelState.AddModelError("", "mock error message");     var response = controller.Post(category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, response.StatusCode);   } In the above code block, we have written two unit methods, Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode and Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode. The unit test method Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode  verifies the behaviour 1 and 3, that we have defined in the beginning of the section “Unit Test for HTTP Post”. The unit test method Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode verifies the behaviour 2. For extracting the data from response, we call Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result of HttpResponseMessage object and deserializeit it with Json Convertor. The implementation of HTTP Post in the CategoryController is provided below: // POST /api/category public HttpResponseMessage Post(CategoryModel category) {       if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {                               var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category);             string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId });             response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri);             return response;         }     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); } The unit test implementation for HTTP Put and HTTP Delete are very similar to the unit test we have written for  HTTP Get. The complete unit tests for the CategoryController is given below: [TestFixture] public class CategoryApiControllerTest { private Mock<ICategoryRepository> categoryRepository; private Mock<ICommandBus> commandBus; [SetUp] public void SetUp() {     categoryRepository = new Mock<ICategoryRepository>();     commandBus = new Mock<ICommandBus>(); } [Test] public void Get_All_Returns_AllCategory() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()                 {                     Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }                 }     };     // Act     var categories = controller.Get();     // Assert     Assert.IsNotNull(categories, "Result is null");     Assert.IsInstanceOf(typeof(IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense>),categories, "Wrong Model");             Assert.AreEqual(3, categories.Count(), "Got wrong number of Categories"); }        [Test] public void Get_CorrectCategoryId_Returns_Category() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     var response = controller.Get(1);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);     var category = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryWithExpense>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(1, category.CategoryId, "Got wrong number of Categories"); } [Test] public void Get_InValidCategoryId_Returns_NotFound() {     // Arrange        IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = GetCategories();     categoryRepository.Setup(x => x.GetCategoryWithExpenses()).Returns(fakeCategories);     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     var response = controller.Get(5);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.NotFound, response.StatusCode);            } [Test] public void Post_Category_Returns_CreatedStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();          var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Post(category);               // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.Created, response.StatusCode);     var newCategory = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<CategoryModel>(response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);     Assert.AreEqual(string.Format("http://localhost/api/category/{0}", newCategory.CategoryId), response.Headers.Location.ToString()); } [Test] public void Post_EmptyCategory_Returns_BadRequestStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     var httpConfiguration = new HttpConfiguration();     WebApiConfig.Register(httpConfiguration);     var httpRouteData = new HttpRouteData(httpConfiguration.Routes["DefaultApi"],         new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "controller", "category" } });     var controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost/api/category/")         {             Properties =             {                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, httpConfiguration },                 { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, httpRouteData }             }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 0;     category.CategoryName = "";     // The ASP.NET pipeline doesn't run, so validation don't run.     controller.ModelState.AddModelError("", "mock error message");     var response = controller.Post(category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, response.StatusCode);   } [Test] public void Put_Category_Returns_OKStatusCode() {     // Arrange        commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     Mapper.CreateMap<CategoryFormModel, CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand>();     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act     CategoryModel category = new CategoryModel();     category.CategoryId = 1;     category.CategoryName = "Mock Category";     var response = controller.Put(category.CategoryId,category);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);    } [Test] public void Delete_Category_Returns_NoContentStatusCode() {     // Arrange              commandBus.Setup(c => c.Submit(It.IsAny<DeleteCategoryCommand >())).Returns(new CommandResult(true));     CategoryController controller = new CategoryController(commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object)     {         Request = new HttpRequestMessage()         {             Properties = { { HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, new HttpConfiguration() } }         }     };     // Act               var response = controller.Delete(1);     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual(HttpStatusCode.NoContent, response.StatusCode);   } private static IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> GetCategories() {     IEnumerable<CategoryWithExpense> fakeCategories = new List<CategoryWithExpense> {     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=1, CategoryName = "Test1", Description="Test1Desc", TotalExpenses=1000},     new CategoryWithExpense {CategoryId=2, CategoryName = "Test2", Description="Test2Desc",TotalExpenses=2000},     new CategoryWithExpense { CategoryId=3, CategoryName = "Test3", Description="Test3Desc",TotalExpenses=3000}       }.AsEnumerable();     return fakeCategories; } }  The complete implementation for the Api Controller, CategoryController is given below: public class CategoryController : ApiController {       private readonly ICommandBus commandBus;     private readonly ICategoryRepository categoryRepository;     public CategoryController(ICommandBus commandBus, ICategoryRepository categoryRepository)     {         this.commandBus = commandBus;         this.categoryRepository = categoryRepository;     } public IQueryable<CategoryWithExpense> Get() {     var categories = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().AsQueryable();     return categories; }   // GET /api/category/5 public HttpResponseMessage Get(int id) {     var category = categoryRepository.GetCategoryWithExpenses().Where(c => c.CategoryId == id).SingleOrDefault();     if (category == null)     {         return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.NotFound);     }     return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, category); }   // POST /api/category public HttpResponseMessage Post(CategoryModel category) {       if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {                               var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, category);             string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = category.CategoryId });             response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri);             return response;         }     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); }   // PUT /api/category/5 public HttpResponseMessage Put(int id, CategoryModel category) {     if (ModelState.IsValid)     {         var command = new CreateOrUpdateCategoryCommand(category.CategoryId, category.CategoryName, category.Description);         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, category);     }     else     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState);     }     throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest); }       // DELETE /api/category/5     public HttpResponseMessage Delete(int id)     {         var command = new DeleteCategoryCommand { CategoryId = id };         var result = commandBus.Submit(command);         if (result.Success)         {             return new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.NoContent);         }             throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);     } } Source Code The EFMVC app can download from http://efmvc.codeplex.com/ . The unit test project can be found from the project EFMVC.Tests and Web API project can be found from EFMVC.Web.API.

    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

  • When creating an library published on CodePlex, how "bad" would it be for the unit-test projects to rely on commercial products?

    - by Lasse V. Karlsen
    I have started a project on CodePlex for a WebDAV server implementation for .NET, so that I can host a WebDAV server in my own programs. This is both a learning/research project (WebDAV + server portion) as well as a project I think I can have much fun with, both in terms of making it and using it. However, I see a need to do mocking of types here in order to unit-testing properly. For instance, I will be relying on HttpListener for the web server portion of the WebDAV server, and since this type has no interface, and is sealed, I cannot easily make mocks or stubs out of it. Unless I use something like TypeMock. So if I used TypeMock in the unit-test projects on this library, how bad would this be for potential users? The projects are made in C# 3.5 for .NET 3.5 and 4.0, and the project files was created with Visual Studio 2010 Professional. The actual class libraries you would end up referencing in your software would of course not be encumbered with anything remotely like this, only the unit-test libraries. What's your thoughts on this? As an example, I have in my old code-base, which is private, the ability to just initiate a WebDAV server with just this: var server = new WebDAVServer(); This constructs, and owns, a HttpListener instance internally, and I would like to verify through unit-tests that if I dispose of this server object, the internal listener is disposed of. If, on the other hand, I use the overload where I hand it a listener object, this object should not be disposed of. Short of exposing the internal listener object to the outside world, something I'm a bit loath to do, how can I in a good way ensure that the object was disposed of? With TypeMock I can mock away parts of this object even though it isn't accessed through interfaces. The alternative would be for me to wrap everything in wrapper classes, where I have complete control.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing methods decorated with custom attributes

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

    Read the article

  • Where to place unit test project

    - by Karsten
    I'm thinking about where to put the unit/integration test project. I follow the 1 test project pr. project convention I can think of 3 ways, that all seems good to me, which make it kind of hard to choose :-) Test project is put under a Tests sub folder to the project it tests. Test project is put next to the project it tests, in a "project".Tests folder. I believe this is what Roy Osherove recommends. Put all test projects in a sub folder in the root. e.g. \Tests\"project".Tests Something else? What you choose and why?

    Read the article

  • Performance Testing Versus Unit Testing

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

    Read the article

  • 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 do you unit test the real world?

    - by Kim Sun-wu
    I'm primarily a C++ coder, and thus far, have managed without really writing tests for all of my code. I've decided this is a Bad Idea(tm), after adding new features that subtly broke old features, or, depending on how you wish to look at it, introduced some new "features" of their own. But, unit testing seems to be an extremely brittle mechanism. You can test for something in "perfect" conditions, but you don't get to see how your code performs when stuff breaks. A for instance is a crawler, let's say it crawls a few specific sites, for data X. Do you simply save sample pages, test against those, and hope that the sites never change? This would work fine as regression tests, but, what sort of tests would you write to constantly check those sites live and let you know when the application isn't doing it's job because the site changed something, that now causes your application to crash? Wouldn't you want your test suite to monitor the intent of the code? The above example is a bit contrived, and something I haven't run into (in case you haven't guessed). Let me pick something I have, though. How do you test an application will do its job in the face of a degraded network stack? That is, say you have a moderate amount of packet loss, for one reason or the other, and you have a function DoSomethingOverTheNetwork() which is supposed to degrade gracefully when the stack isn't performing as it's supposed to; but does it? The developer tests it personally by purposely setting up a gateway that drops packets to simulate a bad network when he first writes it. A few months later, someone checks in some code that modifies something subtly, so the degradation isn't detected in time, or, the application doesn't even recognize the degradation, this is never caught, because you can't run real world tests like this using unit tests, can you? Further, how about file corruption? Let's say you're storing a list of servers in a file, and the checksum looks okay, but the data isn't really. You want the code to handle that, you write some code that you think does that. How do you test that it does exactly that for the life of the application? Can you? Hence, brittleness. Unit tests seem to test the code only in perfect conditions(and this is promoted, with mock objects and such), not what they'll face in the wild. Don't get me wrong, I think unit tests are great, but a test suite composed only of them seems to be a smart way to introduce subtle bugs in your code while feeling overconfident about it's reliability. How do I address the above situations? If unit tests aren't the answer, what is? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to programmatically start a WPF application from a unit test?

    - by Lernkurve
    Problem VS2010 and TFS2010 support creating so-called Coded UI Tests. All the demos I have found, start with the WPF application already running in the background when the Coded UI Test begins or the EXE is started using the absolute path to it. I, however, would like to start my WPF application under test from the unit test code. That way it'll also work on the build server and on my peer's working copies. How do I accomplish that? My discoveries so far a) This post shows how to start a XAML window. But that's not what I want. I want to start the App.xaml because it contains XAML resources and there is application logic in the code behind file. b) The second screenshot on this post shows a line starting with ApplicationUnterTest calculatorWindow = ApplicationUnderTest.Launch(...); which is conceptually pretty much what I am looking for, except that again this example uses an absolute path the the executable file. c) A Google search for "Programmatically start WPF" didn't help either.

    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

  • 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

  • Is there a better way to organize my module tests that avoids an explosion of new source files?

    - by luser droog
    I've got a neat (so I thought) way of having each of my modules produce a unit-test executable if compiled with the -DTESTMODULE flag. This flag guards a main() function that can access all static data and functions in the module, without #including a C file. From the README: -- Modules -- The various modules were written and tested separately before being coupled together to achieve the necessary basic functionality. Each module retains its unit-test, its main() function, guarded by #ifdef TESTMODULE. `make test` will compile and execute all the unit tests, producing copious output, but importantly exitting with an appropriate success or failure code, so the `make test` command will fail if any of the tests fail. Module TOC __________ test obj src header structures CONSTANTS ---- --- --- --- -------------------- m m.o m.c m.h mfile mtab TABSZ s s.o s.c s.h stack STACKSEGSZ v v.o v.c v.h saverec_ f.o f.c f.h file ob ob.o ob.c ob.h object ar ar.o ar.c ar.h array st st.o st.c st.h string di di.o di.c di.h dichead dictionary nm nm.o nm.c nm.h name gc gc.o gc.c gc.h garbage collector itp itp.c itp.h context osunix.o osunix.c osunix.h unix-dependent functions It's compile by a tricky bit of makefile, m:m.c ob.h ob.o err.o $(CORE) itp.o $(OP) cc $(CFLAGS) -DTESTMODULE $(LDLIBS) -o $@ $< err.o ob.o s.o ar.o st.o v.o di.o gc.o nm.o itp.o $(OP) f.o where the module is compiled with its own C file plus every other object file except itself. But it's creating difficulties for the kindly programmer who offered to write the Autotools files for me. So the obvious way to make it "less weird" would be to bust-out all the main functions into separate source files. But, but ... Do I gotta?

    Read the article

  • What are the design principles that promote testable code? (designing testable code vs driving design through tests)

    - by bot
    Most of the projects that I work on consider development and unit testing in isolation which makes writing unit tests at a later instance a nightmare. My objective is to keep testing in mind during the high level and low level design phases itself. I want to know if there are any well defined design principles that promote testable code. One such principle that I have come to understand recently is Dependency Inversion through Dependency injection and Inversion of Control. I have read that there is something known as SOLID. I want to understand if following the SOLID principles indirectly results in code that is easily testable? If not, are there any well-defined design principles that promote testable code? I am aware that there is something known as Test Driven Development. Although, I am more interested in designing code with testing in mind during the design phase itself rather than driving design through tests. I hope this makes sense. One more question related to this topic is whether it's alright to re-factor an existing product/project and make changes to code and design for the purpose of being able to write a unit test case for each module?

    Read the article

  • How best to construct our test subjects in unit tests?

    - by Liath
    Some of our business logic classes require quite a few dependencies (in our case 7-10). As such when we come to unit test these the creation become quite complex. In most tests these dependencies are often not required (only some dependencies are required for particular methods). As a result unit tests often require a significant number of lines of code to mock up these useless dependencies (which can't be null because of null checks). For example: [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = new Sut(new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, new Mock<IDependency3>().Object, new Mock<IDependency4>().Object, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } In this example almost half the test is taken up creating dependencies which aren't used. I've investigated an approach where I have a helper method. [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = CreateSut(null, null, null, null, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } private Sut CreateSut(IDependency1 d1, IDependency2 d2...) { return new Sut(d1 ?? new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, d2 ?? new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, } But these often grow very complicated very quickly. What is the best way to create these BLL classes in test classes to reduce complexity and simplify tests?

    Read the article

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