Search Results

Search found 26297 results on 1052 pages for 'unit test'.

Page 76/1052 | < Previous Page | 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83  | Next Page >

  • Are TestContext.Properties read only ?

    - by DBJDBJ
    Using Visual Studio generate Test Unit class. Then comment out class initialization method. Inside it add your property, using the testContext argument. //Use ClassInitialize to run code before running the first test in the class [ClassInitialize()] public static void MyClassInitialize(TestContext testContext) { /* * Any user defined testContext.Properties * added here will be erased upon this method exit */ testContext.Properties.Add("key", 1 ) ; // above works but is lost } After leaving MyClassInitialize, properties defined by user are lost. Only the 10 "official" ones are left. This effectively means TestContext.Properties is read only, for users. Which is not clearly documented in MSDN. Please discuss. --DBJ

    Read the article

  • Separate seeds in PHPUnit

    - by mik
    How do I create a separate seed for some test inside one test class? PHPUnit documentation includes this example <?php require_once 'PHPUnit/Extensions/Database/TestCase.php'; class DatabaseTest extends PHPUnit_Extensions_Database_TestCase { protected function getConnection() { $pdo = new PDO('mysql:host=localhost;dbname=testdb', 'root', ''); return $this->createDefaultDBConnection($pdo, 'testdb'); } protected function getDataSet() { return $this->createFlatXMLDataSet(dirname(__FILE__).'/_files/bank-account-seed.xml'); } } ?> But in this example I have one seed for all the tests inside my class. Thank you for help.

    Read the article

  • How to create tests for poco objects

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I'm new to mocking/testing and wanting to know what level should you go to when testing. For example in my code I have the following object: public class RuleViolation { public string ErrorMessage { get; private set; } public string PropertyName { get; private set; } public RuleViolation( string errorMessage ) { ErrorMessage = errorMessage; } public RuleViolation( string errorMessage, string propertyName ) { ErrorMessage = errorMessage; PropertyName = propertyName; } } This is a relatively simple object. So my question is: Does it need a unit test? If it does what do I test and how? Thanks

    Read the article

  • "dynamic" keyword and JSON data

    - by Peter Perhác
    An action method in my ASP.NET MVC2 application returns a JsonResult object and in my unit test I would like to check that the returned JSON object indeed contains the expected values. I tried this: 1. dynamic json = ((JsonResult)myActionResult).Data; 2. Assert.AreEqual(JsonMessagesHelper.ErrorLevel.ERROR.ToString(), json.ErrorLevel); But I get a RuntimeBinderException "'object' does not contain a definition for 'ErrorLevel'". However, when I place a breakpoint on line 2 and inspect the json dynamic variable (see picture below), it obviously does contain the ErrorLevel string and it has the expected value, so if the runtime binder wasn't playing funny the test would pass. What am I not getting? What am I doing wrong and how can I fix this? How can I make the assertion pass?

    Read the article

  • Simulating Ajax failures for QA testing

    - by womp
    Our first ASP.Net MVC/jQuery product is about to go to QA, and we're looking for a way for our QA guys to easily be able to simulate bad Ajax requests (without modifying the application code). A typical integration/UI test plan might be: Load page, click button "DoStuff" "DoStuff" fails Attempt button "DoStuff" again "DoStuff" succeeds Verify application state This is a simple test case - there will be cases with multiple failures and successes interspersed. Aside from "unplug your network cable" I'm looking for an easy way for our guys to simulate intermittent bad server responses. I'm open to any ideas so I won't go into too many details about our application setup or dependencies. How have you handled this?

    Read the article

  • mocking command object in grails controller results in hasErrors() return false no matter what! Plea

    - by egervari
    I have a controller that uses a command object in a controller action. When mocking this command object in a grails' controller unit test, the hasErrors() method always returns false, even when I am purposefully violating its constraints. def save = { RegistrationForm form -> if(form.hasErrors()) { // code block never gets executed } else { // code block always gets executed } } In the test itself, I do this: mockCommandObject(RegistrationForm) def form = new RegistrationForm(emailAddress: "ken.bad@gmail", password: "secret", confirmPassword: "wrong") controller.save(form) I am purposefully giving it a bad email address, and I am making sure the password and the confirmPassword properties are different. In this case, hasErrors() should return true... but it doesn't. I don't know how my testing can be any where reliable if such a basic thing does not work :/ Here is the RegistrationForm class, so you can see the constraints I am using: class RegistrationForm { def springSecurityService String emailAddress String password String confirmPassword String getEncryptedPassword() { springSecurityService.encodePassword(password) } static constraints = { emailAddress(blank: false, email: true) password(blank: false, minSize:4, maxSize: 10) confirmPassword(blank: false, validator: { confirmPassword, form -> confirmPassword == form.password }) } }

    Read the article

  • How to mock WCF Web Services with Rhino Mocks.

    - by Will
    How do I test a class that utilizes proxy clients generated by a Web Service Reference? I would like to mock the client, but the generated client interface doesn't contain the close method, which is required to properly terminate the proxy. If I don't use the interface, but instead a concrete reference, I get access to the close method but loose the ability to mock the proxy. I'm trying to test a class similar to this: public class ServiceAdapter : IServiceAdapter, IDisposable { // ILoggingServiceClient is generated via a Web Service reference private readonly ILoggingServiceClient _loggingServiceClient; public ServiceAdapter() : this(new LoggingServiceClient()) {} internal ServiceAdapter(ILoggingServiceClient loggingServiceClient) { _loggingServiceClient = loggingServiceClient; } public void LogSomething(string msg) { _loggingServiceClient.LogSomething(msg); } public void Dispose() { // this doesn't compile, because ILoggingServiceClient doesn't contain Close(), // yet Close is required to properly terminate the WCF client _loggingServiceClient.Close(); } }

    Read the article

  • How do I make this ASP.NET MVC controller more testable?

    - by Ragesh
    I have a controller that overrides OnActionExecuting and does something like this: protected override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext) { base.OnActionExecuting(filterContext); string tenantDomain = filterContext.RouteData.Values["tenantDomain"] as string; if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(tenantDomain)) { using (var tx = BeginTransaction()) { this.Tenant = repo.FindOne(t => t.Domain == tenantDomain); } } } Tenant is a protected property with a private setter. The class itself is an abstract base controller that my real controllers derive from. I have code in other controllers that looks a lot like this: if (Tenant == null) { // Do something } else { // Do something else } How do I test this code? What I need to do is to somehow set the Tenant property, but I can't because: It's a protected property, and It has a private setter Changing the visibility of Tenant doesn't "feel" right. What are my alternatives to unit test my derived controllers?

    Read the article

  • Caching result of setUp() using Python unittest

    - by dbr
    I currently have a unittest.TestCase that looks like.. class test_appletrailer(unittest.TestCase): def setup(self): self.all_trailers = Trailers(res = "720", verbose = True) def test_has_trailers(self): self.failUnless(len(self.all_trailers) > 1) # ..more tests.. This works fine, but the Trailers() call takes about 2 seconds to run.. Given that setUp() is called before each test is run, the tests now take almost 10 seconds to run (with only 3 test functions) What is the correct way of caching the self.all_trailers variable between tests? Removing the setUp function, and doing.. class test_appletrailer(unittest.TestCase): all_trailers = Trailers(res = "720", verbose = True) ..works, but then it claims "Ran 3 tests in 0.000s" which is incorrect.. The only other way I could think of is to have a cache_trailers global variable (which works correctly, but is rather horrible): cache_trailers = None class test_appletrailer(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): global cache_trailers if cache_trailers is None: cache_trailers = self.all_trailers = all_trailers = Trailers(res = "720", verbose = True) else: self.all_trailers = cache_trailers

    Read the article

  • Testing methods called on yielded object

    - by Todd R
    I have the following controller test case: def test_showplain Cleaner.expect(:parse).with(@somecontent) Cleaner.any_instance.stubs(:plainversion).returns(@returnvalue) post :showplain, {:content => @somecontent} end This works fine, except that I want the "stubs(:plainversion)" to be an "expects(:plainversion)". Here's the controller code: def showplain Cleaner.parse(params[:content]) do | cleaner | @output = cleaner.plainversion end end And the Cleaner is simply: class Cleaner ### other code and methods ### def self.parse(@content) cleaner = Cleaner.new(@content) yield cleaner cleaner.close end def plainversion ### operate on @content and return ### end end Again, I can't figure out how to reliably test the "cleaner" that is made available from the "parse" method. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Constructing mocks in unit tests

    - by Flynn1179
    Is there any way to have a mock constructed instead of a real instance when testing code that calls a constructor? For example: public class ClassToTest { public void MethodToTest() { MyObject foo = new MyObject(); Console.WriteLine(foo.ToString()); } } In this example, I need to create a unit test that confirms that calling MethodToTest on an instance of ClassToTest will indeed output whatever the result of the ToString() method of a newly created instance of MyObject. I can't see a way of realistically testing the 'ClassToTest' class in isolation; testing this method would actually test the 'myObject.ToString()' method as well as the MethodToTest method.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing with serialization mock objects in C++

    - by lhumongous
    Greetings, I'm fairly new to TDD and ran across a unit test that I'm not entirely sure how to address. Basically, I'm testing a couple of legacy class methods which read/write a binary stream to a file. The class functions take a serializable object as a parameter, which handles the actual reading/writing to the file. For testing this, I was thinking that I would need a serialization mock object that I would pass to this function. My initial thought was to have the mock object hold onto a (char*) which would dynamically allocate memory and memcpy the data. However, it seems like the mock object might be doing too much work, and might be beyond the scope of this particular test. Is my initial approach correct, or can anyone think of another way of correctly testing this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Get/save parameters to an expected JMock method call?

    - by Tayeb
    Hi, I want to test an "Adapter" object that when it receives an xml message, it digest it to a Message object, puts message ID + CorrelationID both with timestamps and forwards it to a Client object.=20 A message can be correlated to a previous one (e.g. m2.correlationID =3D m1.ID). I mock the Client, and check that Adapter successfully calls "client.forwardMessage(m)" twice with first message with null correlationID, and a second with a not-null correlationID. However, I would like to precisely test that the correlationIDs are set correctly, by grabing the IDs (e.g. m1.ID). But I couldn't find anyway to do so. There is a jira about adding the feature, but no one commented and it is unassigned. Is this really unimplemented? I read about the alternative of redesigning the Adapter to use an IdGenerator object, which I can stub, but I think there will be too many objects.=20 Don't you think it adds unnecessary complexity to split objects to a so fine granularity? Thanks, and I appreciate any comments :-) Tayeb

    Read the article

  • Argument constraints in RhinoMock methods

    - by Khash
    I am mocking a repository that should have 1 entity in it for the test scenario. The repository has to return this entity based on a known id and return nothing when other ids are passed in. I have tried doing something like this: _myRepository.Expect(item => item.Find(knownId)).Return(knownEntity); _myRepository.Expect(item => item.Find(Arg<Guid>.Is.Anything)).Return(null); It seems however the second line is overriding the first and the repository always returns null. I don't want to mock all the different possible IDs asked (they could go up to hundreds) when the test scenario is only concerned with the value of one Id.

    Read the article

  • Using content from the project in tests

    - by oillio
    I am working with Visual Studio 2010 and it's integrated testing functionality. I have an XML file in my project which is set to copy to the output directory. I can access the file just fine when I compile and run the project. But it doesn't exist when I attempt to access it within a TestMethod. It looks like the test is run with the working directory set to an "Out" directory created within the TestResults directory. I can set a breakpoint before I use the file. If I then copy the file into this "Out" directory and continue running the test it accesses the file properly. But that is not really how I want my automated tests to function. Is it possible to tell VS to copy the build directory into this working directory?

    Read the article

  • Method parameters have incorrect values when using RowTest in VB.Net

    - by simon_bellis
    Hello, I have the following test method (VB.NET) <RowTest()> _ <Row(1, 2, 3)> _ Public Sub AddMultipleNumbers(ByVal number1 As Integer, ByVal number2 As Integer, ByVal result As Integer) Dim dvbc As VbClass = New VbClass() Dim actual As Integer = dvbc.Add(number1, number2) Assert.That(actual, [Is].SameAs(result)) End Sub My problem is that when the test runs, using TestDriven.Net, the three method parameters are 0 and not the values I am expecting. I have referenced the NUnit.Framework (v.2.5.3.9345) anf the NUnitExtension.RowTest (v.1.2.3.0).

    Read the article

  • How to instantiate a Singleton multiple times?

    - by Sebi
    I need a singleton in my code. I implemented it in Java and it works well. The reason I did it, is to ensure that in a mulitple environment, there is only one instance of this class. But now I want to test my Singleton object locally with a Unit test. For this reason I need to simulate another instance of this Singleton (the object that would be from another device). So is there a possiblity to instantiate a Singleton a second time for testing purpose or do I have to mock it? I'm not sure, but I think it could be possible by using a different class loader?

    Read the article

  • How can I display more info in an error message when using NUnit Assert in a loop?

    - by Ian
    Consider the following code: [Test] public void WidgetTest() { foreach (Widget widget in widgets) { Assert.AreEqual(0, widget.SomeValue); } } If one of the asserts fails, I will get a very unhelpful error message like the one below: 1) Test Failure : WidgetTest.TestSomeValue Expected: 0 But was: 1 at WidgetTest.TestSomeValue() So, the question is, how can I get NUnit to display more useful info, such as the name of the widget, or the iteration of the loop, etc? Even a line number would be more helpful, since this is run in automated manner and I'd like to be able to spot the failing assert without debugging into the code.

    Read the article

  • How can I pass in specific parameters to mstest in Visual Studio

    - by Eric Langland
    I'm trying to modify my test projuect to allow for remote invocation of an api we're building. Right now the tests are hard coded to run locally(against localhost), but I would like to be able to point the tests at any endpoint (even remote ones in production). Ideally there would be a place in the .testsettings for config values to be stored. Sadly this isn't the case. Or, being able to pass parameters to MSTest that the test would read...? Any ideas? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Creating Entity Framework objects with Unity for Unit of Work/Repository pattern

    - by TobyEvans
    Hi there, I'm trying to implement the Unit of Work/Repository pattern, as described here: http://blogs.msdn.com/adonet/archive/2009/06/16/using-repository-and-unit-of-work-patterns-with-entity-framework-4-0.aspx This requires each Repository to accept an IUnitOfWork implementation, eg an EF datacontext extended with a partial class to add an IUnitOfWork interface. I'm actually using .net 3.5, not 4.0. My basic Data Access constructor looks like this: public DataAccessLayer(IUnitOfWork unitOfWork, IRealtimeRepository realTimeRepository) { this.unitOfWork = unitOfWork; this.realTimeRepository = realTimeRepository; } So far, so good. What I'm trying to do is add Dependency Injection using the Unity Framework. Getting the EF data context to be created with Unity was an adventure, as it had trouble resolving the constructor - what I did in the end was to create another constructor in my partial class with a new overloaded constructor, and marked that with [InjectionConstructor] [InjectionConstructor] public communergyEntities(string connectionString, string containerName) :this() { (I know I need to pass the connection string to the base object, that can wait until once I've got all the objects initialising correctly) So, using this technique, I can happily resolve my entity framework object as an IUnitOfWork instance thus: using (IUnityContainer container = new UnityContainer()) { container.RegisterType<IUnitOfWork, communergyEntities>(); container.Configure<InjectedMembers>() .ConfigureInjectionFor<communergyEntities>( new InjectionConstructor("a", "b")) DataAccessLayer target = container.Resolve<DataAccessLayer>(); Great. What I need to do now is create the reference to the repository object for the DataAccessLayer - the DAL only needs to know the interface, so I'm guessing that I need to instantiate it as part of the Unity Resolve statement, passing it the appropriate IUnitOfWork interface. In the past, I would have just passed the Repository constructor the db connection string, and it would have gone away, created a local Entity Framework object and used that just for the lifetime of the Repository method. This is different, in that I create an Entity Framework instance as an IUnitOfWork implementation during the Unity Resolve statement, and it's that instance I need to pass into the constructor of the Repository - is that possible, and if so, how? I'm wondering if I could make the Repository a property and mark it as a Dependency, but that still wouldn't solve the problem of how to create the Repository with the IUnitOfWork object that the DAL is being Resolved with I'm not sure if I've understood this pattern correctly, and will happily take advice on the best way to implement it - Entity Framework is staying, but Unity can be swapped out if not the best approach. If I've got the whole thing upside down, please tell me thanks

    Read the article

  • EF4 - possible to mock ObjectContext for unit testing?

    - by steve.macdonald
    Can it be done without using TypeMock Islolator? I've found a few suggestions online such as passing in a metadata only connection string, however nothing I've come across besides TypeMock seems to truly allow for a mock ObjectContext that can be injected into services for unit testing. Do I plunk down the $$ for TypeMock, or are there alternatives? Has nobody managed to create anything comparable to TypeMock that is open source?

    Read the article

  • Unit of Measurement for Duration Column in Sql Profiler

    - by Mubashar Ahmad
    What is the Unit of Duration column in SQL Profiler? i thought it is milliseconds but in following profiler row i found it contradicting with start and end time spid=163 duration=11310646 starttime=2010-04-06 17:45:24.480 endtime=2010-04-06 17:45:35.790 reads=152 writes=2 cpu=16 eventclass=12 textdata= DELETE FROM dbo.[Icon] WHERE Id = 20087

    Read the article

  • EJB3 - using 2 persistence units within a transaction (Exception: Local transaction already has 1 no

    - by Sorcha
    I am trying to use 2 persistence units within the same transaction in a JEE application deployed on Glassfish. The 2 persistence units are defined in persistence.xml, as follows: <persistence-unit name="BeachWater"> <jta-data-source>jdbc/BeachWater</jta-data-source> ... <persistence-unit name="LIMS"> <jta-data-source>jdbc/BeachWaterLIMS</jta-data-source> ... These persistence units correspond to JDBC resources and connection pools which I had defined in Glassfish as follows (include one here as both are identical apart from names & database connection info): JDBC Resource: JNDI Name: jdbc/BeachWaterLIMS Pool Name: BEACHWATER_LIMS Connection Pool: Name: BEACHWATER_LIMS Datasource Classname: com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerConnectionPoolDataSource Resource Type: javax.sql.ConnectionPoolDataSource There are 3 stateless session beans, LimsServiceBean, AnalysisServiceBean and AnalysisDataTransformationServiceBean. Here are the relevant snippets from LimsServiceBean: @PersistenceContext(unitName = "LIMS") EntityManager em; ... public ArrayList<Sample> getLatestLIMSData() { Query q = em.createNamedQuery("Sample.findBySubTypeStatus"); return new ArrayList<Sample>(q.getResultList()); } From AnalysisServiceBean: @PersistenceContext(unitName = "BeachWater") EntityManager em; ... public ArrayList<AnalysisType> getAllAnalysisTypes() { Query q = em.createNamedQuery("AnalysisType.findAll"); return new ArrayList<AnalysisType>(q.getResultList()); } And from AnalysisDataTransformationServiceBean: @EJB private AnalysisService analysisService; @EJB private LimsService limsService; public void transformData() { List<AnalysisType> analysisTypes = analysisService.getAllAnalysisTypes(); ArrayList<Sample> samples = limsService.getLatestLIMSData(); This call to limsService.getLatestLIMSData() caused the following exception: [exec] Caused by: javax.ejb.TransactionRolledbackLocalException: Exception thrown from bean; nested exception is: Exception [TOPLINK-4002] (Oracle TopLink Essentials - 2.1 (Build b60e-fcs (12/23/2008))): oracle.toplink.essentials.exceptions.DatabaseException [exec] Internal Exception: java.sql.SQLException: Error in allocating a connection. Cause: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Local transaction already has 1 non-XA Resource: cannot add more resources. Having consulted this page, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms378484.aspx (among many others), I tried changing the definition of the connection pools to: Connection Pool: Name: BEACHWATER_LIMS Datasource Classname: com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerXADataSource Resource Type: javax.sql.XADataSource Ping via the Glassfish admin console succeeds, but call to analysisService.getAllAnalysisTypes() now throws an exception: Caused by: javax.ejb.TransactionRolledbackLocalException: Exception thrown from bean; nested exception is: Exception [TOPLINK-4002] (Oracle TopLink Essentials - 2.1 (Build b60e-fcs (12/23/2008))): oracle.toplink.essentials.exceptions.DatabaseException Internal Exception: java.sql.SQLException: Error in allocating a connection. Cause: javax.transaction.SystemException Any ideas?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83  | Next Page >