Search Results

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

Page 8/274 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • How is a functional programming-based javascript app laid out?

    - by user321521
    I've been working with node.js for awhile on a chat app (I know, very original, but I figured it'd be a good learning project). Underscore.js provides a lot of functional programming concepts which look interesting, so I'd like to understand how a functional program in javascript would be setup. From my understanding of functional programming (which may be wrong), the whole idea is to avoid side effects, which are basically having a function which updates another variable outside of the function so something like var external; function foo() { external = 'bar'; } foo(); would be creating a side effect, correct? So as a general rule, you want to avoid disturbing variables in the global scope. Ok, so how does that work when you're dealing with objects and what not? For example, a lot of times, I'll have a constructor and an init method that initializes the object, like so: var Foo = function(initVars) { this.init(initVars); } Foo.prototype.init = function(initVars) { this.bar1 = initVars['bar1']; this.bar2 = initVars['bar2']; //.... } var myFoo = new Foo({'bar1': '1', 'bar2': '2'}); So my init method is intentionally causing side effects, but what would be a functional way to handle the same sort of situation? Also, if anyone could point me to either a python or javascript source code of a program that tries to be as functional as possible, that would also be much appreciated. I feel like I'm close to "getting it", but I'm just not quite there. Mainly I'm interested in how functional programming works with traditional OOP classes concept (or does away with it for something different if that's the case).

    Read the article

  • How to make a great functional specification

    - by sfrj
    I am going to start a little side project very soon, but this time i want to do not just the little UML domain model and case diagrams i often do before programming, i thought about making a full functional specification. Is there anybody that has experience writing functional specifications that could recommend me what i need to add to it? How would be the best way to start preparing it? Here i will write down the topics that i think are more relevant: Purpose Functional Overview Context Diagram Critical Project Success Factors Scope (In & Out) Assumptions Actors (Data Sources, System Actors) Use Case Diagram Process Flow Diagram Activity Diagram Security Requirements Performance Requirements Special Requirements Business Rules Domain Model (Data model) Flow Scenarios (Success, alternate…) Time Schedule (Task Management) Goals System Requirements Expected Expenses What do you think about those topics? Shall i add something else? or maybe remove something?

    Read the article

  • What is a "cross-functional team" actually?

    - by Idsa
    The general meaning of "cross-functional team" is a team which combines specialists in different fields that are required to reach the goal. But it looks like in Agile cross-functionality means not only combining different specialists, but making them mix. Henrik Kniberg defines cross-functional team this way: "Cross-functional just means that the team as a whole has all skills needed to build the product, and that each team member is willing to do more than just their own thing." But where is the line drawn? Is it normal to ask developers to become testers for an iteration if it is required?

    Read the article

  • career change : non-functional to test automation

    - by centennial
    I started my Career as core-Java developer 6 years ago and stayed as developer for 6-7 month and then moved to performance testing (actualy pushed into this for short term and later I started liking it). I have done all sort of non-functional testing like performance, load, stress, soak, compatibility, failover etc on many performance test tools accross many industries. I was doing contracting all these years which means I kept moving to new projects after every 3-6 months. Now personal situation has been changed, married man now so looking for something long term. Performance testing generally comes at the end of the development life cycle hence very short term contracts so I was wondering if I can move into functional/test automation side I can earn myself good length of contract. I had some exposure of QTP but I am sure to learn all other tools very quickly as I am quite good in programming and concept of testing. in short I want to move into functional test automation to get long term contract without leaving my love for programming . any thoughts please ?

    Read the article

  • What is a "cross-functional team" actually?

    - by Idsa
    The general meaning of "cross-functional team" is a team which combines specialists in different fields that are required to reach the goal. But it looks like in Agile cross-functionality means not only combining different specialists, but making them mix. Henrik Kniberg defines cross-functional team this way: "Cross-functional just means that the team as a whole has all skills needed to build the product, and that each team member is willing to do more than just their own thing." But where is the line drawn? Is it normal to ask developers to become testers for an iteration if it is required?

    Read the article

  • Generating strongly biased radom numbers for tests

    - by nobody
    I want to run tests with randomized inputs and need to generate 'sensible' random numbers, that is, numbers that match good enough to pass the tested function's preconditions, but hopefully wreak havoc deeper inside its code. math.random() (I'm using Lua) produces uniformly distributed random numbers. Scaling these up will give far more big numbers than small numbers, and there will be very few integers. I would like to skew the random numbers (or generate new ones using the old function as a randomness source) in a way that strongly favors 'simple' numbers, but will still cover the whole range, I.e. extending up to positive/negative infinity (or ±1e309 for double). This means: numbers up to, say, ten should be most common, integers should be more common than fractions, numbers ending in 0.5 should be the most common fractions, followed by 0.25 and 0.75; then 0.125, and so on. A different description: Fix a base probability x such that probabilities will sum to one and define the probability of a number n as xk where k is the generation in which n is constructed as a surreal number1. That assigns x to 0, x2 to -1 and +1, x3 to -2, -1/2, +1/2 and +2, and so on. This gives a nice description of something close to what I want (it skews a bit too much), but is near-unusable for computing random numbers. The resulting distribution is nowhere continuous (it's fractal!), I'm not sure how to determine the base probability x (I think for infinite precision it would be zero), and computing numbers based on this by iteration is awfully slow (spending near-infinite time to construct large numbers). Does anyone know of a simple approximation that, given a uniformly distributed randomness source, produces random numbers very roughly distributed as described above? I would like to run thousands of randomized tests, quantity/speed is more important than quality. Still, better numbers mean less inputs get rejected. Lua has a JIT, so performance can't be reasonably predicted. Jumps based on randomness will break every prediction, and many calls to math.random() will be slow, too. This means a closed formula will be better than an iterative or recursive one. 1 Wikipedia has an article on surreal numbers, with a nice picture. A surreal number is a pair of two surreal numbers, i.e. x := {n|m}, and its value is the number in the middle of the pair, i.e. (for finite numbers) {n|m} = (n+m)/2 (as rational). If one side of the pair is empty, that's interpreted as increment (or decrement, if right is empty) by one. If both sides are empty, that's zero. Initially, there are no numbers, so the only number one can build is 0 := { | }. In generation two one can build numbers {0| } =: 1 and { |0} =: -1, in three we get {1| } =: 2, {|1} =: -2, {0|1} =: 1/2 and {-1|0} =: -1/2 (plus some more complex representations of known numbers, e.g. {-1|1} ? 0). Note that e.g. 1/3 is never generated by finite numbers because it is an infinite fraction – the same goes for floats, 1/3 is never represented exactly.

    Read the article

  • Loading fixtures in django unit tests

    - by loder
    I'm trying to start writing unit tests for django and I'm having some questions about fixtures: I made a fixture of my whole project db (not certain application) and I want to load it for each test, because it looks like loading only the fixture for certain app won't be enough. I'd like to have the fixture stored in /proj_folder/fixtures/proj_fixture.json. I've set the FIXTURE_DIRS = ('/fixtures/',) in my settings.py. Then in my testcase I'm trying fixtures = ['proj_fixture.json'] but my fixtures don't load. How can this be solved? How to add the place for searching fixtures? In general, is it ok to load the fixture for the whole test_db for each test in each app (if it's quite small)? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • DRY for JMeter tests

    - by jens
    Is there a way to modularize JMeter tests. I have recorded several use cases for our application. Each of them is in a separate thread group in the same test plan. To control the workflow I wrote some primitives (e.g. postprocessor elements) that are used in many of these thread groups. Is there a way not to copy these elements into each thread group but to use some kind of referencing within the same test plan? What would also be helpful is a way to reference elements from a different file. Does anybody have any solutions or workarounds. I guess I am not the only one trying to follow the DRY principle...

    Read the article

  • phpunit - generate tests for all the classes from a directory

    - by joe
    Hi! I have a directoy structure, and all the classes of the business logic are placed in the app_dir/lib/ directory. I would like to generate unit tests for all the classes from this lib/ folder. The problem is, that I haven't found any option to specify the source directory, only the source file: from app_dir: phpunit --skeleton-class lib/ Error: "lib/.php" could not be opened. Is it the only solution to write my own php script, which iterates through the /lib folder and calls the skeleton generator for every file found? And how can I specify the output folder, where all the generated test files are placed? Thanx, Joe

    Read the article

  • Databases and the CI server

    - by mlk
    I have a CI server (Hudson) which merrily builds, runs unit tests and deploys to the development environment but I'd now like to get it running the integration tests. The integration tests will hit a database and that database will be consistently being changed to contain the data relevant to the test in question. This however leads to a problem - how do I make sure the database is not being splatted with data for one test and then that data being override by a second project before the first set of tests complete? I am current using the "hope" method, which is not working out too badly at the moment, but mostly due to the fact that we only have a small number of integration tests set up on CI. As I see it I have the following options: Test-local (in memory) databases I'm not sure if any in-memory databases handle all the scaryness of Oracles triggers and packages etc, and anything less I don't feel would be a worth while test. CI Executor-local databasesA fair amount of work would be needed to set this up and keep 'em up to date, but defiantly an option (most of the work is already done to keep the current CI database up-to-date). Single "integration test" executorLikely the easiest to implement, but would mean the integration tests could fall quite far behind. Locking the database (or set of tables) I'm sure I've missed some ways (please add them). How do you run database-based integration tests on the CI server? What issues have you had and what method do you recommend? (Note: While I use Hudson, I'm happy to accept answers for any CI server, the ideas I'm sure will be portable, even if the details are not). Cheers,      Mlk

    Read the article

  • Configuring TeamCity + NUnit unit tests so files can be loaded properly

    - by Dave
    In a nutshell, I have a solution that builds fine in the IDE, and the unit tests all run fine with the NUnit GUI (via the NUnitit VS2008 plugin). However, when I execute my TeamCity build runner, all unit tests that require file access (e.g. for running tests against specific XML files), I just get System.IO.DirectoryNotFoundExceptions. The reason for this is clear: it's looking for those supporting XML files loaded by various unit tests in the wrong folder. The way my unit tests are structured looks like this: +-- project folder +-- unit tests folder +-- test.xml +-- test.cs +-- project file.xaml +-- project file.xaml.cs All of my projects own their own UnitTests folder, which contains the .cs file and any XML files, XML Schemas, etc that are necessary to run the tests. So when I write my test.cs, I have it look for "test.xml" in the code because they are in the same folder (actually, I do something like ....\unit tests\test.xml, but that's kind of silly). As I said before, the tests run great in NUnit. But that's because the unit tests are part of the project. When running the unit tests from TeamCity, I am executing them against the assemblies that get copied to the main app's output folder. These unit test XML files should not be copied willy-nilly to the output folder just to make the tests pass. Can anyone suggest a better method of organizing my unit tests in each project (which are dependencies for the main app), such that I can execute the unit tests from NUnit and from the TeamCity build runner? The only other option I can come up with is to just put the testing XML data in code, rather than loading it from a file. I would rather not do this.

    Read the article

  • Performance: recursion vs. iteration in Javascript

    - by mastazi
    I have read recently some articles (e.g. http://dailyjs.com/2012/09/14/functional-programming/) about the functional aspects of Javascript and the relationship between Scheme and Javascript (the latter was influenced by the first, which is a functional language, while the O-O aspects are inherited from Self which is a prototyping-based language). However my question is more specific: I was wondering if there are metrics about the performance of recursion vs. iteration in Javascript. I know that in some languages (where by design iteration performs better) the difference is minimal because the interpreter / compiler converts recursion into iteration, however I guess that probably this is not the case of Javascript since it is, at least partially, a functional language.

    Read the article

  • How can I make sense of the word "Functor" from a semantic standpoint?

    - by guillaume31
    When facing new programming jargon words, I first try to reason about them from an semantic and etymological standpoint when possible (that is, when they aren't obscure acronyms). For instance, you can get the beginning of a hint of what things like Polymorphism or even Monad are about with the help of a little Greek/Latin. At the very least, once you've learned the concept, the word itself appears to go along with it well. I guess that's part of why we name things names, to make mental representations and associations more fluent. I found Functor to be a tougher nut to crack. Not so much the C++ meaning -- an object that acts (-or) as a function (funct-), but the various functional meanings (in ML, Haskell) definitely left me puzzled. From the (mathematics) Functor Wikipedia article, it seems the word was borrowed from linguistics. I think I get what a "function word" or "functor" means in that context - a word that "makes function" as opposed to a word that "makes sense". But I can't really relate that to the notion of Functor in category theory, let alone functional programming. I imagined a Functor to be something that creates functions, or behaves like a function, or short for "functional constructor", but none of those seems to fit... How do experienced functional programmers reason about this ? Do they just need any label to put in front of a concept and be fine with it ? Generally speaking, isn't it partly why advanced functional programming is hard to grasp for mere mortals compared to, say, OO -- very abstract in that you can't relate it to anything familiar ? Note that I don't need a definition of Functor, only an explanation that would allow me to relate it to something more tangible, if there is any.

    Read the article

  • How to Write Manageable Code With Functional Programming?

    - by dade
    I just started with Functional Programming(Node.Js) and from the look of things it looks as if the code am writing would grow to be one hell of a code base to manage, when compared to Programming languages that have a sort of Object Oriented Paradigm. With OOP I am familair with practices that would ensure your code is easily managed and extensible. But am nore sure of similar convention with Functional Programming.

    Read the article

  • Do Repeat Yourself in Unit Tests

    - by João Angelo
    Don’t get me wrong I’m a big supporter of the DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) Principle except however when it comes to unit tests. Why? Well, in my opinion a unit test should be a self-contained group of actions with the intent to test a very specific piece of code and should not depend on externals shared with other unit tests. In a typical unit test we can divide its code in two major groups: Preparation of preconditions for the code under test; Invocation of the code under test. It’s in the first group that you are tempted to refactor common code in several unit tests into helper methods that can then be called in each one of them. Another way to not duplicate code is to use the built-in infrastructure of some unit test frameworks such as SetUp/TearDown methods that automatically run before and after each unit test. I must admit that in the past I was guilty of both charges but what at first seemed a good idea since I was removing code duplication turnout to offer no added value and even complicate the process when a given test fails. We love unit tests because of their rapid feedback when something goes wrong. However, this feedback requires most of the times reading the code for the failed test. Given this, what do you prefer? To read a single method or wander through several methods like SetUp/TearDown and private common methods. I say it again, do repeat yourself in unit tests. It may feel wrong at first but I bet you won’t regret it later.

    Read the article

  • Isolating test data in acceptance tests

    - by Matt Phillips
    I'm looking for guidance on how to keep my acceptance tests isolated. Right now the issue I'm having with being able to run the tests in parallel is the database records that are manipulated in the tests. I've written helpers that take care of doing inserts and deletes before tests are executed, to make sure the state is correct. But now I can't run them in parallel against the same database without uniquely generating the test data fields for each test. For example. Testing creating a row i'll delete everything where column A = foo and column B = bar Then I'll navigate through the UI in the test and create a record with column A = foo and column B = bar. Testing that a duplicate row is not allowed to be created. I'll insert a row with column A = foo and column B = bar and then use the UI to try and do the exact same thing. This will display an error message in the UI as expected. These tests work perfectly when ran separately and serially. But I can't run them at the same time for fear that one will create or delete a record the other is expecting. Any tips on how to structure them better so they can be run in parallel?

    Read the article

  • Quality of Code in unit tests?

    - by m3th0dman
    Is it worth to spend time when writing unit tests in order that the code written there has good quality and is very easy to read? When writing this kinds of tests I break very often the Law of Demeter, for faster writing and not using so many variables. Technically, unit tests are not reused directly - are strictly bound to the code so I do not see any reason for spending much time on them; they only need to be functionaly.

    Read the article

  • TDD: Write a separate test for object initialization or relying on other tests exercising it

    - by DXM
    This seems to be the common pattern that's emerging in some of the tests I've worked on lately. We have a class, and quite often this is legacy code whose design can't be easily altered, which has a bunch of member variables. There's some kind of "Initialize" or "Load" function which would put an object into a valid state. Only after it is initialized/loaded, are the members in the proper state so that other methods can be exercised. So when we start writing tests, first test is "TestLoad" and all we put in there is exercising initialization logic. Then we might add one (or few) TestLoadFailureXXX tests and those are definitely valuable. Then we start writing tests to verify other behaviors but all of them require the object to be loaded. So they all start by running exactly the same code as "TestLoad". So my question: Is TestLoad even necessary? Do you take it and let other tests simply exercise the loading? Or leave it so things are more explicit? I know that each unit test function should have no (or as little as possible) overlap with other test functions, but it seems like in cases of loading, this is unavoidable. And whether we like it or not, if something in the loading code breaks, we will end up with a whole test suite of failures. Is there another approach that I might be missing here? Thank you for the responses. It definitely makes sense that you want to see "InitializationTest" and if that fails you know where to start looking. In case it matters, this question is mostly about C++ and we use CppUnit framework. And now, thanks to sleske, I'll be constantly wishing that CppUnit supported test dependencies. Might have to hack something in one of these days :)

    Read the article

  • How would the 'Model' in a Rails-type webapp be implemented in a functional programming langauge?

    - by ceptorial
    In MVC web development frameworks such as Ruby on Rails, Django, and CakePHP, HTTP requests are routed to controllers, which fetch objects which are usually persisted to a backend database store. These objects represent things like users, blog posts, etc., and often contain logic within their methods for permissions, fetching and/or mutating other objects, validation, etc. These frameworks are all very much object oriented. I've been reading up recently on functional programming and it seems to tout tremendous benefits such as testability, conciseness, modularity, etc. However most of the examples I've seen for functional programming implement trivial functionality like quicksort or the fibonnacci sequence, not complex webapps. I've looked at a few 'functional' web frameworks, and they all seem to implement the view and controller just fine, but largely skip over the whole 'model' and 'persistence' part. (I'm talking more about frameworks like Compojure which are supposed to be purely functional, versus something Lift which conveniently seems to use the OO part of Scala for the model -- but correct me if I'm wrong here.) I haven't seen a good explanation of how functional programming can be used to provide the metaphor that OO programming provides, i.e. tables map to objects, and objects can have methods which provide powerful, encapsulated logic such as permissioning and validation. Also the whole concept of using SQL queries to persist data seems to violate the whole 'side effects' concept. Could someone provide an explanation of how the 'model' layer would be implemented in a functionally programmed web framework?

    Read the article

  • Do you think functional language is good for applications that have a lot of business rules but very

    - by StackUnderflow
    I am convinced that functional programming is an excellent choice when it comes to applications that require a lot of computation (data mining, AI, nlp etc). But is it wise to use functional programming for a typical enterprise application where there are a lot of business rules but not much in terms of computation? Please disregard the fact that there are very few people using functional programming and that it's kind of tough. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Fitnesse - multiple tests but only the last test being executed

    - by simon_bellis
    I have a Fitnesse test that I want to run twice. Once in firefox and once in ie. The test is below. The problem I am having is that only the second test is being executed by fitnesse !define COMMAND_PATTERN {%m %p} !define TEST_RUNNER {dotnet2\FitServer.exe} !****>Global Variables !define testUrl {http://localhost:1516/Web.App/Login.aspx} *****! !define browserToUse (IE) !include -c -seamless .FrontPage.LoginTests !define browserToUse (FireFox) !include -c -seamless .FrontPage.LoginTests

    Read the article

  • DTracing a PHPUnit Test: Looking at Functional Programming

    - by cj
    Here's a quick example of using DTrace Dynamic Tracing to work out what a PHP code base does. I was reading the article Functional Programming in PHP by Patkos Csaba and wondering how efficient this stype of programming is. I thought this would be a good time to fire up DTrace and see what is going on. Since DTrace is "always available" even in production machines (once PHP is compiled with --enable-dtrace), this was easy to do. I have Oracle Linux with the UEK3 kernel and PHP 5.5 with DTrace static probes enabled, as described in DTrace PHP Using Oracle Linux 'playground' Pre-Built Packages I installed the Functional Programming sample code and Sebastian Bergmann's PHPUnit. Although PHPUnit is included in the Functional Programming example, I found it easier to separately download and use its phar file: cd ~/Desktop wget -O master.zip https://github.com/tutsplus/functional-programming-in-php/archive/master.zip wget https://phar.phpunit.de/phpunit.phar unzip master.zip I created a DTrace D script functree.d: #pragma D option quiet self int indent; BEGIN { topfunc = $1; } php$target:::function-entry /copyinstr(arg0) == topfunc/ { self->follow = 1; } php$target:::function-entry /self->follow/ { self->indent += 2; printf("%*s %s%s%s\n", self->indent, "->", arg3?copyinstr(arg3):"", arg4?copyinstr(arg4):"", copyinstr(arg0)); } php$target:::function-return /self->follow/ { printf("%*s %s%s%s\n", self->indent, "<-", arg3?copyinstr(arg3):"", arg4?copyinstr(arg4):"", copyinstr(arg0)); self->indent -= 2; } php$target:::function-return /copyinstr(arg0) == topfunc/ { self->follow = 0; } This prints a PHP script function call tree starting from a given PHP function name. This name is passed as a parameter to DTrace, and assigned to the variable topfunc when the DTrace script starts. With this D script, choose a PHP function that isn't recursive, or modify the script to set self->follow = 0 only when all calls to that function have unwound. From looking at the sample FunSets.php code and its PHPUnit test driver FunSetsTest.php, I settled on one test function to trace: function testUnionContainsAllElements() { ... } I invoked DTrace to trace function calls invoked by this test with # dtrace -s ./functree.d -c 'php phpunit.phar \ /home/cjones/Desktop/functional-programming-in-php-master/FunSets/Tests/FunSetsTest.php' \ '"testUnionContainsAllElements"' The core of this command is a call to PHP to run PHPUnit on the FunSetsTest.php script. Outside that, DTrace is called and the PID of PHP is passed to the D script $target variable so the probes fire just for this invocation of PHP. Note the quoting around the PHP function name passed to DTrace. The parameter must have double quotes included so DTrace knows it is a string. The output is: PHPUnit 3.7.28 by Sebastian Bergmann. ......-> FunSetsTest::testUnionContainsAllElements -> FunSets::singletonSet <- FunSets::singletonSet -> FunSets::singletonSet <- FunSets::singletonSet -> FunSets::union <- FunSets::union -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertTrue -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isTrue <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isTrue -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsTrue::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsTrue::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertTrue -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertTrue -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isTrue <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isTrue -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsTrue::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsTrue::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertTrue -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertFalse -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isFalse -> {closure} -> main <- main <- {closure} <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isFalse -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsFalse::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsFalse::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertFalse <- FunSetsTest::testUnionContainsAllElements ... Time: 1.85 seconds, Memory: 3.75Mb OK (9 tests, 23 assertions) The periods correspond to the successful tests before and after (and from) the test I was tracing. You can see the function entry ("->") and return ("<-") points. Cross checking with the testUnionContainsAllElements() source code confirms the two singletonSet() calls, one union() call, two assertTrue() calls and finally an assertFalse() call. These assertions have a contains() call as a parameter, so contains() is called before the PHPUnit assertion functions are run. You can see contains() being called recursively, and how the closures are invoked. If you want to focus on the application logic and suppress the PHPUnit function trace, you could turn off tracing when assertions are being checked by adding D clauses checking the entry and exit of assertFalse() and assertTrue(). But if you want to see all of PHPUnit's code flow, you can modify the functree.d code that sets and unsets self-follow, and instead change it to toggle the variable in request-startup and request-shutdown probes: php$target:::request-startup { self->follow = 1 } php$target:::request-shutdown { self->follow = 0 } Be prepared for a large amount of output!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >