Search Results

Search found 648 results on 26 pages for 'nunit mocks'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 8/26 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Is it possible to integrate NUnit with VB.net Express Edition? Which is the best way?

    - by Kico Lobo
    Hi, I'm a Java Developer wich is learning VB.net for a small project. While coding in Java, we don't have to think a lot about how to integrate our IDE with our unit test framework because most of the IDEs already area integrated. But now that I'm working on a project which the main requirement is to use VB.net Express Edition, is it possible to integrate this IDE with NUnit? How can I do that? Is there a better practice for this task? What should I do? No, we can't opt to use Visual Studio, only the Express Edition of VB.net

    Read the article

  • Can I have code that executes before and after tests are run by NUnit?

    - by Billy ONeal
    I've got a bunch of tests in NUnit which create garbage data on the filesystem (bad, I know, but I have little control over this). Currently we have a cleanup tool that removes these temporaries and such, but I'd like to be able to run that cleanup tool automatically. I'd have to be able to run it after all tests have finished running. I have similar checking that I'd like to do at the beginning, to ensure that there are none of these temporaries left from previous runs that might change the outcome of the tests. Is such a thing simple or am I going to have to implement a whole new test runner for such a thing?

    Read the article

  • Is there a JUnit equivalent to NUnit's testcase attribute?

    - by Steph
    I've googled for JUnit test case, and it comes up with something that looks a lot more complicated to implement - where you have to create a new class that extends test case which you then call: public class MathTest extends TestCase { protected double fValue1; protected double fValue2; protected void setUp() { fValue1= 2.0; fValue2= 3.0; } } public void testAdd() { double result= fValue1 + fValue2; assertTrue(result == 5.0); } but what I want is something really simple, like the NUnit test cases [TestCase(1,2)] [TestCase(3,4)] public void testAdd(int fValue1, int fValue2) { double result= fValue1 + fValue2; assertIsTrue(result == 5.0); } Is there any way to do this in JUnit?

    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

  • Is it a bad idea to create tests that rely on each other within a test fixture?

    - by nbolton
    For example: // NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture) Ctor() { m_globalVar = getFoo(); } [Test] Create() { a(m_globalVar) } [Test] Delete() { // depends on Create being run b(m_globalVar) } … or… // NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture) [Test] CreateAndDelete() { Foo foo = getFoo(); a(foo); // depends on Create being run b(foo); } … I’m going with the later, and assuming that the answer to my question is: No, at least not with NUnit, because according to the NUnit manual: The constructor should not have any side effects, since NUnit may construct the class multiple times in the course of a session. ... also, can I assume it's bad practice in general? Since tests can usually be run separately. So the result of Create may never be cleaned up by Delete.

    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

  • Where should I draw the line between unit tests and integration tests? Should they be separate?

    - by Earlz
    I have a small MVC framework I've been working on. It's code base definitely isn't big, but it's not longer just a couple of classes. I finally decided to take the plunge and start writing tests for it(yes, I know I should've been doing that all along, but it's API was super unstable up until now) Anyway, my plan is to make it extremely easy to test, including integration tests. An example integration test would go something along these lines: Fake HTTP request object - MVC framework - HTTP response object - check the response is correct Because this is all doable without any state or special tools(browser automation etc), I could actually do this with ease with regular unit test frameworks(I use NUnit). Now the big question. Where exactly should I draw the line between unit tests and integration tests? Should I only test one class at a time(as much as possible) with unit tests? Also, should integration tests be placed in the same testing project as my unit testing project?

    Read the article

  • Can I configure NUnit so that Debug.Fail doesn't show a message box when I run my tests?

    - by panamack
    I have this property: public SubjectStatus Status { get { return status; } set { if (Enum.IsDefined(typeof(SubjectStatus), value)) { status = value; } else { Debug.Fail("Error setting Subject.Status", "There is no SubjectStatus enum constant defined for that value."); return; } } } and this unit test [Test] public void StatusProperty_StatusChangedToValueWithoutEnumDefinition_StatusUnchanged() { Subject subject = new TestSubjectImp("1"); // assigned by casting from an int to a defined value subject.Status = (SubjectStatus)2; Assert.AreEqual(SubjectStatus.Completed, subject.Status); // assigned by casting from an int to an undefined value subject.Status = (SubjectStatus)100; // no change to previous value Assert.AreEqual(SubjectStatus.Completed, subject.Status); } Is there a way I can prevent Debug.Fail displaying a message box when I run my tests, but allow it to show me one when I debug my application?

    Read the article

  • Using RhinoMocks, how do you mock or stub a concrete class without an empty constructor?

    - by Mark Rogers
    Mocking a concrete class with Rhino Mocks seems to work pretty easy when you have an empty constructor on a class: public class MyClass{ public MyClass() {} } But if I add a constructor that takes parameters and remove the one that doesn't take parameters: public class MyClass{ public MyClass(MyOtherClass instance) {} } I tend to get an exception: System.MissingMethodException : Can't find a constructor with matching arguments I've tried putting in nulls in my call to Mock or Stub, but it doesn't work. Can I create mocks or stubs of concrete classes with Rhino Mocks, or must I always supply (implicitly or explicitly) a parameter-less constructor?

    Read the article

  • Why in the world is this Moq + NUnit test failing?

    - by Dave Falkner
    I have this dataAccess mock object and I'm trying to verify that one of its methods is being invoked, and that the argument passed into this method fulfills certain constraints. As best I can tell, this method is indeed being invoked, and with the constraints fulfilled. This line of the test throws a MockException: data.Verify(d => d.InsertInvoice(It.Is<Invoice>(i => i.TermPaymentAmount == 0m)), Times.Once()); However, removing the constraint and accepting any invoice passes the test: data.Verify(d => d.InsertInvoice(It.IsAny<Invoice>()), Times.Once()); I've created a test windows form that instantiates this test class, runs its .Setup() method, and then calls the method which I am wishing to test. I insert a breakpoint on the line of code where the mock object is failing the test data.InsertInvoice(invoice); to actually hover over the invoice, and I can confirm that its .TermPaymentAmount decimal property is indeed zero at the time the method is invoked. Out of desperation, I even added a call back to my dataAccess mock: data.Setup(d => d.InsertInvoice(It.IsAny<Invoice>())).Callback((Invoice inv) => System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(inv.TermPaymentAmount.ToString("G17"))); And this gives me a message box showing "0". This is really baffling me, and no one else in my shop has been able to figure this out. Any help would be appreciated. A barely related question, which I should probably ask independently, is whether it is preferable to use Mock.Verify(...) as I have here, or to use Mock.Expect(...).Verifiable followed by Mock.VerifyAll() as I have seen other people doing? If the answer is situational, which situations would warrent the use of one over the other?

    Read the article

  • Using NUnit Testing How Can I test that a Save Dialog Box was displayed on the screen?

    - by user512915
    I am trying to programatically click the "save" button and test that the windows Save Dialog box appears: I have everything but the assert statement I believe. I don't know how to assert that my custom SaveDialogBox appears to the user. [test] public void Method_WhenThePersonIsNotfound_ClickingTheButtonSavesLetterToWordDocument { //arrange CreateNewPage(); //creates IE window enters fields and clicks submit on first page. //act this.InternetExplorerDriver.FindElementById("SaveForm").Click(); //assert //Assert statement to verify that when button was clicked the save dialog box to save the letter in word appears.

    Read the article

  • Using PartCover 2.3 with .NET 4.0 runtime?

    - by Roger Lipscombe
    I've successfully got PartCover 2.3 working with VS 2008 on my 64-bit machine. I'm now trying to get it to work with VS 2010 and NUnit 2.5.3. I've got NUnit using the correct CLR version, but I can't get PartCover to produce any output. All I get is an "empty" report XML file: <PartCoverReport date="2010-03-30T16:09:05.1009099+01:00" /> How do I get PartCover 2.3 (or 2.2, I guess) to work with NUnit 2.5.3 on .NET 4.0?

    Read the article

  • Unable to load <mytest> Because it is not located under Appbase

    - by Sam
    I have created a nunit project(NunitLoginTest.nunit) by selcting my test project in the nunit\bin directory and now I am trying to load that project but it is giving me the following error. Unable to load Because it is not located under Appbase, could not load file or assembly "nunitLogintest" or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the specified path Can any one have any idea what is it related to. I also have checked my config file.

    Read the article

  • how to avoid returning mocks from a mocked object list

    - by koen
    I'm trying out mock/responsibility driven design. I seem to have problems to avoid returning mocks from mocks in the case of finder objects. An example could be an object that checks whether the bills from last month are paid. It needs a service that retrieves a list of bills for that. So I need to mock that service that retrieves the bills. At the same time I need that mock to return mocked Bills (since I don't want my test to rely on the correctness bill implementation). Is my design flawed? Is there a better way to test this? Or is this the way it will need to be when using finder objects (the finding of the bills in this case)?

    Read the article

  • Regular Expressions. Remember it, write it, test it.

    - by outcoldman
    I should say that I’m fan of regular expressions. Whenever I see the problem, which I can solve with Regex, I felt a burning desire to do it and going to write new test for new regex. Previously I had installed SharpDevelop Studio just for good regular expression tool in it (Why VS doesn’t have one?). But now I’m a little wiser, and for each Regex I write a separate test. I find it difficult to remember the syntax of regular expressions (I don’t write them very often); I always forget which character is responsible for the beginning of the line, etc. So I use external small and easy articles like this “Regular expressions - An introduction”. Now I want to show you little samples of regular expressions and want to show you how to test these samples. Read more... (redirect to http://outcoldman.ru)

    Read the article

  • The art of Unit Testing with Examples in .NET

    - by outcoldman
    First time when I familiarized with unit testing was 5 or 6 years ago. It was start of my developing career. I remember that somebody told me about code coverage. At that time I didn’t write any Unit tests. Guy, who was my team lead, told me “Do you see operator if with three conditions? You should check all of these conditions”. So, after that I had written some code, I should go to interface and try to invoke all code which I wrote from user interface. Nice? At current time I know little more about tests and unit testing. I have not participated in projects, designed by Test Driven Development (TDD). Basics of my knowledge are a spying code of my colleagues, some articles and screencasts. I had decide that I should know much more, and became a real professional of unit testing, this is why I had start to read book The art of Unit Testing with Examples in .NET. More than, in my current job place looks like I’m just one who writing unit tests for my code. I should show good examples of my tests. ,a href="http://outcoldman.ru/en/blog/show/267"Read more...

    Read the article

  • Is static universally "evil" for unit testing and if so why does resharper recommend it?

    - by Vaccano
    I have found that there are only 3 ways to unit test (mock/stub) dependencies that are static in C#.NET: Moles TypeMock JustMock Given that two of these are not free and one has not hit release 1.0, mocking static stuff is not too easy. Does that make static methods and such "evil" (in the unit testing sense)? And if so, why does resharper want me to make anything that can be static, static? (Assuming resharper is not also "evil".) Clarification: I am talking about the scenario when you want to unit test a method and that method calls a static method in a different unit/class. By most definitions of unit testing, if you just let the method under test call the static method in the other unit/class then you are not unit testing, you are integration testing. (Useful, but not a unit test.)

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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