Search Results

Search found 4783 results on 192 pages for 'tests'.

Page 8/192 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Reducing the pain writing integration and system tests

    - by mdma
    I would like to make integration tests and system tests for my applications but producing good integration and system tests have often needed so much effort that I have not bothered. The few times I tried, I wrote custom, application-specific test harnesses, which felt like re-inventing the wheel each time. I wonder if this is the wrong approach. Is there a "standard" approach to integration and full system testing? EDIT: To clarify, it's automated tests, for desktop and web applications. Ideally a complete test suite that exercises the full functionality of the application.

    Read the article

  • TeamCity run Nunit tests in Parallel

    - by Bob Sinclar
    So I was thinking that there must be a better way to run NUnit tests for a .net project via teamcity. Currently the build of the project takes about 10 minutes , and the testing step takes 30ish minutes. I was thinking about splitting up the Nunit tests into 3 groups, assigning them each to a different agent. And then make sure they have a build dependency on the initial build before they start. This was the best way i thought of doing it, Is there a different way I should also consider? On a side note Is it possible to combine all the Nunit tests at the end to get one report from the tests being build on 3 different machines? I dont think this is possible unless someone thought of a clever hack.

    Read the article

  • Run django tests from a browser

    - by phoebebright
    I'd like to provide a browser page to help non-techies run the various tests I've created using the standard django test framework. The ideal would be for a way to display all the tests found for an application with tick boxes against each one, so the user could choose to run all tests or just a selection. Output would be displayed in a window/frame for review. Anyone know of such a thing?

    Read the article

  • Debugging maven junit tests with filtered resources?

    - by hstoerr
    We are using filtered testResources in JUnit-tests that are usually executed by the maven surefire plugin. That is, the pom contains a section <build> <testResources> <testResource> <directory>src/test/resources</directory> <filtering>true</filtering> </testResource> </testResources> ... How can I run such JUnit-tests in the debugger? If I execute the tests in eclipse the tests fail since the test resources are not filtered. If the filtered test resources would be written somewhere into the target directory, I could just use this as an additional source path - but this is not the case. If I try to run the maven build in eclipse with Debug As / maven test , the build does not stop in the breakpoints. Any other ideas?

    Read the article

  • ReSharper no longer runs unit tests

    - by Ed Woodcock
    Hey folks I'm trying to write some unit tests for an app I work on at work (In the vague hope that others might follow suit), and I was originally running these tests using NUnit and the ReSharper plugin. However, ReSharper will no longer run tests for me for some reason: It simply crosses them out with a red strikeout. There's no error code I'm afraid, and there's no mention of such behaviour on the JetBrains site. Has anyone else experienced similar benhaviour? Cheers, Ed

    Read the article

  • Dynamically create PHPUnit tests from data-file

    - by DeletedAccount
    I have a data file with input and expected outputs. An example could be: input: output: 2 3 3 5 4 Exception 5 8 ... ... Currently I have a custom solution to read from the data file and perform a test for each {input,output} pair. I would like to convert this into a PHPUnit based solution and I would like to have one test per input using the test name forXassertY. So the first three tests would be called for2assert3(), for3assert5() and for4assertException(). I do not want to convert my existing data to tests if it's possible to create the test methods dynamically and keep the data file as the basis of these tests. I want to convert it to PHPUnit as I want to add some other tests later on and also process and view the output using Hudson. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Having Latest Tests Results info in the notified email with Hudson

    - by Roberto
    I have a project with a lot of tests failing, so it would be great for me to receive by email the number of failed tests compare from the latest build. What i need is just the info that appears in the project's page by the test results link: Latest Test Result (10 failures / -2) Is this possible? I've already tried the email-ext plugin, but it is not telling me that info (I can have the list of failing tests with output etc., but I really just need that info above). Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Team City + Gallio runs tests, but results are not shown

    - by Twindagger
    We recently updated to Visual Studio 2010, and as part of our upgrade we started using Gallio 3.2 prerelease builds. Everything runs fine in Visual Studio (through resharper) but I'm having problems with TeamCity integration. The tests seem to run during TeamCity builds just fine (our build takes long enough to run all our tests), but the tests are not showing up in TeamCity's test area. Here is the test target from our NANT build file (this hasn't changed in our upgrade at all). Is there a trick to getting the tests to show up in TeamCity or is this something that's broken in the latest builds of Gallio? <target name="runTests"> <gallio result-property="exitCode" failonerror="false"> <runner-extension value="TeamCityExtension,Gallio.TeamCityIntegration" /> <assemblies> <include name="..\Source\Tests\${testProject}\bin\Debug\${testProject}.dll" /> </assemblies> </gallio> </target>

    Read the article

  • Auto Re-Running of Tests that fail

    - by Tangopop
    I have a set of Selenium/MbUnit Tests that work fine, but tend to take a while to run (over 4 hours) A problem i am finding is that about 1 in 20 test seems to timeout when running. I have confirmed the Selenium GRID is working and the Selenium RC's are all fine, it just seems to be a qwerk of the system. What is really annoying though is that if i run these tests again they will usually pass. What i want to know is if there is a way for me to auto rerun the tests (probably in the code) if a perticular type of exception is caught... I have attempted to put a few lines of code in the catch statement but i know this is a very hacky way of re running the tests. Here is the code: catch (AssertionException e) { if (e.Message() == "TimeOut") //Something similar to this { this.Test(); } else { verificationErrors.AppendLine(browserList[i] + " :: " + e.Message); } } Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • How can I change ruby log level in unit tests based on context

    - by Stuart
    I'm new to ruby so forgive me if this is simple or I get some terminology wrong. I've got a bunch of unit tests (actually they're integration tests for another project, but they use ruby test/unit) and they all include from a module that sets up an instance variable for the log object. When I run the individual tests I'd like log.level to be debug, but when I run a suite I'd like log.level to be error. Is it possible to do this with the approach I'm taking, or does the code need to be restructured? Here's a small example of what I have so far. The logging module: #!/usr/bin/env ruby require 'logger' module MyLog def setup @log = Logger.new(STDOUT) @log.level = Logger::DEBUG end end A test: #!/usr/bin/env ruby require 'test/unit' require 'mylog' class Test1 < Test::Unit::TestCase include MyLog def test_something @log.info("About to test something") # Test goes here @log.info("Done testing something") end end A test suite made up of all the tests in its directory: #!/usr/bin/env ruby Dir.foreach(".") do |path| if /it-.*\.rb/.match(File.basename(path)) require path end end

    Read the article

  • Unit tests logged (or run) multiple times

    - by HeavyWave
    I have this simple test: protected readonly ILog logger = LogManager.GetLogger(MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().ReflectedType); private static int count = 0; [Test] public void TestConfiguredSuccessfully() { logger.Debug("in test method" + count++); } log4net is set up like this: [TestFixtureSetUp] public void SetUp() { log4net.Config.BasicConfigurator.Configure(); } The problem is, that if I run this test in nUnit once, I get the output (as expected): 1742 [TestRunnerThread] DEBUG Tests.TestSomthing (null) - in test method0 But if I press RUN in nUnit.exe again (or more) I get the following: 1742 [TestRunnerThread] DEBUG Tests.TestSomthing (null) - in test method1 1742 [TestRunnerThread] DEBUG Tests.TestSomthing (null) - in test method1 And so on (if I run it 5 times, I'll get 5 repeating lines). Now, if I run the same test alone from reSharper the output is fine and does not repeat. However, if I run this test along side 2 other tests in the same class, the output is repeated three times. I am totally confused. What the hell is going on here?

    Read the article

  • Unit Tests Architecture Question

    - by Tom Tresansky
    So I've started to layout unit tests for the following bit of code: public interface MyInterface { void MyInterfaceMethod1(); void MyInterfaceMethod2(); } public class MyImplementation1 implements MyInterface { void MyInterfaceMethod1() { // do something } void MyInterfaceMethod2() { // do something else } void SubRoutineP() { // other functionality specific to this implementation } } public class MyImplementation2 implements MyInterface { void MyInterfaceMethod1() { // do a 3rd thing } void MyInterfaceMethod2() { // do something completely different } void SubRoutineQ() { // other functionality specific to this implementation } } with several implementations and the expectation of more to come. My initial thought was to save myself time re-writing unit tests with something like this: public abstract class MyInterfaceTester { protected MyInterface m_object; @Setup public void setUp() { m_object = getTestedImplementation(); } public abstract MyInterface getTestedImplementation(); @Test public void testMyInterfaceMethod1() { // use m_object to run tests } @Test public void testMyInterfaceMethod2() { // use m_object to run tests } } which I could then subclass easily to test the implementation specific additional methods like so: public class MyImplementation1Tester extends MyInterfaceTester { public MyInterface getTestedImplementation() { return new MyImplementation1(); } @Test public void testSubRoutineP() { // use m_object to run tests } } and likewise for implmentation 2 onwards. So my question really is: is there any reason not to do this? JUnit seems to like it just fine, and it serves my needs, but I haven't really seen anything like it in any of the unit testing books and examples I've been reading. Is there some best practice I'm unwittingly violating? Am I setting myself up for heartache down the road? Is there simply a much better way out there I haven't considered? Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • CodeStock 2012 Review: Eric Landes( @ericlandes ) - Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.

    Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.Speaker: Eric LandesTwitter: @ericlandesBlog: http://ericlandes.com/ This was one of the first sessions I attended during CodeStock 2012. Eric’s talk focused mostly on unit testing, and that the lack of proper unit testing can be compared to stealing from an employer. His point was that if you’re not doing proper unit testing then all of the time wasted on fixing issues that could have been detected with unit tests is like stealing money from employer. He makes the assumption that that time spent on fixing these issues could have been better spent developing new features that drive the business. To a point I can agree with Eric’s argument regarding unit testing and stealing from a company’s perspective. I can see how he relates resources being shifted from new development to bug fixes as stealing based on the fact that the resources used to fix bugs are directly taken from other projects. He also states that Boring/Redundant and Build/Test tasks should be automated because it reduces the changes of errors and frees up developer to do what they do best, DEVELOP! When he refers to testing, he breaks testing down in to four distinct types. Unit Test Acceptance Test (This also includes Integration Tests) Performance Test UI Test With this he also recommends that developers should not go buck wild striving for 100% code coverage because some test my not provide a great return on investment. In his experience he recommends that 70% test coverage was a very acceptable rate.

    Read the article

  • CodeStock 2012 Review: Eric Landes( @ericlandes ) - Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.

    Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.Speaker: Eric LandesTwitter: @ericlandesBlog: http://ericlandes.com/ This was one of the first sessions I attended during CodeStock 2012. Eric’s talk focused mostly on unit testing, and that the lack of proper unit testing can be compared to stealing from an employer. His point was that if you’re not doing proper unit testing then all of the time wasted on fixing issues that could have been detected with unit tests is like stealing money from employer. He makes the assumption that that time spent on fixing these issues could have been better spent developing new features that drive the business. To a point I can agree with Eric’s argument regarding unit testing and stealing from a company’s perspective. I can see how he relates resources being shifted from new development to bug fixes as stealing based on the fact that the resources used to fix bugs are directly taken from other projects. He also states that Boring/Redundant and Build/Test tasks should be automated because it reduces the changes of errors and frees up developer to do what they do best, DEVELOP! When he refers to testing, he breaks testing down in to four distinct types. Unit Test Acceptance Test (This also includes Integration Tests) Performance Test UI Test With this he also recommends that developers should not go buck wild striving for 100% code coverage because some test my not provide a great return on investment. In his experience he recommends that 70% test coverage was a very acceptable rate.

    Read the article

  • Tests for hard drive health

    - by Samik R
    I have a 5-year old hard drive (bought new at the time), but it was sitting in my closet for 5 years, unused. I have just started using it, and seems to be getting a whirring sound (rather distinct from the other noises like fans etc.). I ran a few diagnostics tests, like Seagate's SeaTools, and the SMART test, and a few generic tests and all passed. Should I be concerned? Is there any other test that I should run? It's an internal IDE WD 5400RPM drive. Being used for a desktop, which is itself pretty high-end (AMD Phenom II X6 1100T, AMD Radeon GPU etc.), but would be used rather occasionally to begin with (avg. 1-2 hrs. per day). Thanks for any pointers.

    Read the article

  • Regression testing with Selenium GRID

    - by Ben Adderson
    A lot of software teams out there are tasked with supporting and maintaining systems that have grown organically over time, and the web team here at Red Gate is no exception. We're about to embark on our first significant refactoring endeavour for some time, and as such its clearly paramount that the code be tested thoroughly for regressions. Unfortunately we currently find ourselves with a codebase that isn't very testable - the three layers (database, business logic and UI) are currently tightly coupled. This leaves us with the unfortunate problem that, in order to confidently refactor the code, we need unit tests. But in order to write unit tests, we need to refactor the code :S To try and ease the initial pain of decoupling these layers, I've been looking into the idea of using UI automation to provide a sort of system-level regression test suite. The idea being that these tests can help us identify regressions whilst we work towards a more testable codebase, at which point the more traditional combination of unit and integration tests can take over. Ending up with a strong battery of UI tests is also a nice bonus :) Following on from my previous posts (here, here and here) I knew I wanted to use Selenium. I also figured that this would be a good excuse to put my xUnit [Browser] attribute to good use. Pretty quickly, I had a raft of tests that looked like the following (this particular example uses Reflector Pro). In a nut shell the test traverses our shopping cart and, for a particular combination of number of users and months of support, checks that the price calculations all come up with the correct values. [BrowserTheory] [Browser(Browsers.Firefox3_6, "http://www.red-gate.com")] public void Purchase1UserLicenceNoSupport(SeleniumProvider seleniumProvider) {     //Arrange     _browser = seleniumProvider.GetBrowser();     _browser.Open("http://www.red-gate.com/dynamic/shoppingCart/ProductOption.aspx?Product=ReflectorPro");                  //Act     _browser = ShoppingCartHelpers.TraverseShoppingCart(_browser, 1, 0, ".NET Reflector Pro");     //Assert     var priceResult = PriceHelpers.GetNewPurchasePrice(db, "ReflectorPro", 1, 0, Currencies.Euros);         Assert.Equal(priceResult.Price, _browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl01_Price"));     Assert.Equal(priceResult.Tax, _browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Tax"));     Assert.Equal(priceResult.Total, _browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Total")); } These tests are pretty concise, with much of the common code in the TraverseShoppingCart() and GetNewPurchasePrice() methods. The (inevitable) problem arose when it came to execute these tests en masse. Selenium is a very slick tool, but it can't mask the fact that UI automation is very slow. To give you an idea, the set of cases that covers all of our products, for all combinations of users and support, came to 372 tests (for now only considering purchases in dollars). In the world of automated integration tests, that's a very manageable number. For unit tests, it's a trifle. However for UI automation, those 372 tests were taking just over two hours to run. Two hours may not sound like a lot, but those cases only cover one of the three currencies we deal with, and only one of the many different ways our systems can be asked to calculate a price. It was already pretty clear at this point that in order for this approach to be viable, I was going to have to find a way to speed things up. Up to this point I had been using Selenium Remote Control to automate Firefox, as this was the approach I had used previously and it had worked well. Fortunately,  the guys at SeleniumHQ also maintain a tool for executing multiple Selenium RC tests in parallel: Selenium Grid. Selenium Grid uses a central 'hub' to handle allocation of Selenium tests to individual RCs. The Remote Controls simply register themselves with the hub when they start, and then wait to be assigned work. The (for me) really clever part is that, as far as the client driver library is concerned, the grid hub looks exactly the same as a vanilla remote control. To create a new browser session against Selenium RC, the following C# code suffices: new DefaultSelenium("localhost", 4444, "*firefox", "http://www.red-gate.com"); This assumes that the RC is running on the local machine, and is listening on port 4444 (the default). Assuming the hub is running on your local machine, then to create a browser session in Selenium Grid, via the hub rather than directly against the control, the code is exactly the same! Behind the scenes, the hub will take this request and hand it off to one of the registered RCs that provides the "*firefox" execution environment. It will then pass all communications back and forth between the test runner and the remote control transparently. This makes running existing RC tests on a Selenium Grid a piece of cake, as the developers intended. For a more detailed description of exactly how Selenium Grid works, see this page. Once I had a test environment capable of running multiple tests in parallel, I needed a test runner capable of doing the same. Unfortunately, this does not currently exist for xUnit (boo!). MbUnit on the other hand, has the concept of concurrent execution baked right into the framework. So after swapping out my assembly references, and fixing up the resulting mismatches in assertions, my example test now looks like this: [Test] public void Purchase1UserLicenceNoSupport() {    //Arrange    ISelenium browser = BrowserHelpers.GetBrowser();    var db = DbHelpers.GetWebsiteDBDataContext();    browser.Start();    browser.Open("http://www.red-gate.com/dynamic/shoppingCart/ProductOption.aspx?Product=ReflectorPro");                 //Act     browser = ShoppingCartHelpers.TraverseShoppingCart(browser, 1, 0, ".NET Reflector Pro");    var priceResult = PriceHelpers.GetNewPurchasePrice(db, "ReflectorPro", 1, 0, Currencies.Euros);    //Assert     Assert.AreEqual(priceResult.Price, browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl01_Price"));     Assert.AreEqual(priceResult.Tax, browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Tax"));     Assert.AreEqual(priceResult.Total, browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Total")); } This is pretty much the same as the xUnit version. The exceptions are that the attributes have changed,  the //Arrange phase now has to handle setting up the ISelenium object, as the attribute that previously did this has gone away, and the test now sets up its own database connection. Previously I was using a shared database connection, but this approach becomes more complicated when tests are being executed concurrently. To avoid complexity each test has its own connection, which it is responsible for closing. For the sake of readability, I snipped out the code that closes the browser session and the db connection at the end of the test. With all that done, there was only one more step required before the tests would execute concurrently. It is necessary to tell the test runner which tests are eligible to run in parallel, via the [Parallelizable] attribute. This can be done at the test, fixture or assembly level. Since I wanted to run all tests concurrently, I marked mine at the assembly level in the AssemblyInfo.cs using the following: [assembly: DegreeOfParallelism(3)] [assembly: Parallelizable(TestScope.All)] The second attribute marks all tests in the assembly as [Parallelizable], whilst the first tells the test runner how many concurrent threads to use when executing the tests. I set mine to three since I was using 3 RCs in separate VMs. With everything now in place, I fired up the Icarus* test runner that comes with MbUnit. Executing my 372 tests three at a time instead of one at a time reduced the running time from 2 hours 10 minutes, to 55 minutes, that's an improvement of about 58%! I'd like to have seen an improvement of 66%, but I can understand that either inefficiencies in the hub code, my test environment or the test runner code (or some combination of all three most likely) contributes to a slightly diminished improvement. That said, I'd love to hear about any experience you have in upping this efficiency. Ultimately though, it was a saving that was most definitely worth having. It makes regression testing via UI automation a far more plausible prospect. The other obvious point to make is that this approach scales far better than executing tests serially. So if ever we need to improve performance, we just register additional RC's with the hub, and up the DegreeOfParallelism. *This was just my personal preference for a GUI runner. The MbUnit/Gallio installer also provides a command line runner, a TestDriven.net runner, and a Resharper 4.5 runner. For now at least, Resharper 5 isn't supported.

    Read the article

  • Unit Tests as a learning tool - a good idea?

    - by Ekkehard.Horner
    I'm interested in ways and means for learning (a) programming language(s) efficiently. I believe that using Unit Test concepts and infrastructure early in that process is a good thing, even better than starting with "Hello world". Why: To write a decent program even for a toy/restricted problem in a new language, you'll have to master many heterogenous concepts (control flow & variables & IO ...), you are tempted to glance over details just to get your program 'to work'. Putting (your understanding of) the facts about the new language in assertions with good descriptions (=success messages) enforces thinking thru/clearness/precision. Grouping topics and adding assertions to such groups is much easier than incorporation features from the 2. chapter of your "Learning X" book to your chapter 1 program. Why not: 'Real' Unit Tests are meant to output "1234 tests ok; 1 failure: saveWorld() chokes on negative input"; 'didactic' Unit Tests should output relevant facts about the new language like perl6 10-string.t # ### p5chop ... ok 13 - p5chop( "cbä" ) returns "ä" ok 14 - after that, victim is changed to "cb" # ### (p6) chop ... ok 27 - (p6) chop( "cbä" ) returns chopped copy: "cb" ok 18 - after that, victim is unchanged: "cbä" # ### chomp ... So (mis?)using Unit Tests may be counterproductive - practicing actions while learning you wouldn't use professionally. How: Writing 'didactic' Unit Tests in languages with lightweight testing systems (Perl 5/6) is easy; (mis?)using more elaborate systems (JUnit, CppUnit) may be not worth the effort or not suitable for a person just starting with a new language. So Is using Unit Tests as a learning tool a bad idea? Can the Unit Test tool(s) of your favourite language(s) used didactically? Should implementation details (eventually) be discussed here or over at stackoverflow.com?

    Read the article

  • Do you write unit tests for all the time in TDD?

    - by mcaaltuntas
    I have been designing and developing code with TDD style for a long time. What disturbs me about TDD is writing tests for code that does not contain any business logic or interesting behaviour. I know TDD is a design activity more than testing but sometimes I feel it's useless to write tests in these scenarios. For example I have a simple scenario like "When user clicks check button, it should check file's validity". For this scenario I usually start writing tests for presenter/controller class like the one below. @Test public void when_user_clicks_check_it_should_check_selected_file_validity(){ MediaService service =mock(MediaService); View view =mock(View); when(view.getSelectedFile).thenReturns("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); MediaController controller =new MediaController(service,view); controller.check(); verify(service).check("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); } As you can see there is no design decision or interesting code to verify behaviour. I am testing values from view passed to MediaService. I usually write but don't like these kind of tests. What do yo do about these situations ? Do you write tests for all the time ? UPDATE : I have changed the test name and code after complaints. Some users said that you should write tests for the trivial cases like this so in the future someone might add interesting behaviour. But what about “Code for today, design for tomorrow.” ? If someone, including myself, adds more interesting code in the future the test can be created for it then. Why should I do it now for the trivial cases ?

    Read the article

  • Request bursting from web application Load Tests

    - by MaseBase
    I'm migrating our web and database hosting to a new environment on all new machines. I've recently performed a Load Test using WAPT to generate load from multiple distributed clients. The server has plenty of room to handle the traffic load, but I'm seeing an odd pattern of incoming traffic during the load tests. Here is the gist of our setup: Firewall server running MS Forefront TMG 2010 on Win 2k8 server Request routing done by IIS Application Request Routing on firewall machine Web server is a Hyper-V VM on the Database server (which is the host OS) These machines are hefty with dual-CPU's with six cores (12 total procs) Web server running IIS 7.5 Web applications built in ASP.NET 2.0, with 1 ISAPI filter (Url Rewrite) in front What I'm seeing during the load tests is that the requests all come through in bursts. Even though I have 7 different distributed clients sending traffic loads, the requests come through about 300-500 requests at a time. The performance monitor shows nearly all of the counters moving through this pattern, where a burst of requests comes in the req/sec jumps to 70, the queued requests jumps to 500, the current requests jumps up, the CPU jumps up, everything. Then once it's handled that group of requests, it has a lull for nearly 10 seconds where nearly nothing is happening. 0-5 req/sec, 0 queued requests, minimal CPU usage. Then after 10 seconds of inactivity, another burst comes through, spiking all of the counters once again. What I can't figure out is why the requests are coming through in bursts when I know that the load being generated is not sent that way, especially considering the various load-generating clients sending traffic all in different intervals with random think time's between each request. Is there something in the layers between Hyper-V or perhaps in the hardware which might cause this coalesce of requests together? Here is what i'm looking at, the highlighted metric is Requests/sec, but the others critical counter go with it: Requests Queued (which I'd obviously like to keep as close to 0 as possible). Any ideas on this?

    Read the article

  • Do you know the minimum builds to create on any branch?

    - by Martin Hinshelwood
    You should always have three builds on your team project. These should be setup and tested using an empty solution before you write any code at all. Figure: Three builds named in the format [TeamProject].[AreaPath]_[Branch].[Gate|CI|Nightly] for every branch.   These builds should use the same XAML build workflow; however you may set them up to run a different set of tests depending on the time it takes to run a full build. Gate – Only needs to run the smallest set of tests, but should run most if not all of the Unit Test. This is run before developers are allowed to check-in CI – This should run all Unit Tests and all of the automated UI tests. It is run after a developer check-in. Nightly – The Nightly build should run all of the Unit Tests, all of the Automated UI tests and all of the Load and Performance tests. The nightly build is time consuming and will run but once a night. Packaging of your Product for testing the next day may be done at this stage as well. Figure: You can control what tests are run and what data is collected while they are running. Note: We do not run all the tests every time because of the time consuming nature of running some tests, but ALL tests should be run overnight. Note: If you had a really large project with thousands of tests including long running Load tests you may need to add a Weekly build to the mix.     Figure: Bad example, you can’t tell what these builds do if they are in a larger list   Figure: Good example, you know exactly what project, branch and type of build these are for.   Technorati Tags: SSW,SSW Rules,VS2010,VS ALM,Team Build 2010,Team Build

    Read the article

  • Ant + JUnit = ClassNotFoundExceptions when running tests?

    - by rfkrocktk
    I'm trying to run some tests in Ant presently using JUnit, and all of my tests are failing with the following stacktrace: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: com.mypackage.MyTestCase It doesn't make too much sense to me. I'm first compiling my test cases using <javac>, then directly running the <junit> task to run the tests. My buildfile looks like this: <target name="compile.webapp.tests"> <javac srcdir="${test.java.src.dir}" destdir="${test.java.bin.dir}"> <classpath> <filelist> <file name="${red5.home}/red5.jar"/> <file name="${red5.home}/boot.jar"/> <file name="${bin.dir}/${ant.project.name}.jar"/> </filelist> <fileset dir="${red5.lib.dir}" includes="**/*"/> <fileset dir="${main.java.lib.dir}" includes="**/*"/> <fileset dir="${test.java.lib.dir}" includes="**/*"/> </classpath> </javac> </target> <target name="run.webapp.tests"> <junit printsummary="true"> <classpath> <filelist> <file name="${red5.home}/red5.jar"/> <file name="${red5.home}/boot.jar"/> <file name="${bin.dir}/${ant.project.name}.jar"/> </filelist> <fileset dir="${red5.lib.dir}" includes="**/*.jar"/> <fileset dir="${main.java.lib.dir}" includes="**/*.jar"/> <fileset dir="${test.java.lib.dir}" includes="**/*.jar"/> </classpath> <formatter type="xml"/> <batchtest todir="${test.java.output.dir}"> <fileset dir="${test.java.bin.dir}" includes="**/*TestCase*"/> </batchtest> </junit> </target> This is really weird, I can't seem to fix this. Is there something I'm doing wrong here?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Continuous integration testing server: hosted, own desktop, or own server

    - by Victor
    For testing, I am planning to run a continuous integration testing. There are mainly two options: hosted, or own desktop/server. I will break it into 3 options I have: Hosted: Economical, $10-20/month for a small app Less setup, the CI company manage all hardware and software Desktop: I could just buy a simple, cheap desktop as a test server (about $500). Used server: My current office is offloading some old Dell rack server (Probably dual core Xeon, which I can purchase for $50 or less Please advise me which best serves me for a small team of 2-3 developers. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What's wrong performing unit test against concrete implementation if your frameworks are not going to change?

    - by palm snow
    First a bit of background: We are re-architecting our product suite that was written 10 years ago and served its purpose. One thing that we cannot change is the database schema as we have 500+ client base using this system. Our db schema has over 150+ tables. We have decided on using Entity Framework 4.1 as DAL and still evaluating various frameworks for storing our business logic. I am investigation to bring unit testing into the mix but I also confused as to how far I need to go with setting up a full blown TDD environment. One aspect of setting up unit testing is by getting into implementing Repository, unit of work and mocking frameworks etc. This mean there will be cost and investment on the code-bloat associated with all these frameworks. I understand some of this could be auto-generated but when it comes to things like behaviors, that will be mostly hand written. Just to be clear, I am not questioning the important of unit testing your code. I am just not sure we need all its components (like repository, mocking etc.) when we are fairly certain of storage mechanism/framework (SQL Server/Entity Framework). All that code bloat with generic repositories make sense when you need a generic layers with ability to change this whenever you like however its very likely a YAGNI in our case. What we need is more of integration testing where we can unit-test our code with concrete repository objects and test data in database. In this scenario, just running integration test seem to be more beneficial in our case. Any thoughts if I am missing any thing here?

    Read the article

  • Writing tests for Rails plugins

    - by Adam
    I'm working on a plugin for Rails that would add limited in-memory caching to ActiveRecord's finders. The functionality itself is mature enough, but I can't for the life of me get unit tests to work with the plugin. I now have under vendor/plugins/my_plugin/test/my_plugin_test.rb a standard subclass of ActiveSupport::TestCase with a couple of basic tests. I try running 'rake test' from the plugin directory, and I have confirmed that this task loads the ruby file with the test case, but it doesn't actually run any of the tests. I followed the Rails plugin guide (http://guides.rubyonrails.org/plugins.html) where applicable, but it seems to be horribly outdated (it suggests things that Rails now do automatically, etc.) The only output I get is this: Kakadu:ingenious_record adam$ rake test (in /Users/adam/Sites/1_PRK/vendor/plugins/ingenious_record) /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/bin/ruby -Ilib:lib:test "/System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.3/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/ingenious_record_test.rb" The simplest test case looks like this: require 'test_helper' require 'active_record' class IngeniousRecordTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase test "example" do assert false end end This should definitely produce at least some output, and the only test in that file should produce a failed assertion. Any ideas what I could do to get Rails to run my tests?

    Read the article

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