Search Results

Search found 19002 results on 761 pages for 'coded ui testing'.

Page 81/761 | < Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >

  • C# Unit Testing: How do I set a Lazy<T>.ValueCreated to false?

    - by michael paul
    Basically, I have a unit test that gets a singleton instance of a class. Some of my tests required me to mock this singleton, so when I do Foo.Instance I get a different type of instance. The problem is that my checks are passing individually, but failing overall because one test is interfering with another. I tried to do a TestCleanup where I set: Foo_Accessor._instance = null; but that didn't work. What I really need is Foo_Accessor._instance.IsValueCreated = false; (_instance is a Lazy). Any way to unset the Lazy object that I didn't think of?

    Read the article

  • Can I use breakpoints (as while debugging) while 'unit testing' ?

    - by Richard77
    Hello, I'm walking through the FrontStore series tutorial on TDD in MVC (Part 3 by Rob Conery/ASP.NET). The test I'm concerned with is the CatalogRepository_Each_Category_Contains_5_Products(). Until I get to that test, everything was working fine. Now, I've gone through every line that makes this test (including the test itself, the TestCatalogRepository, ...). I've also compared my code to that of Rob, but the test keeps failing. I also checked the source code from CodePlex, that test was not there. Now, I wonder if I can put a break point somewhere to check the local values as the test is being executed? If not, something similar? Thanks for helping.

    Read the article

  • Tool to automate basic connectivity testing

    - by feicipet
    After our vendors have setup a certain test environment, we need to go in to perform connectivity testing between PC to servers and also between servers. The problem is that we run a range of tests to telnet between 2 nodes on several ports and this is a manual and rather tedious process. Does anyone know of a small tool or script that I can take input on the range of ports to be test and will run an automated range of testing against those ports? All I need to do is to validate whether a TCP connection can be established from the source PC / server to the target server IP address / port. Thanks, Wong

    Read the article

  • UI Design - design pattern for city/country drop down? (ASP.NET MVC)

    - by JK
    What is the best way to do a city/country dropdown pair in ASP.NET MVC? I see lots of places with country above city, but that's unnatural: in real life we write city/country. I've used city, then country, but the problem is that the user then has to go backwards after changing the country. The other problem is what do you do about cities/countries not in your list? If city/country are both drop downs, then the user cant type their own city if it is missing. But if you have a dropdown and a textbox, that makes it unwieldy (you end up with 4 controls to enter 2 pieces of data). Are there any examples websites where the city/country dropdown pair are done in a very useable and clear manner?

    Read the article

  • Automated browser testing: How to test JavaScript in web pages?

    - by Dave
    I am trying to write an application that will test a series of web-pages programmatically. The web pages being tested have JavaScript embedded within them which alter the structure of the HTML when they complete execution. It is then the goal to take the final HTML (post-execution of the embedded JavaScript) and compare it against a known output. Essentially, the Input --- Output for the test application is: URL ---[retrieve HTML]--- HTML ---[execute JS, then compare]--- PASS/FAIL Here is the challenge: I have been unable to find a solution that is able to take the HTML I retrieve from the URL and process the JavaScript, as a browser would, and generate the final HTML a user might see from "View Source" on the same page within the browser. It would be very surprising if this sort of approach has not been made before, so I'm hoping someone out there knows of a fitting solution for this application/problem? If at all possible, I'm hoping for a solution that integrates with .NET (I've tried using the WebBrowser, with no luck). However, if there is an existing 3rd party application that can do exactly this, that would be quite acceptable. Thanks in advance for the suggestions! Dave

    Read the article

  • Unit testing of static library that involves NSDocumentDirectory and other iOS App specific calls.

    - by Shiun
    Hi, I'm attempting to run unit tests for a static library that attempts to create/write/read a file in the document directory. Since this is a static library and not an application for the iOS, attempts to reference the NSDocumentDirectory is returning me directory for the form "/Users//Library/Application Support/iPhone Simulator/Documents" This directory does not exist. When attempting to access a directory from an actual application, the NSDocumentDirectory returns something of the form: "/Users//Library/Application Support/iPhone Simulator/4.2/FEDBEF5F-1326-4383-A087-CDA1B865E61A/Documents" (Please note the simulator version as well as application ID as part of the path) How can I overcome this shortcoming in the unit test framework for static libraries that implement tests that require iOS app specific calls? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • does jQuery UI have a way to achieve this Flash button's functionality?

    - by Tim
    There's a button in Flash which looks something like a jQuery SplitButton. The Flash button consists of two parts, the text and the icon. [text portion] [v] I have used it to display string search operators for the user: equals, starts with, ends with, contains. In Flash, when the icon is clicked, the text-area drops down a list of choices; it would look like this: [ ] [v] equals starts with ends with contains And when the user makes a choice from the list, the choice is displayed in the text area of the button and the list rolls up. [ starts with ] [v] I'm trying to convert my Flash app and am hoping to come up with a counterpart to this functionality. For space considerations on the form, a radio-button-group would be less than ideal. That's the major virtue of this Flash button -- it's very economical in its use of screen real-estate. Thanks for any answers/suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Does Jquery UI Dialog Destroy event remove the html too?

    - by chobo2
    Hi I have a dialog that displays a form. When they save or close the dialog I call up the jquery dialog destroy method. However I am not clear if it removes the html div. From the description I would not think so Remove the dialog functionality completely. This will return the element back to its pre-init state. However when looking with firebug I can't see the html container so I am not sure if it gets removed or what. I am not sure if it is because I make the div for the dialog on the fly and use jquery to add it to the page.

    Read the article

  • Does it make sense to test ui components seperately?

    - by Bless Yahu
    I'm working on a webform that has about 15 user controls, separated by context (comments, locations, members/leaders, etc).   If each control can render individually (using real or test data), does it make sense to have a seperate "functional" test page to test them in isolation or is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • junit testing with mockobjects

    - by Codenotguru
    we are planning to bring Junit testing into our project and we just realised that to do junit testing we need to create lot of mockobjects. Can anyone suggest me a good tool or framework that can create these mockobjects for the classes that i will be performing unit testing?

    Read the article

  • Acceptance tests done first...how can this be accomplished?

    - by Crazy Eddie
    The basic gist of most Agile methods is that a feature is not "done" until it's been developed, tested, and in many cases released. This is supposed to happen in quick turnaround chunks of time such as "Sprints" in the Scrum process. A common part of Agile is also TDD, which states that tests are done first. My team works on a GUI program that does a lot of specific drawing and such. In order to provide tests, the testing team needs to be able to work with something that at least attempts to perform the things they are trying to test. We've found no way around this problem. I can very much see where they are coming from because if I was trying to write software that targeted some basically mysterious interface I'd have a very hard time. Although we have behavior fairly well specified, the exact process of interacting with various UI elements when it comes to automation seems to be too unique to a feature to allow testers to write automated scripts to drive something that does not exist. Even if we could, a lot of things end up turning up later as having been missing from the specification. One thing we considered doing was having the testers write test "scripts" that are more like a set of steps that must be performed, as described from a use-case perspective, so that they can be "automated" by a human being. This can then be performed by the developer(s) writing the feature and/or verified by someone else. When the testers later get an opportunity they automate the "script" for regression purposes mainly. This didn't end up catching on in the team though. The testing part of the team is actually falling behind us by quite a margin. This is one reason why the apparently extra time of developing a "script" for a human being to perform just did not happen....they're under a crunch to keep up with us developers. If we waited for them, we'd get nothing done. It's not their fault really, they're a bottle neck but they're doing what they should be and working as fast as possible. The process itself seems to be set up against them. Very often we end up having to go back a month or more in what we've done to fix bugs that the testers have finally gotten to checking. It's an ugly truth that I'd like to do something about. So what do other teams do to solve this fail cascade? How can we get testers ahead of us and how can we make it so that there's actually time for them to write tests for the features we do in a sprint without making us sit and twiddle our thumbs in the meantime? As it's currently going, in order to get a feature "done", using agile definitions, would be to have developers work for 1 week, then testers work the second week, and developers hopefully being able to fix all the bugs they come up with in the last couple days. That's just not going to happen, even if I agreed it was a reasonable solution. I need better ideas...

    Read the article

  • The 2010 JavaOne Java EE 6 Panel: Where We Are and Where We're Going

    - by janice.heiss(at)oracle.com
    An informative article, based on a 2010 JavaOne (San Francisco, California) panel session, surveys a variety of expert perspectives on Java EE 6.The panel, moderated by Oracle's Alexis Moussine-Pouchkine, consisted of:* Adam Bien, Consultant Author/ Speaker, adam-bien.com* Emmanuel Bernard, Principal Software Engineer, JBoss by Red Hat,* David Blevins, Senior Software Engineer, and co-founder of the OpenEJB project and a     founder of Apache Geronimo* Roberto Chinnici, Technical Staff Consulting Member, Oracle* Jim Knutson, Java EE Architect, IBM* Reza Rahman, Lead Engineer, Caucho Technology, Inc.,* Krasimir Semerdzhiev, Development Architect, SAP Labs BulgariaThe panel addressed such topics as Platform and API Adoption, Contexts and Dependency Injection (CDI), Java EE vs. Spring, the impact of Java EE 6 on tooling and testing, Java EE.next, along with a variety of audience questions. Read the entire article for the whole picture.

    Read the article

  • Howto install google-mock on Ubuntu 12.10

    - by user1459339
    I am having hard time trying to install Google C++ Mocking Framework. I have successfully run sudo apt-get install google-mock. Then I tried to compile this sample file #include "gmock/gmock.h" int main(int argc, char** argv) { ::testing::InitGoogleMock(&argc, argv); return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); } with g++ -lgmock main.cpp and these errors have shown main.cpp:(.text+0x1e): undefined reference to `testing::InitGoogleMock(int*, char**)' main.cpp:(.text+0x23): undefined reference to `testing::UnitTest::GetInstance()' main.cpp:(.text+0x2b): undefined reference to `testing::UnitTest::Run()' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status I guess the linker can not find the library files. Does anybody know how to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Can I use a genetic algorithm for balancing character builds?

    - by Renan Malke Stigliani
    I'm starting to build a online PVP (duel like, one-on-one) game, where there is leveling, skill points, special attacks and all the common stuff. Since I have never done anything like this, I'm still thinking about the math behind the levels/skills/specials balance. So I thought a good way of testing the best builds/combos, would be to implement a Genetic Algorithm. It'd be like this: Generate a big group of random characters Make them fight, level them up accordingly to their victories(more XP)/losses(less XP) Mate the winners, crossing their builds, to try and make even better characters Add some more random chars, emulating new players Repeat the process for some time, or util I find some chars who can beat everyone's butt I could then play with the math and try to find better balances to make sure that the top x% of chars would be a mix of various build types. So, is it a good idea, or is there some other, easier method to do the balancing?

    Read the article

  • genetic algorithm for leveling/build test

    - by Renan Malke Stigliani
    I'm starting o build a online PVP (duel like, one-to-one) game, where there is leveling, skill points, special attacks and all the common stuff. Since I never did anything like that, I'm still thinking about the maths behind the level/skill/special balances. So I thought good way of testing the best/combo builds would implement a Genetic Algorith. It'd be like that: Generate a big portion of random characters Make them fight, level them up accordingly to the victories(more XP)/losses(less XP) Mate the winners, crossing their builds, to try to make even best characters Add some more random chars, emulating new players Repeat the process for some time, or util find some chars who can beat everyone butts So I could play with the math and try to find the balance where the top x% chars would be a mix of various build types. So, is it a good idea, or there are some other easier method to do the balance? PS: I like this also, because it sounds funny

    Read the article

  • What resources will help me understand the data model for QC 10.0 in order to write my SQL queries?

    - by srihari
    I am a fresher in Quality Center 10.0 HP software testing tool. As per my understanding in order to generate reports from QC and to troubleshoot the scenarios, we need to write SQL queries in the QC back end database. In my case it is SQL db. I downloaded the database reference help file but I could not understand from where I can start. It just gave the table name and its information. For a starter like me are there any online tutorials or helpful websites,hands on exercises,scenario's where I can better understand how to write queries for the QC data model? I am very confident about the SQL coding itself, what I want to know is how to query on the QC database tables based on the scenarios that occur in QC tool. Please suggest. Thanks, Srihari

    Read the article

  • What are tangible advantages to proper Unit Tests over Functional Test called unit tests

    - by Jackie
    A project I am working on has a bunch of legacy tests that were not properly mocked out. Because of this the only dependency it has is EasyMock, which doesn't support statics, constructors with arguments, etc. The tests instead rely on database connections and such to "run" the tests. Adding powermock to handle these cases is being shot down as cost prohibitive due to the need to upgrade the existing project to support it (Another discussion). My questions are, what are the REAL world tangible benifits of proper unit testing I can use to push back? Are there any? Am I just being a stickler by saying that bad unit tests (even if they work) are bad? Is code coverage just as effective?

    Read the article

  • Need help on implementing corporate network security solution and coming up with time lines to test it

    - by abc
    I have to come up with a proposal to implement corporate network security. Once I have done that I also have to come up with estimates on the time / money needed to test (QA) the implementation. What I need help with: What should I keep in mind while coming up with this proposal? I have already considered: Routers, Firewalls, VPN, Wireless, Server System, Web Apps etc. I know I am missing quite a lot. What else should I include? This the most challenging part I feel: How should I estimate the time needed for testing these security implementations? I guess I need to understand how can I test these security implementations first...right? Can you help me?

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • rails fake data, considering switch from faker to forgery, any advantages or pitfalls?

    - by Michael Durrant
    With Ruby on Rails I've usually used Forgery for generating dummy data for testing. I've noticed recently that several clients and tutorials are using Faker They both seem fairly similar in use and popularity: Faker 128 forks, 418 watchers. Forgery 59 forks, 399 watchers. They both seem similar in how current they are: Faker Most updates are from 6 and 9 months ago. Forgery Most updates are from 4 and 9 months ago. The one distinguishing factor I've found so far is that Forgery seems like it has better instructions. Are there any particular benefits or disadvantages to using one over the other? Have you ever needed to switch from one to another for a particular reason?

    Read the article

  • Behavior-Driven Development / Use case diagram

    - by Mik378
    Regarding growing of Behavior-Driven Development imposing acceptance testing, are use cases diagram useful or do they lead to an "over-documentation"? Indeed, acceptance tests representing specifications by example, as use cases promote despite of a more generic manner (since cases, not scenarios), aren't they too similar to treat them both at the time of a newly created project? From this link, one opinion is: Another realization I had is that if you do UseCases and automated AcceptanceTests you are essentially doubling your work. There is duplication between the UseCases and the AcceptanceTests. I think there is a good case to be made that UserStories + AcceptanceTests are more efficient way to work when compared to UseCases + AcceptanceTests. What to think about?

    Read the article

  • Are there any books dedicated to writing test code? [on hold]

    - by joshin4colours
    There are many programming books dedicated to useful programming and engineering topics, like working with legacy code or particular languages. The best of these books become "standard" or "canonical" references for professional programmers. Are there any books like this (or that could be like this) for writing test code? I don't mean books about Test-Driven Development, nor do I mean books about writing good (clean) code in general. I'm looking for books that discuss test code specifically (unit-level, integration-level, UI-level, design patterns, code structures and organization, etc.)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >