Search Results

Search found 10149 results on 406 pages for 'acceptance testing'.

Page 9/406 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• Android Live Testing

  - by Matthew Dockerty

  I am making a game for android and in it I am using sensors which are not available in the emulator. At the moment I am connecting my device and transferring the apk, then installing to test but that is a pain to do, and I have gotten to the stage where I need to start logging values for debugging. I have gone into the run configs of my app and set it to prompt me to pick a device, but my device is never in the list when it is connected to my PC and I try to run it. How am I supposed to set it up to work properly? Thanks for the help.

  Read the article

• Who does code coverage testing?

  - by Athiruban

  Recently, I was given an opportunity to increase the code coverage in a project based on Java Swing, MySQL and other technologies. They told me to bring the code coverage to 100%, while it was only 45% at the time I joined. I am just starting, not a professional developer, right from the beginning I felt bad even though I write and understand computer programs well. (The developed code contains a lot of technical stuff like Generics and no documentation about the code is available.) Has anyone experienced the same situation before? Please tell who is the right person to do the job.

  Read the article

• Using Mock for event listeners in unit-testing

  - by phtrivier

  I keep getting to test this kind of code (language irrelevant) : public class Foo() { public Foo(Dependency1 dep1) { this.dep1 = dep1; } public void setUpListeners() { this.dep1.addSomeEventListener(.... some listener code ...); } } Typically, you want to test what when the dependency fires the event, the class under tests reacts appropriately (in some situation, the only purpose of such classes is to wire lots of other components, that can be independently tested. So far, to test this, I always end up doing something like : creating a 'stub' that implements both a addXXXXListener, that simply stores the callback, and a fireXXXX, that simply calls any registered listener. This is a bit tedious since you have to create the mock with the right interface, but that can do use an introspective framework that can 'spy' on a method, and inject the real dependency in tests Is there a cleaner way to do this kind of things ?

  Read the article

• Automated Website Testing/Sanity/Quality

  - by Jeff

  I am thinking about building a tool that starts from the root of a webpage and traverses the entire website gathering a list of resources such as CSS/HTML/Javascript files and then runs CSS/Javascript Lint + HTML Validator + Broken Link Finder. Before I start building something like this, I was wondering if this exists already? Thanks. I already searched Google quite a bit and couldn't find much.

  Read the article

• Best method to do A B testing across to subdomains

  - by Lior

  I want to do an A B test of an entire site for a new design and UX with only slight changes in content (a big brand site that has good Google rankings for many generic keywords. My idea of implementation is doing a 302 redirect to the new version (placing it on www1 subdomain) and allowing only user agents of known browsers to pass. The test version will have disallow all in the robots text. Will Google treat this favorably or do I have to use Google Website Optimizer (which will give me tracking headaches)?

  Read the article

• Unit-testing code that relies on untestable 3rd party code

  - by DudeOnRock

  Sometimes, especially when working with third party code, I write unit-test specific code in my production code. This happens when third party code uses singletons, relies on constants, accesses the file-system/a resource I don't want to access in a test situation, or overuses inheritance. The form my unit-test specific code takes is usually the following: if (accessing or importing a certain resource fails) I assume this is a test case and load a mock object Is this poor form, and if it is, what is normally done when writing tests for code that uses untestable third party code?

  Read the article

• Unit testing and Test Driven Development questions

  - by Theomax

  I'm working on an ASP.NET MVC website which performs relatively complex calculations as one of its functions. This functionality was developed some time ago (before I started working on the website) and defects have occurred whereby the calculations are not being calculated properly (basically these calculations are applied to each user which has certain flags on their record etc). Note; these defects have only been observed by users thus far, and not yet investigated in code while debugging. My questions are: Because the existing unit tests all pass and therefore do not indicate that the defects that have been reported exist; does this suggest the original code that was implemented is incorrect? i.e either the requirements were incorrect and were coded accordingly or just not coded as they were supposed to be coded? If I use the TDD approach, would I disgregard the existing unit tests as they don't show there are any problems with the calculations functionality - and I start by making some failing unit tests which test/prove there are these problems occuring, and then add code to make them pass? Note; if it's simply a bug that is occurring that can be found while debugging the code, do the unit tests need to be updated since they are already passing?

  Read the article

• Which PHP frameworks use in testing?

  - by EasyHB

  I am going to do a test/benchmark of some PHP frameworks. The main factor of comaparation will be a comunication with MySQL databases and CRUD operations with them. I'll also compare their documentation, comunity support, etc. So I made a list of some known frameworks and I'll be glad if someone can tell me which I should not use or which I forgot to include. Zend Framework CodeIgniter Symphony Yii Kohana Prado CakePHP Nette PhpBURN Akelos Recess Jelix DooPHP Qcodo Seagull Thx for every help.

  Read the article

• Cheap server stress testing

  - by acrosman

  The IT department of the nonprofit organization I work for recently got a new virtual server running CentOS (with Apache and PHP 5), which is supposed to host our website. During the process of setting up the server I discovered that the slightest use of the new machine caused major performance problems (I couldn't extract tarballs without bringing it to a halt). After several weeks of casting about in the dark by tech support, it now appears to be working fine, but I'm still nervous about moving the main site there. I have no budget to work with (so no software or services that require money), although due to recent cut backs I have several older desktops that I could use if it helps. The site doesn't need to withstand massive amounts of traffic (it's a Drupal site just a few thousand visitors a day), but I would like to put it through a bit of it paces before moving the main site over. What are cheap tools that I can use to get a sense if the server can withstand even low levels of traffic? I'm not looking to test the site itself yet, just fundamental operation of the server.

  Read the article

• Separate Action from Assertion in Unit Tests

  - by DigitalMoss

  Setup Many years ago I took to a style of unit testing that I have come to like a lot. In short, it uses a base class to separate out the Arrangement, Action and Assertion of the test into separate method calls. You do this by defining method calls in [Setup]/[TestInitialize] that will be called before each test run. [Setup] public void Setup() { before_each(); //arrangement because(); //action } This base class usually includes the [TearDown] call as well for when you are using this setup for Integration tests. [TearDown] public void Cleanup() { after_each(); } This often breaks out into a structure where the test classes inherit from a series of Given classes that put together the setup (i.e. GivenFoo : GivenBar : WhenDoingBazz) with the Assertions being one line tests with a descriptive name of what they are covering [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } The Problem There are very few tests that wrap around a single action so you end up with lots of classes so recently I have taken to defining the action in a series of methods within the test class itself: [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { because_an_action_was_taken(); Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } private void because_an_action_was_taken() { //perform action here } This results in several "action" methods within the test class but allows grouping of similar tests (i.e. class == WhenTestingDifferentWaysToSetBuzz) The Question Does someone else have a better way of separating out the three 'A's of testing? Readability of tests is important to me so I would prefer that, when a test fails, that the very naming structure of the tests communicate what has failed. If someone can read the Inheritance structure of the tests and have a good idea why the test might be failing then I feel it adds a lot of value to the tests (i.e. GivenClient : GivenUser : WhenModifyingUserPermissions : ThenReadAccessShouldBeTrue). I am aware of Acceptance Testing but this is more on a Unit (or series of units) level with boundary layers mocked. EDIT : My question is asking if there is an event or other method for executing a block of code before individual tests (something that could be applied to specific sets of tests without it being applied to all tests within a class like [Setup] currently does. Barring the existence of this event, which I am fairly certain doesn't exist, is there another method for accomplishing the same thing? Using [Setup] for every case presents a problem either way you go. Something like [Action("Category")] (a setup method that applied to specific tests within the class) would be nice but I can't find any way of doing this.

  Read the article

• DRY, string, and unit testing

  - by Rodrigue

  I have a recurring question when writing unit tests for code that involves constant string values. Let's take an example of a method/function that does some processing and returns a string containing a pre-defined constant. In python, that would be something like: STRING_TEMPLATE = "/some/constant/string/with/%s/that/needs/interpolation/" def process(some_param): # We do some meaningful work that gives us a value result = _some_meaningful_action() return STRING_TEMPLATE % result If I want to unit test process, one of my tests will check the return value. This is where I wonder what the best solution is. In my unit test, I can: apply DRY and use the already defined constant repeat myself and rewrite the entire string def test_foo_should_return_correct_url(): string_result = process() # Applying DRY and using the already defined constant assert STRING_TEMPLATE % "1234" == string_result # Repeating myself, repeating myself assert "/some/constant/string/with/1234/that/needs/interpolation/" == url The advantage I see in the former is that my test will break if I put the wrong string value in my constant. The inconvenient is that I may be rewriting the same string over and over again across different unit tests.

  Read the article

• Testing my model for hybrid scheduling in Embedded Systems

  - by markusian

  I am working on a project for school, where I have to analyze the performances of a few fixed-priority servers algorithms (polling server, deferrable server, priority exchange) using a simulator in the case of hybrid scheduling, where we have both hard periodic tasks and soft aperiodic tasks. In my model I consider that: the hard tasks have a period equal to their deadline, with a known worst case execution time (wcet). The actual execution time could be smaller than the wcet. the soft tasks have a known wcet and random interarrival times. The actual execution time could be smaller than the wcet. In order to test those algorithms I need realistic case studies. For this reason I'm digging in the scientific literature but I am facing different problems: Sometimes I find a list of hard tasks with wcet, but it is not specified how the soft tasks parameters are found. Given the wcet of a task, how can I model its actual execution time? This means, what random distribution should I use considering the wcet? How can I model the random interarrival times of soft aperiodic tasks?

  Read the article

• Unit testing multiple conditions in an IF statement

  - by bwalk2895

  I have a chunk of code that looks something like this: function bool PassesBusinessRules() { bool meetsBusinessRules = false; if (PassesBusinessRule1 && PassesBusinessRule2 && PassesBusinessRule3) { meetsBusinessRules= true; } return meetsBusinessRules; } I believe there should be four unit tests for this particular function. Three to test each of the conditions in the if statement and ensure it returns false. And another test that makes sure the function returns true. Question: Should there actually be ten unit tests instead? Nine that checks each of the possible failure paths. IE: False False False False False True False True False And so on for each possible combination. I think that is overkill, but some of the other members on my team do not. The way I look at it is if BusinessRule1 fails then it should always return false, it doesn't matter if it was checked first or last.

  Read the article

• Web Form Testing [closed]

  - by Frank G.

  I created a application for a client that is along the lines of a ticket tracking system. I wanted to know if anyone know of software that could beta test the web forms. Well I am looking for something that could automatically populate/fill whatever forms are on the web page with generic data. The purpose of this is to just randomly populate data and see if I get any errors on the page when submitted plus to also see how validation for the form functions. Does anyone know of anything that could do this?

  Read the article

• Best way to deal with a system without a user acceptance / testing phase

  - by billy.bob

  Historically I've been able to get away with making small changes to an in-house helpdesk system riding on a LAMP stack and just making a backup prior to editing. This has no user acceptance / testing phase and I work on the live .php files directly. However now the requirement has arisen that will require a bit more coding done, and I'm obviously not particularly happy about making these changes without a framework to support me. What would the best way forward be? I could just make another backup I suppose.

  Read the article

• Bouygues Telecom Gains a 360-Degree Overview of Customers and Improves Offer Acceptance Rates

  - by user511693

  With more than 10 million mobile customers and 500,000 landline customers, the mission of Bouygues Telecom is to become the premier mobile, landline, television, and internet brand in France, by focusing on customer acquisition, advice, service, and support. Project challenges included: Leverage every customer relationship and increase customer loyalty through personalized offers or promotions on landline or mobile phone contracts Build on marketing campaigns and take advantage of incoming contacts from the company’s call center, Web, and retail stores Improve acceptance rates of communication service offers “Thanks to Oracle’s Siebel CRM solutions and Oracle Real-Time Decisions, we can now meet customer requests faster, personalize offers to improve the services we provide, and gain feedback on responses to offers. This enhances our knowledge of our customers before our next contact with them, whether through the Web site, call center, or our Club retail stores.” – Eric Dobremer, IT Manager - Grand Public CRM Development, Bouygues Telecom Read about results here.

  Read the article

• Should we test all our methods?

  - by Zenzen

  So today I had a talk with my teammate about unit testing. The whole thing started when he asked me "hey, where are the tests for that class, I see only one?". The whole class was a manager (or a service if you prefer to call it like that) and almost all the methods were simply delegating stuff to a DAO so it was similar to: SomeClass getSomething(parameters) { return myDao.findSomethingBySomething(parameters); } A kind of boilerplate with no logic (or at least I do not consider such simple delegation as logic) but a useful boilerplate in most cases (layer separation etc.). And we had a rather lengthy discussion whether or not I should unit test it (I think that it is worth mentioning that I did fully unit test the DAO). His main arguments being that it was not TDD (obviously) and that someone might want to see the test to check what this method does (I do not know how it could be more obvious) or that in the future someone might want to change the implementation and add new (or more like "any") logic to it (in which case I guess someone should simply test that logic). This made me think, though. Should we strive for the highest test coverage %? Or is it simply an art for art's sake then? I simply do not see any reason behind testing things like: getters and setters (unless they actually have some logic in them) "boilerplate" code Obviously a test for such a method (with mocks) would take me less than a minute but I guess that is still time wasted and a millisecond longer for every CI. Are there any rational/not "flammable" reasons to why one should test every single (or as many as he can) line of code?

  Read the article

• Resurrecting a 5,000 line test plan that is a decade old

  - by ale

  I am currently building a test plan for the system I am working on. The plan is 5,000 lines long and about 10 years old. The structure is like this: 1. test title precondition: some W needs to be set up, X needs to be completed action: do some Y postcondition: message saying Z is displayed 2. ... What is this type of testing called ? Is it useful ? It isn't automated.. the tests would have to be handed to some unlucky person to run through and then the results would have to be given to development. It doesn't seem efficient. Is it worth modernising this method of testing (removing tests for removed features, updating tests where different postconditions happen, ...) or would a whole different approach be more appropriate ? We plan to start unit tests but the software requires so much work to actually get 'units' to test - there are no units at present ! Thank you.

  Read the article

• Understanding how software testing works and what to test.

  - by RHaguiuda

  Intro: I've seen lots of topics here on SO about software testing and other terms I don't understand. Problem: As a beginner developer I, unfortunately, have no idea how software testing works, not even how to test a simple function. This is a shame, but thats the truth. I also hope this question can help others beginners developers too. Question: Can you help me to understand this subject a little bit more? Maybe some questions to start would help: When I develop a function, how should I test it? For example: when working with a sum function, should I test every input value possible or just some limits? How about testing functions with strings as parameters? In a big program, do I have to test every single piece of code of it? When you guys program do you test every code written? How automated test works and how can I try one? How tools for automated testing works and what they do? I`ve heard about unit testing. Can I have a brief explanation on this? What is a testing framework? If possible please post some code with examples to clarify the ideas. Any help on this topic is very welcome! Thanks.

  Read the article

• How fast are my services? Comparing basicHttpBinding and ws2007HttpBinding using the SO-Aware Test Workbench

  - by gsusx

  When working on real world WCF solutions, we become pretty aware of the performance implications of the binding and behavior configuration of WCF services. However, whether it’s a known fact the different binding and behavior configurations have direct reflections on the performance of WCF services, developers often struggle to figure out the real performance behavior of the services. We can attribute this to the lack of tools for correctly testing the performance characteristics of WCF services...(read more)

  Read the article

• SO-Aware at the Atlanta Connected Systems User Group

  - by gsusx

  Today my colleague Don Demsak will be presenting a session about WCF management, testing and governance using SO-Aware and the SO-Aware Test Workbench at the Connected Systems User Group in Atlanta . Don is a very engaging speaker and has prepared some very cool demos based on lessons of real world WCF solutions. If you are in the ATL area and interested in WCF, AppFabric, BizTalk you should definitely swing by Don’s session . Don’t forget to heckle him a bit (you can blame it for it ;) )...(read more)

  Read the article

• When you should and should not use the 'new' keyword?

  - by skizeey

  I watched a Google Tech Talk presentation on Unit Testing, given by Misko Hevery, and he said to avoid using the new keyword in business logic code. I wrote a program, and I did end up using the new keyword here and there, but they were mostly for instantiating objects that hold data (ie, they didn't have any functions or methods). I'm wondering, did I do something wrong when I used the new keyword for my program. And where can we break that 'rule'?

  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

• Survey: how do you unit test your T-SQL?

  - by Alexander Kuznetsov

  How do you unit test your T-SQL? Which libraries/tools do you use? What percentage of your code is covered by unit tests and how do you measure it? Do you think the time and effort which you invested in your unit testing harness has paid off or not? Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!...(read more)

  Read the article

• Junit: splitting integration test and Unit tests.

  - by jeff porter

  Hello all, I've inherited a load of Junit test, but these tests (apart from most not working) are a mixture of actual unit test and integration tests (requiring external systems, db etc). So I'm trying to think of a way to actually separate them out, so that I can run the unit test nice and quickly and the integration tests after that. The options are.. 1: Split them into separate directories. 2: Move to Junit4 and annotate the classes to separate them. 3: Use a file naming convention to tell what a class is , i.e. AdapterATest and AdapterAIntergrationTest. 3 has the issue that Eclipse has the option to "Run all tests in the selected project/package or folder". So it would make it very hard to just run the integration tests. 2: runs the risk that developers might start writing integration tests in unit test classes and it just gets messy. 1: Seems like the neatest solution, but my gut says there must be a better solution out there. So that is my question, how do you lot break apart integration tests and proper unit tests?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >