Search Results

Search found 39118 results on 1565 pages for 'boost unit test framework'.

Page 9/1565 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Win32 reset event like synchronization class with boost C++

    - by fgungor
    I need some mechanism reminiscent of Win32 reset events that I can check via functions having the same semantics with WaitForSingleObject() and WaitForMultipleObjects() (Only need the ..SingleObject() version for the moment) . But I am targeting multiple platforms so all I have is boost::threads (AFAIK) . I came up with the following class and wanted to ask about the potential problems and whether it is up to the task or not. Thanks in advance. class reset_event { bool flag, auto_reset; boost::condition_variable cond_var; boost::mutex mx_flag; public: reset_event(bool _auto_reset = false) : flag(false), auto_reset(_auto_reset) { } void wait() { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); if (flag) return; cond_var.wait(LOCK); if (auto_reset) flag = false; } bool wait(const boost::posix_time::time_duration& dur) { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); bool ret = cond_var.timed_wait(LOCK, dur) || flag; if (auto_reset && ret) flag = false; return ret; } void set() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = true; cond_var.notify_all(); } void reset() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = false; } }; Example usage; reset_event terminate_thread; void fn_thread() { while(!terminate_thread.wait(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(10))) { std::cout << "working..." << std::endl; boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(1000)); } std::cout << "thread terminated" << std::endl; } int main() { boost::thread worker(fn_thread); boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::seconds(1)); terminate_thread.set(); worker.join(); return 0; } EDIT I have fixed the code according to Michael Burr's suggestions. My "very simple" tests indicate no problems. class reset_event { bool flag, auto_reset; boost::condition_variable cond_var; boost::mutex mx_flag; public: explicit reset_event(bool _auto_reset = false) : flag(false), auto_reset(_auto_reset) { } void wait() { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); if (flag) { if (auto_reset) flag = false; return; } do { cond_var.wait(LOCK); } while(!flag); if (auto_reset) flag = false; } bool wait(const boost::posix_time::time_duration& dur) { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); if (flag) { if (auto_reset) flag = false; return true; } bool ret = cond_var.timed_wait(LOCK, dur); if (ret && flag) { if (auto_reset) flag = false; return true; } return false; } void set() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = true; cond_var.notify_all(); } void reset() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = false; } };

    Read the article

  • Composing adaptors in Boost::range

    - by bruno nery
    I started playing with Boost::Range in order to have a pipeline of lazy transforms in C++]1. My problem now is how to split a pipeline in smaller parts. Suppose I have: int main(){ auto map = boost::adaptors::transformed; // shorten the name auto sink = generate(1) | map([](int x){ return 2*x; }) | map([](int x){ return x+1; }) | map([](int x){ return 3*x; }); for(auto i : sink) std::cout << i << "\n"; } And I want to replace the first two maps with a magic_transform, i.e.: int main(){ auto map = boost::adaptors::transformed; // shorten the name auto sink = generate(1) | magic_transform() | map([](int x){ return 3*x; }); for(auto i : sink) std::cout << i << "\n"; } How would one write magic_transform? I looked up Boost::Range's documentation, but I can't get a good grasp of it.

    Read the article

  • Compare two variant with boost static_visitor

    - by Zozzzzz
    I started to use the boost library a few days ago so my question is maybe trivial. I want to compare two same type variants with a static_visitor. I tried the following, but it don't want to compile. struct compare:public boost::static_visitor<bool> { bool operator()(int& a, int& b) const { return a<b; } bool operator()(double& a, double& b) const { return a<b; } }; int main() { boost::variant<double, int > v1, v2; v1 = 3.14; v2 = 5.25; compare vis; bool b = boost::apply_visitor(vis, v1,v2); cout<<b; return 0; } Thank you for any help or suggestion!

    Read the article

  • How do you handle measuring Code Coverage in JavaScript

    - by Dancrumb
    In order to measure Code Coverage for JavaScript unit tests, one needs to instrument the code, run the tests and then perform post-processing. My concern is that, as a result, you are unit testing code that will never be run in production. Since JavaScript isn't compiled, what you test should be precisely what you execute. So here's my question, how do you handle this? One thought I had was to run Unit Testing on the production code and use that for my pass fail. I would then create a shadow of my production code, with instrumentation and run my unit tests again; this would give me my code coverage stats. Has anyone come across a method that is a little more graceful than this?

    Read the article

  • Mock the window.setTimeout in a Jasmine test to avoid waiting

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2014/08/21/mock-the-window.settimeout-in-a-jasmine-test-to-avoid-waiting.aspxJasmine has a clock mocking feature, but I was unable to make it work in a function that I’m calling and want to test. The example only shows using clock for a setTimeout in the spec tests and I couldn’t find a good example. Here is my current and slightly limited approach.   If we have a method we want to test: var test = function(){ var self = this; self.timeoutWasCalled = false; self.testWithTimeout = function(){ window.setTimeout(function(){ self.timeoutWasCalled = true; }, 6000); }; }; Here’s my testing code: var realWindowSetTimeout = window.setTimeout; describe('test a method that uses setTimeout', function(){ var testObject; beforeEach(function () { // force setTimeout to be called right away, no matter what time they specify jasmine.getGlobal().setTimeout = function (funcToCall, millis) { funcToCall(); }; testObject = new test(); }); afterEach(function() { jasmine.getGlobal().setTimeout = realWindowSetTimeout; }); it('should call the method right away', function(){ testObject.testWithTimeout(); expect(testObject.timeoutWasCalled).toBeTruthy(); }); }); I got a good pointer from Andreas in this StackOverflow question. This would also work for window.setInterval. Other possible approaches: create a wrapper module of setTimeout and setInterval methods that can be mocked. This can be mocked with RequireJS or passed into the constructor. pass the window.setTimeout function into the method (this could get messy)

    Read the article

  • Unit tests and Test Runner problems under .Net 4.0

    - by Brett Rigby
    Hi there, We're trying to migrate a .Net 3.5 solution into .Net 4.0, but are experiencing complications with the testing frameworks that can operate using an assembly that is built using version 4.0 of the .Net Framework. Previously, we used NUnit 2.4.3.0 and NCover 1.5.8.0 within our NAnt scripts, but NUnit 2.4.3.0 doesn't like .Net 4.0 projects. So, we upgraded to a newer version of the NUnit framework within the test project itself, but then found that NCover 1.5.8.0 doesn't support this version of NUnit. We get errors in the code saying words to the effect of the assembly was built using a newer version of the .Net Framework than is currently in use, as it's using .Net Framework 2.0 to run the tools. We then tried using Gallio's Icarus test runner GUI, but found that this and MbUnit only support up to version 3.5 of the .Net Frameword and the result is "the tests will be ignored". In terms of the coverage side of things (for reporting into CruiseControl.net), we have found that PartCover is a good candidate for substituting-out NCover, (as the newer version of NCover is quite dear, and PartCover is free), but this is a few steps down the line yet, as we can't get the test runners to work first!! Can any shed any light on a testnig framework that will run under .Net 4.0 in the same way as I've described above? If not, I fear we may have to revert back to using .Net 3.5 until the manufacturers of the tooling that we're currently using have a chance to upgrade to .Net 4.0. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Private Method in Resource Managing Class (C++)

    - by BillyONeal
    I previously asked this question under another name but deleted it because I didn't explain it very well. Let's say I have a class which manages a file. Let's say that this class treats the file as having a specific file format, and contains methods to perform operations on this file: class Foo { std::wstring fileName_; public: Foo(const std::wstring& fileName) : fileName_(fileName) { //Construct a Foo here. }; int getChecksum() { //Open the file and read some part of it //Long method to figure out what checksum it is. //Return the checksum. } }; Let's say I'd like to be able to unit test the part of this class that calculates the checksum. Unit testing the parts of the class that load in the file and such is impractical, because to test every part of the getChecksum() method I might need to construct 40 or 50 files! Now lets say I'd like to reuse the checksum method elsewhere in the class. I extract the method so that it now looks like this: class Foo { std::wstring fileName_; static int calculateChecksum(const std::vector<unsigned char> &fileBytes) { //Long method to figure out what checksum it is. } public: Foo(const std::wstring& fileName) : fileName_(fileName) { //Construct a Foo here. }; int getChecksum() { //Open the file and read some part of it return calculateChecksum( something ); } void modifyThisFileSomehow() { //Perform modification int newChecksum = calculateChecksum( something ); //Apply the newChecksum to the file } }; Now I'd like to unit test the calculateChecksum() method because it's easy to test and complicated, and I don't care about unit testing getChecksum() because it's simple and very difficult to test. But I can't test calculateChecksum() directly because it is private. Does anyone know of a solution to this problem?

    Read the article

  • Using boost locks for RAII access to a semaphore

    - by dan
    Suppose I write a C++ semaphore class with an interface that models the boost Lockable concept (i.e. lock(); unlock(); try_lock(); etc.). Is it safe/recommended to use boost locks for RAII access to such an object? In other words, do boost locks (and/or other related parts of the boost thread library) assume that the Lockable concept will only be modeled by mutex-like objects which are locked and unlocked from the same thread? My guess is that it should be OK to use a semaphore as a model for Lockable. I've browsed through some of the boost source and it "seems" OK. The locks don't appear to store explicit references to this_thread or anything like that. Moreover, the Lockable concept doesn't have any function like whichThreadOwnsMe(). It also looks like I should even be able to pass a boost::unique_lock<MySemaphore> reference to boost::condition_variable_any::wait. However, the documentation is not explicitly clear about the requirements. To illustrate what I mean, consider a bare-bones binary semaphore class along these lines: class MySemaphore{ bool locked; boost::mutex mx; boost::condition_variable cv; public: void lock(){ boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lck(mx); while(locked) cv.wait(lck); locked=true; } void unlock(){ { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lck(mx); if(!locked) error(); locked=false; } cv.notify_one(); } // bool try_lock(); void error(); etc. } Now suppose that somewhere, either on an object or globally, I have MySemaphore sem; I want to lock and unlock it using RAII. Also I want to be able to "pass" ownership of the lock from one thread to another. For example, in one thread I execute void doTask() { boost::unique_lock<MySemaphore> lock(sem); doSomeWorkWithSharedObject(); signalToSecondThread(); waitForSignalAck(); lock.release(); } While another thread is executing something like { waitForSignalFromFirstThread(); ackSignal(); boost::unique_lock<MySemaphore>(sem,boost::adopt_lock_t()); doMoreWorkWithSameSharedObject(); } The reason I am doing this is that I don't want anyone else to be able to get the lock on sem in between the time that the first thread executes doSomeWorkWithSharedObject() and the time the second executes doMoreWorkWithSameSharedObject(). Basically, I'm splitting one task into two parts. And the reason I'm splitting the task up is because (1) I want the first part of the task to get started as soon as possible, (2) I want to guarantee that the first part is complete before doTask() returns, and (3) I want the second, more time-consuming part of the task to be completed by another thread, possibly chosen from a pool of slave threads that are waiting around to finish tasks that have been started by master threads. NOTE: I recently posted this same question (sort of) here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2754884/unlocking-a-mutex-from-a-different-thread-c but I confused mutexes with semaphores, and so the question about using boost locks didn't really get addressed.

    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

  • Boost::Interprocess Container Container Resizing No Default Constructor

    - by CuppM
    Hi, After combing through the Boost::Interprocess documentation and Google searches, I think I've found the reason/workaround to my issue. Everything I've found, as I understand it, seems to be hinting at this, but doesn't come out and say "do this because...". But if anyone can verify this I would appreciate it. I'm writing a series of classes that represent a large lookup of information that is stored in memory for fast performance in a parallelized application. Because of the size of data and multiple processes that run at a time on one machine, we're using Boost::Interprocess for shared memory to have a single copy of the structures. I looked at the Boost::Interprocess documentation and examples, and they typedef classes for shared memory strings, string vectors, int vector vectors, etc. And when they "use" them in their examples, they just construct them passing the allocator and maybe insert one item that they've constructed elsewhere. Like on this page: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/doc/html/interprocess/allocators_containers.html So following their examples, I created a header file with typedefs for shared memory classes: namespace shm { namespace bip = boost::interprocess; // General/Utility Types typedef bip::managed_shared_memory::segment_manager segment_manager_t; typedef bip::allocator<void, segment_manager_t> void_allocator; // Integer Types typedef bip::allocator<int, segment_manager_t> int_allocator; typedef bip::vector<int, int_allocator> int_vector; // String Types typedef bip::allocator<char, segment_manager_t> char_allocator; typedef bip::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, char_allocator> string; typedef bip::allocator<string, segment_manager_t> string_allocator; typedef bip::vector<string, string_allocator> string_vector; typedef bip::allocator<string_vector, segment_manager_t> string_vector_allocator; typedef bip::vector<string_vector, string_vector_allocator> string_vector_vector; } Then for one of my lookup table classes, it's defined something like this: class Details { public: Details(const shm::void_allocator & alloc) : m_Ids(alloc), m_Labels(alloc), m_Values(alloc) { } ~Details() {} int Read(BinaryReader & br); private: shm::int_vector m_Ids; shm::string_vector m_Labels; shm::string_vector_vector m_Values; }; int Details::Read(BinaryReader & br) { int num = br.ReadInt(); m_Ids.resize(num); m_Labels.resize(num); m_Values.resize(num); for (int i = 0; i < num; i++) { m_Ids[i] = br.ReadInt(); m_Labels[i] = br.ReadString().c_str(); int count = br.ReadInt(); m_Value[i].resize(count); for (int j = 0; j < count; j++) { m_Value[i][j] = br.ReadString().c_str(); } } } But when I compile it, I get the error: 'boost::interprocess::allocator<T,SegmentManager>::allocator' : no appropriate default constructor available And it's due to the resize() calls on the vector objects. Because the allocator types do not have a empty constructor (they take a const segment_manager_t &) and it's trying to create a default object for each location. So in order for it to work, I have to get an allocator object and pass a default value object on resize. Like this: int Details::Read(BinaryReader & br) { shm::void_allocator alloc(m_Ids.get_allocator()); int num = br.ReadInt(); m_Ids.resize(num); m_Labels.resize(num, shm::string(alloc)); m_Values.resize(num, shm::string_vector(alloc)); for (int i = 0; i < num; i++) { m_Ids[i] = br.ReadInt(); m_Labels[i] = br.ReadString().c_str(); int count = br.ReadInt(); m_Value[i].resize(count, shm::string(alloc)); for (int j = 0; j < count; j++) { m_Value[i][j] = br.ReadString().c_str(); } } } Is this the best/correct way of doing it? Or am I missing something. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC unit testing

    - by Simon Lomax
    Hi, I'm getting started with unit testing and trying to do some TDD. I've read a fair bit about the subject and written a few tests. I just want to know if the following is the right approach. I want to add the usual "contact us" facility on my web site. You know the thing, the user fills out a form with their email address, enters a brief message and hits a button to post the form back. The model binders do their stuff and my action method accepts the posted data as a model. The action method would then parse the model and use smtp to send an email to the web site administrator infoming him/her that somebody filled out the contact form on their site. Now for the question .... In order to test this, would I be right in creating an interface IDeliver that has a method Send(emailAddress, message) to accept the email address and message body. Implement the inteface in a concrete class and let that class deal with smtp stuff and actually send the mail. If I add the inteface as a parameter to my controller constructor I can then use DI and IoC to inject the concrete class into the controller. But when unit testing I can create a fake or mock version of my IDeliver and do assertions on that. The reason I ask is that I've seen other examples of people generating interfaces for SmtpClient and then mocking that. Is there really any need to go that far or am I not understanding this stuff?

    Read the article

  • Reading from serial port with Boost Asio?

    - by trikri
    Hi! I'm going to check for incoming messages (data packages) on the serial port, using Boost Asio. Each message will start with a header that is one byte long, and will specify which type of the message has been sent. Each different type of message has an own length. The function I'm about to write should check for new incoming messages continually, and when it finds one it should read it, and then some other function should parse it. I thought that the code might look something like this: void check_for_incoming_messages() { boost::asio::streambuf response; boost::system::error_code error; std::string s1, s2; if (boost::asio::read(port, response, boost::asio::transfer_at_least(0), error)) { s1 = streambuf_to_string(response); int msg_code = s1[0]; if (msg_code < 0 || msg_code >= NUM_MESSAGES) { // Handle error, invalid message header } if (boost::asio::read(port, response, boost::asio::transfer_at_least(message_lengths[msg_code]-s1.length()), error)) { s2 = streambuf_to_string(response); // Handle the content of s1 and s2 } else if (error != boost::asio::error::eof) { throw boost::system::system_error(error); } } else if (error != boost::asio::error::eof) { throw boost::system::system_error(error); } } Is boost::asio::streambuf is the right thing to use? And how do I extract the data from it so I can parse the message? I also want to know if I need to have a separate thread which only calls this function, so that it get called more often? Isn't there a risk for loosing data in between two calls to the function otherwise, because so much data comes in that it can't be stored in the serial ports memory? I'm using Qt as a widget toolkit and I don't really know how long time it needs to process all it's events.

    Read the article

  • Boost::Thread linking error on OSX?

    - by gct
    So I'm going nuts trying to figure this one out. Here's my basic setup: I'm compiling a shared library with a bunch of core functionality that uses a lot of boost stuff. We'll call this library libpf_core.so. It's linked with the boost static libraries, specifically the python, system, filesystem, thread, and program_options libraries. This all goes swimmingly. Now, I have a little test program called test_socketio which is compiled into a shared library (it's loaded as a plugin at runtime). It uses some boost stuff like boost::bind and boost::thread, and it's linked again libpf_core.so (which has the boost libraries included remember). When I go to compile test_socketio though, out of all my plugins it gives me a linking error: [ Building test_socketio ] g++ -c -pg -g -O0 -I/usr/local/include -I../include test_socketio.cc -o test_socketio.o g++ -shared test_socketio.o -lpy_core -o test_socketio.so Undefined symbols: "boost::lock_error::lock_error()", referenced from: boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>::lock() in test_socketio.o ld: symbol(s) not found collect2: ld returned 1 exit status And I'm going crazy trying to figure out why this is. I've tried explicitly linking boost::thread into the plugin to no avail, tried ensuring that I'm using the boost headers associated with the libraries linked into libpf_core.so in case there was a conflict there. Is there something OSX specific regarding boost that I'm missing? In my searching on google I've seen a number of other people get this error but no one seems to have come up with a satisfactory solution.

    Read the article

  • Zend Framework: How to start PHPUnit testing Forms?

    - by Andrew
    I am having trouble getting my filters/validators to work correctly on my form, so I want to create a Unit test to verify that the data I am submitting to my form is being filtered and validated correctly. I started by auto-generating a PHPUnit test in Zend Studio, which gives me this: <?php require_once 'PHPUnit/Framework/TestCase.php'; /** * Form_Event test case. */ class Form_EventTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase { /** * @var Form_Event */ private $Form_Event; /** * Prepares the environment before running a test. */ protected function setUp () { parent::setUp(); // TODO Auto-generated Form_EventTest::setUp() $this->Form_Event = new Form_Event(/* parameters */); } /** * Cleans up the environment after running a test. */ protected function tearDown () { // TODO Auto-generated Form_EventTest::tearDown() $this->Form_Event = null; parent::tearDown(); } /** * Constructs the test case. */ public function __construct () { // TODO Auto-generated constructor } /** * Tests Form_Event->init() */ public function testInit () { // TODO Auto-generated Form_EventTest->testInit() $this->markTestIncomplete( "init test not implemented"); $this->Form_Event->init(/* parameters */); } /** * Tests Form_Event->getFormattedMessages() */ public function testGetFormattedMessages () { // TODO Auto-generated Form_EventTest->testGetFormattedMessages() $this->markTestIncomplete( "getFormattedMessages test not implemented"); $this->Form_Event->getFormattedMessages(/* parameters */); } } so then I open up terminal, navigate to the directory, and try to run the test: $ cd my_app/tests/unit/application/forms $ phpunit EventTest.php Fatal error: Class 'Form_Event' not found in .../tests/unit/application/forms/EventTest.php on line 19 So then I add a require_once at the top to include my Form class and try it again. Now it says it can't find another class. I include that one and try it again. Then it says it can't find another class, and another class, and so on. I have all of these dependencies on all these other Zend_Form classes. What should I do? How should I go about testing my Form to make sure my Validators and Filters are being attached correctly, and that it's doing what I expect it to do. Or am I thinking about this the wrong way?

    Read the article

  • c# Unit Test: Writing to Settings in unit test does not save values in user.config

    - by HorstWalter
    I am running a c# unit test (VS 2008). Within the test I do write to the settings, which should result in saving the data to the user.config. Settings.Default.X = "History"; // X is string Settings.Default.Save(); But this simply does not create the file (I have crosschecked under "C:\Documents and Settings\HW\Local Settings\Application Data"). If I create the same stuff as a Console application, there is no problem persisting the data (same code). Is there something special I need to consider doing this in a UnitTest?

    Read the article

  • The importance of Unit Testing in BI

    - by Davide Mauri
    One of the main steps in the process we internally use to develop a BI solution is the implementation of Unit Test of you BI Data. As you may already know, I’ve create a simple (for now) tool that leverages NUnit to allow us to quickly create Unit Testing without having to resort to use Visual Studio Database Professional: http://queryunit.codeplex.com/ Once you have a tool like this one, you can start also to make sure that your BI solution (DWH and CUBE) is not only structurally sound (I mean, the cube or the report gets processed correctly), but you can also check that the logical integrity of your business rules is enforced. For example let’s say that the customer tell you that they will never create an invoice for a specific product-line in 2010 since that product-line is dismissed and will never be sold again. Ok we know that this in theory is true, but a lot of this business rule effectiveness depends on the fact the people does not do a mistake while inserting new orders/invoices and the ERP used implements a check for this business logic. Unfortunately these last two hypotesis are not always true, so you may find yourself really having some invoices for a product line that doesn’t exists anymore. Maybe this kind of situation in future will be solved using Master Data Management but, meanwhile, how you can give and idea of the data quality to your customers? How can you check that logical integrity of the analytical data you produce is exactly what you expect? Well, Unit Testing of a DWH or a CUBE can be a solution. Once you have defined your test suite, by writing SQL and MDX queries that checks that your data is what you expect to be, if you use NUnit (and QueryUnit does), you can then use a tool like NUnit2Report to create a nice HTML report that can be shipped via email to give information of data quality: In addition to that, since NUnit produces an XML file as a result, you can also import it into a SQL Server Database and then monitor the quality of data over time. I’ll be speaking about this approach (and more in general about how to “engineer” a BI solution) at the next European SQL PASS Adaptive BI Best Practices http://www.sqlpass.org/summit/eu2010/Agenda/ProgramSessions/AdaptiveBIBestPratices.aspx I’ll enjoy discussing with you all about this, so see you there! And remember: “if ain't tested it's broken!” (Sorry I don’t remember how said that in first place :-)) Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • The importance of Unit Testing in BI

    - by Davide Mauri
    One of the main steps in the process we internally use to develop a BI solution is the implementation of Unit Test of you BI Data. As you may already know, I’ve create a simple (for now) tool that leverages NUnit to allow us to quickly create Unit Testing without having to resort to use Visual Studio Database Professional: http://queryunit.codeplex.com/ Once you have a tool like this one, you can start also to make sure that your BI solution (DWH and CUBE) is not only structurally sound (I mean, the cube or the report gets processed correctly), but you can also check that the logical integrity of your business rules is enforced. For example let’s say that the customer tell you that they will never create an invoice for a specific product-line in 2010 since that product-line is dismissed and will never be sold again. Ok we know that this in theory is true, but a lot of this business rule effectiveness depends on the fact the people does not do a mistake while inserting new orders/invoices and the ERP used implements a check for this business logic. Unfortunately these last two hypotesis are not always true, so you may find yourself really having some invoices for a product line that doesn’t exists anymore. Maybe this kind of situation in future will be solved using Master Data Management but, meanwhile, how you can give and idea of the data quality to your customers? How can you check that logical integrity of the analytical data you produce is exactly what you expect? Well, Unit Testing of a DWH or a CUBE can be a solution. Once you have defined your test suite, by writing SQL and MDX queries that checks that your data is what you expect to be, if you use NUnit (and QueryUnit does), you can then use a tool like NUnit2Report to create a nice HTML report that can be shipped via email to give information of data quality: In addition to that, since NUnit produces an XML file as a result, you can also import it into a SQL Server Database and then monitor the quality of data over time. I’ll be speaking about this approach (and more in general about how to “engineer” a BI solution) at the next European SQL PASS Adaptive BI Best Practices http://www.sqlpass.org/summit/eu2010/Agenda/ProgramSessions/AdaptiveBIBestPratices.aspx I’ll enjoy discussing with you all about this, so see you there! And remember: “if ain't tested it's broken!” (Sorry I don’t remember how said that in first place :-)) Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • Unit testing in Django

    - by acjohnson55
    I'm really struggling to write effective unit tests for a large Django project. I have reasonably good test coverage, but I've come to realize that the tests I've been writing are definitely integration/acceptance tests, not unit tests at all, and I have critical portions of my application that are not being tested effectively. I want to fix this ASAP. Here's my problem. My schema is deeply relational, and heavily time-oriented, giving my model object high internal coupling and lots of state. Many of my model methods query based on time intervals, and I've got a lot of auto_now_add going on in timestamped fields. So take a method that looks like this for example: def summary(self, startTime=None, endTime=None): # ... logic to assign a proper start and end time # if none was provided, probably using datetime.now() objects = self.related_model_set.manager_method.filter(...) return sum(object.key_method(startTime, endTime) for object in objects) How does one approach testing something like this? Here's where I am so far. It occurs to me that the unit testing objective should be given some mocked behavior by key_method on its arguments, is summary correctly filtering/aggregating to produce a correct result? Mocking datetime.now() is straightforward enough, but how can I mock out the rest of the behavior? I could use fixtures, but I've heard pros and cons of using fixtures for building my data (poor maintainability being a con that hits home for me). I could also setup my data through the ORM, but that can be limiting, because then I have to create related objects as well. And the ORM doesn't let you mess with auto_now_add fields manually. Mocking the ORM is another option, but not only is it tricky to mock deeply nested ORM methods, but the logic in the ORM code gets mocked out of the test, and mocking seems to make the test really dependent on the internals and dependencies of the function-under-test. The toughest nuts to crack seem to be the functions like this, that sit on a few layers of models and lower-level functions and are very dependent on the time, even though these functions may not be super complicated. My overall problem is that no matter how I seem to slice it, my tests are looking way more complex than the functions they are testing.

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework 4.1 Release Candidate Released

    - by shiju
    Microsoft ADO.NET team has announced the Release Candidate version of Entity Framework 4.1. You can download the  Entity Framework 4.1 Release Candidate from here . You can also use NuGet to get Entity Framework 4.1 Release Candidate. The Code First approach is available with Entity Framework 4.1.I have upgraded my ASP.NET MVC 3/EF Code First demo web app (http://efmvc.codeplex.com) to Entity Framework 4.1  version

    Read the article

  • Unit testing time-bound code

    - by maasg
    I'm currently working on an application that does a lot of time-bound operations. That is, based on long now = System.currentTimeMillis();, and combined with an scheduler, it will calculate periods of time that parametrize the execution of some operations. e.g.: public void execute(...) { // executed by an scheduler each x minutes final int now = (int) TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS.toSeconds(System.currentTimeMillis()); final int alignedTime = now - now % getFrequency() ; final int startTime = alignedTime - 2 * getFrequency(); final int endTimeSecs = alignedTime - getFrequency(); uploadData(target, startTime, endTimeSecs); } Most parts of the application are unit-tested independently of time (in this case, uploadData has a natural unit test), but I was wondering about best practices for testing time-bound parts that rely on System.currentTimeMillis() ?

    Read the article

  • How important are unit tests in software development?

    - by Lo Wai Lun
    We are doing software testing by testing a lot of I/O cases, so developers and system analysts can open reviews and test for their committed code within a given time period (e.g. 1 week). But when it come across with extracting information from a database, how to consider the cases and the corresponding methodology to start with? Although that is more likely to be a case studies because the unit-testing depends on the project we have involved which is too specific and particular most of the time. What is the general overview of the steps and precautions for unit-testing?

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework 4.0: My Favorite Books

    - by nannette
    I'm in the process of reading several Entity Framework 4.0 books. I'm going to recommend two such books: 1) Programming Entity Framework: Building Data Centric Apps with the ADO.NET Entity Framework by Julia Lerman 2) Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach by Larry Tenny and Zeeshan Hirani Visit these Entity Framework 4.0 Quick Start videos by Julia Lerman. The book links include numerous detailed reviews. If you can only afford one of the books, I'd recommend Julia's book as the...(read more)

    Read the article

  • How does one unit test an algorithm

    - by Asa Baylus
    I was recently working on a JS slideshow which rotates images using a weighted average algorithm. Thankfully, timgilbert has written a weighted list script which implements the exact algorithm I needed. However in his documentation he's noted under todos: "unit tests!". I'd like to know is how one goes about unit testing an algorithm. In the case of a weighted average how would you create a proof that the averages are accurate when there is the element of randomness? Code samples of similar would be very helpful to my understanding.

    Read the article

  • Introduce unit testing when codebase is already available

    - by McMannus
    I've been working on a project in Flex for three years now without unit testing. The simple reason for that is the fact that I just didn't realize the importance of unit testing when being at the beginning of studies at university. Now my attitude towards testing changed completely and therefore I want to introduce it to the existing project (about 25000LOC). In order to do it, there are two approaches to choose from: 1) Discard the existing codebase and start from scratch with TDD 2) Write the tests and try to make them pass by changing the existing code Well, I would appreciate not having to write everything from scratch but I think by doing this, the design would be much better. What would you advise me to do? Thanks for replies in advance! Jan

    Read the article

  • Unit testing a text index

    - by jplot
    Consider a text index such as a suffix tree or a suffix array supporting Count queries (number of occurrences of a pattern) and Locate queries (the positions of all the occurrences of a pattern) over a given text. How would you go about unit testing such a class ? What I have in mind is to generate a big random string then extract a random substring from this big string and compare the results of both queries with naive implementations (such as string::find). Another idea I have is to find the most frequent substring of length l appearing in the original string (using perhaps a naive method) and use these substrings for testing the index. This isn't the best way, so what would be a good design of the unit tests for a text index ? In case it matters, this is in C++ using google test.

    Read the article

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