Search Results

Search found 32072 results on 1283 pages for 'catch unit test'.

Page 9/1283 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Is it useful to unit test methods where the only logic is guards?

    - by Vaccano
    Say I have a method like this: public void OrderNewWidget(Widget widget) { if ((widget.PartNumber > 0) && (widget.PartAvailable)) { WigdetOrderingService.OrderNewWidgetAsync(widget.PartNumber); } } I have several such methods in my code (the front half to an async Web Service call). I am debating if it is useful to get them covered with unit tests. Yes there is logic here, but it is only guard logic. (Meaning I make sure I have the stuff I need before I allow the web service call to happen.) Part of me says "sure you can unit test them, but it is not worth the time" (I am on a project that is already behind schedule). But the other side of me says, if you don't unit test them, and someone changes the Guards, then there could be problems. But the first part of me says back, if someone changes the guards, then you are just making more work for them (because now they have to change the guards and the unit tests for the guards). For example, if my service assumes responsibility to check for Widget availability then I may not want that guard any more. If it is under unit test, I have to change two places now. I see pros and cons in both ways. So I thought I would ask what others have done.

    Read the article

  • Is it dangerous to substitute unit tests for user testing? [closed]

    - by MushinNoShin
    Is it dangerous to substitute unit tests for user testing? A co-worker believes we can reduce the manual user testing we need to do by adding more unit tests. Is this dangerous? Unit tests seem to have a very different purpose than user testing. Aren't unit tests to inform design and allow breaking changes to be caught early? Isn't that fundamentally different than determining if an aspect of the system is correct as a whole of the system? Is this a case of substituting apples for oranges?

    Read the article

  • Should I make a seperate unit test for a method, if it only modifies the parent state?

    - by Dante
    Should classes, that modify the state of the parent class, but not itself, be unit tested separately? And by separately, I mean putting the test in the corresponding unit test class, that tests that specific class. I'm developing a library based on chained methods, that return a new instance of a new type in most cases, where a chained method is called. The returned instances only modify the root parent state, but not itself. Overly simplified example, to get the point across: public class BoxedRabbits { private readonly Box _box; public BoxedRabbits(Box box) { _box = box; } public void SetCount(int count) { _box.Items += count; } } public class Box { public int Items { get; set; } public BoxedRabbits AddRabbits() { return new BoxedRabbits(this); } } var box = new Box(); box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14); Say, if I write a unit test under the Box class unit tests: box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14) I could effectively say, that I've already tested the BoxedRabbits class as well. Is this the wrong way of approaching this, even though it's far simpler to first write a test for the above call, then to first write a unit test for the BoxedRabbits separately?

    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

  • Do you use unit tests at work? What benefits do you get from them?

    - by Anonymous
    I had planned to study and apply unit testing to my code, but after talking with my colleagues, some of them suggested to me that it's not necessary and it has a very little benefit. They also claim that only a few companies actually do unit testing with production software. I am curious how people have applied unit testing at work and what benefits they are getting from using them, e.g., better code quality, reduced development time in the long term, etc.

    Read the article

  • Multiple Silverlight Unit Test Projects in Solution

    - by IUnknown
    I am building out a number of Silverlight 4.0 libraries that are part of the same solution. I like to break them into separate projects and have a Unit Test project for each: SolutionX -LibraryProject1 ---Class1.cs ---Class2.cs -LibraryProject1.Test ---Tests1.cs ---Tests2.cs -LibraryProject2 ---Class1.cs ---Class2.cs ---CLass3.cs -LibraryProject2.Test ---Tests1.cs ---Tests2.cs ---Tests3.cs -LibraryProject3 ---Class1.cs -LibraryProject3.Test ---Tests1.cs This works great when using VS regular test projects and infrastructure because I can create and execute list of test that are aggregated from each Test project. But with the Silverlight Unit Test Framework since the Silverlight Unit Test Project must be the "start up project" I cannot figure how to run a collection of tests from each test project in one go. I have to run each separately then switch the starting project each time. I would prefer to avoid create complex build scripts or build definitions - is there a way to run all the tests at once? -Thanks

    Read the article

  • Java unit test coverage numbers do not match.

    - by Dan
    Below is a class I have written in a web application I am building using Java Google App Engine. I have written Unit Tests using TestNG and all the tests pass. I then run EclEmma in Eclipse to see the test coverage on my code. All the functions show 100% coverage but the file as a whole is showing about 27% coverage. Where is the 73% uncovered code coming from? Can anyone help me understand how EclEmma works and why I am getting the discrepancy in numbers? package com.skaxo.sports.models; import javax.jdo.annotations.IdGeneratorStrategy; import javax.jdo.annotations.IdentityType; import javax.jdo.annotations.PersistenceCapable; import javax.jdo.annotations.Persistent; import javax.jdo.annotations.PrimaryKey; @PersistenceCapable(identityType= IdentityType.APPLICATION) public class Account { @PrimaryKey @Persistent(valueStrategy=IdGeneratorStrategy.IDENTITY) private Long id; @Persistent private String userId; @Persistent private String firstName; @Persistent private String lastName; @Persistent private String email; @Persistent private boolean termsOfService; @Persistent private boolean systemEmails; public Account() {} public Account(String firstName, String lastName, String email) { super(); this.firstName = firstName; this.lastName = lastName; this.email = email; } public Account(String userId) { super(); this.userId = userId; } public void setId(Long id) { this.id = id; } public Long getId() { return id; } public String getUserId() { return userId; } public void setUserId(String userId) { this.userId = userId; } public String getFirstName() { return firstName; } public void setFirstName(String firstName) { this.firstName = firstName; } public String getLastName() { return lastName; } public void setLastName(String lastName) { this.lastName = lastName; } public String getEmail() { return email; } public void setEmail(String email) { this.email = email; } public boolean acceptedTermsOfService() { return termsOfService; } public void setTermsOfService(boolean termsOfService) { this.termsOfService = termsOfService; } public boolean acceptedSystemEmails() { return systemEmails; } public void setSystemEmails(boolean systemEmails) { this.systemEmails = systemEmails; } } Below is the test code for the above class. package com.skaxo.sports.models; import static org.testng.Assert.assertEquals; import static org.testng.Assert.assertNotNull; import static org.testng.Assert.assertTrue; import static org.testng.Assert.assertFalse; import org.testng.annotations.BeforeTest; import org.testng.annotations.Test; public class AccountTest { @Test public void testId() { Account a = new Account(); a.setId(1L); assertEquals((Long) 1L, a.getId(), "ID"); a.setId(3L); assertNotNull(a.getId(), "The ID is set to null."); } @Test public void testUserId() { Account a = new Account(); a.setUserId("123456ABC"); assertEquals(a.getUserId(), "123456ABC", "User ID incorrect."); a = new Account("123456ABC"); assertEquals(a.getUserId(), "123456ABC", "User ID incorrect."); } @Test public void testFirstName() { Account a = new Account("Test", "User", "[email protected]"); assertEquals(a.getFirstName(), "Test", "User first name not equal to 'Test'."); a.setFirstName("John"); assertEquals(a.getFirstName(), "John", "User first name not equal to 'John'."); } @Test public void testLastName() { Account a = new Account("Test", "User", "[email protected]"); assertEquals(a.getLastName(), "User", "User last name not equal to 'User'."); a.setLastName("Doe"); assertEquals(a.getLastName(), "Doe", "User last name not equal to 'Doe'."); } @Test public void testEmail() { Account a = new Account("Test", "User", "[email protected]"); assertEquals(a.getEmail(), "[email protected]", "User email not equal to '[email protected]'."); a.setEmail("[email protected]"); assertEquals(a.getEmail(), "[email protected]", "User email not equal to '[email protected]'."); } @Test public void testAcceptedTermsOfService() { Account a = new Account(); a.setTermsOfService(true); assertTrue(a.acceptedTermsOfService(), "Accepted Terms of Service not true."); a.setTermsOfService(false); assertFalse(a.acceptedTermsOfService(), "Accepted Terms of Service not false."); } @Test public void testAcceptedSystemEmails() { Account a = new Account(); a.setSystemEmails(true); assertTrue(a.acceptedSystemEmails(), "System Emails is not true."); a.setSystemEmails(false); assertFalse(a.acceptedSystemEmails(), "System Emails is not false."); } }

    Read the article

  • how to create simulator for web application for load test and stress test

    - by girish
    i m developing a web application but...now i need to create simulator for the same...that will be able to re-run the process that has been done on website... let's say i m developing a auction site where user's bid on product.... during these process the number of user's bid on the same product and at the end one user buy the product... now what i want is.. i want to record this process or any thing so that i can run the process for the same again so that i can test the load and the stress on web application and the database server.. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • VerifyError When Running jUnit Test on Android 1.6

    - by DKnowles
    Here's what I'm trying to run on Android 1.6: package com.healthlogger.test; public class AllTests extends TestSuite { public static Test suite() { return new TestSuiteBuilder(AllTests.class).includeAllPackagesUnderHere().build(); } } and: package com.healthlogger.test; public class RecordTest extends AndroidTestCase { /** * Ensures that the constructor will not take a null data tag. */ @Test(expected=AssertionFailedError.class) public void testNullDataTagInConstructor() { Record r = new Record(null, Calendar.getInstance(), "Data"); fail("Failed to catch null data tag."); } } The main project is HealthLogger. These are run from a separate test project (HealthLoggerTest). HealthLogger and jUnit4 are in HealthLoggerTest's build path. jUnit4 is also in HealthLogger's build path. The class "Record" is located in com.healthlogger. Commenting out the "@Test..." and "Record r..." lines allows this test to run. When they are uncommented, I get a VerifyError exception. I am severely blocked by this; why is it happening? EDIT: some info from logcat after the crash: E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): Uncaught handler: thread main exiting due to uncaught exception E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): java.lang.VerifyError: com.healthlogger.test.RecordTest E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors(Native Method) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at java.lang.Class.getConstructors(Class.java:507) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.test.suitebuilder.TestGrouping$TestCasePredicate.hasValidConstructor(TestGrouping.java:226) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.test.suitebuilder.TestGrouping$TestCasePredicate.apply(TestGrouping.java:215) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.test.suitebuilder.TestGrouping$TestCasePredicate.apply(TestGrouping.java:211) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.test.suitebuilder.TestGrouping.select(TestGrouping.java:170) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.test.suitebuilder.TestGrouping.selectTestClasses(TestGrouping.java:160) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.test.suitebuilder.TestGrouping.testCaseClassesInPackage(TestGrouping.java:154) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.test.suitebuilder.TestGrouping.addPackagesRecursive(TestGrouping.java:115) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.test.suitebuilder.TestSuiteBuilder.includePackages(TestSuiteBuilder.java:103) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.test.InstrumentationTestRunner.onCreate(InstrumentationTestRunner.java:321) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.app.ActivityThread.handleBindApplication(ActivityThread.java:3848) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.app.ActivityThread.access$2800(ActivityThread.java:116) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.app.ActivityThread$H.handleMessage(ActivityThread.java:1831) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.os.Handler.dispatchMessage(Handler.java:99) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.os.Looper.loop(Looper.java:123) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at android.app.ActivityThread.main(ActivityThread.java:4203) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at java.lang.reflect.Method.invokeNative(Native Method) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:521) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run(ZygoteInit.java:791) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(ZygoteInit.java:549) E/AndroidRuntime( 3723): at dalvik.system.NativeStart.main(Native Method)

    Read the article

  • What type of code is suitable for unit testing?

    - by RPK
    In Test Driven Development, what type of code is testable? I am using a Micro-ORM (PetaPoco) and I have several methods that interact with the database like: AddCustomer UpdateRecord etc. I want to know how to write a test for these methods. I searched YouTube for videos on writing a test for DAL, but I didn't find any. I want to know which method or class is testable and how to write a test before writing the code itself.

    Read the article

  • test questiontest question test question test question? [closed]

    - by user365217
    TestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestionTestQuestion

    Read the article

  • springTestContextBeforeTestMethod failed in Maven spring-test

    - by joejax
    I try to setup a project with spring-test using TestNg in Maven. The code is like: @ContextConfiguration(locations={"test-context.xml"}) public class AppTest extends AbstractTestNGSpringContextTests { @Test public void testApp() { assert true; } } A test-context.xml simply defined a bean: <bean id="app" class="org.sonatype.mavenbook.simple.App"/> I got error for Failed to load ApplicationContext when running mvn test from command line, seems it cannot find the test-context.xml file; however, I can get it run correctly inside Eclipse (with TestNg plugin). So, test-context.xml is under src/test/resources/, how do I indicate this in the pom.xml so that 'mvn test' command will work? Thanks, UPDATE: Thanks for the reply. Cannot load context file error was caused by I moved the file arround in different location since I though the classpath was the problem. Now I found the context file seems loaded from the Maven output, but the test is failed: Running TestSuite May 25, 2010 9:55:13 AM org.springframework.beans.factory.xml.XmlBeanDefinitionReader loadBeanDefinitions INFO: Loading XML bean definitions from class path resource [test-context.xml] May 25, 2010 9:55:13 AM org.springframework.context.support.AbstractApplicationContext prepareRefresh INFO: Refreshing org.springframework.context.support.GenericApplicationContext@171bbc9: display name [org.springframework.context.support.GenericApplicationContext@171bbc9]; startup date [Tue May 25 09:55:13 PDT 2010]; root of context hierarchy May 25, 2010 9:55:13 AM org.springframework.context.support.AbstractApplicationContext obtainFreshBeanFactory INFO: Bean factory for application context [org.springframework.context.support.GenericApplicationContext@171bbc9]: org.springframework.beans.factory.support.DefaultListableBeanFactory@1df8b99 May 25, 2010 9:55:13 AM org.springframework.beans.factory.support.DefaultListableBeanFactory preInstantiateSingletons INFO: Pre-instantiating singletons in org.springframework.beans.factory.support.DefaultListableBeanFactory@1df8b99: defining beans [app,org.springframework.context.annotation.internalCommonAnnotationProcessor,org.springframework.context.annotation.internalAutowiredAnnotationProcessor,org.springframework.context.annotation.internalRequiredAnnotationProcessor]; root of factory hierarchy Tests run: 3, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1, Time elapsed: 0.63 sec <<< FAILURE! Results : Failed tests: springTestContextBeforeTestMethod(org.sonatype.mavenbook.simple.AppTest) springTestContextAfterTestMethod(org.sonatype.mavenbook.simple.AppTest) Tests run: 3, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1 If I use spring-test version 3.0.2.RELEASE, the error becomes: org.springframework.test.context.testng.AbstractTestNGSpringContextTests.springTestContextPrepareTestInstance() is depending on nonexistent method null Here is the structure of the project: simple |-- pom.xml `-- src |-- main | `-- java `-- test |-- java `-- resources |-- test-context.xml `-- testng.xml testng.xml: <suite name="Suite" parallel="false"> <test name="Test"> <classes> <class name="org.sonatype.mavenbook.simple.AppTest"/> </classes> </test> </suite> test-context.xml: <beans xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans-2.0.xsd" default-lazy-init="true"> <bean id="app" class="org.sonatype.mavenbook.simple.App"/> </beans> In the pom.xml, I add testng, spring, and spring-test artifacts, and plugin: <dependency> <groupId>org.testng</groupId> <artifactId>testng</artifactId> <version>5.1</version> <classifier>jdk15</classifier> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>org.springframework</groupId> <artifactId>spring</artifactId> <version>2.5.6</version> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>org.springframework</groupId> <artifactId>spring-test</artifactId> <version>2.5.6</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> <build> <finalName>simple</finalName> <plugins> <plugin> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> <configuration> <source>1.6</source> <target>1.6</target> </configuration> </plugin> <plugin> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId> <configuration> <suiteXmlFiles> <suiteXmlFile>src/test/resources/testng.xml</suiteXmlFile> </suiteXmlFiles> </configuration> </plugin> </plugins> Basically, I replaced 'A Simple Maven Project' Junit with TestNg, hope it works. UPDATE: I think I got the problem (still don't know why) - Whenever I extends AbstractTestNGSpringContextTests or AbstractTransactionalTestNGSpringContextTests, the test will failed with this error: Failed tests: springTestContextBeforeTestMethod(org.sonatype.mavenbook.simple.AppTest) springTestContextAfterTestMethod(org.sonatype.mavenbook.simple.AppTest) So, eventually the error went away when I override the two methods. I don't think this is the right way, didn't find much info from spring-test doc. If you know spring test framework, please shred some light on this.

    Read the article

  • Where do you put your unit test?

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewers?

    Read the article

  • organizing unit test

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewing developers?

    Read the article

  • Catch isn't working

    - by neoneye
    I'm baffled. What could be causing 'catch' not to be working and how do I fix it? <?php try { throw new Exception('BOOM'); error_log("should not happen"); } catch(Exception $e) { error_log("should happen: " . $e->getMessage()); } ?> Actual output [27-Apr-2010 09:43:24] PHP Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'Exception' with message 'BOOM' in /mycode/exception_problem/index.php:4 Stack trace: #0 {main} thrown in /mycode/exception_problem/index.php on line 4 Desired output should happen: BOOM PHP version 5.2.3 In php_info() I don't see anywhere exceptions could have been disabled. I have tried with "restore_exception_handler();" but that doesn't make the catch block working. I have also tried with "set_exception_handler(NULL);" but that neither make the catch block working. How do I get the desired output?

    Read the article

  • Try-Catch-Throw in the same Java class

    - by Carlos
    Is it possible to catch a method in the current class the try-catch block is running on? for example: public static void arrayOutOfBoundsException(){ System.out.println("Array out of bounds"); } ..... public static void doingSomething(){ try { if(something[i] >= something_else); } catch (arrayOutOfBoundsException e) { System.out.println("Method Halted!, continuing doing the next thing"); } } If this is possible how will it be the correct way to call the catch method? If this is not possible, could anyone point me in the right direction, of how to stop an exception from halting my program execution in Java without having to create any new classes in the package, or fixing the code that produces ArrayOutOfBoundsException error. Thanks in Advance, A Java Rookie

    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

  • Does PHP Try Catch freezes the page?

    - by serhio
    I have the following code function displaySomeFeeds($urls, $keywords = NULL) { error_reporting(E_ALL ^ E_WARNING ^ E_NOTICE); echo "<ul>"; foreach ($urls as $url) { try { displayFeed($url, $keywords, NULL, false); } catch(Exception $e) { //echo "Error when obtaining news from '$url': " .$e->getMessage(); } } echo "</ul>"; } When I use it with Try Catch, the pages loads very, very, very slow. When I use it without Try/Catch the pages loads normally, but with error messages. Could I ammeliorate the time of response with Try/Catch?

    Read the article

  • Is it feasible and useful to auto-generate some code of unit tests?

    - by skiwi
    Earlier today I have come up with an idea, based upon a particular real use case, which I would want to have checked for feasability and usefulness. This question will feature a fair chunk of Java code, but can be applied to all languages running inside a VM, and maybe even outside. While there is real code, it uses nothing language-specific, so please read it mostly as pseudo code. The idea Make unit testing less cumbersome by adding in some ways to autogenerate code based on human interaction with the codebase. I understand this goes against the principle of TDD, but I don't think anyone ever proved that doing TDD is better over first creating code and then immediatly therafter the tests. This may even be adapted to be fit into TDD, but that is not my current goal. To show how it is intended to be used, I'll copy one of my classes here, for which I need to make unit tests. public class PutMonsterOnFieldAction implements PlayerAction { private final int handCardIndex; private final int fieldMonsterIndex; public PutMonsterOnFieldAction(final int handCardIndex, final int fieldMonsterIndex) { this.handCardIndex = Arguments.requirePositiveOrZero(handCardIndex, "handCardIndex"); this.fieldMonsterIndex = Arguments.requirePositiveOrZero(fieldMonsterIndex, "fieldCardIndex"); } @Override public boolean isActionAllowed(final Player player) { Objects.requireNonNull(player, "player"); Hand hand = player.getHand(); Field field = player.getField(); if (handCardIndex >= hand.getCapacity()) { return false; } if (fieldMonsterIndex >= field.getMonsterCapacity()) { return false; } if (field.hasMonster(fieldMonsterIndex)) { return false; } if (!(hand.get(handCardIndex) instanceof MonsterCard)) { return false; } return true; } @Override public void performAction(final Player player) { Objects.requireNonNull(player); if (!isActionAllowed(player)) { throw new PlayerActionNotAllowedException(); } Hand hand = player.getHand(); Field field = player.getField(); field.setMonster(fieldMonsterIndex, (MonsterCard)hand.play(handCardIndex)); } } We can observe the need for the following tests: Constructor test with valid input Constructor test with invalid inputs isActionAllowed test with valid input isActionAllowed test with invalid inputs performAction test with valid input performAction test with invalid inputs My idea mainly focuses on the isActionAllowed test with invalid inputs. Writing these tests is not fun, you need to ensure a number of conditions and you check whether it really returns false, this can be extended to performAction, where an exception needs to be thrown in that case. The goal of my idea is to generate those tests, by indicating (through GUI of IDE hopefully) that you want to generate tests based on a specific branch. The implementation by example User clicks on "Generate code for branch if (handCardIndex >= hand.getCapacity())". Now the tool needs to find a case where that holds. (I haven't added the relevant code as that may clutter the post ultimately) To invalidate the branch, the tool needs to find a handCardIndex and hand.getCapacity() such that the condition >= holds. It needs to construct a Player with a Hand that has a capacity of at least 1. It notices that the capacity private int of Hand needs to be at least 1. It searches for ways to set it to 1. Fortunately it finds a constructor that takes the capacity as an argument. It uses 1 for this. Some more work needs to be done to succesfully construct a Player instance, involving the creation of objects that have constraints that can be seen by inspecting the source code. It has found the hand with the least capacity possible and is able to construct it. Now to invalidate the test it will need to set handCardIndex = 1. It constructs the test and asserts it to be false (the returned value of the branch) What does the tool need to work? In order to function properly, it will need the ability to scan through all source code (including JDK code) to figure out all constraints. Optionally this could be done through the javadoc, but that is not always used to indicate all constraints. It could also do some trial and error, but it pretty much stops if you cannot attach source code to compiled classes. Then it needs some basic knowledge of what the primitive types are, including arrays. And it needs to be able to construct some form of "modification trees". The tool knows that it needs to change a certain variable to a different value in order to get the correct testcase. Hence it will need to list all possible ways to change it, without using reflection obviously. What this tool will not replace is the need to create tailored unit tests that tests all kinds of conditions when a certain method actually works. It is purely to be used to test methods when they invalidate constraints. My questions: Is creating such a tool feasible? Would it ever work, or are there some obvious problems? Would such a tool be useful? Is it even useful to automatically generate these testcases at all? Could it be extended to do even more useful things? Does, by chance, such a project already exist and would I be reinventing the wheel? If not proven useful, but still possible to make such thing, I will still consider it for fun. If it's considered useful, then I might make an open source project for it depending on the time. For people searching more background information about the used Player and Hand classes in my example, please refer to this repository. At the time of writing the PutMonsterOnFieldAction has not been uploaded to the repo yet, but this will be done once I'm done with the unit tests.

    Read the article

  • In TDD, should tests be written by the person who implemented the feature under test?

    - by martin
    We run a project in which we want to solve with test driven development. I thought about some questions that came up when initiating the project. One question was: Who should write the unit-test for a feature? Should the unit-test be written by the feature-implementing programmer? Or should the unit test be written by another programmer, who defines what a method should do and the feature-implementing programmer implements the method until the tests runs? If I understand the concept of TDD in the right way, the feature-implementing programmer has to write the test by himself, because TDD is procedure with mini-iterations. So it would be too complex to have the tests written by another programmer? What would you say? Should the tests in TDD be written by the programmer himself or should another programmer write the tests that describes what a method can do?

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Unit testing

    - by Walter
    My company is fairly new to unit testing our code. I've been reading about TDD and unit testing for some time and am convinced of their value. I've attempted to convince our team that TDD is worth the effort of learning and changing our mindsets on how we program but it is a struggle. Which brings me to my question(s). There are many in the TDD community who are very religious about writing the test and then the code (and I'm with them), but for a team that is struggling with TDD does a compromise still bring added benefits? I can probably succeed in getting the team to write unit tests once the code is written (perhaps as a requirement for checking in code) and my assumption is that there is still value in writing those unit tests. What's the best way to bring a struggling team into TDD? And failing that is it still worth writing unit tests even if it is after the code is written? EDIT What I've taken away from this is that it is important for us to start unit testing, somewhere in the coding process. For those in the team who pickup the concept, start to move more towards TDD and testing first. Thanks for everyone's input. FOLLOW UP We recently started a new small project and a small portion of the team used TDD, the rest wrote unit tests after the code. After we wrapped up the coding portion of the project, those writing unit tests after the code were surprised to see the TDD coders already done and with more solid code. It was a good way to win over the skeptics. We still have a lot of growing pains ahead, but the battle of wills appears to be over. Thanks for everyone who offered advice!

    Read the article

  • Unit testing opaque structure based C API

    - by Nicolas Goy
    I have a library I wrote with API based on opaque structures. Using opaque structures has a lot of benefits and I am very happy with it. Now that my API are stable in term of specifications, I'd like to write a complete battery of unit test to ensure a solid base before releasing it. My concern is simple, how do you unit test API based on opaque structures where the main goal is to hide the internal logic? For example, let's take a very simple object, an array with a very simple test: WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); int foo = 5; WSArrayAppendValue(a, &foo); int *bar = WSArrayGetValueAtIndex(a, 0); if(&foo != bar) printf("Eroneous value returned\n"); else printf("Good value returned\n"); WSRelease(a); Of course, this tests some facts, like the array actually acts as wanted with 1 value, but when I write unit tests, at least in C, I usualy compare the memory footprint of my datastructures with a known state. In my example, I don't know if some internal state of the array is broken. How would you handle that? I'd really like to avoid adding codes in the implementation files only for unit testings, I really emphasis loose coupling of modules, and injecting unit tests into the implementation would seem rather invasive to me. My first thought was to include the implementation file into my unit test, linking my unit test statically to my library. For example: #include <WS/WS.h> #include <WS/Collection/Array.c> static void TestArray(void) { WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); /* Structure members are available because we included Array.c */ printf("%d\n", a->count); } Is that a good idea? Of course, the unit tests won't benefit from encapsulation, but they are here to ensure it's actually working.

    Read the article

  • what appropriate "Allocation Unit Size" for an exFAT SD card with ReadyBoost

    - by Revolter
    I've brought an 4GB SD card and I'm dedicating it for use by ReadyBoost (on Windows7) Im looking to get the most profit on performance, so i've formatted it with exFAT (as recommended by Microsoft) but I have some doubts to define what best .Allocation Unit Size* I should choose. Since I can't get how ReadyBoost/SD card exactly read/seek the data, can someone tell what make choosing an Allocation Unit Size in favor of another for this scheme ? Apparently, ReadyBoost is allocating all the free space in SD card as one huge file, so a big Allocation Unit Size is advised for fastest reading time. I'm not confusing with ordinary HDD's ?

    Read the article

  • CoffeeScript Test Framework

    - by Liam McLennan
    Tonight the Brisbane Alt.NET group is doing a coding dojo. I am hoping to talk someone into pairing with me to solve the kata in CoffeeScript. CoffeeScript is an awesome language, half javascript, half ruby, that compiles to javascript. To assist with tonight’s dojo I wrote the following micro test framework for CoffeeScript: <html> <body> <div> <h2>Test Results:</h2> <p class='results' /> </div> <script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.3.2/jquery.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/coffeescript"> # super simple test framework test: { write: (s) -> $('.results').append(s + '<br/>') assert: (b, message...) -> test.write(if b then "pass" else "fail: " + message) tests: [] exec: () -> for t in test.tests test.write("<br/><b>$t.name</b>") t.func() } # add some tests test.tests.push { name: "First Test" func: () -> test.assert(true) } test.tests.push { name: "Another Test" func: () -> test.assert(false, "You loose") } # run them test.exec(test.tests) </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="coffee-script.js"></script> </body> </html> It’s not the prettiest, but as far as I know it is the only CoffeeScript test framework in existence. Of course, I could just use one of the javascript test frameworks but that would be no fun. To get this example to run you need the coffeescript compiler in the same directory as the page.

    Read the article

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