Search Results

Search found 5709 results on 229 pages for 'persistence unit'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 9/229 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Second Unit Test Not Running

    - by TomJ
    I am having trouble getting my Method B test to run. The logic is fine, but when the unit tests are run, only Method A will run. If Method A and B are switched in terms of spots, only Method B will run. So clearly the code is wrong at some point. Do I need to call method B's test from inside method A in order to get both unit tests to run? I'm pretty new to C#, so forgive my basic question. using redacted; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using System; namespace UnitTests { [TestClass()] public class ClassTest { public TestContext TestContext{get;set;} [TestMethod()] public void MethodATest() { the unit test } [TestMethod()] public void MethodBTest() { the unit test } } }

    Read the article

  • Getting started with unit testing in VS2010?

    - by Herb Caudill
    I'm new to both unit testing and Visual Studio 2010 (just upgraded from 2008). I'm interested in using VS2010's new built-in unit testing tools, but would like to get the lay of the land first. I haven't been able to find any resources or tutorials on unit testing with VS2010 specifically - has anyone found a good walk-through? I'm also open to persuasion that we should stick with NUnit or the like, if anyone knows a reason to avoid the built-in tools.

    Read the article

  • C# Unit testing resources

    - by Mohit Deshpande
    I migrated from Java to C# and so I am wondering how to unit tests in C#. I remember using JUnit to test my Java applications and importing the package, etc. How can I unit test in C#? What are some good resources for unit testing in C#?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • A good way to write unit tests

    - by bobobobo
    So, I previously wasn't really in the practice of writing unit tests - now I kind of am and I need to check if I'm on the right track. Say you have a class that deals with math computations. class Vector3 { public: // Yes, public. float x,y,z ; // ... ctors ... } ; Vector3 operator+( const Vector3& a, const Vector3 &b ) { return Vector3( a.x + b.y /* oops!! hence the need for unit testing.. */, a.y + b.y, a.z + b.z ) ; } There are 2 ways I can really think of to do a unit test on a Vector class: 1) Hand-solve some problems, then hard code the numbers into the unit test and pass only if equal to your hand and hard-coded result bool UnitTest_ClassVector3_operatorPlus() { Vector3 a( 2, 3, 4 ) ; Vector3 b( 5, 6, 7 ) ; Vector3 result = a + b ; // "expected" is computed outside of computer, and // hard coded here. For more complicated operations like // arbitrary axis rotation this takes a bit of paperwork, // but only the final result will ever be entered here. Vector3 expected( 7, 9, 11 ) ; if( result.isNear( expected ) ) return PASS ; else return FAIL ; } 2) Rewrite the computation code very carefully inside the unit test. bool UnitTest_ClassVector3_operatorPlus() { Vector3 a( 2, 3, 4 ) ; Vector3 b( 5, 6, 7 ) ; Vector3 result = a + b ; // "expected" is computed HERE. This // means all you've done is coded the // same thing twice, hopefully not having // repeated the same mistake again Vector3 expected( 2 + 5, 6 + 3, 4 + 7 ) ; if( result.isNear( expected ) ) return PASS ; else return FAIL ; } Or is there another way to do something like this?

    Read the article

  • Grails unit testing and bootstrap

    - by tbruyelle
    I wrote an unit test for a controller. I have a Bootstrap file which alter the metaclass of domain classes by adding a method asPublicMap(). I use this method in the controller to return domain classes as json but only some selected public fields. My unit test failed because of MissingMethodException for asPublicMap(). As I understood, bootstrap classes are not loaded for unit tests, only for integration tests. That's why I got this error. My question is : Is there another place to put metaclass manipulation in order to take them into account during unit tests ?

    Read the article

  • DDD: Persisting aggregates

    - by Mosh
    Hello, Let's consider the typical Order and OrderItem example. Assuming that OrderItem is part of the Order Aggregate, it an only be added via Order. So, to add a new OrderItem to an Order, we have to load the entire Aggregate via Repository, add a new item to the Order object and persist the entire Aggregate again. This seems to have a lot of overhead. What if our Order has 10 OrderItems? This way, just to add a new OrderItem, not only do we have to read 10 OrderItems, but we should also re-insert all these 10 OrderItems again. (This is the approach that Jimmy Nillson has taken in his DDD book. Everytime he wants to persists an Aggregate, he clears all the child objects, and then re-inserts them again. This can cause other issues as the ID of the children are changed everytime because of the IDENTITY column in database.) I know some people may suggest to apply Unit of Work pattern at the Aggregate Root so it keeps track of what has been changed and only commit those changes. But this violates Persistence Ignorance (PI) principle because persistence logic is leaking into the Domain Model. Has anyone thought about this before? Mosh

    Read the article

  • What kind of code would Kent Beck avoid unit testing?

    - by tieTYT
    I've been watching a few of the Is TDD Dead? talks on youtube, and one of the things that surprised me is Kent Beck seems to acknowledge that there are just some kinds of programs that aren't worth unit testing. For example, right here DHH says that Kent Beck is ... very happy to say "Well, TDD doesn't fit in this case, I'm just going to bail" It's frustrating to me that Kent Beck seems to acknowledge this, but nobody asks him to elaborate on it or give concrete examples. I'd like to know the situations where Kent Beck thinks TDD is a bad fit. Nobody can read his mind or speak for him, but I'm hoping he's been transparent enough through his books/tweets/whatever for someone to be able to answer. I'm not necessarily going to take what he says as gospel, but it would be useful to know that the times I've tried TDD and it just felt impossible/useless are situations that he would have bailed on it himself. Or, if it turned out he would have tested that code it'd suggest to me that I was approaching the process very wrong. I also think it would be enlightening to understand why he would bail on such projects. My opinion on why this is not a duplicate of "When is it appropriate to not unit test?" After skimming those answers I'm not satisfied. For example, look at UncleBob's answer. He doesn't even acknowledge that such a situation exists. I really think there's value in understanding Kent Beck's position, not just a general, "What's your opinion?" type of question. After all, he's the father of TDD.

    Read the article

  • How to unit test models in MVC / MVR app?

    - by BBnyc
    I'm building a node.js web app and am trying to do so for the first time in a test driven fashion. I'm using nodeunit for testing, which I find allows me to write tests quickly and painlessly. In this particular app, the heavy lifting primarily involves translating SQL data into complex Javascript object and serving them to the front-end via json. Likewise, the app also spends a great deal of code validating and translating complex, multidimensional Javascript objects it receives from the front-end into SQL rows. Hence I have used a fat model design for the app -- most of the real code resides in the models, where the data translation happens. What's the best approach to test such models with unit tests? I mean in particular the methods that have create javascript objects from the SQL rows and serve them to the front-end. Right now what I'm doing is making particular requests of my models with the unit tests and checking the returned data for all of the fields that should be there. However I have a suspicion that this is not the most robust kind of testing I could be doing. My current testing design also means I have to package my app code with some dummy data so that my tests can anticipate the kind of data that the app should be returning when tests run.

    Read the article

  • Is wrapping a third party code the only solution to unit test its consumers? [closed]

    - by Songo
    I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Now some people argue that if a library is stable enough and won't change often then there is no need to wrap it. So assuming that Zend_Mail is stable and won't change and it fits my needs entirely, then I won't need a wrapper for it. Now take a look at my class Logger that depends on Zend_Mail: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Now is wrapping Zend_Mail the only solution or is there a better approach to this problem? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

    Read the article

  • How to populate a private container for unit test?

    - by Sardathrion
    I have a class that defines a private (well, __container to be exact since it is python) container. I am using the information within said container as part of the logic of what the class does and have the ability to add/delete the elements of said container. For unit tests, I need to populate this container with some data. That date depends on the test done and thus putting it all in setUp() would be impractical and bloated -- plus it could add unwanted side effects. Since the data is private, I can only add things via the public interface of the object. This run codes that need not be run during a unit test and in some case is just a copy and paste from another test. Currently, I am mocking the whole container but somehow it does not feel that elegant a solution. Due to Python mocking frame work (mock), this requires the container to be public -- so I can use patch.dict(). I would rather keep that data private. What pattern can one use to still populate the containers without excising the public method so I have data to test with? Is there a way to do this with mock' patch.dict() that I missed?

    Read the article

  • How best to construct our test subjects in unit tests?

    - by Liath
    Some of our business logic classes require quite a few dependencies (in our case 7-10). As such when we come to unit test these the creation become quite complex. In most tests these dependencies are often not required (only some dependencies are required for particular methods). As a result unit tests often require a significant number of lines of code to mock up these useless dependencies (which can't be null because of null checks). For example: [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = new Sut(new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, new Mock<IDependency3>().Object, new Mock<IDependency4>().Object, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } In this example almost half the test is taken up creating dependencies which aren't used. I've investigated an approach where I have a helper method. [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = CreateSut(null, null, null, null, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } private Sut CreateSut(IDependency1 d1, IDependency2 d2...) { return new Sut(d1 ?? new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, d2 ?? new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, } But these often grow very complicated very quickly. What is the best way to create these BLL classes in test classes to reduce complexity and simplify tests?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Myths and Practices

    We all understand the value of Unit Testing, but how come so few organisations maintain unit tests for their in-house applications? We can no longer pretend that unit testing is a universal panacea for ensuring less-buggy applications. Instead, we should be prepared to actively justify the use of unit tests, and be more savvy about where in the development cycle the unit test resources should be most effectively used.

    Read the article

  • GlassFish can't find persistence provider for EntityManager

    - by Xorty
    Hi, I am building Spring MVC project (2.5). It runs on GlassFish v3 server and I am using Hibernate for ORM mapping from Derby database. I am having trouble with deployment - GlassFish says : No Persistence provider for EntityManager named mvcspringPU. Here is how I create EntityManagerFactory : emf = Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory("mvcspringPU"); And here is my configuration file persistence.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <persistence version="1.0" xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence/persistence_1_0.xsd"> <persistence-unit name="mvcspringPU" transaction-type="JTA"> <provider>org.hibernate.ejb.HibernatePersistence</provider> <jta-data-source>CarsDB</jta-data-source> <properties> <property name="hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto" value="update"/> </properties> </persistence-unit> </persistence> I am building with NetBeans 6.8, so things like build paths should be alright (generated by IDE itself).

    Read the article

  • Cannot parse persistence unit from class path resource

    - by Grzegorz S
    so I have this problem in running my Spring WS app which implements JPA ( or should implement..) I have a problem with running a WS, it looks like my Spring context can't find file persistence.xml Which i am able to believe because i did not have generated META-INF folder in my template (which is Maven project template with archetype org.springframework.ws) I have created META-INF manually. Here is the HTTP 500: org.springframework.beans.factory.BeanCreationException: Error creating bean with name 'caChainDao' defined in file [E:\STS\vfabric-tc-server-developer-2.7.2.RELEASE\zz\wtpwebapps\FCAWSv4\WEB-INF\classes\pl\famoc\test\ws\db\dao\caChainDao.class]: Initialization of bean failed; nested exception is org.springframework.beans.factory.BeanCreationException: Error creating bean with name 'entityManagerFactory' defined in ServletContext resource [/WEB-INF/spring-ws-servlet.xml]: Invocation of init method failed; nested exception is java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Cannot parse persistence unit from class path resource [persistence.xml] org.springframework.beans.factory.support.AbstractAutowireCapableBeanFactory.doCreateBean(AbstractAutowireCapableBeanFactory.java:527) org.springframework.beans.factory.support.AbstractAutowireCapableBeanFactory.createBean(AbstractAutowireCapableBeanFactory.java:456) org.springframework.beans.factory.support.AbstractBeanFactory$1.getObject(AbstractBeanFactory.java:294) org.springframework.beans.factory.support.DefaultSingletonBeanRegistry.getSingleton(DefaultSingletonBeanRegistry.java:225) org.springframework.beans.factory.support.AbstractBeanFactory.doGetBean(AbstractBeanFactory.java:291) org.springframework.beans.factory.support.AbstractBeanFactory.getBean(AbstractBeanFactory.java:193) org.springframework.beans.factory.support.DefaultListableBeanFactory.preInstantiateSingletons(DefaultListableBeanFactory.java:609) org.springframework.context.support.AbstractApplicationContext.finishBeanFactoryInitialization(AbstractApplicationContext.java:918) org.springframework.context.support.AbstractApplicationContext.refresh(AbstractApplicationContext.java:469) org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.configureAndRefreshWebApplicationContext(FrameworkServlet.java:631) org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.createWebApplicationContext(FrameworkServlet.java:588) org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.createWebApplicationContext(FrameworkServlet.java:645) org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.initWebApplicationContext(FrameworkServlet.java:508) org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.initServletBean(FrameworkServlet.java:449) org.springframework.web.servlet.HttpServletBean.init(HttpServletBean.java:133) javax.servlet.GenericServlet.init(GenericServlet.java:160) org.apache.catalina.authenticator.AuthenticatorBase.invoke(AuthenticatorBase.java:472) org.apache.catalina.valves.ErrorReportValve.invoke(ErrorReportValve.java:99) org.apache.catalina.valves.AccessLogValve.invoke(AccessLogValve.java:929) org.apache.catalina.connector.CoyoteAdapter.service(CoyoteAdapter.java:407) org.apache.coyote.http11.AbstractHttp11Processor.process(AbstractHttp11Processor.java:1002) org.apache.coyote.AbstractProtocol$AbstractConnectionHandler.process(AbstractProtocol.java:585) org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$SocketProcessor.run(JIoEndpoint.java:310) java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1110) java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:603) java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:722) Here it is my persistence.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?> <persistence xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence/persistence_2_0.xsd" version="2.0" xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence"> <persistence-unit name="persistenceUnit" transaction-type="RESOURCE_LOCAL" /> </persistence> here it is where i am looking for it <property name="persistenceXmlLocation" value="classpath:persistence.xml" /> and here it is path to this xml in my classpath: src/main/webapp/META-INF/persistence.xml Could anyone give me a hint what am i missing?

    Read the article

  • Unit test: How best to provide an XML input?

    - by TheSilverBullet
    I need to write a unit test which validates the serialization of two attributes of an XML(size ~ 30 KB) file. What is the best way to provide an input for this test? Here are the options I have considered: Add the file to the project and use a file reader Pass the contents of the XML as a string Create the XML through a program and pass it Which is my best option and why? If there is another way which you think is better, I would love to hear it.

    Read the article

  • Are there any concerns with using a static read-only unit of work so that it behaves like a cache?

    - by Rowan Freeman
    Related question: How do I cache data that rarely changes? I'm making an ASP.NET MVC4 application. On every request the security details about the user will need to be checked with the area/controller/action that they are accessing to see if they are allowed to view it. The security information is stored in the database. For example: User Permission UserPermission Action ActionPermission A "Permission" is a token that is applied to an MVC action to indicate that the token is required in order to access the action. Once a user is given the permission (via the UserPermission table) then they have the token and can therefore access the action. I've been looking in to how to cache this data (since it rarely changes) so that I'm only querying in-memory data and not hitting a database (which is a considerable performance hit at the moment). I've tried storing things in lists, using a caching provider but I either run in to problems or performance doesn't improve. One problem that I constantly run in to is that I'm using lazy loading and dynamic proxies with EntityFramework. This means that even if I ToList() everything and store them somewhere static, the relationships are never populated. For example, User.Permissions is an ICollection but it's always null. I don't want to Include() everything because I'm trying to keep things simple and generic (and easy to modify). One thing I know is that an EntityFramework DbContext is a unit of work that acts with 1st-level caching. That is, for the duration of the unit of work, everything that is accessed is cached in memory. I want to create a read-only DbContext that will exist indefinitely and will only be used to read about permission data. Upon testing this it worked perfectly; my page load times went from 200ms+ to 20ms. I can easily force the data to refresh at certain intervals or simply leave it to refresh when the application pool is recycled. Basically it will behave like a cache. Note that the rest of the application will interact with other contexts that exist per request as normal. Is there any disadvantage to this approach? Could I be doing something different?

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test a unit test?

    - by FlySwat
    I was watching Rob Connerys webcasts on the MVCStoreFront App, and I noticed he was unit testing even the most mundane things, things like: public Decimal DiscountPrice { get { return this.Price - this.Discount; } } Would have a test like: [TestMethod] public void Test_DiscountPrice { Product p = new Product(); p.Price = 100; p.Discount = 20; Assert.IsEqual(p.DiscountPrice,80); } While, I am all for unit testing, I sometimes wonder if this form of test first development is really beneficial, for example, in a real process, you have 3-4 layers above your code (Business Request, Requirements Document, Architecture Document), where the actual defined business rule (Discount Price is Price - Discount) could be misdefined. If that's the situation, your unit test means nothing to you. Additionally, your unit test is another point of failure: [TestMethod] public void Test_DiscountPrice { Product p = new Product(); p.Price = 100; p.Discount = 20; Assert.IsEqual(p.DiscountPrice,90); } Now the test is flawed. Obviously in a simple test, it's no big deal, but say we were testing a complicated business rule. What do we gain here? Fast forward two years into the application's life, when maintenance developers are maintaining it. Now the business changes its rule, and the test breaks again, some rookie developer then fixes the test incorrectly...we now have another point of failure. All I see is more possible points of failure, with no real beneficial return, if the discount price is wrong, the test team will still find the issue, how did unit testing save any work? What am I missing here? Please teach me to love TDD, as I'm having a hard time accepting it as useful so far. I want too, because I want to stay progressive, but it just doesn't make sense to me. EDIT: A couple people keep mentioned that testing helps enforce the spec. It has been my experience that the spec has been wrong as well, more often than not, but maybe I'm doomed to work in an organization where the specs are written by people who shouldn't be writing specs.

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test the real world?

    - by Kim Sun-wu
    I'm primarily a C++ coder, and thus far, have managed without really writing tests for all of my code. I've decided this is a Bad Idea(tm), after adding new features that subtly broke old features, or, depending on how you wish to look at it, introduced some new "features" of their own. But, unit testing seems to be an extremely brittle mechanism. You can test for something in "perfect" conditions, but you don't get to see how your code performs when stuff breaks. A for instance is a crawler, let's say it crawls a few specific sites, for data X. Do you simply save sample pages, test against those, and hope that the sites never change? This would work fine as regression tests, but, what sort of tests would you write to constantly check those sites live and let you know when the application isn't doing it's job because the site changed something, that now causes your application to crash? Wouldn't you want your test suite to monitor the intent of the code? The above example is a bit contrived, and something I haven't run into (in case you haven't guessed). Let me pick something I have, though. How do you test an application will do its job in the face of a degraded network stack? That is, say you have a moderate amount of packet loss, for one reason or the other, and you have a function DoSomethingOverTheNetwork() which is supposed to degrade gracefully when the stack isn't performing as it's supposed to; but does it? The developer tests it personally by purposely setting up a gateway that drops packets to simulate a bad network when he first writes it. A few months later, someone checks in some code that modifies something subtly, so the degradation isn't detected in time, or, the application doesn't even recognize the degradation, this is never caught, because you can't run real world tests like this using unit tests, can you? Further, how about file corruption? Let's say you're storing a list of servers in a file, and the checksum looks okay, but the data isn't really. You want the code to handle that, you write some code that you think does that. How do you test that it does exactly that for the life of the application? Can you? Hence, brittleness. Unit tests seem to test the code only in perfect conditions(and this is promoted, with mock objects and such), not what they'll face in the wild. Don't get me wrong, I think unit tests are great, but a test suite composed only of them seems to be a smart way to introduce subtle bugs in your code while feeling overconfident about it's reliability. How do I address the above situations? If unit tests aren't the answer, what is? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Using Unit of Work design pattern / NHibernate Sessions in an MVVM WPF

    - by Echiban
    I think I am stuck in the paralysis of analysis. Please help! I currently have a project that Uses NHibernate on SQLite Implements Repository and Unit of Work pattern: http://blogs.hibernatingrhinos.com/nhibernate/archive/2008/04/10/nhibernate-and-the-unit-of-work-pattern.aspx MVVM strategy in a WPF app Unit of Work implementation in my case supports one NHibernate session at a time. I thought at the time that this makes sense; it hides inner workings of NHibernate session from ViewModel. Now, according to Oren Eini (Ayende): http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ee819139.aspx He convinces the audience that NHibernate sessions should be created / disposed when the view associated with the presenter / viewmodel is disposed. He presents issues why you don't want one session per windows app, nor do you want a session to be created / disposed per transaction. This unfortunately poses a problem because my UI can easily have 10+ view/viewmodels present in an app. He is presenting using a MVP strategy, but does his advice translate to MVVM? Does this mean that I should scrap the unit of work and have viewmodel create NHibernate sessions directly? Should a WPF app only have one working session at a time? If that is true, when should I create / dispose a NHibernate session? And I still haven't considered how NHibernate Stateless sessions fit into all this! My brain is going to explode. Please help!

    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

  • Unit Testing in the real world

    - by Malfist
    I manage a rather large application (50k+ lines of code) by myself, and it manages some rather critical business actions. To describe the program simple, I would say it's a fancy UI with the ability to display and change data from the database, and it's managing around 1,000 rental units, and about 3k tenants and all the finances. When I make changes, because it's so large of a code base, I sometimes break something somewhere else. I typically test it by going though the stuff I changed at the functional level (i.e. I run the program and work through the UI), but I can't test for every situation. That is why I want to get started with unit testing. However, this isn't a true, three tier program with a database tier, a business tier, and a UI tier. A lot of the business logic is performed in the UI classes, and many things are done on events. To complicate things, everything is database driven, and I've not seen (so far) good suggestions on how to unit test database interactions. How would be a good way to get started with unit testing for this application. Keep in mind. I've never done unit testing or TDD before. Should I rewrite it to remove the business logic from the UI classes (a lot of work)? Or is there a better way?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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