Search Results

Search found 53818 results on 2153 pages for 'system testing'.

Page 9/2153 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• Framework or tool for "distributed unit testing"?

  - by user262646

  Is there any tool or framework able to make it easier to test distributed software written in Java? My system under test is a peer-to-peer software, and I'd like to perform testing using something like PNUnit, but with Java instead of .Net. The system under test is a framework I'm developing to build P2P applications. It uses JXTA as a lower subsystem, trying to hide some complexities of it. It's currently an academic project, so I'm pursuing simplicity at this moment. In my test, I want to demonstrate that a peer (running in its own process, possibly with multiple threads) can discover another one (running in another process or even another machine) and that they can exchange a few messages. I'm not using mocks nor stubs because I need to see both sides working simultaneously. I realize that some kind of coordination mechanism is needed, and PNUnit seems to be able to do that. I've bumped into some initiatives like Pisces, which "aims to provide a distributed testing environment that extends JUnit, giving the developer/tester an ability to run remote JUnits and create complex test suites that are composed of several remote JUnit tests running in parallel or serially", but this project and a few others I have found seem to be long dead.

  Read the article

• What's a good way to do testing a plug-in on multiple Windows and Outlook versions?

  - by Andrei

  Hello, We're building a plug-in for Outlook that should work on multiple Windows versions (XP, Vista, 7) and also with different Outlook versions (2003, 2007, 2010). The testing problem I am facing right now, is that I can't figure out a good/convenient/thorough way to test the application on multiple Windows and Outlook versions. At the moment, I have a VirtualBox which runs many virtual machines, with different Windows versions and Outlook versions. So I would have a virtual machine with Windows 7 testing Outlook 2010, and another one with Windows 7 testing Outlook 2007, Windows Vista with Outlook 2010 and so on, going through some of the possible combinations. It kind of gets the job done, although it is cumbersome and takes a long time to test. Some of the testing included in the application is unit testing, but this is also rather tied in with the machine I test it on (windows 7 with outlook 2010). For example, I was using ManagementObject recently, which worked fine on my system (and thus passed the unit test for that method), however, using that object threw an exception in another person's system, which crashed the application. I work on Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate. The questions: Is there a more elegant way to make the testing process more streamline and more efficient? Any other testing methods you recommend? How would you deal with this problem? Thanks! Looking forward to your replies.

  Read the article

• [Silverlight] Suggestion – Move INotifyCollectionChanged from System.Windows.dll to System.dll

  - by Benjamin Roux

  I just submitted a suggestion on Microsoft Connect to move the INotifyCollectionChanged from System.Windows.dll to System.dll. You can review it here: https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/560184/move-inotifycollectionchanged-from-system-windows-dll-to-system-dll Here’s the reason why I suggest that. Actually I wanted to take advantages of the new feature of Silverlight/Visual Studio 2010 for sharing assemblies (see http://blogs.msdn.com/clrteam/archive/2009/12/01/sharing-silverlight-assemblies-with-net-apps.aspx). Everything went fine until I try to share a custom collection (with custom business logic) implementing INotifyCollectionChanged. This modification has been made in the .NET Framework 4 (see https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/488607/move-inotifycollectionchanged-to-system-dll) so maybe it could be done in Silverlight too. If you think this is justifiable you can vote for it.

  Read the article

• Good practices - database programming, unit testing

  - by Piotr Rodak

  Jason Brimhal wrote today on his blog that new book, Defensive Database Programming , written by Alex Kuznetsov ( blog ) is coming to bookstores. Alex writes about various techniques that make your code safer to run. SQL injection is not the only one vulnerability the code may be exposed to. Some other include inconsistent search patterns, unsupported character sets, locale settings, issues that may occur during high concurrency conditions, logic that breaks when certain conditions are not met. The...(read more)

  Read the article

• Setup was unable to create a new system partition or locate an existing system partition

  - by PearlFactory

  Have got a new kickn server as new DEV machine It has got two 3ware 9650 Cached Controllers with 8 x 300gig Velociraptor Drives First Problem was the 9.5.1.1 drivers Had to press F8 as soon as the Win 2008 r2 server cd started to load. Once in Adavanced Startup options Disable Driver Signing options Next Issue was I got everything running and accidently selected wrong raid part to do install once I restarted All I would get after waiting the 10 mins for the reboot to start & loading the driver was "setup was unable to create a new system partition or locate an existing system partition"  Finally after about 1 hour I removed all drives apart from the 2 needed for system part on cont 0 deleted system part and recreated this RAID1 mirror. (ALso make sure all USB drives are out on boot..only add them when browsing  the driver to be added )  Restarted loaded driver selected install and Once system is up I will go back and add drives and new parts on both controllers AT least I did not get stuck for a day as is the norm..lol

  Read the article

• Does software testing methodology rely on flawed data?

  - by Konrad Rudolph

  It’s a well-known fact in software engineering that the cost of fixing a bug increases exponentially the later in development that bug is discovered. This is supported by data published in Code Complete and adapted in numerous other publications. However, it turns out that this data never existed. The data cited by Code Complete apparently does not show such a cost / development time correlation, and similar published tables only showed the correlation in some special cases and a flat curve in others (i.e. no increase in cost). Is there any independent data to corroborate or refute this? And if true (i.e. if there simply is no data to support this exponentially higher cost for late discovered bugs), how does this impact software development methodology?

  Read the article

• Unit testing statically typed functional code

  - by back2dos

  I wanted to ask you people, in which cases it makes sense to unit test statically typed functional code, as written in haskell, scala, ocaml, nemerle, f# or haXe (the last is what I am really interested in, but I wanted to tap into the knowledge of the bigger communities). I ask this because from my understanding: One aspect of unit tests is to have the specs in runnable form. However when employing a declarative style, that directly maps the formalized specs to language semantics, is it even actually possible to express the specs in runnable form in a separate way, that adds value? The more obvious aspect of unit tests is to track down errors that cannot be revealed through static analysis. Given that type safe functional code is a good tool to code extremely close to what your static analyzer understands. However a simple mistake like using x instead of y (both being coordinates) in your code cannot be covered. However such a mistake could also arise while writing the test code, so I am not sure whether its worth the effort. Unit tests do introduce redundancy, which means that when requirements change, the code implementing them and the tests covering this code must both be changed. This overhead of course is about constant, so one could argue, that it doesn't really matter. In fact, in languages like Ruby it really doesn't compared to the benefits, but given how statically typed functional programming covers a lot of the ground unit tests are intended for, it feels like it's a constant overhead one can simply reduce without penalty. From this I'd deduce that unit tests are somewhat obsolete in this programming style. Of course such a claim can only lead to religious wars, so let me boil this down to a simple question: When you use such a programming style, to which extents do you use unit tests and why (what quality is it you hope to gain for your code)? Or the other way round: do you have criteria by which you can qualify a unit of statically typed functional code as covered by the static analyzer and hence needs no unit test coverage?

  Read the article

• Where should I draw the line between unit tests and integration tests? Should they be separate?

  - by Earlz

  I have a small MVC framework I've been working on. It's code base definitely isn't big, but it's not longer just a couple of classes. I finally decided to take the plunge and start writing tests for it(yes, I know I should've been doing that all along, but it's API was super unstable up until now) Anyway, my plan is to make it extremely easy to test, including integration tests. An example integration test would go something along these lines: Fake HTTP request object - MVC framework - HTTP response object - check the response is correct Because this is all doable without any state or special tools(browser automation etc), I could actually do this with ease with regular unit test frameworks(I use NUnit). Now the big question. Where exactly should I draw the line between unit tests and integration tests? Should I only test one class at a time(as much as possible) with unit tests? Also, should integration tests be placed in the same testing project as my unit testing project?

  Read the article

• Is paying programmers to "test" for bugs normal? [on hold]

  - by user106277

  I recently hired a programming team to do a port of my iPad app to the iPhone and Android platforms. I also wanted them to implement a bunch of tips on how to play the app, similar like you would find in Candy Crush or Cut the Rope. They want to charge 12 hours @ $35/hr for the "Testing all of the Tips", telling me that normally it would take them more than 25 hours but that they will 'bear the difference'. I have never heard of this, but maybe it's a new practice? I am used to devs doing their own quality control, and then having a testing/acceptance period... Am I missing something? Thanks for any help and advice you can give!

  Read the article

• mocha testing for the lazies, single key-press for all possible tests

  - by laggingreflex

  I have a batch file that lists all the test files I have and asks me which test I want to perform, like Test. [U]nit, [I]ntegration : i (user input) Integration. [A]ll, [2][U]serInteraction, [3][R]esultGeneration : u 2 User Interaction. Running "mocha integration\2userint.js" ... So essentially I have configured a batch "option" for each test file I have, which I can choose to run individually or all together. But adding and removing tests is a pain. Is there something that does this or anything like this automatically? Like reads all the files and asks me which file(s) I want to test. A GUI with checkboxes would be ultimate! but I'll take anything. I'm working in node.js

  Read the article

• OOP for unit testing : The good, the bad and the ugly

  - by Jeff

  I have recently read Miško Hevery's pdf guide to writing testable code in which its stated that you should limit your classes instanciations in your constructors. I understand that its what you should do because it allow you to easily mock you objects that are send as parameters to your class. But when it comes to writing actual code, i often end up with things like that (exemple is in PHP using Zend Framework but I think it's self explanatory) : class Some_class { private $_data; private $_options; private $_locale; public function __construct($data, $options = null) { $this->_data = $data; if ($options != null) { $this->_options = $options; } $this->_init(); } private function _init() { if(isset($this->_options['locale'])) { $locale = $this->_options['locale']; if ($locale instanceof Zend_Locale) { $this->_locale = $locale; } elseif (Zend_Locale::isLocale($locale)) { $this->_locale = new Zend_Locale($locale); } else { $this->_locale = new Zend_Locale(); } } } } Acording to my understanding of Miško Hevery's guide, i shouldn't instanciate the Zend_Local in my class but push it through the constructor (Which can be done through the options array in my example). I am wondering what would be the best practice to get the most flexibility for unittesing this code and aswell, if I want to move away from Zend Framework. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Android Live Testing

  - by Matthew Dockerty

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

  Read the article

• Who does code coverage testing?

  - by Athiruban

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

  Read the article

• Using Mock for event listeners in unit-testing

  - by phtrivier

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

  Read the article

• Automated Website Testing/Sanity/Quality

  - by Jeff

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

  Read the article

• Best method to do A B testing across to subdomains

  - by Lior

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

  Read the article

• Unit testing and Test Driven Development questions

  - by Theomax

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

  Read the article

• Which PHP frameworks use in testing?

  - by EasyHB

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

  Read the article

• Cheap server stress testing

  - by acrosman

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

  Read the article

• Separate Action from Assertion in Unit Tests

  - by DigitalMoss

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

  Read the article

• DRY, string, and unit testing

  - by Rodrigue

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

  Read the article

• Testing my model for hybrid scheduling in Embedded Systems

  - by markusian

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

  Read the article

• Unit testing multiple conditions in an IF statement

  - by bwalk2895

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

  Read the article

• I'm having an issue unit testing with a project in Visual Studio Team System 2008

  - by J.McEllen

  I there, I have completed my project and I'm doing a university subject that involves unit testing. When I right click on my function, it only shows up an options to create a unit test when my CLR support setting is set to safe. Problem is my project will not compile with this setting on?...it needs to be set to pure. How can I work around this problem?

  Read the article

• Reducing the pain writing integration and system tests

  - by mdma

  I would like to make integration tests and system tests for my applications but producing good integration and system tests have often needed so much effort that I have not bothered. The few times I tried, I wrote custom, application-specific test harnesses, which felt like re-inventing the wheel each time. I wonder if this is the wrong approach. Is there a "standard" approach to integration and full system testing? EDIT: To clarify, it's automated tests, for desktop and web applications. Ideally a complete test suite that exercises the full functionality of the application.

  Read the article

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