Search Results

Search found 544 results on 22 pages for 'tdd'.

Page 9/22 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• where I can get some tutorials on Java FitNesse and Slim?

  - by Andersson Melo

  I am studying TDD using FitNesse and I am looking some tutorials and examples. I would like to know where to find a good material.

  Read the article

• How to force VS 2010 to skip "builds" of projects which haven't changed?

  - by Ladislav Mrnka

  Our product's solution has more than 100+ projects (500+ksloc of production code). Most of them are C# projects but we also have few using C++/CLI to bridge communication with native code. Rebuilding the whole solution takes several minutes. That's fine. If I want to rebuilt the solution I expect that it will really take some time. What is not fine is time needed to build solution after full rebuild. Imagine I used full rebuild and know without doing any changes to to the solution I press Build (F6 or Ctrl+Shift+B). Why it takes 35s if there was no change? In output I see that it started "building" of each project - it doesn't perform real build but it does something which consumes significant amount of time. That 35s delay is pain in the ass. Yes I can improve the time by not using build solution but only build project (Shift+F6). If I run build project on particular test project I'm currently working on it will take "only" 8+s. It requires me to run project build on correct project (the test project to ensure dependent tested code is build as well). At least ReSharper test runner correctly recognizes that only this single project must be build and rerunning test usually contains only 8+s compilation. My current coding Kata is: don't touch Ctrl+Shift+B. The test project build will take 8s even if I don't do any changes. The reason why it takes 8s is because it also "builds" dependencies = in my case it "builds" more than 20 projects but I made changes only to unit test or single dependency! I don't want it to touch other projects. Is there a way to simply tell VS to build only projects where some changes were done and projects which are dependent on changed ones (preferably this part as another build option)? I worry you will tell me that it is exactly what VS is doing but in MS way ... I want to improve my TDD experience and reduce the time of compilation (in TDD the compilation can happen twice per minute). To make this even more frustrated I'm working in a team where most of developers used to work on Java projects prior to joining this one. So you can imagine how they are pissed off when they must use VS in contrast to full incremental compilation in Java. I don't require incremental compilation of classes. I expect working incremental compilation of solutions. Especially in product like VS 2010 Ultimate which costs several thousands dollars. I really don't want to get answers like: Make a separate solution Unload projects you don't need etc. I can read those answers here. Those are not acceptable solutions. We're not paying for VS to do such compromises.

  Read the article

• How can I decide what to test manually, and what to trust to automated tests?

  - by bhazzard

  We have a ton of developers and only a few QA folks. The developers have been getting more involved in qa throughout the development process by writing automated tests, but our QA practices are mostly manual. What I'd love is if our development practices were BDD and TDD and we grew a robust test suite. The question is: While building such a testing suite, how can we decide what we can trust to the tests, and what we should continue testing manually?

  Read the article

• ASP.Net MVC Moq SetupGet

  - by Nicholas Murray

  Hi, I am starting out with TDD using Moq to Mock an interface that I have: public interface IDataService { void Commit(); TopListService TopLists { get; } } From the samples I have seen I would expect SetupGet (or Setup) to appear in the intellisense when I type var mockDataService = new Mock<IDataService>(); mockDataService. But it is missing. Could someone suggest why?

  Read the article

• Is there a good place to discuss Test Driven Development?

  - by panamack

  I've just signed up for the Google group entitled Test Driven Development but it's only had 3 posts in 2010 and seems to be littered with spam. Does anyone know of a good TDD focussed place to ask those general perhaps 'subjective' questions which might not be welcomed on SO?

  Read the article

• How deep are your unit tests?

  - by John Nolan

  The thing I've found about TDD is that its takes time to get your tests set up and being naturally lazy I always want to write as little code as possible. The first thing I seem do is test my constructor has set all the properties but is this overkill? My question is to what level of granularity do you write you unit tests at? ..and is there a case of testing too much?

  Read the article

• How to deal with the test data in Junit?

  - by user351637

  In TDD(Test Driven Development) development process, how to deal with the test data? Assumption that a scenario, parse a log file to get the needed column. For a strong test, How do I prepare the test data? And is it properly for me locate such files to the test class files?

  Read the article

• A TDD Journey: 2- Naming Tests; Mocking Frameworks; Dependency Injection

  Test-Driven Development (TDD) relies on the repetition of a very short development cycle Starting from an initially failing automated test that defines the functionality that is required, and then producing the minimum amount of code to pass that test, and finally refactoring the new code. Michael Sorens continues his introduction to TDD that is more of a journey in six parts, by implementing the first tests and introducing the topics of Test Naming, Mocking Frameworks and Dependency Injection

  Read the article

• A TDD Journey: 4-Tests as Documentation; False Positive Results; Component Isolation

  In Test-Driven Development (TDD) , The writing of a unit test is done more to design and to document than to verifiy. By writing a unit test you close a number of feedback loops, and verifying the functionality of the code is just a minor one. everything you need to know about your class under test is embodied in a simple list of the names of the tests. Michael Sorens continues his introduction to TDD that is more of a journey in six parts, by discussing Tests as Documentation, False Positive Results and Component Isolation.

  Read the article

• Does ActiveRecord make Ruby on Rails code hard to test?

  - by Erik Öjebo

  I've spent most of my time in statically typed languages (primarily C#). I have some bad experiences with the Active Record pattern and unit testing, because of the static methods and the mix of entities and data access code. Since the Ruby community probably is the most test driven of the communities out there, and the Rails ActiveRecord seems popular, there must be some way of combining TDD and ActiveRecord based code in Ruby on Rails. I would guess that the problem goes away in dynamic languages, somehow, but I don't see how. So, what's the trick?

  Read the article

• Unit Test to Run .sql script to SQL Create Database

  - by Lee Englestone

  Can anyone point me in the direction of how I could get a NUnit test to run a .sql file to Create / Setup a database. I know about the the TestFixtureSetUp and TestFixtureTearDown attributes / methods in NUnit. So I KNOW how to call methods before and after all or each unit tests. I'm just unsure of how to load and execute the contents of a .sql file agains a SQL Server 2005 database programatically. Any examples? This is part of our TDD / CI. We are wanting to create the database before and tear down the database after executing unit tests. Cheers, -- Lee

  Read the article

• I do not write tests. Am I stupid?

  - by Josh Stodola

  I've done a little bit of reading on unit testing and TDD, and I've never seriously considered writing tests to such a precise extent. Granted, I am not working on any projects that are ridiculously huge. If all I build are small apps, am I stupid for not writing tests? Edit: To clarify, when I say "small apps", I mean apps that are not going to control a persons life and/or their belongings. I generally build things that are supposed to make peoples lives easier and to make them more efficient.

  Read the article

• Typical size of unit tests compared to test code

  - by Frank Schwieterman

  I'm curious what a reasonable / typical value is for the ratio of test code to production code when people are doing TDD. Looking at one component, I have 530 lines of test code for 130 lines of production code. Another component has 1000 lines of test code for 360 lines of production code. So the unit tests are requiring roughly 3x to 5x as much code. This is for Javascript code. I don't have much tested C# code handy, but I think for another project I was looking at 2x to 3x as much test code then production code. It would seem to me that the lower that value is, assuming the tests are sufficient, would reflect higher quality tests. Pure speculation, I just wonder what ratios other people see. I know lines of code is an loose metric, but since I code in the same style for both test and production (same spacing format, same ammount of comments, etc) the values are comparable.

  Read the article

• Programmatically execute vim commands?

  - by Ben Gartner

  I'm interested in setting up a TDD environment for developing Vim scripts and rc files. As a simple example, say I want to have vim insert 8 spaces when I press the tab key. I would set up a script that did the following: Launch vim using a sandboxed .vimrc file press i press tab press esc press :w test_out assert that test_out contains ' ' by the default config in vim, this would fail. However, once I add set expandtab to my .vimrc file, the test will pass. So the question is, how do I programmatically issue these commands? 'vim -c ' is close, but seems to only work for ex mode commands. Any suggestions? This question seem to be thoroughly google-proof.

  Read the article

• I have Person.Surname field implemented as a string if I change the implementation of the field to a

  - by AndyM

  This is me going right back to basics with TDD for learning purposes. I originally implemented Person.Surname as field of type object (the simplest possible way of passing the test. I then added a test setting Person.Surname stating that the return value should be a string and set Person.Surname=20. I 'fixed' the test by changing the implementation to use string rather than object. The test now long compiles due to static type checking, so I commented it out. So I'm left with no way of leaving my intention in the test. Is there a way of having a failing test in this circumstance?

  Read the article

• Do I have to create a static library to test my application?

  - by Christopher Gateley

  I'm just getting started with TDD and am curious as to what approaches others take to run their tests. For reference, I am using the google testing framework, but I believe the question is applicable to most other testing frameworks and to languages other than C/C++. My general approach so far has been to do either one of three things: Write the majority of the application in a static library, then create two executables. One executable is the application itself, while the other is the test runner with all of the tests. Both link to the static library. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and enable or disable the testing code using compiler flags. This is probably the best approach I've used so far, but clutters up the code a bit. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and, given certain command-line switches either run the application itself or run the tests embedded in the application. None of these solutions are particularly elegant... How do you do it?

  Read the article

• How do you run your unit tests? Compiler flags? Static libraries?

  - by Christopher Gateley

  I'm just getting started with TDD and am curious as to what approaches others take to run their tests. For reference, I am using the google testing framework, but I believe the question is applicable to most other testing frameworks and to languages other than C/C++. My general approach so far has been to do either one of three things: Write the majority of the application in a static library, then create two executables. One executable is the application itself, while the other is the test runner with all of the tests. Both link to the static library. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and enable or disable the testing code using compiler flags. This is probably the best approach I've used so far, but clutters up the code a bit. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and, given certain command-line switches either run the application itself or run the tests embedded in the application. None of these solutions are particularly elegant... How do you do it?

  Read the article

• Unit testing with serialization mock objects in C++

  - by lhumongous

  Greetings, I'm fairly new to TDD and ran across a unit test that I'm not entirely sure how to address. Basically, I'm testing a couple of legacy class methods which read/write a binary stream to a file. The class functions take a serializable object as a parameter, which handles the actual reading/writing to the file. For testing this, I was thinking that I would need a serialization mock object that I would pass to this function. My initial thought was to have the mock object hold onto a (char*) which would dynamically allocate memory and memcpy the data. However, it seems like the mock object might be doing too much work, and might be beyond the scope of this particular test. Is my initial approach correct, or can anyone think of another way of correctly testing this? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Test-driven Development: Writing tests for private / protected variables

  - by Chetan

  I'm learning TDD, and I have a question about private / protected variables. My question is: If a function I want to test is operating on a private variable, how should I test it? Here is the example I'm working with: I have a class called Table that contains an instance variable called internalRepresentation that is a 2D array. I want to create a function called multiplyValuesByN that multiplies all the values in the 2D array by the argument n. So I write the test for it (in Python): def test_multiplyValuesByN (self): t = Table(3, 3) # 3x3 table, filled with 0's t.set(0, 0, 4) # Set value at position (0,0) to 4 t.multiplyValuesByN(3) assertEqual(t.internalRepresentation, [[12, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0]]) Now, if I make internalRepresentation private or protected, this test will not work. How am I supposed to write the test so it doesn't depend on internalRepresentation but still tests that it looks correct after calling multiplyValuesByN?

  Read the article

• General N-Tier Architecture Question

  - by whatispunk

  In an N-Tier app you're supposed to have a business logic layer and a data access layer. Is it bad to simply have two assemblies: BusinessLogicLayer.dll and DataAccessLayer.dll to handle all this logic? How do you actually represent these layers. It seems silly, the way I've seen it, to have a BusinessLogic class library containing classes like: CustomerBusinessLogic.cs, OrderBusinessLogic.cs, etc. each calling their appropriately named cousin in the DataAccessLayer class library, i.e. CustomerDataAccess.cs, OrderDataAccess.cs. I want to create a web app using MVP and it doesn't seem so cut and dry as this. There are lots of opinions about where the business logic is supposed to be put in MVP and I'm not sure I've found a really great answer yet. I want this project to be easily testable, and I am trying to adhere to TDD methodologies as best I can. I intend to use MSTest and Rhino Mocks for testing. I was thinking of something like the following for my architecture: I'd use LINQ-To-SQL to talk to the database. WCF services to define data contract interfaces for the business logic layer. Then use MVP with ASP.NET Forms for the UI/BLL. Now, this isn't the start of this project, most of the LINQ stuff is already done, so its stuck. The WCF service would replace the existing DataAccessLayer assembly and the UI/BLL would replace the BusinessLogicLayer assembly etc. This sort of makes sense in my head, but its getting really late. Anyone that's traveled down this path have any guidance? Good links? Warnings? Thanks!

  Read the article

• IoC & Interfaces Best Practices

  - by n8wrl

  I'm experimenting with IoC on my way to TDD by fiddling with an existing project. In a nutshell, my question is this: what are the best practices around IoC when public and non-public methods are of interest? There are two classes: public abstract class ThisThingBase { public virtual void Method1() {} public virtual void Method2() {} public ThatThing GetThat() { return new ThatThing(this); } internal virtual void Method3() {} internal virtual void Method4() {} } public class Thathing { public ThatThing(ThisThingBase thing) { m_thing = thing; } ... } ThatThing does some stuff using its ThisThingBase reference to call methods that are often overloaded by descendents of ThisThingBase. Method1 and Method2 are public. Method3 and Method4 are internal and only used by ThatThings. I would like to test ThatThing without ThisThing and vice-versa. Studying up on IoC my first thought was that I should define an IThing interface, implement it by ThisThingBase and pass it to the ThatThing constructor. IThing would be the public interface clients could call but it doesn't include Method3 or Method4 that ThatThing also needs. Should I define a 2nd interface - IThingInternal maybe - for those two methods and pass BOTH interfaces to ThatThing?

  Read the article

• This is a great job opportunity!!! [closed]

  - by Stuart Gordon

  ASP.NET MVC Web Developer / London / £450pd / £25-£50,000pa / Interested contact [email protected] ! As a web developer within the engineering department, you will work with a team of enthusiastic developers building a new ASP.NET MVC platform for online products utilising exciting cutting edge technologies and methodologies (elements of Agile, Scrum, Lean, Kanban and XP) as well as developing new stand-alone web products that conform to W3C standards. Key Responsibilities and Objectives: Develop ASP.NET MVC websites utilising Frameworks and enterprise search technology. Develop and expand content management and delivery solutions. Help maintain and extend existing products. Formulate ideas and visions for new products and services. Be a proactive part of the development team and provide support and assistance to others when required. Qualification/Experience Required: The ideal candidate will have a web development background and be educated to degree level in a Computer Science/IT related course plus ASP.NET MVC experience. The successful candidate needs to be able to demonstrate commercial experience in all or most of the following skills: Essential: ASP.NET MVC with C# (Visual Studio), Castle, nHibernate, XHTML and JavaScript. Experience of Test Driven Development (TDD) using tools such as NUnit. Preferable: Experience of Continuous Integration (TeamCity and MSBuild), SQL Server (T-SQL), experience of source control such as Subversion (plus TortioseSVN), JQuery. Learn: Fluent NHibernate, S#arp Architecture, Spark (View engine), Behaviour Driven Design (BDD) using MSpec. Furthermore, you will possess good working knowledge of W3C web standards, web usability, web accessibility and understand the basics of search engine optimisation (SEO). You will also be a quick learner, have good communication skills and be a self-motivated and organised individual.

  Read the article

• How can i mock or test my deferred execution functionality?

  - by cottsak

  I have what could be seen as a bizarre hybrid of IQueryable<T> and IList<T> collections of domain objects passed up my application stack. I'm trying to maintain as much of the 'late querying' or 'lazy loading' as possible. I do this in two ways: By using a LinqToSql data layer and passing IQueryable<T>s through by repositories and to my app layer. Then after my app layer passing IList<T>s but where certain elements in the object/aggregate graph are 'chained' with delegates so as to defer their loading. Sometimes even the delegate contents rely on IQueryable<T> sources and the DataContext are injected. This works for me so far. What is blindingly difficult is proving that this design actually works. Ie. If i defeat the 'lazy' part somewhere and my execution happens early then the whole thing is a waste of time. I'd like to be able to TDD this somehow. I don't know a lot about delegates or thread safety as it applies to delegates acting on the same source. I'd like to be able to mock the DataContext and somehow trace both methods of deferring (IQueryable<T>'s SQL and the delegates) the loading so that i can have tests that prove that both functions are working at different levels/layers of the app/stack. As it's crucial that the deferring works for the design to be of any value, i'd like to see tests fail when i break the design at a given level (separate from the live implementation). Is this possible?

  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

• Unit Testing - Am I doing it right?

  - by baron

  Hi everyone, Basically I have been programing for a little while and after finishing my last project can fully understand how much easier it would have been if I'd have done TDD. I guess I'm still not doing it strictly as I am still writing code then writing a test for it, I don't quite get how the test becomes before the code if you don't know what structures and how your storing data etc... but anyway... Kind of hard to explain but basically lets say for example I have a Fruit objects with properties like id, color and cost. (All stored in textfile ignore completely any database logic etc) FruitID FruitName FruitColor FruitCost 1 Apple Red 1.2 2 Apple Green 1.4 3 Apple HalfHalf 1.5 This is all just for example. But lets say I have this is a collection of Fruit (it's a List<Fruit>) objects in this structure. And my logic will say to reorder the fruitids in the collection if a fruit is deleted (this is just how the solution needs to be). E.g. if 1 is deleted, object 2 takes fruit id 1, object 3 takes fruit id2. Now I want to test the code ive written which does the reordering, etc. How can I set this up to do the test? Here is where I've got so far. Basically I have fruitManager class with all the methods, like deletefruit, etc. It has the list usually but Ive changed hte method to test it so that it accepts a list, and the info on the fruit to delete, then returns the list. Unit-testing wise: Am I basically doing this the right way, or have I got the wrong idea? and then I test deleting different valued objects / datasets to ensure method is working properly. [Test] public void DeleteFruit() { var fruitList = CreateFruitList(); var fm = new FruitManager(); var resultList = fm.DeleteFruitTest("Apple", 2, fruitList); //Assert that fruitobject with x properties is not in list ? how } private static List<Fruit> CreateFruitList() { //Build test data var f01 = new Fruit {Name = "Apple",Id = 1, etc...}; var f02 = new Fruit {Name = "Apple",Id = 2, etc...}; var f03 = new Fruit {Name = "Apple",Id = 3, etc...}; var fruitList = new List<Fruit> {f01, f02, f03}; return fruitList; }

  Read the article

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