Search Results

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

Page 98/1565 | < Previous Page | 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105  | Next Page >

  • What are the best practices for unit testing properties with code in the setter?

    - by nportelli
    I'm fairly new to unit testing and we are actually attempting to use it on a project. There is a property like this. public TimeSpan CountDown { get { return _countDown; } set { long fraction = value.Ticks % 10000000; value -= TimeSpan.FromTicks(fraction); if(fraction > 5000000) value += TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1); if(_countDown != value) { _countDown = value; NotifyChanged("CountDown"); } } } My test looks like this. [TestMethod] public void CountDownTest_GetSet_PropChangedShouldFire() { ManualRafflePresenter target = new ManualRafflePresenter(); bool fired = false; string name = null; target.PropertyChanged += new PropertyChangedEventHandler((o, a) => { fired = true; name = a.PropertyName; }); TimeSpan expected = new TimeSpan(0, 1, 25); TimeSpan actual; target.CountDown = expected; actual = target.CountDown; Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); Assert.IsTrue(fired); Assert.AreEqual("CountDown", name); } The question is how do I test the code in the setter? Do I break it out into a method? If I do it would probably be private since no one else needs to use this. But they say not to test private methods. Do make a class if this is the only case? would two uses of this code make a class worthwhile? What is wrong with this code from a design standpoint. What is correct?

    Read the article

  • New release for the Visual Studio 2010 and .NET Framework 4 Training Kit

    - by Enrique Lima
    Among the new content in the release, is a set of ALM docs and labs. The ALM content referenced above is: o Using Code Analysis with Visual Studio 2010 to Improve Code Quality o Introduction to Exploratory Testing with Microsoft Test Manager 2010 o Introduction to Platform Testing with Microsoft Test Manager 2010 o Introduction to Quality Tracking with Visual Studio 2010 o Introduction to Test Planning with Microsoft Test Manager 2010 All ALM labs point to the latest version of the VS 2010 RTM VM. You can download the Training Kit from :  http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=23507 Visit the online content: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/VS2010TrainingCourse Download the most recent version of the Visual Studio: http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=240

    Read the article

  • Audio is working, but the speaker test doesn't work

    - by Pacquo
    I've installed Ubuntu 12.04 LTS from a minimal cd on a netbook (Asus 1001 PXD). I've installed the ubuntu-desktop package using the --no-install-recommends option. Everything works fine, except the "sound test" for headphones or analog speakers. Clicking on the "test" buttons (front left and front right) I don't hear any sound. Despite this, the audio is working properly. I've checked the audio levels with alsamixer; I have also checked that the test sounds actually exist in /usr/share/sounds/alsa. I tried an installation of Ubuntu 12.04 LTS made with the desktop-cd, and in this case the speaker test works properly. I suppose, therefore, that the problem could depend on the lack of a package, but I have not identified which one.

    Read the article

  • Running each JUnit test in a separate JVM in Eclipse?

    - by HenryR
    I have a project with nearly 500 individual tests in around 200 test classes. Some of these tests don't do a great job of tearing down their own state after they're finished, and in Eclipse this results in some tests failing. The tests all pass when running the test suite from the command line via Ant. Can I enable 'test isolation' somehow in Eclipse? I don't mind if it takes longer to run. Long term, I will clean up the misbehaving tests, but in the short term I'd like to get the tests working.

    Read the article

  • Django's self.client.login(...) does not work in unit tests

    - by thebossman
    I have created users for my unit tests in two ways: 1) Create a fixture for "auth.user" that looks roughly like this: { "pk": 1, "model": "auth.user", "fields": { "username": "homer", "is_active": 1, "password": "sha1$72cd3$4935449e2cd7efb8b3723fb9958fe3bb100a30f2", ... } } I've left out the seemingly unimportant parts. 2) Use 'create_user' in the setUp function (although I'd rather keep everything in my fixtures class): def setUp(self): User.objects.create_user('homer', '[email protected]', 'simpson') Note that the password is simpson in both cases. I've verified that this info is correctly being loaded into the test database time and time again. I can grab the User object using User.objects.get. I can verify the password is correct using 'check_password.' The user is active. Yet, invariably, self.client.login(username='homer', password='simpson') FAILS. I'm baffled as to why. I think I've read every single Internet discussion pertaining to this. Can anybody help? The login code in my unit test looks like this: login = self.client.login(username='homer', password='simpson') self.assertTrue(login) Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How do I test ActionFilterAttributes that work with ModelState?

    - by Tomas Lycken
    As suggested by (among others) Kazi Manzur Rashid in this blog post, I am using ActionFilterAttributes to transfer model state from one request to another when redirecting. However, I find myself unable to write a unit test that test the behavior of these attributes. As an example, this what I want the test for the ImportModelStateAttribute to do: Setup the filterContext so that TempData[myKey] contains some fake "exported" ModelState (that is, a ModelStateDictionary I create myself, and add one error to) Make ModelState contain one model error. Call OnActionExecuting. Verify the two dictionaries are merged, and ModelState now contains both errors. I'm at a loss already on the second step.

    Read the article

  • How do I unit test controllers for an asp.net mvc site that uses StructureMap and NHibernate?

    - by Jim Geurts
    I have an asp.net mvc2 application that is using StructureMap 2.6 and NHibernate 3.x. I would like to add unit tests to the application but am sort of at a loss for how to accomplish it. Say I have a basic controller called Posts that has an action called Index. The controller looks something like: public class PostsController : Controller { private readonly IPostService _postService; public PostsController(IPostService postService) { _postService = postService; } public ActionResult Index() { return View(_postService.QueryOver<Post>().Future()); } } If I wanted to create an nunit test that would verify that the index action is returning all of the posts, how do I go about that? If mocking is recommended, do you just assume that interaction with the database will work? Sorry for asking such a broad question, but my web searches haven't turned up anything decent for how to unit test asp.net mvc actions that use StructureMap (or any other IOC) and NHibernate. btw, if you don't like that I return a QueryOver object from my post service, pretend it is an IQueryable object. I'm using it essentially in the same way.

    Read the article

  • How doe we name test methods where we are checking for more than one condition?

    - by Sandbox
    I follow the technique specified in Roy Osherove's The Art Of Unit Testing book while naming test methods - MethodName_Scenario_Expectation. It suits perfectly well for my 'unit' tests. But,for tests that I write in 'controller' or 'coordinator' class, there isn't necessarily a method which I want to test. For these tests, I generate multiple conditions which make up one scenario and then I verify the expectation. For example, I may set some properties on different instances, generate an event and then verify that my expectations from controller/coordinator is being met. Now, my controller handles events using a private event handler. Here my scenario is that, I set some properties, say 3 condition1,condition2 and condition3 Also, my scenario includes an event is raised I don't have a method name as my event handler is private. How do I name such a test method?

    Read the article

  • How can "today's date" be varied for unit testing purposes?

    - by ck
    I use VS2008 targetting .NET 2.0 Framework, and, just in case, no I can't change this :) I have a DateCalculator class. Its method GetNextExpirationDate attempts to determine the next expiration, internally using DateTime.Today as a baseline date. As I was writing unit tests, I realized that I wanted to test GetNextExpirationDate for different 'today' dates. What's the best way to do this? Here are some alternatives I've considered: Expose a property/overloaded method with argument baselineDate and only use it from the unit test. In actual client code, disregard the property/overloaded method in favour of the method that defaults baselineDate to DateTime.Today. I'm reluctant to do this as it makes the public interface of the DateCalculator class awkward. Create a protected field called baselineDate that is internally set to DateTime.Today. When testing, derive a DateCalculatorForTesting from DateCalculator and set baslineDate via the constructor. It keeps the public interface clean, but still isn't great - baselineDate was made protected and a derived class is required, both solely for testing. Use extension methods. I tried this after adding the ExtensionAttribute, then realized it wouldn't work because extension methods can't access private/protected variables. I initially thought this was really quite an elegant solution. :( I'd be interested in hearing what others think.

    Read the article

  • ClassCleanup in MSTest is static, but the build server uses nunit to run the unit tests. How can i a

    - by Kettenbach
    Hi All, MSTest has a [ClassCleanup()] attribute, which needs to be static as far as I can tell. I like to run through after my unit tests have run,and clean up my database. This all works great, however when I go to our build server and use our Nant build script, it seems like the unit tests are run with NUnit. NUnit doesn't seem to like the cleanup method to be static. It therefore ignores my tests in that class. What can I do to remedy this? I prefer to not use [TestCleanUp()] as that is run after each test. Does anyone have any suggestions? I know [TestCleanup()] aids in decoupling, but I really prefer the [ClassCleanup()] in this situation. Here is some example code. ////Use ClassCleanup to run code after all tests have run [ClassCleanup()] public static void MyFacadeTestCleanup() { UpdateCleanup(); } private static void UpdateCleanup() { DbCommand dbCommand; Database db; try { db = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase(TestConstants.DB_NAME); int rowsAffected; dbCommand = db.GetSqlStringCommand("DELETE FROM tblA WHERE biID=@biID"); db.AddInParameter(dbCommand, "biID", DbType.Int64, biToDelete); rowsAffected = db.ExecuteNonQuery(dbCommand); Debug.WriteLineIf(rowsAffected == TestConstants.ONE_ROW, string.Format("biId '{0}' was successfully deleted.", biToDelete)); } catch (SqlException ex) { } finally { dbCommand = null; db = null; biDelete = 0; } } Thanks for any pointers and yes i realize I'm not catching anything. I need to get passed this hurdle first. Cheers, ~ck in San Diego

    Read the article

  • How to test reliability of my own (small) embedded operating system ?

    - by TridenT
    I've written a small operating system for embedded project running on small to medium target. I added some automated unit test with a high test code coverage (95%), but the scope is only the static part. I got some code metrics as complexity and readability. I'm testing my code with a rule checker with MiSRA support, and of course fixed all warnings. I'm testing the code with a static analyzer and again fixed all warnings. What can I do now to test - and improve - the reliability of my OS ? How about the dynamic part ?

    Read the article

  • WCF data services (OData), query with inheritance limitation?

    - by Mathieu Hétu
    Project: WCF Data service using internally EF4 CTP5 Code-First approach. I configured entities with inheritance (TPH). See previous question on this topic: Previous question about multiple entities- same table The mapping works well, and unit test over EF4 confirms that queries runs smoothly. My entities looks like this: ContactBase (abstract) Customer (inherits from ContactBase), this entity has also several Navigation properties toward other entities Resource (inherits from ContactBase) I have configured a discriminator, so both Customer and Resource map to the same table. Again, everythings works fine on the Ef4 point of view (unit tests all greens!) However, when exposing this DBContext over WCF Data services, I get: - CustomerBases sets exposed (Customers and Resources sets seems hidden, is it by design?) - When I query over Odata on Customers, I get this error: Navigation Properties are not supported on derived entity types. Entity Set 'ContactBases' has a instance of type 'CodeFirstNamespace.Customer', which is an derived entity type and has navigation properties. Please remove all the navigation properties from type 'CodeFirstNamespace.Customer'. Stacktrace: at System.Data.Services.Serializers.SyndicationSerializer.WriteObjectProperties(IExpandedResult expanded, Object customObject, ResourceType resourceType, Uri absoluteUri, String relativeUri, SyndicationItem item, DictionaryContent content, EpmSourcePathSegment currentSourceRoot) at System.Data.Services.Serializers.SyndicationSerializer.WriteEntryElement(IExpandedResult expanded, Object element, ResourceType expectedType, Uri absoluteUri, String relativeUri, SyndicationItem target) at System.Data.Services.Serializers.SyndicationSerializer.<DeferredFeedItems>d__b.MoveNext() at System.ServiceModel.Syndication.Atom10FeedFormatter.WriteItems(XmlWriter writer, IEnumerable`1 items, Uri feedBaseUri) at System.ServiceModel.Syndication.Atom10FeedFormatter.WriteFeedTo(XmlWriter writer, SyndicationFeed feed, Boolean isSourceFeed) at System.ServiceModel.Syndication.Atom10FeedFormatter.WriteFeed(XmlWriter writer) at System.ServiceModel.Syndication.Atom10FeedFormatter.WriteTo(XmlWriter writer) at System.Data.Services.Serializers.SyndicationSerializer.WriteTopLevelElements(IExpandedResult expanded, IEnumerator elements, Boolean hasMoved) at System.Data.Services.Serializers.Serializer.WriteRequest(IEnumerator queryResults, Boolean hasMoved) at System.Data.Services.ResponseBodyWriter.Write(Stream stream) Seems like a limitation of WCF Data services... is it? Not much documentation can be found on the web about WCF Data services (OData) and inheritance specifications. How can I overpass this exception? I need these navigation properties on derived entities, and inheritance seems the only way to provide mapping of 2 entites on the same table with Ef4 CTP5... Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How do we name test methods where we are checking for more than one condition?

    - by Sandbox
    I follow the technique specified in Roy Osherove's The Art Of Unit Testing book while naming test methods - MethodName_Scenario_Expectation. It suits perfectly well for my 'unit' tests. But,for tests that I write in 'controller' or 'coordinator' class, there isn't necessarily a method which I want to test. For these tests, I generate multiple conditions which make up one scenario and then I verify the expectation. For example, I may set some properties on different instances, generate an event and then verify that my expectation from controller/coordinator is being met. Now, my controller handles events using a private event handler. Here my scenario is that, I set some properties, say 3 condition1,condition2 and condition3 Also, my scenario includes an event is raised I don't have a method name as my event handler is private. How do I name such a test method?

    Read the article

  • What's the state of PHP unit testing frameworks in 2010?

    - by Pekka
    As far as I can see, PHPUnit is the only serious product in the field at the moment. It is widely used, is integrated into Continuous Integration suites like phpUnderControl, and well regarded. The thing is, I don't really like working with PHPUnit. I find it hard to set up (PEAR is the only officially supported installation method, and I hate PEAR), sometimes complicated to work with and, correct me if I'm wrong, lacking executability from a web page context (i.e. no CLI, which would really be nice when developing a web app.) The only competition to I can see is Simpletest, which looks very nice but hasn't seen a new release for almost two years, which tends to rule it out for me - Unit Testing is quite a static field, true, but as I will be deploying those tests alongside web applications, I would like to see active development on the project, at least for security updates and such. There is a SO question that pretty much confirms what I'm saying: Simple test vs PHPunit Seeing that that is almost two years old as well, though, I think it's time to ask again: Does anybody know any other serious feature-complete unit testing frameworks? Am I wrong in my criticism of PHPUnit? Is there still development going on for SimpleTest?

    Read the article

  • Is it a bad idea to create tests that rely on each other within a test fixture?

    - by nbolton
    For example: // NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture) Ctor() { m_globalVar = getFoo(); } [Test] Create() { a(m_globalVar) } [Test] Delete() { // depends on Create being run b(m_globalVar) } … or… // NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture) [Test] CreateAndDelete() { Foo foo = getFoo(); a(foo); // depends on Create being run b(foo); } … I’m going with the later, and assuming that the answer to my question is: No, at least not with NUnit, because according to the NUnit manual: The constructor should not have any side effects, since NUnit may construct the class multiple times in the course of a session. ... also, can I assume it's bad practice in general? Since tests can usually be run separately. So the result of Create may never be cleaned up by Delete.

    Read the article

  • CI tests to enforce specific development rules - good practice?

    - by KeithS
    The following is all purely hypothetical and any particular portion of it may or may not accurately describe real persons or situations, whether living, dead or just pretending. Let's say I'm a senior dev or architect in charge of a dev team working on a project. This project includes a security library for user authentication/authorization of the application under development. The library must be available for developers to edit; however, I wish to "trust but verify" that coders are not doing things that could compromise the security of the finished system, and because this isn't my only responsibility I want it to be done in an automated way. As one example, let's say I have an interface that represents a user which has been authenticated by the system's security library. The interface exposes basic user info and a list of things the user is authorized to do (so that the client app doesn't have to keep asking the server "can I do this?"), all in an immutable fashion of course. There is only one implementation of this interface in production code, and for the purposes of this post we can say that all appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that this implementation can only be used by the one part of our code that needs to be able to create concretions of the interface. The coders have been instructed that this interface and its implementation are sacrosanct and any changes must go through me. However, those are just words; the security library's source is open for editing by necessity. Any of my devs could decide that this secured, private, hash-checked implementation needs to be public so that they could do X, or alternately they could create their own implementation of this public interface in a different library, exposing the hashing algorithm that provides the secure checksum, in order to do Y. I may not be made aware of these changes so that I can beat the developer over the head for it. An attacker could then find these little nuggets in an unobfuscated library of the compiled product, and exploit it to provide fake users and/or falsely-elevated administrative permissions, bypassing the entire security system. This possibility keeps me awake for a couple of nights, and then I create an automated test that reflectively checks the codebase for types deriving from the interface, and fails if it finds any that are not exactly what and where I expect them to be. I compile this test into a project under a separate folder of the VCS that only I have rights to commit to, have CI compile it as an external library of the main project, and set it up to run as part of the CI test suite for user commits. Now, I have an automated test under my complete control that will tell me (and everyone else) if the number of implementations increases without my involvement, or an implementation that I did know about has anything new added or has its modifiers or those of its members changed. I can then investigate further, and regain the opportunity to beat developers over the head as necessary. Is this considered "reasonable" to want to do in situations like this? Am I going to be seen in a negative light for going behind my devs' backs to ensure they aren't doing something they shouldn't?

    Read the article

  • Interpreting and using the Asterisk "timing test" command

    - by zigg
    Timing is very important for certain kinds of applications in Asterisk. If DAHDI is the timing source, the dahdi_test command can be used to check the timing provided by the DAHDI kernel module. If dahdi_test returns exclusively measurements above 99.975%, the DAHDI timing source is generally considered good. Since Asterisk 1.6, new timing sources have become available, such as pthread and timerfd. The accuracy of these timing sources seems to be measurable with the Asterisk CLI timing test command: localhost*CLI> timing test Attempting to test a timer with 50 ticks per second. Using the 'timerfd' timing module for this test. It has been 1000 milliseconds, and we got 50 timer ticks My concern is that timing 50 ticks seems to be a considerably less stressful test than dahdi_test's 8192 samples in 8000 ms, particularly since just about every system I've tried it on, virtual or otherwise, can handle it. I can ask timing test to ramp it up to what I think are dahdi_test's standards: localhost*CLI> timing test 1024 Attempting to test a timer with 1024 ticks per second. Using the 'timerfd' timing module for this test. It has been 1000 milliseconds, and we got 1024 timer ticks This will indeed break down a bit depending on the system I'm using, usually with a decrease in timer ticks. But I'm not sure whether this is useful to stress it to this level. Is there authoritative guidance on using and interpreting the timing test command to insure that a given Asterisk system has a timing source that will work well?

    Read the article

  • How can I boost the volume of my Video

    - by Sunny Shah.
    I have a video that I need to pass on to some of my friends but it has very low audio volume. How can I boost the audio volume in this video so that it has a similar level as my other videos? Is there a video converter that can boost the audio volume?

    Read the article

  • How to test nginx proxy timeouts

    - by mkorszun
    Target: I would like to test all Nginx proxy timeout parameters in very simple scenario. My first approach was to create really simple HTTP server and put some timeouts: Between listen and accept to test proxy_connect_timeout Between accept and read to test proxy_send_timeout Between read and send to test proxy_read_timeout Test: 1) Server code (python): import socket import os import time import threading def http_resp(conn): conn.send("HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n") conn.send("Content-Length: 0\r\n") conn.send("Content-Type: text/xml\r\n\r\n\r\n") def do(conn, addr): print 'Connected by', addr print 'Sleeping before reading data...' time.sleep(0) # Set to test proxy_send_timeout data = conn.recv(1024) print 'Sleeping before sending data...' time.sleep(0) # Set to test proxy_read_timeout http_resp(conn) print 'End of data stream, closing connection' conn.close() def main(): s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM) s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1) s.bind(('', int(os.environ['PORT']))) s.listen(1) print 'Sleeping before accept...' time.sleep(130) # Set to test proxy_connect_timeout while 1: conn, addr = s.accept() t = threading.Thread(target=do, args=(conn, addr)) t.start() if __name__ == "__main__": main() 2) Nginx configuration: I have extended Nginx default configuration by setting explicitly proxy_connect_timeout and adding proxy_pass pointing to my local HTTP server: location / { proxy_pass http://localhost:8888; proxy_connect_timeout 200; } 3) Observation: proxy_connect_timeout - Even though setting it to 200s and sleeping only 130s between listen and accept Nginx returns 504 after ~60s which might be because of the default proxy_read_timeout value. I do not understand how proxy_read_timeout could affect connection at so early stage (before accept). I would expect 200 here. Please explain! proxy_send_timeout - I am not sure if my approach to test proxy_send_timeout is correct - i think i still do not understand this parameter correctly. After all, delay between accept and read does not force proxy_send_timeout. proxy_read_timeout - it seems to be pretty straightforward. Setting delay between read and write does the job. So I guess my assumptions are wrong and probably I do not understand proxy_connect and proxy_send timeouts properly. Can some explain them to me using above test if possible (or modifying if required).

    Read the article

  • LLBLGen Pro v3.0 with Entity Framework v4.0 (12m video)

    - by FransBouma
    Today I recorded a video in which I illustrate some of the database-first functionality available in LLBLGen Pro v3.0. LLBLGen Pro v3.0 also supports model-first functionality, which I hope to illustrate in an upcoming video. LLBLGen Pro v3.0 is currently in beta and is scheduled to RTM some time in May 2010. It supports the following frameworks out of the box, with more scheduled to follow in the coming year: LLBLGen Pro RTL (our own o/r mapper framework), Linq to Sql, NHibernate and Entity Framework (v1 and v4). The video I linked to below illustrates the creation of an entity model for Entity Framework v4, by reverse engineering the SQL Server 2008 example database 'AdventureWorks'. The following topics (among others) are included in the video: Abbreviation support (example: convert 'Qty' into 'Quantity' during name construction) Flexible, framework specific settings Attribute definitions for various elements (so no requirement for buddy-classes or messing with generated code or templates) Retrieval of relational model data from a database Reverse engineering of tables into entities, automatically placed in groups Auto-creation of inheritance hierarchies Refactoring of entity fields into Value Type Definitions (DDD) Mapping a Typed view onto a stored procedure resultset Creation of a Typed list (definition of a query with a projection) on a set of related entities Validation and correction of found inconsistencies and errors Generating code using one of the pre-defined presets Illustration of the code in vs.net 2010 It also gives a good overview of what it takes with LLBLGen Pro v3.0 to start from a new project, point it to a database, get an entity model, perform tweaks and validation and generate code which is ready to run. I am no video recording expert so there's no audio and some mouse movements might be a little too quickly. If that's the case, please pause the video. It's rather big (52MB). Click here to open the HTML page with the video (Flash). Opens in a new window. LLBLGen Pro v3.0 is currently in beta (available for v2.x customers) and scheduled to be released somewhere in May 2010.

    Read the article

  • InvalidProgramException Running Unit Test (Bug Closed)

    - by Anthony Trudeau
    In a previous post I reported an InvalidProgramException that occurs in a certain circumstance with unit tests involving accessors on a private generic method.  It turns out that Bug #635093 reported through Microsoft Connect will not be fixed. The reason cited is that private accessors have been discontinued.  And why have private accessors been discontinued?  They don't have time is the reason listed in the blog post titled "Generation of Private Accessors (Publicize) and Code Generation for Visual Studio 2010". In my opinion, it's a piss poor decision to discontinue support for a feature that they're still using within automatically generated unit tests against private classes and methods.  But, I think what is worse is the lack of guidance cited in the aforementioned blog post.  Their advice?  Use the PrivateObject to help, but develop your own framework. At the end of the day what Microsoft is saying is, "I know you spent a lot of money for this product.  I know that you don't have time to develop a framework to deal with this.  We don't have time and that is all that's important."

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio Talk Show #115 is now online - Entity Framework 4 (French)

    - by guybarrette
    http://www.visualstudiotalkshow.com Matthieu Mezil: Entity Framework 4 Nous discutons avec Matthieu Mezil de la version 4 de Entity Framework (EF4). Entre autres, on évaluera avec Matthieu en quoi cette nouvelle version qui sera inclus avec Visual Studio 2010 permet de concevoir un ORM (Object Relational Mapper) avec une implémentation Agile. Matthieu Mezil est consultant formateur chez Access IT à Paris. MVP C# et speaker INETA, il s’est spécialisé sur l’Entity Framework. Il anime régulièrement des conférences sur ce sujet, notamment dans le cadre d’évènements Microsoft. MCT, Matthieu a également écrit plusieurs formations sur la POO, le langage C# et bien sûr sur l’Entity Framework qu’il anime fréquemment. Dans le cadre de son travail, il est souvent amené à travailler avec le Microsoft Technology Center de Paris. Matthieu est également un bloggeur important: en français sur http://blogs.codes-sources.com/matthieu et en anglais sur http://msmvps.com/blogs/matthieu. Télécharger l'émission Si vous désirez un accès direct au fichier audio en format MP3, nous vous invitons à télécharger le fichier en utilisant un des boutons ci-dessous. Si vous désirez utiliser le feed RSS pour télécharger l'émission, nous vous invitons à vous abonnez en utilisant le bouton ci-dessous. Si vous désirez utiliser le répertoire iTunes Podcast pour télécharger l'émission, nous vous encourageons à vous abonnez en utilisant le bouton ci-dessous. var addthis_pub="guybarrette";

    Read the article

  • Unit testing ASP.NET Web API controllers that rely on the UrlHelper

    - by cibrax
    UrlHelper is the class you can use in ASP.NET Web API to automatically infer links from the routing table without hardcoding anything. For example, the following code uses the helper to infer the location url for a new resource,public HttpResponseMessage Post(User model) { var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created, user); var link = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = id, controller = "Users" }); response.Headers.Location = new Uri(link); return response; } That code uses a previously defined route “DefaultApi”, which you might configure in the HttpConfiguration object (This is the route generated by default when you create a new Web API project). The problem with UrlHelper is that it requires from some initialization code before you can invoking it from a unit test (for testing the Post method in this example). If you don’t initialize the HttpConfiguration and Request instances associated to the controller from the unit test, it will fail miserably. After digging into the ASP.NET Web API source code a little bit, I could figure out what the requirements for using the UrlHelper are. It relies on the routing table configuration, and a few properties you need to add to the HttpRequestMessage. The following code illustrates what’s needed,var controller = new UserController(); controller.Configuration = new HttpConfiguration(); var route = controller.Configuration.Routes.MapHttpRoute( name: "DefaultApi", routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{id}", defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional } ); var routeData = new HttpRouteData(route, new HttpRouteValueDictionary { { "id", "1" }, { "controller", "Users" } } ); controller.Request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, "http://localhost:9091/"); controller.Request.Properties.Add(HttpPropertyKeys.HttpConfigurationKey, controller.Configuration); controller.Request.Properties.Add(HttpPropertyKeys.HttpRouteDataKey, routeData);  The HttpRouteData instance should be initialized with the route values you will use in the controller method (“id” and “controller” in this example). Once you have correctly setup all those properties, you shouldn’t have any problem to use the UrlHelper. There is no need to mock anything else. Enjoy!!.

    Read the article

  • Benefits of Behavior Driven Development

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/07/26/benefits-of-behavior-driven-development.aspxContinuing my previous article on BDD, I wanted to point out some benefits of BDD and since BDD is an extension of Test Driven Development (TDD), you get those as well. I’ll add another article on some possible downsides of this approach. There are many articles about the benefits of TDD and they apply to BDD. I’ve pointed out some here and copied some of the main points for each article, but there are many more including the book The Art of Unit Testing by Roy Osherove. http://geekswithblogs.net/leesblog/archive/2008/04/30/the-benefits-of-test-driven-development.aspx (Lee Brandt) Stability Accountability Design Ability Separated Concerns Progress Indicator http://tddftw.com/benefits-of-tdd/ Help maintainers understand the intention behind the code Bring validation and proper data handling concerns to the forefront. Writing the tests first is fun. Better APIs come from writing testable code. TDD will make you a better developer. http://www.slideshare.net/dhelper/benefit-from-unit-testing-in-the-real-world (from Typemock). Take a look at the slides, especially the extra time required for TDD (slide 10) and the next one of the bugs avoided using TDD (slide 11). Less bugs (slide 11) about testing and development (13) Increase confidence in code (14) Fearlessly change your code (14) Document Requirements (14) also see http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2013/06/01/roc-rocks.aspx Discover usability issues early (14) All these points and articles are great and there are many more. The following are my additions to the benefits of BDD from using it in real projects for my company. July 2013 on MSDN - Behavior-Driven Design with SpecFlow Scott Allen did a very informative TDD and MVC module, but to me he is doing BDDCompile and Execute Requirements in Microsoft .NET ~ Video from TechEd 2012 Communication I was working through a complicated task that the decision tree kept growing. After writing out the Given, When, Then of the scenario, I was able tell QA what I had worked through for their initial test cases. They were able to add from there. It is also useful to use this language with other developers, managers, or clients to help make informed decisions on if it meets the requirements or if it can simplified to save time (money). Thinking through solutions, before starting to code This was the biggest benefit to me. I like to jump into coding to figure out the problem. Many times I don't understand my path well enough and have to do some parts over. A past supervisor told me several times during reviews that I need to get better at seeing "the forest for the trees". When I sit down and write out the behavior that I need to implement, I force myself to think things out further and catch scenarios before they get to QA. A co-worker that is new to BDD and we’ve been using it in our new project for the last 6 months, said “It really clarifies things”. It took him awhile to understand it all, but now he’s seeing the value of this approach (yes there are some downsides, but that is a different issue). Developers’ Confidence This is huge for me. With tests in place, my confidence grows that I won’t break code that I’m not directly changing. In the past, I’ve worked on projects with out tests and we would frequently find regression bugs (or worse the users would find them). That isn’t fun. We don’t catch all problems with the tests, but when QA catches one, I can write a test to make sure it doesn’t happen again. It’s also good for Releasing code, telling your manager that it’s good to go. As time goes on and the code gets older, how confident are you that checking in code won’t break something somewhere else? Merging code - pre release confidence If you’re merging code a lot, it’s nice to have the tests to help ensure you didn’t merge incorrectly. Interrupted work I had a task that I started and planned out, then was interrupted for a month because of different priorities. When I started it up again, and un-shelved my changes, I had the BDD specs and it helped me remember what I had figured out and what was left to do. It would have much more difficult without the specs and tests. Testing and verifying complicated scenarios Sometimes in the UI there are scenarios that get tricky, because there are a lot of steps involved (click here to open the dialog, enter the information, make sure it’s valid, when I click cancel it should do {x}, when I click ok it should close and do {y}, then do this, etc….). With BDD I can avoid some of the mouse clicking define the scenarios and have them re-run quickly, without using a mouse. UI testing is still needed, but this helps a bunch. The same can be true for tricky server logic. Documentation of Assumptions and Specifications The BDD spec tests (Jasmine or SpecFlow or other tool) also work as documentation and show what the original developer was trying to accomplish. It’s not a different Word document, so developers will keep this up to date, instead of letting it become obsolete. What happens if you leave the project (consulting, new job, etc) with no specs or at the least good comments in the code? Sometimes I think of a new scenario, so I add a failing spec and continue in the same stream of thought (don’t forget it because it was on a piece of paper or in a notepad). Then later I can come back and handle it and have it documented. Jasmine tests and JavaScript –> help deal with the non-typed system I like JavaScript, but I also dislike working with JavaScript. I miss C# telling me if a property doesn’t actually exist at build time. I like the idea of TypeScript and hope to use it more in the future. I also use KnockoutJs, which has observables that need to be called with ending (), since the observable is a function. It’s hard to remember when to use () or not and the Jasmine specs/tests help ensure the correct usage.   This should give you an idea of the benefits that I see in using the BDD approach. I’m sure there are more. It talks a lot of practice, investment and experimentation to figure out how to approach this and to get comfortable with it. I agree with Scott Allen in the video I linked above “Remember that TDD can take some practice. So if you're not doing test-driven design right now? You can start and practice and get better. And you'll reach a point where you'll never want to get back.”

    Read the article

  • Need help understanding Mocks and Stubs

    - by Theomax
    I'm new to use mocking frameworks and I have a few questions on the things that I am not clear on. I'm using Rhinomocks to generate mock objects in my unit tests. I understand that mocks can be created to verify interactions between methods and they record the interactions etc and stubs allow you to setup data and entities required by the test but you do not verify expectations on stubs. Looking at the recent unit tests I have created, I appear to be creating mocks literally for the purpose of stubbing and allowing for data to be setup. Is this a correct usage of mocks or is it incorrect if you're not actually calling verify on them? For example: user = MockRepository.GenerateMock<User>(); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid()); user.Stub(x => x.Name = "User1"); In the above code I generate a new user mock object, but I use a mock so I can stub the properties of the user because in some cases if the properties do not have a setter and I need to set them it seems the only way is to stub the property values. Is this a correct usage of stubbing and mocking? Also, I am not completely clear on what the difference between the following lines is: user.Stub(x => x.Id).Return(new Guid()); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid());

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105  | Next Page >