Search Results

Search found 144 results on 6 pages for 'stubs'.

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

Page 1/6 | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • What is wrong with Stubs for unit testing?

    - by MatthewMartin
    I just watched this funny YouTube Video about unit testing (it's Hitler with fake subtitles chewing out his team for not doing good unit tests--skip it if you're humor impaired) where stubs get roundly criticized. But I don't understand what wrong with stubs. I haven't started using a mocking framework and I haven't started feeling the pain from not using one. Am I in for a world a hurt sometime down the line, having chosen handwritten stubs and fakes instead of mocks (like Rhinomock etc)? (using Fowler's taxonomy) What are the considerations for picking between a mock and handwritten stub?

    Read the article

  • WebService Stubs WSDL Axis2

    - by tt0686
    Good afternoon in my timezone. I have a wsdl file with the following snippet of code: <schema targetNamespace="http://util.cgd.pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> <import namespace="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" /> <complexType name="Attribute"> <sequence> <element name="fieldType" nillable="true" type="xsd:string" /> <element name="dataType" nillable="true" type="xsd:string" /> <element name="name" nillable="true" type="xsd:string" /> <element name="value" nillable="true" type="xsd:string" /> </sequence> </complexType> <complexType name="ArrayOffAttribute"> <complexContent> <restriction base="soapenc:Array"> <attribute ref="soapenc:arrayType" wsdl:arrayType="tns3:Attribute[]" /> </restriction> </complexContent> </complexType> When i use jax-rpc or Axis1 to generate the stubs the type Attribute is generated, but when i use Axis2 the type Attribute is not generated and a new type is created ArrayOffAttribute, this new type extends the axis2.databinding.types.soapencoding.Array and permits to add elements through the array.addObject(object), my question is, i am migrating one Java EE application from webservices using jax-rpc to start using Axis2, and the methods are using the Attribute type to fullfill attributes fields, now in Axis2 and do not have attribute type , what should i use in the ArrayOffAttribute.addObject(?) ? Could be something wrong with Axis2 ? i am stop here :( Thanks in advance Best regards

    Read the article

  • Business Case for investing time developing Stubs and BizUnit Tests

    - by charlie.mott
    I was recently in a position where I had to justify why effort should be spent developing Stubbed Integration Tests for BizTalk solutions. These tests are usually developed using the BizUnit framework. I assumed that most seasoned BizTalk developers would consider this best practice. Even though Microsoft suggest use of BizUnit on MSDN, I've not found a single site listing the justifications for investing time writing stubs and BizUnit tests. Stubs Stubs should be developed to isolate your development team from external dependencies. This is described by Michael Stephenson here. Failing to do this can result in the following problems: In contract-first scenarios, the external system interface will have been defined.  But the interface may not have been setup or even developed yet for the BizTalk developers to work with. By the time you open the target location to see the data BizTalk has sent, it may have been swept away. If you are relying on the UI of the target system to see the data BizTalk has sent, what do you do if it fails to arrive? It may take time for the data to be processed or it may be scheduled to be processed later. Learning how to use the source\target systems and investigations into where things go wrong in these systems will slow down the BizTalk development effort. By the time the data is visible in a UI it may have undergone further transformations. In larger development teams working together, do you all use the same source and target instances. How do you know which data was created by whose tests? How do you know which event log error message are whose?  Another developer may have “cleaned up” your data. It is harder to write BizUnit tests that clean up the data\logs after each test run. What if your B2B partners' source or target system cannot support the sort of testing you want to do. They may not even have a development or test instance that you can work with. Their single test instance may be used by the SIT\UAT teams. There may be licencing costs of setting up an instances of the external system. The stubs I like to use are generic stubs that can accept\return any message type.  Usually I need to create one per protocol. They should be driven by BizUnit steps to: validates the data received; and select a response messages (or error response). Once built, they can be re-used for many integration tests and from project to project. I’m not saying that developers should never test against a real instance.  Every so often, you still need to connect to real developer or test instances of the source and target endpoints\services. The interface developers may ask you to send them some data to see if everything still works.  Or you might want some messages sent to BizTalk to get confidence that everything still works beyond BizTalk. Tests Automated “Stubbed Integration Tests” are usually built using the BizUnit framework. These facilitate testing of the entire integration process from source stub to target stub. It will ensure that all of the BizTalk components are configured together correctly to meet all the requirements. More fine grained unit testing of individual BizTalk components is still encouraged.  But BizUnit provides much the easiest way to test some components types (e.g. Orchestrations). Using BizUnit with the Behaviour Driven Development approach described by Mike Stephenson delivers the following benefits: source: http://biztalkbddsample.codeplex.com – Video 1. Requirements can be easily defined using Given/When/Then Requirements are close to the code so easier to manage as features and scenarios Requirements are defined in domain language The feature files can be used as part of the documentation The documentation is accurate to the build of code and can be published with a release The scenarios are effective to document the scenarios and are not over excessive The scenarios are maintained with the code There’s an abstraction between the intention and implementation of tests making them easier to understand The requirements drive the testing These same tests can also be used to drive load testing as described here. If you don't do this ... If you don't follow the above “Stubbed Integration Tests” approach, the developer will need to manually trigger the tests. This has the following risks: Developers are unlikely to check all the scenarios each time and all the expected conditions each time. After the developer leaves, these manual test steps may be lost. What test scenarios are there?  What test messages did they use for each scenario? There is no mechanism to prove adequate test coverage. A test team may attempt to automate integration test scenarios in a test environment through the triggering of tests from a source system UI. If this is a replacement for BizUnit tests, then this carries the following risks: It moves the tests downstream, so problems will be found later in the process. Testers may not check all the expected conditions within the BizTalk infrastructure such as: event logs, suspended messages, etc. These automated tests may also get in the way of manual tests run on these environments.

    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

  • pthread-stubs for CentOS

    - by Rodnower
    Hello, I try to install Mesa 7.8 for CentOS 5. During installation of Mesa I required to install librdm, and during librdm (v. 2.4.19) installing I got error about missing pthread-stubs: checking for PTHREADSTUBS... configure: error: Package requirements (pthread-stubs) were not met: When I try: yum provides *pthread-stubs* I get nothing In other place I found that libxcb-devel is what I need, but yum not find this too. During searching in Google, I found rpm's for Fedora only. Any one know whether there is some packege which provides pthread-stubs for CentOS, or other, less expensive way to install Mesa? Thank you for ahead.

    Read the article

  • Rhino Mocks - Do we really need stubs?

    - by Marcelo Oliveira
    If it's possible to change mock behaviour in Rhino Mocks using mock.Stub().Return(), why do we need Stubs anyway? What do we lose by always using MockRepository.GenerateMock()? One big benefit of using Mocks instead of Stubs is that we will be able to reuse the same instance among all the tests keeping them cleaner and straightforward. The moq framework works in a similar way... we don't have different objects for mocks and stubs. (please, don't answer with a link to Fowler's "Mocks aren't stubs" article)

    Read the article

  • PHPUnit - multiple stubs of same class

    - by keithjgrant
    I'm building unit tests for class Foo, and I'm fairly new to unit testing. A key component of my class is an instance of BarCollection which contains a number of Bar objects. One method in Foo iterates through the collection and calls a couple methods on each Bar object in the collection. I want to use stub objects to generate a series of responses for my test class. How do I make the Bar stub class return different values as I iterate? I'm trying to do something along these lines: $stubs = array(); foreach ($array as $value) { $barStub->expects($this->any()) ->method('GetValue')) ->will($this->returnValue($value)); $stubs[] = $barStub; } // populate stubs into `Foo` // assert results from `Foo->someMethod()` So Foo->someMethod() will produce data based on the results it receives from the Bar objects. But this gives me the following error whenever the array is longer than one: There was 1 failure: 1) testMyTest(FooTest) with data set #2 (array(0.5, 0.5)) Expectation failed for method name is equal to <string:GetValue> when invoked zero or more times. Mocked method does not exist. /usr/share/php/PHPUnit/Framework/MockObject/Mock.php(193) : eval()'d code:25 One thought I had was to use ->will($this->returnCallback()) to invoke a callback method, but I don't know how to indicate to the callback which Bar object is making the call (and consequently what response to give). Another idea is to use the onConsecutiveCalls() method, or something like it, to tell my stub to return 1 the first time, 2 the second time, etc, but I'm not sure exactly how to do this. I'm also concerned that if my class ever does anything other than ordered iteration on the collection, I won't have a way to test it.

    Read the article

  • Why do we need mocking frameworks like Easymock , JMock or Mockito?

    - by Praneeth
    Hi, We use hand written stubs in our unit tests and I'm exploring the need for a Mock framework like EasyMock or Mockito in our project. I do not find a compelling reason for switching to Mocking frameworks from hand written stubs. Can anyone please answer why one would opt for mocking frameworks when they are already doing unit tests using hand written mocks/stubs. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Version control - stubs and mocks

    - by Tesserex
    For the sake of this question, I don't care about the difference between stubs, mocks, dummies, fakes, etc. Let's say I'm working on a project with one other person. I'm working on component A and he is working on component B. They work together, so I stub out B for testing, and he stubs out A. We're working in a DVCS, let's say Git, because that's actually the case here. When it comes time to merge our components together, we need to get the "real" files from my A and his B, but throw away all the fake stuff. During development, it's likely (unless I need to learn how to properly stub things) that the fakes have the same file names and class names as the real thing. So my question is: what is the proper procedure for doing version control on the fakes, and how are the components correctly merged, making sure to grab the real thing and not the fake? I would guess that one way is just do the merge, expect it to say CONFLICT, and then manually delete all the fake code out of the half-merged files. But this sounds tedious and inefficient. Should the fake things not go under VC at all? Should they be ripped out just before merging? Sorry if the answer to this should be obvious or trivial, I'm just looking for a "suggested practice" here.

    Read the article

  • When using a mocking framework and MSPEC where do you set your stubs

    - by Kev Hunter
    I am relatively new to using MSpec and as I write more and more tests it becomes obvious to reduce duplication you often have to use a base class for your setup as per Rob Conery's article I am happy with using the AssertWasCalled method to verify my expectations, but where do you set up a stub's return value, I find it useful to set the context in the base class injecting my dependencies but that (I think) means that I need to set my stubs up in the Because delegate which just feels wrong. Is there a better approach I am missing?

    Read the article

  • Best way to unit-test WCF REST/SOAP service while dynamically generating stubs

    - by James Black
    I have a webservice written with WCF 4.0 that exposes REST and SOAP functions, and I want to set up my unit tests so that as I work on my web services I can quickly test by having the test framework start up the service, outside of IIS, and then do the tests. I want it to be dynamically generated as I am not certain what the interface will look like, and it is easier to not worry about having to generate the stubs before I start the tests. But, I couldn't get Groovy to work with my web service, so I am curious if Iron Python or Iron Ruby would work well for this, or is there another .NET language that may work well for this.

    Read the article

  • Creating BlackBerry method stubs using wscompile on WSDL from ColdFusion

    - by Jim B
    I have been working on a BlackBerry application that consumes web services from ColdFusion 7. The Java ME SDK and the Java Wireless Toolkit both require that the generated WSDL be of the document/literal type. Fortunately, I have input on the web service development so I tried setting 'style="document"' in the cfcomponent tag. This generated a document/literal style WSDL but now wscompile generates the following errors in several places: Found unknown simple type: javax.xml.soap.SOAPElement Found unknown simple type: java.util.Calendar Any ideas why this is happening? The WSDL does get parsed correctly by the JWSDP tool but the stubs use namespaces that are not available in the J2ME platform. I would have thought ColdFusion WSDL would work more easily with other products in the Java family.

    Read the article

  • How do I get started writing a .Net-wrapper around C++ Omniorb-stubs

    - by Superfisi
    Hello there, my job is to access a CPRBA-server-application from .NET 3.5. After evaluating projets like IIOP.Net (undefined state) and products like VisiBroker (expensive) I'd like to do it "by myself" and write a .Net-Wrapper around C++-Stubs generated my Omniidl (the Omniorb IDL to C++ generator). This means writing some kind of layer of managed code (CLI) around the unmanaged C++ code. My question is: Has anyone experience in this topic? I honestly don't know how to do it the best way. Right now I plan to create a managed class for every unmanaged class, each managed class itself has a member to an instance of the unmanaged class, which is not garbage-collected. Is this the right way to do it or am I on the wrong path? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • How do I tell eclipse to auto-generate or retain stubs when it starts and does a clean build?

    - by Erick Robertson
    I'm working on a Java application that uses JavaSpace. We're developing this in Eclipse. There are a couple instances where we are inserting code into the JavaSpace to do some more advanced space notification logic. Doing this requires that we generate stubs for the classes used within the JavaSpace. We use an external script to generate these stubs. The problem is that whenever Eclipse restarts, it does a clean build of the whole application. When it does this, it deletes all the stubs and we have to regenerate them. I would like to find a way to either tell Eclipse not to remove the _stub.class and _skel.class files within the bin folder where the .class files are placed. Either that, or somehow teach Eclipse to generate the stub files whenever it does a rebuild (and I suppose whenever the source files from which the stubs are generated changes). How can I do one of these, so that we don't have to manually build the stubs every time we start up Eclipse?

    Read the article

  • netbeans custom jax-ws stubs..

    - by Sam
    Hi, I am using netbeans 6.9. I have made a JAX-WS service that returns a complex type, I have also made a JAX-WS client to consume it. The JAX-WS system automaticly creates a class for the client, inferred from the WSDl spec. I want to make my own class for this using JAXB annotations, so that I can add some extra functions to it. How do I go about replacing the autogenerated file with my own one? Could I also use the same class in the service to control how it is transmitted? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Batch Create Java Class Stubs

    - by user344639
    Given a list of potential class names: 1. Alaska . . . 50. Wyoming Is there a tool that will create empty java class files for each with supplied parameters? I'm thinking of something like the "New...Class" dialog in Eclipse, only on steriods. :-) Thanks in advance, Kyle

    Read the article

  • When should I stub out a type by manually creating a "stub" version, rather than using a mocking fra

    - by Ben Aston
    Are there any circumstances where it is favourable to manually create a stub type, as opposed to using a mocking framework (such as Rhino Mocks) at the point of test. We take both these approaches in our projects. My gut feel when I look at the long list of stub versions of objects is that it will add maintenance overhead, and moves the implementation of the stub away from the point of test.

    Read the article

  • Do we really need isolation frameworks to create stubs?

    - by Sandbox
    I have read this: http://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html My concepts about a stub and a mock are clear. I understand the need of isolation frameworks like moq, rhinomocks and like to create a mock object. As mocks, participate in actual verfication of expectations. But why do we need these frameworks to create stubs. I would rather prefer rolling out a hand created stub and use it in various fixtures.

    Read the article

  • Moving from mock to real objects?

    - by jjchiw
    I'm like doing TDD so I started everything mocking objects, creating interface, stubbing, great. The design seems to work, now I'll implement the stuff, a lot of the code used in the stubs are going to be reused in my real implementation yay! Now should I duplicate the tests to use the real object implementation (but keeping the mocks object of the sensitive stuff like Database and "services" that are out of my context (http calls, etc...)) Or just change the mocks and stubs of the actual tests to use the real objects....... So the question is that, keep two tests or replace the stubs, mocks? And after that, I should keep designing with the mocks, stubs or just go with real objects? (Just making myself clear I'll keep the mock object of the sensitive stuff like database and services that are out of my context, in both situations.)

    Read the article

  • externalizing junit stub objects.

    - by Ajay
    Hi!    In my project we created stub files for testing junits in java(factories) itself. However, we have to externalize these stubs. After seeing a number of serializers/deserializers, we settled on using XStream to serialize and deserialize these stub objects. XStream works like a charm. Its pretty good at what it claims to be. Previously, we had a single factory class say AFactory which produced all the stubs needed for testing different test cases. Now when externalizing each of the stub generated, we hit a road block. We had to create 1 xml file for each stub produced by the factory. For example, public final class AFactory{ public static A createStub1(){ /*Code here */} public static A createStub2(){ /*Code here */} public static A createStub3(){ /*Code here */} } Now, when trying to move this stubs to external files, we had to create 1 xml file for each stub created(A-stub1.xml, A-stub2.xml and A-stub3.xml). The problem with this approach is that, it leads to proliferation of xml stub files. I was thinking, how about keeping all the stubs related to a single bean class in a single xml file. <?xml version="1.0"?> <stubs class="A"> <stub id="stub1"> <!-- Here comes the externalized xml stub representation --> </stub> <stub id="stub2"> </stub> </stubs> Is there a framework which allows you keep all the stub in xml representation in a single xml file as above ? Or What do you guys suggest should be the right approach to adhere to ?

    Read the article

  • A TDD Journey: 3- Mocks vs. Stubs; Test Frameworks; Assertions; ReSharper Accelerators

    Test-Driven Development (TDD) involves the repetition of a very short development cycle that begins with an initially-failing test that defines the required functionality, and ends with 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 doubles; Test Runners, Constraints and assertions

    Read the article

  • Bad linking in Qt unit test -- missing the link to the moc file?

    - by dwj
    I'm trying to unit test a class that inherits QObject; the class itself is located up one level in my directory structure. When I build the unit test I get the standard unresolved errors if a class' MOC file cannot be found: test.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "public: virtual void * __thiscall UnitToTest::qt_metacast(char const *)" (?qt_metacast@UnitToTest@@UAEPAXPBD@Z) + 2 missing functions The MOC file is created but appears to not be linking. I've been poking around SO, the web, and Qt's docs for quite a while and have hit a wall. How do I get the unit test to include the MOC file in the link? ==== My project file is dead simple: TEMPLATE = app TARGET = test DESTDIR = . CONFIG += qtestlib INCLUDEPATH += . .. DEPENDPATH += . HEADERS += test.h SOURCES += test.cpp ../UnitToTest.cpp stubs.cpp DEFINES += UNIT_TEST My directory structure and files: C:. | UnitToTest.cpp | UnitToTest.h | \---test | test.cpp (Makefiles removed for clarity) | test.h | test.pro | stubs.cpp | +---debug | UnitToTest.obj | test.obj | test.pdb | moc_test.cpp | moc_test.obj | stubs.obj Edit: Additional information The generated Makefile.Debug shows the moc file missing: SOURCES = test.cpp \ ..\test.cpp \ stubs.cpp debug\moc_test.cpp OBJECTS = debug\test.obj \ debug\UnitToTest.obj \ debug\stubs.obj \ debug\moc_test.obj

    Read the article

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

1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >