Search Results

Search found 10178 results on 408 pages for 'testing metaprogramming'.

Page 106/408 | < Previous Page | 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113  | Next Page >

  • "dynamic" keyword and JSON data

    - by Peter Perhác
    An action method in my ASP.NET MVC2 application returns a JsonResult object and in my unit test I would like to check that the returned JSON object indeed contains the expected values. I tried this: 1. dynamic json = ((JsonResult)myActionResult).Data; 2. Assert.AreEqual(JsonMessagesHelper.ErrorLevel.ERROR.ToString(), json.ErrorLevel); But I get a RuntimeBinderException "'object' does not contain a definition for 'ErrorLevel'". However, when I place a breakpoint on line 2 and inspect the json dynamic variable (see picture below), it obviously does contain the ErrorLevel string and it has the expected value, so if the runtime binder wasn't playing funny the test would pass. What am I not getting? What am I doing wrong and how can I fix this? How can I make the assertion pass?

    Read the article

  • Comparing two objects that are the same in MbUnit

    - by Coppermill
    From MBUnit I am trying to check if the values of two objects are the same using Assert.AreSame(RawDataRow, result); However I am getting the following fail: ====================== Expected Value & Actual Value : {RawDataRow: CentreID = "CentreID1", CentreLearnerRef = "CentreLearnerRef1", ContactID = 1, DOB = 2010-05-05T00:00:00.0000000, Email = "Email1", ErrorCodes = "ErrorCodes1", ErrorDescription = "ErrorDescription1", FirstName = "FirstName1"} Remark : Both values look the same when formatted but they are distinct instances. ====================== I don't want to have to go through each property, can I do this from MbUnit

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to unit test methods that rely on NHibernate Detached Criteria?

    - by Aim Kai
    I have tried to use Moq to unit test a method on a repository that uses the DetachedCriteria class. But I come up against a problem whereby I cannot actually mock the internal Criteria object that is built inside. Is there any way to mock detached criteria? Test Method [Test] [Category("UnitTest")] public void FindByNameSuccessTest() { //Mock hibernate here var sessionMock = new Mock<ISession>(); var sessionManager = new Mock<ISessionManager>(); var queryMock = new Mock<IQuery>(); var criteria = new Mock<ICriteria>(); var sessionIMock = new Mock<NHibernate.Engine.ISessionImplementor>(); var expectedRestriction = new Restriction {Id = 1, Name="Test"}; //Set up expected returns sessionManager.Setup(m => m.OpenSession()).Returns(sessionMock.Object); sessionMock.Setup(x => x.GetSessionImplementation()).Returns(sessionIMock.Object); queryMock.Setup(x => x.UniqueResult<SopRestriction>()).Returns(expectedRestriction); criteria.Setup(x => x.UniqueResult()).Returns(expectedRestriction); //Build repository var rep = new TestRepository(sessionManager.Object); //Call repostitory here to get list var returnR = rep.FindByName("Test"); Assert.That(returnR.Id == expectedRestriction.Id); } Repository Class public class TestRepository { protected readonly ISessionManager SessionManager; public virtual ISession Session { get { return SessionManager.OpenSession(); } } public TestRepository(ISessionManager sessionManager) { } public SopRestriction FindByName(string name) { var criteria = DetachedCriteria.For<Restriction>().Add<Restriction>(x => x.Name == name) return criteria.GetExecutableCriteria(Session).UniqueResult<T>(); } } Note I am using "NHibernate.LambdaExtensions" and "Castle.Facilities.NHibernateIntegration" here as well. Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Should the code being tested compile to a DLL or an executable file?

    - by uriDium
    I have a solution with two projects. One for project for the production code and another project for the unit tests. I did this as per the suggestions I got here from SO. I noticed that in the Debug Folder that it includes the production code in executable form. I used NUnit to run the tests after removing the executable and they all fail trying to find the executable. So it definitely is trying to find it. I then did a quick read to find out which is better, a DLL or an executable. It seems that an DLL is much faster as they share memory space where communication between executables is slower. Unforunately our production code needs to be an exectuable. So the unit tests will be slightly slower. I am not too worried about that. But the project does rely on code written in another library which is also in executable format at the moment. Should the projects that expose some sort of SDK rather be compiled to an DLL and then the projects that use the SDK be compiled to executable?

    Read the article

  • Stub web calls in Scala

    - by Dennis Laumen
    I'm currently writing a wrapper of the Spotify Metadata API to learn Scala. Everything's fine and dandy but I'd like to unit test the code. To properly do this I'll need to stub the Spotify API and get consistent return values (stuff like popularity of tracks changes very frequently). Does anybody know how to stub web calls in Scala, the JVM in general or by using some external tool I could hook up into my Maven setup? PS I'm basically looking for something like Ruby's FakeWeb... Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Managing logs/warnings in Python extensions

    - by Dimitri Tcaciuc
    TL;DR version: What do you use for configurable (and preferably captured) logging inside your C++ bits in a Python project? Details follow. Say you have a a few compiled .so modules that may need to do some error checking and warn user of (partially) incorrect data. Currently I'm having a pretty simplistic setup where I'm using logging framework from Python code and log4cxx library from C/C++. log4cxx log level is defined in a file (log4cxx.properties) and is currently fixed and I'm thinking how to make it more flexible. Couple of choices that I see: One way to control it would be to have a module-wide configuration call. # foo/__init__.py import sys from _foo import import bar, baz, configure_log configure_log(sys.stdout, WARNING) # tests/test_foo.py def test_foo(): # Maybe a custom context to change the logfile for # the module and restore it at the end. with CaptureLog(foo) as log: assert foo.bar() == 5 assert log.read() == "124.24 - foo - INFO - Bar returning 5" Have every compiled function that does logging accept optional log parameters. # foo.c int bar(PyObject* x, PyObject* logfile, PyObject* loglevel) { LoggerPtr logger = default_logger("foo"); if (logfile != Py_None) logger = file_logger(logfile, loglevel); ... } # tests/test_foo.py def test_foo(): with TemporaryFile() as logfile: assert foo.bar(logfile=logfile, loglevel=DEBUG) == 5 assert logfile.read() == "124.24 - foo - INFO - Bar returning 5" Some other way? Second one seems to be somewhat cleaner, but it requires function signature alteration (or using kwargs and parsing them). First one is.. probably somewhat awkward but sets up entire module in one go and removes logic from each individual function. What are your thoughts on this? I'm all ears to alternative solutions as well. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • What's your release process for your commercial application?

    - by dr. evil
    If you are developing a commercial desktop application, what's your release process? Sample process: Develop it: Patch bugs, add features, etc. Feature Freeze (do not fix, add anything unless it's absolutely required) Test it If everything is OK release it, if it's not fix it, test it, release it I think the most crucial question is what's your approach to "feature freeze test release" cycle? Or do you test it more frequently that you don't need such a cycle and your software is always ready for public release?

    Read the article

  • Jquery ajax load of JSON in unit tests

    - by wmitchell
    I'm trying to load a dataset in jasmine for my tests like such ... However as its a json call I cant seem to always get the test denoted by "it" to wait till the JSON call has finished before using its array. I tried using the ajaxStop function to no avail. Any ideas ? describe("simple checks", function() { var exampleArray = new Array(); beforeEach(function(){ $(document).ajaxStop(function() { $(this).unbind("ajaxStop"); $.getJSON('/jasmine/obj.json', function(data) { $.each( json.jsonattr, function(i, widgetElement) { exampleArray.push(new widget(widgetElement)); }); }); }); }); it("use the exampleArray", function() { doSomething(exampleArray[0]); // frequently this is coming up as undefined });

    Read the article

  • MSTest/NUnit Writing BDD style "Given, When, Then" tests

    - by Charlie
    I have been using MSpec to write my unit tests and really prefer the BDD style, I think it's a lot more readable. I'm now using Silverlight which MSpec doesn't support so I'm having to use MSTest but would still like to maintain a BDD style so am trying to work out a way to do this. Just to explain what I'm trying to acheive, here's how I'd write an MSpec test [Subject(typeof(Calculator))] public class when_I_add_two_numbers : with_calculator { Establish context = () => this.Calculator = new Calculator(); Because I_add_2_and_4 = () => this.Calculator.Add(2).Add(4); It should_display_6 = () => this.Calculator.Result.ShouldEqual(6); } public class with_calculator { protected static Calculator; } So with MSTest I would try to write the test like this (although you can see it won't work because I've put in 2 TestInitialize attributes, but you get what I'm trying to do..) [TestClass] public class when_I_add_two_numbers : with_calculator { [TestInitialize] public void GivenIHaveACalculator() { this.Calculator = new Calculator(); } [TestInitialize] public void WhenIAdd2And4() { this.Calculator.Add(2).Add(4); } [TestMethod] public void ThenItShouldDisplay6() { this.Calculator.Result.ShouldEqual(6); } } public class with_calculator { protected Calculator Calculator {get;set;} } Can anyone come up with some more elegant suggestions to write tests in this way with MSTest? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Selenium RC cannot test on compressed html

    - by JH
    In order to have the fast speed of website, the web sever compress (gzip) the html files before sending to our clients. When running selenium tests, it shows a pop-up saying: You have chosen to open ... which is a: Bin file from: http://... Would you like to save this file? "Cancel" "Save File" It seems that the compressed html file doesn't unzip and browsers recognise it as Binary file.

    Read the article

  • How to keep your unit test Arrange step simple and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

    - by ian31
    DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

    Read the article

  • Any teams out there using TypeMock? Is it worth the hefty price tag?

    - by dferraro
    Hi, I hope this question is not 'controversial' - I'm just basically asking - has anyone here purchased TypeMock and been happy (or unhappy) with the results? We are a small dev shop of only 12 developers including the 2 dev managers. We've been using NMock so far but there are limitations. I have done research and started playing with TypeMock and I love it. It's super clean syntax and lets you basically mock everything, which is great for legacy code. The problem is - how do I justify to my boss spending 800-1200$ per license for an API which has 4-5 competitors that are completly free? 800-1200$ is how much Infragistrics or Telerik cost per license - and there sure as hell isn't 4-5 open source comparable UI frameworks... Which is why I find it a bit overpriced, albeit an awesome library... Any opinions / experiences are greatly appreciated. EDIT: after finding MOQ I thought I fell in love - until I found out that it's not fully supported in VB.NET because VB lacks lambda sub routines =(. Is anyone using MOQ for VB.NET? The problem is we are a mixed shop - we use C# for our CRM development and VB for everything else. Any guidence is greatly appreciated again

    Read the article

  • unit test for proxy checking

    - by zubin71
    Proxy configuration of a machine can be easily fetched using def check_proxy(): import urllib2 http_proxy = urllib2.getproxies().get('http') I need to write a test for the above written function. In order to do that I need to:- Set the system-wide proxy to an invalid URL during the test(sounds like a bad idea). Supply an invalid URL to http_proxy. How can I achieve either of the above?

    Read the article

  • How do I unit test the methods in a method object?

    - by Sancho
    I've performed the "Replace Method with Method Object" refactoring described by Beck. Now, I have a class with a "run()" method and a bunch of member functions that decompose the computation into smaller units. How do I test those member functions? My first idea is that my unit tests be basically copies of the "run()" method (with different initializations), but with assertions between each call to the member functions to check the state of the computation. (I'm using Python and the unittest module.)

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC - How to Unit Test boundaries in the Repository pattern?

    - by JK
    Given a basic repository interface: public interface IPersonRepository { void AddPerson(Person person); List<Person> GetAllPeople(); } With a basic implementation: public class PersonRepository: IPersonRepository { public void AddPerson(Person person) { ObjectContext.AddObject(person); } public List<Person> GetAllPeople() { return ObjectSet.AsQueryable().ToList(); } } How can you unit test this in a meaningful way? Since it crosses the boundary and physically updates and reads from the database, thats not a unit test, its an integration test. Or is it wrong to want to unit test this in the first place? Should I only have integration tests on the repository? I've been googling the subject and blogs often say to make a stub that implements the IRepository: public class PersonRepositoryTestStub: IPersonRepository { private List<Person> people = new List<Person>(); public void AddPerson(Person person) { people.Add(person); } public List<Person> GetAllPeople() { return people; } } But that doesnt unit test PersonRepository, it tests the implementation of PersonRepositoryTestStub (not very helpful).

    Read the article

  • How can you unit test a DelegateCommand

    - by Damian
    I am trying to unit test my ViewModel and my SaveItem(save, CanSave) delegate command. I want to ensure that CanSave is called and returns the correct value given certain conditions. Basically, how can I invoke the delegate command from my unit test, actually it's more of an integration test. Obviously I could just test the return value of the CanSave method but I am trying to use BDD to the letter, ie. no code without a test first.

    Read the article

  • How to make sure web services are kept stable from one release to the next?

    - by Tor Hovland
    The company where I work is a software vendor with a suite of applications. There are also a number of web services, and of course they have to be kept stable even if the applications change. We haven't always succeeded with this, and sometimes a customer finds that a service is not behaving as before after upgrading. We now want to handle this better. In general, web services shouldn't change, and if they have to, at least we will know about it and document the change. But how do we ensure this? One idea is to compare the WSDL files with the previous versions at every release. That will make sure the interfaces don't change, but it won't detect that the behavior changes, for example if a bug is introduced in some common library. Another idea is to build up a suite of service tests, for example using soapUI. But then we'll never know if we have covered enough cases. What are some best practices regarding this?

    Read the article

  • How to build a test group in watir?

    - by karlthorwald
    I have some single watir.rb scripts that use IE and are written in a standard watir way. How do I create a test group that combines them? I want all of them be executed by executing the main script. Is it possible to auto include single test files into a test group by subidr? Is it possible to enumerate the files that should be included in the test group? Can I cascade (include other watir test groups in a watir test group)?

    Read the article

  • How can I programatically test which CSS elements match my XHTML?

    - by Shawn Lauzon
    I have an application which generates XHTML documents which are styled with (mostly) static CSS. I'm currently using XPath and Hamcrest (Java) to verify that the documents are constructed correctly. However, I also need to verify that the correct CSS properties are matched. For example, I would like a test like this: Given XHTML element Foo, verify that the property "text-transform:uppercase" is applied. Ideally, I would like a Java framework that provides this. I've looked a bit at Selenium, but I don't see this type of functionality. Thanks ...

    Read the article

  • In an Android test, how to check that a View is shown?

    - by Jan Zankowski
    Hello, I'm writing a UI test case (using ActivityUnitTestCase) and would like to check if at a given time a View subclass is visible to the user. I've found the View#isShown() method, which claims to do exactly this - checking the visibility field of this element and all its parents - but somehow it always returns "false" for all the elements. I'll be grateful for some help. If it makes it easier, I can paste some code. Also, I found ViewAsserts#assertOnScreen(View origin, View view) but it doesn't seem to do the right thing either - always returns true. Am I perhaps calling it wrong: assertOnScreen(viewImTesting.getRootView(), viewImTesting)? Thanks, Jan

    Read the article

  • Is JPA persistence.xml classpath located?

    - by Vinnie
    Here's what I'm trying to do. I'm using JPA persistence in a web application, but I have a set of unit tests that I want to run outside of a container. I have my primary persistence.xml in the META_INF folder of my main app and it works great in the container (Glassfish). I placed a second persistence.xml in the META-INF folder of my test-classes directory. This contains a separate persistence unit that I want to use for test only. In eclipse, I placed this folder higher in the classpath than the default folder and it seems to work. Now when I run the maven build directly from the command line and it attempts to run the unit tests, the persistence.xml override is ignored. I can see the override in the META-INF folder of the maven generated test-classes directory and I expected the maven tests to use this file, but it isn't. My Spring test configuration overrides, achieved in a similar fashion are working. I'm confused at to whether the persistence.xml is located through the classpath. If it were, my override should work like the spring override since the maven surefire plugin explains "[The test class directory] will be included at the beginning the test classpath". Did I wrongly anticipate how the persistence.xml file is located? I could (and have) create a second persistence unit in the production persistence.xml file, but it feels dirty to place test configuration into this production file. Any other ideas on how to achieve my goal is welcome.

    Read the article

  • How to keep your unit tests simple and isolated and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

    - by ian31
    DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113  | Next Page >