Search Results

Search found 4724 results on 189 pages for 'unit'.

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 12/189 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • Multiple Asserts in a Unit Test

    - by whatispunk
    I've just finished reading Roy Osherove's "The Art of Unit Testing" and I am trying to adhere to the best practices he lays out in the book. One of those best practices is to not use multiple asserts in a test method. The reason for this rule is fairly clear to me, but it makes me wonder... If I have a method like: public Foo MakeFoo(int x, int y, int z) { Foo f = new Foo(); f.X = x; f.Y = y; f.Z = z; return f; } Must I really write individual unit tests to assert each separate property of Foo is initialized with the supplied value? Is it really all that uncommon to use multiple asserts in a test method? FYI: I am using MSTest.

    Read the article

  • Embeddable unit testing framework for mixed Windows app

    - by Andy Dent
    I want to test portions of a very complex app which includes both a major native Windows component and a substantial WPF GUI. Due to complexities I can't detail, it is impossible to run the native portion independently nor can I isolate the areas I want to test (spare me the lectures, we're talking a huge legacy code base and we do have refactoring plans). I'm looking for a unit test kit I can invoke on the native side but must be able to run with the app launched with the managed portion initialised. That seems to rule out the run executable feature of the cfix Windows unit test kit. I really like their philosophy, like WinUnit, of using DLL compilation as a way to add the reflective capabilities missing in C++ and gain a more NUnit-like experience. Ideally, I want something like WinUnit running within the application code and generating an HTML report. I'm trying to introduce more TDD and having things as lean as possible is important.

    Read the article

  • Wrong code coverage on of unit test

    - by KamilPyc
    I'm using code coverage for unit tests in Xcode. Everything is working except some special cases, for example protocol declaration shows wrong values. If I have : @protocol SomeProtocole <NSObject> @property (nonatomic, readonly) NSObject *example; @end I will get 0% code coverage for this file. But I have unit test that is using class that conforms to that protocol. Only solution I found so far is to filter code coverage raport to not include protocols. But I would like to see real values for protocols. Any one have some solution to fix it?

    Read the article

  • Is my code really not unit-testable?

    - by John
    A lot of code in a current project is directly related to displaying things using a 3rd-party 3D rendering engine. As such, it's easy to say "this is a special case, you can't unit test it". But I wonder if this is a valid excuse... it's easy to think "I am special" but rarely actually the case. Are there types of code which are genuinely not suited for unit-testing? By suitable, I mean "without it taking longer to figure out how to write the test than is worth the effort"... dealing with a ton of 3D math/rendering it could take a lot of work to prove the output of a function is correct compared with just looking at the rendered graphics.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing: hard dependency MessageBox.Show()

    - by Sean B
    What ways can the SampleConfirmationDialog be unit tested? The SampleConfirmationDialog would be exercised via acceptance tests, however how could we unit test it, seeing as MessageBox is not abstract and no matching interface? public interface IConfirmationDialog { /// <summary> /// Confirms the dialog with the user /// </summary> /// <returns>True if confirmed, false if not, null if cancelled</returns> bool? Confirm(); } /// <summary> /// Implementation of a confirmation dialog /// </summary> public class SampleConfirmationDialog : IConfirmationDialog { /// <summary> /// Confirms the dialog with the user /// </summary> /// <returns>True if confirmed, false if not, null if cancelled</returns> public bool? Confirm() { return MessageBox.Show("do operation x?", "title", MessageBoxButton.YesNo, MessageBoxImage.Question) == MessageBoxResult.Yes; } }

    Read the article

  • Silverlight unit testing (using NUnit)

    - by 1gn1ter
    I'm using NUnit for testing back-end. Unit tests are being executed while building (I'm using TeamCity for continuous building). Now I hove to test front-end (Silverlight 4.0). Because the tests are being executed while building, I have to simulate browser (TypeMock - is not free, isn't it?) could I use NUnit.Mocks somehow?. How to use NUnit for Silverlight testing? I've found WHITE framework could it help? Any other advises about software/frameworks to use for Silverlight unit testing?

    Read the article

  • python unit testing os.remove fails file system

    - by hwjp
    Am doing a bit of unit testing on a function which attempts to open a new file, but should fail if the file already exists. when the function runs sucessfully, the new file is created, so i want to delete it after every test run, but it doesn't seem to be working: class MyObject_Initialisation(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): if os.path.exists(TEMPORARY_FILE_NAME): try: os.remove(TEMPORARY_FILE_NAME) except WindowsError: #TODO: can't figure out how to fix this... #time.sleep(3) #self.setUp() #this just loops forever pass def tearDown(self): self.setUp() any thoughts? The Windows Error thrown seems to suggest the file is in use... could it be that the tests are run in parallel threads? I've read elsewhere that it's 'bad practice' to use the filesystem in unit testing, but really? Surely there's a way around this that doesn't invole dummying the filesystem?

    Read the article

  • Write Unit test for sorting

    - by user175084
    I need to write a unit test for a method where I arrange data according to another default list. This is the method. internal AData[] GetDataArrayInInitialSortOrder(ABData aBData) { Dictionary<string,AData > aMap = aBData.ADataArray.ToDictionary(v => v.GroupName, v => v); List<AData> newDataList = new List<AData>(); foreach (AData aData in _viewModel.ADList) newDataList.Add(aMap[aData.GroupName]); return newDataList.ToArray(); } Please help I am new in unit testing and this is not easy for me. Any sample or links are appreciated Thanks

    Read the article

  • Value of Step-by-Step Asserts in Unit Tests

    - by Eric J.
    When writing unit tests, there are cases where one can create an Assert for each condition that could fail or an Assert that would catch all such conditions. C# Example: Dictionary<string, string> dict = LoadDictionary(); // Optional Asserts: Assert.IsNotNull(dict); Assert.IsTrue(dict.Count > 0); Assert.IsTrue(dict.ContainsKey("ExpectedKey")); // Condition actually interested in testing: Assert.IsTrue(dict["ExpectedKey"] == "ExpectedValue"); Is there value to a large, multi-person project in this kind of situation to add the "Optional Asserts"? There's more work involved (if you have lots of unit tests) but it will be more immediately clear where the problem lies. I'm using VS 2010 and the integrated testing tools but intend the question to be generic.

    Read the article

  • Throwing special type of exception to terminate unit test

    - by trendl
    Assume I want to write a unit test to test a particular piece of functionality that is implemented within a method. If I wanted to execute the method completely, I would have to do some extra set up work (mock objects expectations etc.). Instead of doing that I use the following approach: - I set up the expectations I'm interested in verifying and then make the tested method throw a special type of exception (e.g. TerminateTestException). - Further down in the unit test I catch the exception and verify the mock object expectations. It works fine but I'm not sure it is good practice. I do not do this regularly, only in cases where it saves me time and effort. One thing that comes to mind as an argument against using this is that throwing exceptions takes long time so the tests execute slower than if I used a different approach.

    Read the article

  • In rails, what defines unit testing as opposed to other kinds of testing

    - by junky
    Initially I thought this was simple: unit testing for models with other testing such as integration for controller and browser testing for views. But more recently I've seen a lot of references to unit testing that doesn't seem to exactly follow this format. Is it possible to have a unit test of a controller? Does that mean that just one method is called? What's the distinction? What does unit testing really means in my rails world?

    Read the article

  • Asp.Net MVC Tutorial Unit Tests

    - by Nicholas
    I am working through Steve Sanderson's book Pro ASP.NET MVC Framework and I having some issues with two unit tests which produce errors. In the example below it tests the CheckOut ViewResult: [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ViewResult CheckOut(Cart cart, FormCollection form) { // Empty carts can't be checked out if (cart.Lines.Count == 0) { ModelState.AddModelError("Cart", "Sorry, your cart is empty!"); return View(); } // Invoke model binding manually if (TryUpdateModel(cart.ShippingDetails, form.ToValueProvider())) { orderSubmitter.SubmitOrder(cart); cart.Clear(); return View("Completed"); } else // Something was invalid return View(); } with the following unit test [Test] public void Submitting_Empty_Shipping_Details_Displays_Default_View_With_Error() { // Arrange CartController controller = new CartController(null, null); Cart cart = new Cart(); cart.AddItem(new Product(), 1); // Act var result = controller.CheckOut(cart, new FormCollection { { "Name", "" } }); // Assert Assert.IsEmpty(result.ViewName); Assert.IsFalse(result.ViewData.ModelState.IsValid); } I have resolved any issues surrounding 'TryUpdateModel' by upgrading to ASP.NET MVC 2 (Release Candidate 2) and the website runs as expected. The associated error messages are: *Tests.CartControllerTests.Submitting_Empty_Shipping_Details_Displays_Default_View_With_Error: System.ArgumentNullException : Value cannot be null. Parameter name: controllerContext* and the more detailed at System.Web.Mvc.ModelValidator..ctor(ModelMetadata metadata, ControllerContext controllerContext) at System.Web.Mvc.DefaultModelBinder.OnModelUpdated(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext) at System.Web.Mvc.DefaultModelBinder.BindComplexModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext) at System.Web.Mvc.Controller.TryUpdateModel[TModel](TModel model, String prefix, String[] includeProperties, String[] excludeProperties, IValueProvider valueProvider) at System.Web.Mvc.Controller.TryUpdateModel[TModel](TModel model, IValueProvider valueProvider) at WebUI.Controllers.CartController.CheckOut(Cart cart, FormCollection form) Has anyone run into a similar issue or indeed got the test to pass?

    Read the article

  • jQuery validator not working in unit testing

    - by Dbugger
    I have this small HTML file: <html> <head></head> <body> <form id='MyForm'> <input type='text' required /> <input type='submit' /> </form> <script src="/js/jquery-1.9.0.js"></script> <script src="/js/jquery.validate.js"></script> <script> var validator = $("#MyForm").validate(); alert(validator.form()); </script> </body> </html> This alerts me with "false", which is the expected behaviour. The problem comes when I go to unit testing, with js-test-driver: TestCase("MyTests", { setUp: function() { this.myform = "<form id='MyForm'><input type='text' required /><input type='submit' /></form>"; this.validator = $(this.myform).validate(); jstestdriver.console.log("Does the form validate? " + this.validator.form()); }, test_empty: function() { }, }); This code returns me the string Does the form validate? true This is a simplified version of my project of course, but the point is that I dont seem to be able to unit test the validation module im developing, since the jQuery validate plugin doesnt seem to work. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • Unit tests for deep cloning

    - by Will Dean
    Let's say I have a complex .NET class, with lots of arrays and other class object members. I need to be able to generate a deep clone of this object - so I write a Clone() method, and implement it with a simple BinaryFormatter serialize/deserialize - or perhaps I do the deep clone using some other technique which is more error prone and I'd like to make sure is tested. OK, so now (ok, I should have done it first) I'd like write tests which cover the cloning. All the members of the class are private, and my architecture is so good (!) that I haven't needed to write hundreds of public properties or other accessors. The class isn't IComparable or IEquatable, because that's not needed by the application. My unit tests are in a separate assembly to the production code. What approaches do people take to testing that the cloned object is a good copy? Do you write (or rewrite once you discover the need for the clone) all your unit tests for the class so that they can be invoked with either a 'virgin' object or with a clone of it? How would you test if part of the cloning wasn't deep enough - as this is just the kind of problem which can give hideous-to-find bugs later?

    Read the article

  • Seam unit test can't connect to JBoss4.0.5GA

    - by user240423
    Does anybody know how to connect with JBoss4.0.5GA in Seam2.2.0GA unit test? I'm using Seam2.2.0GA with the embeded JBoss to run the unit test, the module needs to call old JBoss server (EJB2, because the vendor locked in JCA has to deploy on old JBoss). it's typical seam test case, and I can't get it connect to JBoss4.0.5GA by using jbossall-client.jar from JBoss4.0.5GA. so far I tested the embeded JBoss can only working with JBoss5.X server. with JBoss4.2.3GA, it report: [testng] java.rmi.MarshalException: Failed to communicate. Problem during marshalling/unmarshalling; nested exception is: [testng] java.net.SocketException: end of file [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.transport.socket.SocketClientInvoker.handleException(SocketClientInvoker.java:122) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.transport.socket.MicroSocketClientInvoker.transport(MicroSocketClientInvoker.java:679) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.MicroRemoteClientInvoker.invoke(MicroRemoteClientInvoker.java:122) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.Client.invoke(Client.java:1634) [testng] at org.jboss.remoting.Client.invoke(Client.java:548) This is the best result I could get (JBoss5.1.0GA jbossall-client.jar call JBoss4.2.3GA server in the embeded JBoss env), here is the ant script: <testng classpathref="build.test.classpath" outputDir="${target.test-reports.dir}" haltOnfailure="true"> <jvmarg line="-Dsun.lang.ClassLoader.allowArraySyntax=true" /> <jvmarg line="-Dorg.jboss.j2ee.Serialization=true" /> <!-- <jvmarg line="-Djboss.remoting.pre_2_0_compatible=true" /> --> <jvmarg line="-Djboss.jndi.url=jnp://localhost:1099" /> <xmlfileset dir="src/test/java" includes="${ant.project.name}-testsuite.xml" /> </testng> Can anybody help?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing with Mocks when SUT is leveraging Task Parallel Libaray

    - by StevenH
    I am trying to unit test / verify that a method is being called on a dependency, by the system under test. The depenedency is IFoo. The dependent class is IBar. IBar is implemented as Bar. Bar will call Start() on IFoo in a new (System.Threading.Tasks.)Task, when Start() is called on Bar instance. Unit Test (Moq): [Test] public void StartBar_ShouldCallStartOnAllFoo_WhenFoosExist() { //ARRANGE //Create a foo, and setup expectation var mockFoo0 = new Mock<IFoo>(); mockFoo0.Setup(foo => foo.Start()); var mockFoo1 = new Mock<IFoo>(); mockFoo1.Setup(foo => foo.Start()); //Add mockobjects to a collection var foos = new List<IFoo> { mockFoo0.Object, mockFoo1.Object }; IBar sutBar = new Bar(foos); //ACT sutBar.Start(); //Should call mockFoo.Start() //ASSERT mockFoo0.VerifyAll(); mockFoo1.VerifyAll(); } Implementation of IBar as Bar: class Bar : IBar { private IEnumerable<IFoo> Foos { get; set; } public Bar(IEnumerable<IFoo> foos) { Foos = foos; } public void Start() { foreach(var foo in Foos) { Task.Factory.StartNew( () => { foo.Start(); }); } } } I appears that the issue is obviously due to the fact that the call to "foo.Start()" is taking place on another thread (/task), and the mock (Moq framework) can't detect it. But I could be wrong. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Unit testing and mocking email sender in Python with Google AppEngine

    - by CVertex
    I'm a newbie to python and the app engine. I have this code that sends an email based on request params after some auth logic. in my Unit tests (i'm using GAEUnit), how do I confirm an email with specific contents were sent? - i.e. how do I mock the emailer with a fake emailer to verify send was called? class EmailHandler(webapp.RequestHandler): def bad_input(self): self.response.set_status(400) self.response.headers['Content-Type'] = 'text/plain' self.response.out.write("<html><body>bad input </body></html>") def get(self): to_addr = self.request.get("to") subj = self.request.get("subject") msg = self.request.get("body") if not mail.is_email_valid(to_addr): # Return an error message... # self.bad_input() pass # authenticate here message = mail.EmailMessage() message.sender = "[email protected]" message.to = to_addr message.subject = subj message.body = msg message.send() self.response.headers['Content-Type'] = 'text/plain' self.response.out.write("<html><body>success!</body></html>") And the unit tests, import unittest from webtest import TestApp from google.appengine.ext import webapp from email import EmailHandler class SendingEmails(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.application = webapp.WSGIApplication([('/', EmailHandler)], debug=True) def test_success(self): app = TestApp(self.application) response = app.get('http://localhost:8080/[email protected]&body=blah_blah_blah&subject=mySubject') self.assertEqual('200 OK', response.status) self.assertTrue('success' in response) # somehow, assert email was sent

    Read the article

  • MSTest unit test passes by itself, fails when other tests are run

    - by Sarah Vessels
    I'm having trouble with some MSTest unit tests that pass when I run them individually but fail when I run the entire unit test class. The tests test some code that SLaks helped me with earlier, and he warned me what I was doing wasn't thread-safe. However, now my code is more complicated and I don't know how to go about making it thread-safe. Here's what I have: public static class DLLConfig { private static string _domain; public static string Domain { get { return _domain = AlwaysReadFromFile ? readCredentialFromFile(DOMAIN_TAG) : _domain ?? readCredentialFromFile(DOMAIN_TAG); } } } And my test is simple: string expected = "the value I know exists in the file"; string actual = DLLConfig.Domain; Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); When I run this test by itself, it passes. When I run it alongside all the other tests in the test class (which perform similar checks on different properties), actual is null and the test fails. I note this is not a problem with a property whose type is a custom Enum type; maybe I'm having this problem with the Domain property because it is a string? Or maybe it's a multi-threaded issue with how MSTest works?

    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

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >