Search Results

Search found 49452 results on 1979 pages for 'type testing'.

Page 134/1979 | < Previous Page | 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141  | Next Page >

  • Using Sub-Types And Return Types in Scala to Process a Generic Object Into a Specific One

    - by pr1001
    I think this is about covariance but I'm weak on the topic... I have a generic Event class used for things like database persistance, let's say like this: class Event( subject: Long, verb: String, directobject: Option[Long], indirectobject: Option[Long], timestamp: Long) { def getSubject = subject def getVerb = verb def getDirectObject = directobject def getIndirectObject = indirectobject def getTimestamp = timestamp } However, I have lots of different event verbs and I want to use pattern matching and such with these different event types, so I will create some corresponding case classes: trait EventCC case class Login(user: Long, timestamp: Long) extends EventCC case class Follow( follower: Long, followee: Long, timestamp: Long ) extends EventCC Now, the question is, how can I easily convert generic Events to the specific case classes. This is my first stab at it: def event2CC[T <: EventCC](event: Event): T = event.getVerb match { case "login" => Login(event.getSubject, event.getTimestamp) case "follow" => Follow( event.getSubject, event.getDirectObject.getOrElse(0), event.getTimestamp ) // ... } Unfortunately, this is wrong. <console>:11: error: type mismatch; found : Login required: T case "login" => Login(event.getSubject, event.getTimestamp) ^ <console>:12: error: type mismatch; found : Follow required: T case "follow" => Follow(event.getSubject, event.getDirectObject.getOrElse(0), event.getTimestamp) Could someone with greater type-fu than me explain if, 1) if what I want to do is possible (or reasonable, for that matter), and 2) if so, how to fix event2CC. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • .Net xsd.exe tool doesn't generate all types

    - by Mrchief
    For some reason, MS .Net (v3.5) tool - xsd.exe doesn't generate types when they are not used inside any element. e.g. XSD File (I threw in the complex element to avoid this warning - "Warning: cannot generate classes because no top-level elements with complex type were found."): <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <xs:schema targetNamespace="http://tempuri.org/XMLSchema.xsd" elementFormDefault="qualified" xmlns="http://tempuri.org/XMLSchema.xsd" xmlns:mstns="http://tempuri.org/XMLSchema.xsd" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" > <xs:simpleType name="EnumTest"> <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> <xs:enumeration value="item1" /> <xs:enumeration value="item2" /> <xs:enumeration value="item3" /> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> <xs:complexType name="myComplexType"> <xs:attribute name="Name" use="required" type="xs:string"/> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="myElem" type="myComplexType"></xs:element> </xs:schema> When i run this thru xsd.exe using xsd /c xsdfile.xsd I don't see EnumTest in the generated cs file. Note; Even though I don't use the enum here, but in my actual project, I have cases like this where we send enum's string value as output. How can I force the xsd tool to include these? Or should I switch to some other tool? I work in Visual Studio 2008.

    Read the article

  • N-tier architecture and unit tests (using Java)

    - by Alexandre FILLATRE
    Hi there, I'd like to have your expert explanations about an architectural question. Imagine a Spring MVC webapp, with validation API (JSR 303). So for a request, I have a controller that handles the request, then passes it to the service layer, which passes to the DAO one. Here's my question. At which layer should the validation occur, and how ? My though is that the controller has to handle basic validation (are mandatory fields empty ? Is the field length ok ? etc.). Then the service layer can do some tricker stuff, that involve other objets. The DAO does no validation at all. BUT, if I want to implement some unit testing (i.e. test layers below service, not the controllers), I'll end up with unexpected behavior because some validations should have been done in the Controller layer. As we don't use it for unit testing, there is a problem. What is the best way to deal with this ? I know there is no universal answer, but your personal experience is very welcomed. Thanks a lot. Regards.

    Read the article

  • Unit tests - The benefit from unit tests with contract changes?

    - by Stefan Hendriks
    Recently I had an interesting discussion with a colleague about unit tests. We where discussing when maintaining unit tests became less productive, when your contracts change. Perhaps anyone can enlight me how to approach this problem. Let me elaborate: So lets say there is a class which does some nifty calculations. The contract says that it should calculate a number, or it returns -1 when it fails for some reason. I have contract tests who test that. And in all my other tests I stub this nifty calculator thingy. So now I change the contract, whenever it cannot calculate it will throw a CannotCalculateException. My contract tests will fail, and I will fix them accordingly. But, all my mocked/stubbed objects will still use the old contract rules. These tests will succeed, while they should not! The question that rises, is that with this faith in unit testing, how much faith can be placed in such changes... The unit tests succeed, but bugs will occur when testing the application. The tests using this calculator will need to be fixed, which costs time and may even be stubbed/mocked a lot of times... How do you think about this case? I never thought about it thourougly. In my opinion, these changes to unit tests would be acceptable. If I do not use unit tests, I would also see such bugs arise within test phase (by testers). Yet I am not confident enough to point out what will cost more time (or less). Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Best way to test a Delphi application

    - by Osama ALASSIRY
    I have a Delphi application that has many dependencies, and it would be difficult to refactor it to use DUnit (it's huge), so I was thinking about using something like AutomatedQA's TestComplete to do the testing from the front-end UI. My main problem is that a bugfix or new feature sometimes breaks old code that was previously tested (manually), and used to work. I have setup the application to use command-line switches to open-up a specific form that could be tested, and I can create a set of values and clicks needed to be done. But I have a few questions before I do anything drastic... (and before purchasing anything) Is it worth it? Would this be a good way to test? The result of the test should in my database (Oracle), is there an easy way in testcomplete to check these values (multiple fields in multiple tables)? I would need to setup a test database to do all the automated testing, would there be an easy way to automate re-setting the test db? Other than drop user cascade, create user,..., impdp. Is there a way in testcomplete to specify command-line parameters for an exe? Does anybody have any similar experiences.

    Read the article

  • how often should the entire suite of a system's unit tests be run?

    - by gerryLowry
    Generally, I'm still very much a unit testing neophyte. BTW, you may also see this question on other forums like xUnit.net, et cetera, because it's an important question to me. I apoligize in advance for my cross posting; your opinions are very important to me and not everyone in this forum belongs to the other forums too. I was looking at a large decade old legacy system which has had over 700 unit tests written recently (700 is just a small beginning). The tests happen to be written in MSTest but this question applies to all testing frameworks AFAIK. When I ran, via vs2008 "ALL TESTS", the final count was only seven tests. That's about 1% of the total tests that have been written to date. MORE INFORMATION: The ASP.NET MVC 2 RTM source code, including its unit tests, is available on CodePlex; those unit tests are also written in MSTest even though (an irrelevant fact) Brad Wilson later joined the ASP.NET MVC team as its Senior Programmer. All 2000 plus tests get run, not just a few. QUESTION: given that AFAIK the purpose of unit tests is to identify breakages in the SUT, am I correct in thinking that the "best practice" is to always, or at least very frequently, run all of the tests? Thank you. Regards, Gerry (Lowry)

    Read the article

  • How do I mock a method with an open array parameter in PascalMock?

    - by Oliver Giesen
    I'm currently in the process of getting started with unit testing and mocking for good and I stumbled over the following method that I can't seem to fabricate a working mock implementation for: function GetInstance(const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID = CID_DEFAULT): Boolean; (TImplContextID is just an alias for Integer) I thought it would have to look something like this: function TImplementationProviderMock.GetInstance( const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID): Boolean; begin Result := AddCall('GetInstance') .WithParams([@AIID, AContextID]) .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) .ReturnValue; end; But the compiler complains about the .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) saying "Bad argument type in variable type array constructor.". Also I haven't found a way to specify the open array parameter AArgs at all. Also, is using the @-notation for the TGUID-typed parameter the right way to go? Is it possible to mock this method with the current version of PascalMock at all? Update: I now realize I got the purpose of ReturnsOutParams completely wrong: It's intended to be used for populating the values to be returned when defining the expectations rather than for mocking the call itself. I now think the correct syntax for mocking the out parameter would probably have to look more like this: function TImplementationProviderMock.GetInstance( const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID): Boolean; var lCall: TMockMethod; begin lCall := AddCall('GetInstance').WithParams([@AIID, AContextID]); Pointer(AInstance) := lCall.OutParams[0]; Result := lCall.ReturnValue; end; The questions that remain are how to mock the open array parameter AArgs and whether passing the TGUID argument (i.e. a value type) by address will work out...

    Read the article

  • How to (unit-)test data intensive PL/SQL application

    - by doom2.wad
    Our team is willing to unit-test a new code written under a running project extending an existing huge Oracle system. The system is written solely in PL/SQL, consists of thousands of tables, hundreds of stored procedures packages, mostly getting data from tables and/or inserting/updating other data. Our extension is not an exception. Most functions return data from a quite complex SELECT statementa over many mutually bound tables (with a little added logic before returning them) or make transformation from one complicated data structure to another (complicated in another way). What is the best approach to unit-test such code? There are no unit tests for existing code base. To make things worse, only packages, triggers and views are source-controlled, table structures (including "alter table" stuff and necessary data transformations are deployed via channel other than version control). There is no way to change this within our project's scope. Maintaining testing data set seems to be impossible since there is new code deployed to the production environment on weekly basis, usually without prior notice, often changing data structure (add a column here, remove one there). I'd be glad for any suggestion or reference to help us. Some team members tend to be tired by figuring out how to even start for our experience with unit-testing does not cover PL/SQL data intensive legacy systems (only those "from-the-book" greenfield Java projects).

    Read the article

  • Returning HTML in the JS portion of a respond_to block throws errors in IE

    - by Horace Loeb
    Here's a common pattern in my controller actions: respond_to do |format| format.html {} format.js { render :layout => false } end I.e., if the request is non-AJAX, I'll send the HTML content in a layout on a brand new page. If the request is AJAX, I'll send down the same content, but without a layout (so that it can be inserted into the existing page or put into a lightbox or whatever). So I'm always returning HTML in the format.js portion, yet Rails sets the Content-Type response header to text/javascript. This causes IE to throw this fun little error message: Of course I could set the content-type of the response every time I did this (or use an after_filter or whatever), but it seems like I'm trying to do something relatively standard and I don't want to add additional boilerplate code. How do I fix this problem? Alternatively, if the only way to fix the problem is to change the content-type of the response, what's the best way to achieve the behavior I want (i.e., sending down content with layout for non-AJAX and the same content without a layout for AJAX) without having to deal with these errors? Edit: This blog post has some more info

    Read the article

  • Partial template specialization for more than one typename

    - by Matt Joiner
    In the following code, I want to consider functions (Ops) that have void return to instead be considered to return true. The type Retval, and the return value of Op are always matching. I'm not able to discriminate using the type traits shown here, and attempts to create a partial template specialization based on Retval have failed due the presence of the other template variables, Op and Args. How do I specialize only some variables in a template specialization without getting errors? Is there any other way to alter behaviour based on the return type of Op? template <typename Retval, typename Op, typename... Args> Retval single_op_wrapper( Retval const failval, char const *const opname, Op const op, Cpfs &cpfs, Args... args) { try { CallContext callctx(cpfs, opname); Retval retval; if (std::is_same<bool, Retval>::value) { (callctx.*op)(args...); retval = true; } else { retval = (callctx.*op)(args...); } assert(retval != failval); callctx.commit(cpfs); return retval; } catch (CpfsError const &exc) { cpfs_errno_set(exc.fserrno); LOGF(Info, "Failed with %s", cpfs_errno_str(exc.fserrno)); } return failval; }

    Read the article

  • CodeIgniter and SimpleTest -- How to make my first test?

    - by Smandoli
    I'm used to web development using LAMP, PHP5, MySQL plus NetBeans with Xdebug. Now I want to improve my development, by learning how to use (A) proper testing and (B) a framework. So I have set up CodeIgniter, SimpleTest and the easy Xdebug add-in for Firefox. This is great fun because maroonbytes provided me with clear instructions and a configured setup ready for download. I am standing on the shoulders of giants, and very grateful. I've used SimpleTest a bit in the past. Here is a the kind of thing I wrote: <?php require_once('../simpletest/unit_tester.php'); require_once('../simpletest/reporter.php'); class TestOfMysqlTransaction extends UnitTestCase { function testDB_ViewTable() { $this->assertEqual(1,1); // a pseudo-test } } $test = new TestOfMysqlTransaction(); $test->run(new HtmlReporter()) ?> So I hope I know what a test looks like. What I can't figure out is where and how to put a test in my new setup. I don't see any sample tests in the maroonbytes package, and Google so far has led me to posts that assume unit testing is already functionally available. What do I do?

    Read the article

  • Prove correctness of unit test

    - by Timo Willemsen
    I'm creating a graph framework for learning purposes. I'm using a TDD approach, so I'm writing a lot of unit tests. However, I'm still figuring out how to prove the correctness of my unit tests For example, I have this class (not including the implementation, and I have simplified it) public class SimpleGraph(){ //Returns true on success public boolean addEdge(Vertex v1, Vertex v2) { ... } //Returns true on sucess public boolean addVertex(Vertex v1) { ... } } I also have created this unit tests @Test public void SimpleGraph_addVertex_noSelfLoopsAllowed(){ SimpleGraph g = new SimpleGraph(); Vertex v1 = new Vertex('Vertex 1'); actual = g.addVertex(v1); boolean expected = false; boolean actual = g.addEdge(v1,v1); Assert.assertEquals(expected,actual); } Okay, awesome it works. There is only one crux here, I have proved that the functions work for this case only. However, in my graph theory courses, all I'm doing is proving theorems mathematically (induction, contradiction etc. etc.). So I was wondering is there a way I can prove my unit tests mathematically for correctness? So is there a good practice for this. So we're testing the unit for correctness, instead of testing it for one certain outcome.

    Read the article

  • How to map a test onto a list of numbers

    - by Arthur Ulfeldt
    I have a function with a bug: user> (-> 42 int-to-bytes bytes-to-int) 42 user> (-> 128 int-to-bytes bytes-to-int) -128 user> looks like I need to handle overflow when converting back... Better write a test to make sure this never happens again. This project is using clojure.contrib.test-is so i write: (deftest int-to-bytes-to-int (let [lots-of-big-numbers (big-test-numbers)] (map #(is (= (-> % int-to-bytes bytes-to-int) %)) lots-of-big-numbers))) This should be testing converting to a seq of bytes and back again produces the origional result on a list of 10000 random numbers. Looks OK in theory? except none of the tests ever run. Testing com.cryptovide.miscTest Ran 23 tests containing 34 assertions. 0 failures, 0 errors. why don't the tests run? what can I do to make them run?

    Read the article

  • Java: Typecasting to Generics

    - by bguiz
    This method that uses method-level generics, that parses the values from a custom POJO, JXlistOfKeyValuePairs (which is exactly that). The only thing is that both the keys and values in JXlistOfKeyValuePairs are Strings. This method wants to taken in, in addition to the JXlistOfKeyValuePairs instance, a Class<T> that defines which data type to convert the values to (assume that only Boolean, Integer and Float are possible). It then outputs a HashMap with the specified type for the values in its entries. This is the code that I have got, and it is obviously broken. private <T extends Object> Map<String, T> fromListOfKeyValuePairs(JXlistOfKeyValuePairs jxval, Class<T> clasz) { Map<String, T> val = new HashMap<String, T>(); List<Entry> jxents = jxval.getEntry(); T value; String str; for (Entry jxent : jxents) { str = jxent.getValue(); value = null; if (clasz.isAssignableFrom(Boolean.class)) { value = (T)(Boolean.parseBoolean(str)); } else if (clasz.isAssignableFrom(Integer.class)) { value = (T)(Integer.parseInt(str)); } else if (clasz.isAssignableFrom(Float.class)) { value = (T)(Float.parseFloat(str)); } else { logger.warn("Unsupported value type encountered in key-value pairs, continuing anyway: " + clasz.getName()); } val.put(jxent.getKey(), value); } return val; } This is the bit that I want to solve: if (clasz.isAssignableFrom(Boolean.class)) { value = (T)(Boolean.parseBoolean(str)); } else if (clasz.isAssignableFrom(Integer.class)) { value = (T)(Integer.parseInt(str)); } I get: Inconvertible types required: T found: Boolean Also, if possible, I would like to be able to do this with more elegant code, avoiding Class#isAssignableFrom. Any suggestions? Sample method invocation: Map<String, Boolean> foo = fromListOfKeyValuePairs(bar, Boolean.class);

    Read the article

  • Unit test approach for generic classes/methods

    - by Greg
    Hi, What's the recommended way to cover off unit testing of generic classes/methods? For example (referring to my example code below). Would it be a case of have 2 or 3 times the tests to cover testing the methods with a few different types of TKey, TNode classes? Or is just one class enough? public class TopologyBase<TKey, TNode, TRelationship> where TNode : NodeBase<TKey>, new() where TRelationship : RelationshipBase<TKey>, new() { // Properties public Dictionary<TKey, NodeBase<TKey>> Nodes { get; private set; } public List<RelationshipBase<TKey>> Relationships { get; private set; } // Constructors protected TopologyBase() { Nodes = new Dictionary<TKey, NodeBase<TKey>>(); Relationships = new List<RelationshipBase<TKey>>(); } // Methods public TNode CreateNode(TKey key) { var node = new TNode {Key = key}; Nodes.Add(node.Key, node); return node; } public void CreateRelationship(NodeBase<TKey> parent, NodeBase<TKey> child) { . . .

    Read the article

  • How best to organize projects folders for unit tests in .NET?

    - by Dan Bailiff
    So I'm trying to introduce unit testing to my group. I've successfully upgraded a VS'05 web site project to a VS'08 web application, and now have a solution with the web app project and a unit test project. The issue now is how to fit this back into the source repository such that we don't break the build system and the unit test projects are persisted as well. Right now we have something like this: c:\root c:\root\projectA c:\root\projectB c:\root\projectC where projectA contains the sln file and all other related files/folders for the project. Now I have this new solution that looks like this: c:\root\projectA (parent folder) c:\root\projectA\projectA (the production code project) c:\root\projectA\projectA_Test (the unit test project) c:\root\projectA\TestResults c:\root\projecta\projectA.sln How do I integrate this new structure back into the code repository? I'd really prefer to keep the production code folder where it was in the source repository for the sake of the build, but is this necessary? If I keep the production code project in its usual place then where do I keep my unit test projects and how do I connect them with a sln file? Is it better to use this new structure and adjust the build process? I'd love to hear how other people are dealing with this issue of upgrading legacy projects to unit testing.

    Read the article

  • Ninject WithConstructorArgument : No matching bindings are available, and the type is not self-bindable

    - by Jean-François Beauchamp
    My understanding of WithConstructorArgument is probably erroneous, because the following is not working: I have a service, lets call it MyService, whose constructor is taking multiple objects, and a string parameter called testEmail. For this string parameter, I added the following Ninject binding: string testEmail = "[email protected]"; kernel.Bind<IMyService>().To<MyService>().WithConstructorArgument("testEmail", testEmail); However, when executing the following line of code, I get an exception: var myService = kernel.Get<MyService>(); Here is the exception I get: Error activating string No matching bindings are available, and the type is not self-bindable. Activation path: 2) Injection of dependency string into parameter testEmail of constructor of type MyService 1) Request for MyService Suggestions: 1) Ensure that you have defined a binding for string. 2) If the binding was defined in a module, ensure that the module has been loaded into the kernel. 3) Ensure you have not accidentally created more than one kernel. 4) If you are using constructor arguments, ensure that the parameter name matches the constructors parameter name. 5) If you are using automatic module loading, ensure the search path and filters are correct. What am I doing wrong here? UPDATE: Here is the MyService constructor: [Ninject.Inject] public MyService(IMyRepository myRepository, IMyEventService myEventService, IUnitOfWork unitOfWork, ILoggingService log, IEmailService emailService, IConfigurationManager config, HttpContextBase httpContext, string testEmail) { this.myRepository = myRepository; this.myEventService = myEventService; this.unitOfWork = unitOfWork; this.log = log; this.emailService = emailService; this.config = config; this.httpContext = httpContext; this.testEmail = testEmail; } I have standard bindings for all the constructor parameter types. Only 'string' has no binding, and HttpContextBase has a binding that is a bit different: kernel.Bind<HttpContextBase>().ToMethod(context => new HttpContextWrapper(new HttpContext(new MyHttpRequest("", "", "", null, new StringWriter())))); and MyHttpRequest is defined as follows: public class MyHttpRequest : SimpleWorkerRequest { public string UserHostAddress; public string RawUrl; public MyHttpRequest(string appVirtualDir, string appPhysicalDir, string page, string query, TextWriter output) : base(appVirtualDir, appPhysicalDir, page, query, output) { this.UserHostAddress = "127.0.0.1"; this.RawUrl = null; } }

    Read the article

  • Python error : TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +=: 'dict' and 'str'

    - by user2962401
    I am getting the error TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +=: 'dict' and 'str' on this line of code : payload += "\x00" * (509 - len(payload)) the payload is: 'S\x96#:\x04\x04R\x1alD\x02\x04\x04V;\x15&\x06\x10 \x01' and what it should do is pad the payload until the length of the payload is 509 bytes long, but I do not understand this error, what does it mean and how can I solve it?

    Read the article

  • "Invalid provider type specified" when signing clickonce manifest in VS2008

    - by Mark
    I have a certificate issued by a CA on our intranet (it's a V3 sha1 pfx file). When I use this in the signing part of my clickonce (vsto addin) project, I get the error: C:\Program Files (x86)\MSBuild\Microsoft\VisualStudio\v9.0\OfficeTools\Microsoft.VisualStudio.Tools.Office.Office2007.targets(250,9): error MSB3482: An error occurred while signing: Invalid provider type specified. Does anyone know what's going on here? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • C# Func delegate with params type

    - by Sarah Vessels
    How, in C#, do I have a Func parameter representing a method with this signature? XmlNode createSection(XmlDocument doc, params XmlNode[] childNodes) I tried having a parameter of type Func<XmlDocument, params XmlNode[], XmlNode> but, ooh, ReSharper/Visual Studio 2008 go crazy highlighting that in red.

    Read the article

  • Instantiating generics type in java

    - by Mohd Farid
    I would like to create an object of Generics Type in java. Please suggest how can I achieve the same. suppose I have the class declaration as: public class Abc<T> { public static void main(String[] args) { // I want to create an instance of T } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141  | Next Page >