Search Results

Search found 14702 results on 589 pages for 'testing logic'.

Page 135/589 | < Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >

  • Receiving an Expectedmessage differs error

    - by Mark
    I am quite new to TDD and am going with NUnit and Moq. I have got a method where I expect an exception, so I wanted to play a little with the frameworks features. My test code looks as follows: [Test] [ExpectedException(ExpectedException = typeof(MockException), ExpectedMessage = "Actual differs from expected")] public void Write_MessageLogWithCategoryInfoFail() { string message = "Info Test Message"; Write_MessageLogWithCategory(message, "Info"); _LogTest.Verify(writeMessage => writeMessage.Info("This should fail"), "Actual differs from expected" ); } But I always receive the errormessage that the error message that the actual exception message differs from the expected message. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to ignore a test within the JUnit test method itself

    - by Benju
    We have a number of integration tests that fail when our staging server goes down for weekly maintenance. When the staging server is down we send a specific response that I could detect in my integration tests. When I get this response instead of failing the tests I'm wondering if it is possible to skip/ignore that test even though it has started running. This would keep our test reports a bit cleaner. Does anybody have suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Visual studio 2008 unit test keeps failing

    - by Gerbrand
    I've create a method that calculates the harmonic mean based on a list of doubles. But when I'm running the test it keeps failing even thou the output result are the same. My harmonic mean method: public static double GetHarmonicMean(List<double> parameters) { var cumReciprocal = 0.0d; var countN = parameters.Count; foreach( var param in parameters) { cumReciprocal += 1.0d/param; } return 1.0d/(cumReciprocal/countN); } My test method: [TestMethod()] public void GetHarmonicMeanTest() { var parameters = new List<double> { 1.5d, 2.3d, 2.9d, 1.9d, 5.6d }; const double expected = 2.32432293165495; var actual = OwnFunctions.GetHarmonicMean(parameters); Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); } After running the test the following message is showing: Assert.AreEqual failed. Expected:<2.32432293165495. Actual:<2.32432293165495. For me that are both the same values. Can somebody explain this? Or am I doing something wrong?

    Read the article

  • Method parameters have incorrect values when using RowTest in VB.Net

    - by simon_bellis
    Hello, I have the following test method (VB.NET) <RowTest()> _ <Row(1, 2, 3)> _ Public Sub AddMultipleNumbers(ByVal number1 As Integer, ByVal number2 As Integer, ByVal result As Integer) Dim dvbc As VbClass = New VbClass() Dim actual As Integer = dvbc.Add(number1, number2) Assert.That(actual, [Is].SameAs(result)) End Sub My problem is that when the test runs, using TestDriven.Net, the three method parameters are 0 and not the values I am expecting. I have referenced the NUnit.Framework (v.2.5.3.9345) anf the NUnitExtension.RowTest (v.1.2.3.0).

    Read the article

  • Need a good website URL to test against

    - by Zombies
    I need a URL to just test basic http connectivity. It needs to be consistent and: Always be up Never change drastically due to IP or user agent. (IE: 301 Location redirect/ huge difference in content... minor would be tolerable) The URL itself has a consistent content-length. (IE: it doesn't vary from by 2kb at most, ever) A few examples, yet none match all 3 criteria: One example of always up: www.google.com (yet it 301 redirects based on IP location). Another good one is http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en. but the problem there is that based on a given holiday, the content-length can really vary.

    Read the article

  • Any suggestions for improvement on this style for BDD/TDD?

    - by Sean B
    I was tinkering with doing the setups with our unit test specifciations which go like Specification for SUT when behaviour X happens in scenario Y Given that this thing And also this other thing When I do X... Then It should do ... And It should also do ... I wrapped each of the steps of the GivenThat in Actions... any feed back whether separating with Actions is good / bad / or better way to make the GivenThat clear? /// <summary> /// Given a product is setup for injection /// And Product Image Factory Is Stubbed(); /// And Product Size Is Stubbed(); /// And Drawing Scale Is Stubbed(); /// And Product Type Is Stubbed(); /// </summary> protected override void GivenThat() { base.GivenThat(); Action givenThatAProductIsSetupforInjection = () => { var randomGenerator = new RandomGenerator(); this.Position = randomGenerator.Generate<Point>(); this.Product = new Diffuser { Size = new RectangularProductSize( 2.Inches()), Position = this.Position, ProductType = Dep<IProductType>() }; }; Action andProductImageFactoryIsStubbed = () => Dep<IProductBitmapImageFactory>().Stub(f => f.GetInstance(Dep<IProductType>())).Return(ExpectedBitmapImage); Action andProductSizeIsStubbed = () => { Stub<IDisplacementProduct, IProductSize>(p => p.Size); var productBounds = new ProductBounds(Width.Feet(), Height.Feet()); Dep<IProductSize>().Stub(s => s.Bounds).Return(productBounds); }; Action andDrawingScaleIsStubbed = () => Dep<IDrawingScale>().Stub(s => s.PixelsPerFoot).Return(PixelsPerFoot); Action andProductTypeIsStubbed = () => Stub<IDisplacementProduct, IProductType>(p => p.ProductType); givenThatAProductIsSetupforInjection(); andProductImageFactoryIsStubbed(); andProductSizeIsStubbed(); andDrawingScaleIsStubbed(); andProductTypeIsStubbed(); }

    Read the article

  • How can this Ambient Context become null?

    - by Mark Seemann
    Can anyone help me explain how TimeProvider.Current can become null in the following class? public abstract class TimeProvider { private static TimeProvider current = DefaultTimeProvider.Instance; public static TimeProvider Current { get { return TimeProvider.current; } set { if (value == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("value"); } TimeProvider.current = value; } } public abstract DateTime UtcNow { get; } public static void ResetToDefault() { TimeProvider.current = DefaultTimeProvider.Instance; } } Observations All unit tests that directly reference TimeProvider also invokes ResetToDefault() in their Fixture Teardown. There is no multithreaded code involved. Once in a while, one of the unit tests fail because TimeProvider.Current is null (NullReferenceException is thrown). This only happens when I run the entire suite, but not when I just run a single unit test, suggesting to me that there is some subtle test interdependence going on. It happens approximately once every five or six test runs. When a failure occurs, it seems to be occuring in the first executed tests that involves TimeProvider.Current. More than one test can fail, but only one fails in a given test run. FWIW, here's the DefaultTimeProvider class as well: public class DefaultTimeProvider : TimeProvider { private readonly static DefaultTimeProvider instance = new DefaultTimeProvider(); private DefaultTimeProvider() { } public override DateTime UtcNow { get { return DateTime.UtcNow; } } public static DefaultTimeProvider Instance { get { return DefaultTimeProvider.instance; } } } I suspect that there's some subtle interplay going on with static initialization where the runtime is actually allowed to access TimeProvider.Current before all static initialization has finished, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Any help is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How can I display more info in an error message when using NUnit Assert in a loop?

    - by Ian
    Consider the following code: [Test] public void WidgetTest() { foreach (Widget widget in widgets) { Assert.AreEqual(0, widget.SomeValue); } } If one of the asserts fails, I will get a very unhelpful error message like the one below: 1) Test Failure : WidgetTest.TestSomeValue Expected: 0 But was: 1 at WidgetTest.TestSomeValue() So, the question is, how can I get NUnit to display more useful info, such as the name of the widget, or the iteration of the loop, etc? Even a line number would be more helpful, since this is run in automated manner and I'd like to be able to spot the failing assert without debugging into the code.

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection in C++

    - by Yorgos Pagles
    This is also a question that I asked in a comment in one of Miško Hevery's google talks that was dealing with dependency injection but it got buried in the comments. I wonder how can the factory / builder step of wiring the dependencies together can work in C++. I.e. we have a class A that depends on B. The builder will allocate B in the heap, pass a pointer to B in A's constructor while also allocating in the heap and return a pointer to A. Who cleans up afterwards? Is it good to let the builder clean up after it's done? It seems to be the correct method since in the talk it says that the builder should setup objects that are expected to have the same lifetime or at least the dependencies have longer lifetime (I also have a question on that). What I mean in code: class builder { public: builder() : m_ClassA(NULL),m_ClassB(NULL) { } ~builder() { if (m_ClassB) { delete m_ClassB; } if (m_ClassA) { delete m_ClassA; } } ClassA *build() { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB); return m_ClassA; } }; Now if there is a dependency that is expected to last longer than the lifetime of the object we are injecting it into (say ClassC is that dependency) I understand that we should change the build method to something like: ClassA *builder::build(ClassC *classC) { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB, classC); return m_ClassA; } What is your preferred approach?

    Read the article

  • Best practices to test protected methods with PHPUnit

    - by GrGr
    Hello, I found the discussion on Do you test private method informative. I have decided, that in some classes, I want to have protected methods, but test them. Some of these methods are static and short. Because most of the public methods make use of them, I will probably be able to safely remove the tests later. But for starting with a TDD approach and avoid debugging, I really want to test them. I thought of the following: Method Object as adviced in an answer seems to be overkill for this. Start with public methods and when code coverage is given by higher level tests, turn them protected and remove the tests. Inherit a class with a testable interface making protected methods public Which is best practice? Is there anything else? It seems, that JUnit automatically changes protected methods to be public, but I did not have a deeper look at it. PHP does not allow this via reflection.

    Read the article

  • Organizing test hierarchy in clojure project

    - by Sergey
    There are two directories in a clojure project - src/ and test/. There's a file my_methods.clj in the src/calc/ directory which starts with (ns calc.my_methods...). I want to create a test file for it in test directory - test/my_methods-test.clj (ns test.my_methods-test (:require [calc.my_methods]) (:use clojure.test)) In the $CLASSPATH there are both project root directory and src/ directory. But the exception is still "Could not locate calc/my_methods__init.class or calc/my_methods.clj on classpath". What is the problem with requiring it in the test file? echo $CLASSPATH gives this: ~/project:~/project/src

    Read the article

  • Why is my rspec test failing?

    - by Justin Meltzer
    Here's the test: describe "admin attribute" do before(:each) do @user = User.create!(@attr) end it "should respond to admin" do @user.should respond_to(:admin) end it "should not be an admin by default" do @user.should_not be_admin end it "should be convertible to an admin" do @user.toggle!(:admin) @user.should be_admin end end Here's the error: 1) User password encryption admin attribute should respond to admin Failure/Error: @user = User.create!(@attr) ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid: Validation failed: Email has already been taken # ./spec/models/user_spec.rb:128 I'm thinking the error might be somewhere in my data populator code: require 'faker' namespace :db do desc "Fill database with sample data" task :populate => :environment do Rake::Task['db:reset'].invoke admin = User.create!(:name => "Example User", :email => "[email protected]", :password => "foobar", :password_confirmation => "foobar") admin.toggle!(:admin) 99.times do |n| name = Faker::Name.name email = "example-#{n+1}@railstutorial.org" password = "password" User.create!(:name => name, :email => email, :password => password, :password_confirmation => password) end end end Please let me know if I should reproduce any more of my code. UPDATE: Here's where @attr is defined, at the top of the user_spec.rb file: require 'spec_helper' describe User do before(:each) do @attr = { :name => "Example User", :email => "[email protected]", :password => "foobar", :password_confirmation => "foobar" } end

    Read the article

  • In TDD, should tests be written by the person who implemented the feature under test?

    - by martin
    We run a project in which we want to solve with test driven development. I thought about some questions that came up when initiating the project. One question was: Who should write the unit-test for a feature? Should the unit-test be written by the feature-implementing programmer? Or should the unit test be written by another programmer, who defines what a method should do and the feature-implementing programmer implements the method until the tests runs? If I understand the concept of TDD in the right way, the feature-implementing programmer has to write the test by himself, because TDD is procedure with mini-iterations. So it would be too complex to have the tests written by another programmer? What would you say? Should the tests in TDD be written by the programmer himself or should another programmer write the tests that describes what a method can do?

    Read the article

  • Why junit ComparisonFailure is not used by assertEquals(Object, Object) ?

    - by Philippe Blayo
    In Junit 4, do you see any drawback to throw a ComparisonFailure instead of an AssertionError when assertEquals(Object, Object) fails ? assertEquals(Object, Object) throws a ComparisonFailure if both expected and actual are String an AssertionError if either is not a String @Test(expected=ComparisonFailure.class ) public void twoString() { assertEquals("a String", "another String"); } @Test(expected=AssertionError.class ) public void oneString() { assertEquals("a String", new Object()); } The two reasons why I ask the question: ComparisonFailure provide far more readable way to spot the differences in dialog box of eclipse or Intellij IDEA (FEST-Assert throws this exception) Junit 4 already use String.valueOf(Object) to build message "expected ... but was ..." (format method invoqued by Assert.assertEquals(message, Object, Object) in junit-4.8.2): static String format(String message, Object expected, Object actual) { ... String expectedString= String.valueOf(expected); String actualString= String.valueOf(actual); if (expectedString.equals(actualString)) return formatted + "expected: " + formatClassAndValue(expected, expectedString) +" but was: " + formatClassAndValue(actual, actualString); else return formatted +"expected:<"+ expectedString +"> but was:<"+ actualString +">"; Isn't it possible in assertEquals(message, Object, Object) to replace fail(format(message, expected, actual)); by throw new ComparisonFailure(message, formatClassAndValue(expectedObject, expectedString), formatClassAndValue(actualObject, actualString)); Do you see any compatibility issue with other tool, any algorithmic problem with that... ?

    Read the article

  • Managing test data for Junit tests.

    - by nobody
    Hi, We are facing one problem in managing test data(xmls which is used to create mock objects). The data which we have currently has been evolved over a long period of time. Each time we add a new functionality or test case we add new data to test that functionality. Now, the problem is when the business requirement changes the format( like length or format of a variable) or any change which the test data doesn't support , we need to change the entire test data which is 100s of MBs in size. Could anyone suggest a better method or process to overcome this problem? Any suggestion would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to write unit tests for an object having multiple properties

    - by jess
    Hi, I have various objects in application,and each has isvalid method to test if values of all properties are set correctly(as per business rules).Now,to test that for each violation isvalid throws false,i will have to write as many tests as rules being checked in isvalid.Is there a simpler way to do this? I am using MBunit.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >