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 >

  • 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

  • Is there any way to generate a set of JWebUnit tests from an apache rewrite config?

    - by robbbbbb
    Seems unlikely, but is there any way to generate a set of unit tests for the following rewrite rule: RewriteRule ^/(user|group|country)/([a-z]+)/(photos|videos)$ http:/whatever?type=$1&entity=$2&resource=$3 From this I'd like to generate a set of urls of the form: /user/foo/photos /user/bar/photos /group/baz/videos /country/bar/photos etc... The reason I don't want to just do this once by hand is that I'd like the bounded alternation groups (e.g. (user|group|country)) to be able to grow and maintain coverage without having the update the tests by hand. Is there a rewrite rule or regex parser that might be able to do this, or am I doing it by hand?

    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

  • Creating a System.Windows.Controls.Image throws an exception - how do I use the dispatcher to instan

    - by Scott Whitlock
    I'm running my unit tests on a piece of code that does the following in the test: Assert.IsNotNull(target.Icon); Inside the getter for the Icon property, I'm doing this: System.Windows.Controls.Image img = new System.Windows.Controls.Image(); That's throwing this exception: System.InvalidOperationException : The calling thread must be STA, because many UI components require this. I understand what that means, and I understand that I need to use the Dispatcher, but I'm a bit confused about how or why... this is a property of my ViewModel and I don't get any of these exceptions when running the application. Other info: this only started failing when I upgraded to .NET 4.

    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

  • How to deal with the test data in Junit?

    - by user351637
    In TDD(Test Driven Development) development process, how to deal with the test data? Assumption that a scenario, parse a log file to get the needed column. For a strong test, How do I prepare the test data? And is it properly for me locate such files to the test class files?

    Read the article

  • Scheduling a visual studio load test using powershell giving me BSOD

    - by user952342
    I have a visual studio load test which I want to run every hour so that I can start to collect some data. To do this, I thought it would be best to make a little powershell script and put a command like this inside: Invoke-Expression -command "& '$env:VS100COMNTOOLS..\IDE\mstest.exe' /testcontainer:"C:\Users\benb\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\BBPerformanceTest\bin\Debug\HomePageOnly.loadtest"" That command works fine, but sometimes when its run I get a blue screen of death. However, when I run my load test through the visual studio GUI, I never get a BSOD. two questions: is it possible to avoid this BSOD? Is there another way I can schedule my load test? Thanks

    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

  • Is there a way to force JUnit to fail on ANY unchecked exception, even if swallowed

    - by Uri
    I am using JUnit to write some higher level tests for legacy code that does not have unit tests. Much of this code "swallows" a variety of unchecked exceptions like NullPointerExceptions (e.g., by just printing stack trace and returning null). Therefore the unit test can pass even through there is a cascade of disasters at various points in the lower level code. Is there any way to have a test fail on the first unchecked exception even if they are swallowed? The only alternative I can think of is to write a custom JUnit wrapper that redirects System.err and then analyzes the output for exceptions.

    Read the article

  • What did I do wrong here when trying to unit test a class that references a web service

    - by zachary
    So I had a class that referenced a class that referenced another class that called a web service. So I learn how to create an interface using partial classes. I inject the web service through the constructor. Then my unit test fails because I am newing up the actual web service in the second level of the class. So I end up modifying all three classes to pass the web service down through the constructor... was not happy :-( gave up.... what should I be doing in this case?

    Read the article

  • NUnit vs. MsTest: NUnit wins for Unit Testing.

    People are still wondering what are the differences between the two most popular unit testing frameworks in the .NET world: the open source NUnit and the commercial MsTest). Heres a short list of what i remember instantly: Nunit contains a [TestCase] attribute that allows implementing parametrized tests. this does not exist in msTest MsTest's ExpectedException attribute has a bug where the expected message is never really asserted even if it's wrong - the test will pass. Nunit has an...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Global.asax for Unit Tests?

    - by AngryHacker
    In my MSTest UnitTest project, before running any tests, I need to execute some commands. Is there a feature, kind of like Global.asax is for web based projects, that will let me kick off something before any tests run?

    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

  • 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

  • Is it a bad idea to create tests that rely on each other within a test fixture?

    - by nbolton
    For example: // NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture) Ctor() { m_globalVar = getFoo(); } [Test] Create() { a(m_globalVar) } [Test] Delete() { // depends on Create being run b(m_globalVar) } … or… // NUnit-like pseudo code (within a TestFixture) [Test] CreateAndDelete() { Foo foo = getFoo(); a(foo); // depends on Create being run b(foo); } … I’m going with the later, and assuming that the answer to my question is: No, at least not with NUnit, because according to the NUnit manual: The constructor should not have any side effects, since NUnit may construct the class multiple times in the course of a session. ... also, can I assume it's bad practice in general? Since tests can usually be run separately. So the result of Create may never be cleaned up by Delete.

    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

  • Can Django flush its database(s) between every unit test

    - by mikem
    Django (1.2 beta) will reset the database(s) between every test that runs, meaning each test runs on an empty DB. However, the database(s) are not flushed. One of the effects of flushing the database is the auto_increment counters are reset. Consider a test which pulls data out of the database by primary key: class ChangeLogTest(django.test.TestCase): def test_one(self): do_something_which_creates_two_log_entries() log = LogEntry.objects.get(id=1) assert_log_entry_correct(log) log = LogEntry.objects.get(id=2) assert_log_entry_correct(log) This will pass because only two log entries were ever created. However, if another test is added to ChangeLogTest and it happens to run before test_one, the primary keys of the log entries are no longer 1 and 2, they might be 2 and 3. Now test_one fails. This is actually a two part question: Is it possible to force ./manage.py test to flush the database between each test case? Since Django doesn't flush the DB between each test by default, maybe there is a good reason. Does anyone know?

    Read the article

  • Stop MSVC++ debug errors from blocking the current process?

    - by Mike Arthur
    Any failed ASSERT statements on Windows cause the below debug message to appear and freeze the applications execution. I realise this is expected behaviour but it is running periodically on a headless machine so prevent the unit tests from failing, instead waiting on user input indefinitely. Is there s a registry key or compiler flag I can use to prevent this message box from requesting user input whilst still allowing the test to fail under ASSERT? Basically, I want to do this without modifying any code, just changing compiler or Windows options. Thanks!

    Read the article

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