Search Results

Search found 11953 results on 479 pages for 'functional testing'.

Page 137/479 | < Previous Page | 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144  | Next Page >

  • Unittest in Django. Static variable feeded into the test case

    - by ziang
    I want to generate some dynamic data and feed these data in to test cases. But I found that Django will initial the test class every time to do the test. So the data will get generated every time django test framework calls the function. Is there anyway to use something like the singleton or static variable to solve the problem? What should be the solution? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Profiling With Visual Studio Team System

    - by Rotem
    Hi, I'm using Visual Studio Team System 2008 to run Load Tests. I have a test that executes a web service request and I would like to know how much time was spent in each layer of my application e.g. Time spent in IIS, Time spent in my Server application Time spent in SQL Server Can I get this sort of information by setting the performance counters in my load test properly? Thanks

    Read the article

  • JUnit Theories: Why can't I use Lists (instead of arrays) as DataPoints?

    - by MatrixFrog
    I've started using the new(ish) JUnit Theories feature for parameterizing tests. If your Theory is set up to take, for example, an Integer argument, the Theories test runner picks up any Integers marked with @DataPoint: @DataPoint public static Integer number = 0; as well as any Integers in arrays: @DataPoints public static Integer[] numbers = {1, 2, 3}; or even methods that return arrays like: @DataPoints public static Integer[] moreNumbers() { return new Integer[] {4, 5, 6};}; but not in Lists. The following does not work: @DataPoints public static List<Integer> numberList = Arrays.asList(7, 8, 9); Am I doing something wrong, or do Lists really not work? Was it a conscious design choice not to allow the use Lists as data points, or is that just a feature that hasn't been implemented yet? Are there plans to implement it in a future version of JUnit?

    Read the article

  • How to check font-size in IE6+

    - by kumarsfriends
    Hi All, I am wondering is there any way we can test the font size/color of a webpage in IE6+. I think it is not possible by checking the css class, as some other style may overwrite the styles of the class which has been assinged to that text. Actually I want to know the browser assigned font-size to the text of the page, as we can do it in firebug on firefox. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Python/Django tests running only one test at a time

    - by user2876296
    I have a unittest for my view class TestFromAllAdd(TestCase): fixtures = ['staging_accounts_user.json', 'staging_main_category.json', 'staging_main_dashboard.json', 'staging_main_location.json', 'staging_main_product.json', 'staging_main_shoppinglist.json'] def setUp(self): self.factory = RequestFactory() self.c = Client() self.c.login(username='admin', password='admin') def from_all_products_html404_test(self): request = self.factory.post('main/adding_from_all_products', {'product_id': ''}) request.user = User.objects.get(username= 'admin') response = adding_from_all_products(request) self.assertEqual(response.status_code, 404) But I have a few more classes with tests and I cant run them all at the same time: python manage.py test main doesnt run tests, but if i run; python manage.py test main.TestFromAllAdd.from_all_products_html404_test , runs one test;

    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

  • Why Create Mock Objects?

    - by Chris
    During a recent interview I was asked why one would want to create mock objects. My answer went something like, "Take a database--if you're writing test code, you may not want that test hooked up live to the production database where actual operations will be performed." Judging by response, my answer clearly was not what the interviewer was looking for. What's a better answer?

    Read the article

  • How to emulate onLowMemory()?

    - by Samuh
    I have put some instructions in onLowMemory() callback and want to test the same. Is there a "direct" way to test onLowMemory function of the application subclass? Or will I have to just overload the phone by starting many apps and doing memory intensive tasks? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How can I use that?

    - by user289220
    test test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test testtest test test

    Read the article

  • Cannot execute newly created TestMethod in VS2010

    - by FrontSvin
    When I try to run a new TestMethod on an existing TestClass in Visual Studio 2010 (by right-clicking on the method name and choosing Run Tests) the test method does not execute. After a restart of VS, the problem has gone. Am I missing some refresh thing, or is right-clicking even the correct way of executing a single test method?

    Read the article

  • Ways to Unit Test Oauth for different services in ruby?

    - by viatropos
    Are there any best practices in writing unit tests when 90% of the time I'm building the Oauth connecting class, I need to actually be logging into the remote service? I am building a rubygem that logs in to Twitter/Google/MySpace, etc., and the hardest part is making sure I have the settings right for that particular provider, and I would like to write tests for that. Is there a recommended way to do that? If I did mocks or stubs, I'd still have to spend that 90% of the time figuring out how to use the service, and would end up writing tests after the fact instead of before...

    Read the article

  • How do I inherit abstract unit tests in Ruby?

    - by Graeme Moss
    I have two unit tests that should share a lot of common tests with slightly different setup methods. If I write something like class Abstract < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @field = create end def test_1 ... end end class Concrete1 < Abstract def create SomeClass1.new end end class Concrete2 < Abstract def create SomeClass2.new end end then Concrete1 does not seem to inherit the tests from Abstract. Or at least I cannot get them to run in eclipse. If I choose "Run all TestCases" for the file that contains Concrete1 then Abstract is run even though I do not want it to be. If I specify Concrete1 then it does not run any tests at all! If I specify test_1 in Concrete1 then it complains it cannot find it ("uncaught throw :invalid_test (ArgumentError)"). I'm new to Ruby. What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • Using Moq to Validate Separate Invocations with Distinct Arguments

    - by Thermite
    I'm trying to validate the values of arguments passed to subsequent mocked method invocations (of the same method), but cannot figure out a valid approach. A generic example follows: public class Foo { [Dependency] public Bar SomeBar { get; set; } public void SomeMethod() { this.SomeBar.SomeOtherMethod("baz"); this.SomeBar.SomeOtherMethod("bag"); } } public class Bar { public void SomeOtherMethod(string input) { } } public class MoqTest { [TestMethod] public void RunTest() { Mock<Bar> mock = new Mock<Bar>(); Foo f = new Foo(); mock.Setup(m => m.SomeOtherMethod(It.Is<string>("baz"))); mock.Setup(m => m.SomeOtherMethod(It.Is<string>("bag"))); // this of course overrides the first call f.SomeMethod(); mock.VerifyAll(); } } Using a Function in the Setup might be an option, but then it seems I'd be reduced to some sort of global variable to know which argument/iteration I'm verifying. Maybe I'm overlooking the obvious within the Moq framework?

    Read the article

  • JUnit - assertSame

    - by Michael
    Can someone tell me why assertSame() do fail when I use values 127? import static org.junit.Assert.*; ... @Test public void StationTest1() { .. assertSame(4, 4); // OK assertSame(10, 10); // OK assertSame(100, 100); // OK assertSame(127, 127); // OK assertSame(128, 128); // raises an junit.framework.AssertionFailedError! assertSame(((int) 128),((int) 128)); // also junit.framework.AssertionFailedError! } I'm using JUnit 4.8.1.

    Read the article

  • How specific do I get in BDD scenarios?

    - by CodeSpelunker
    Take two different ways of stating the same behavior. Option A: Given a customer has 50 items in their shopping cart When they check out Then they will receive a 10% discount on their order Option B: Given a customer has a high volume of items in their shopping cart When they check out Then they will receive a high volume discount on their order The former is far more specific. If someone has some question about exactly when a customer gets a high volume discount or how much to give them, reading this scenario makes it very clear. Serving the purposes of documenting the behavior, it's about as specific as it can be, although any change in those values will require changing the scenario. The second is more generalized and doesn't have the clarity of the first. Automating it would require incorporating the values "50" and "10" in the step implementations. On the other hand, the scenario captures the core business need: a high volume customer gets a discount. If we later decide to use "40" and "15", the scenario doesn't have to change because the core business need hasn't really changed (though the step implementation would). Also, the term "high volume customer" communicates something about why we're giving them the discount. So, which is better? Rather, under what circumstances should I favor the former or the latter?

    Read the article

  • How to use __LINE__ in a string

    - by John
    Just using it as a method parameter is fine but what about an easy way to use it in strings? For instance say I have this: 11 void myTest() 12 { 13 if(!testCondition) 14 logError("testcondition failed"); 15 } And I want the output to be: "myTest line 14: testcondition failed" How can I write logError? Does it have to be some monstrosity of a macro?

    Read the article

  • ???????????????????????? [closed]

    - by 015.lo
    ?????????. – ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ???????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144  | Next Page >