Search Results

Search found 26146 results on 1046 pages for 'white box testing'.

Page 152/1046 | < Previous Page | 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159  | Next Page >

  • Get list of named queries in NHibernate

    - by Dan
    I have a dozen or so named queries in my NHibernate project and I want to execute them against a test database in unit tests to make sure the syntax still matches the changing domain/database model. Currently I have a unit test for each named query where I get and execute the query, for example: IQuery query = session.GetNamedQuery("GetPersonSummaries"); var personSummaryArray = query.List(); Assert.That(personSummaryArray, Is.Not.Null); This works fine, but I would like to have one unit test that loops thru all of the named queries and executes them. Is there a way to discover all of the available named queries? Thanks Dan

    Read the article

  • Prevent Visual Studio Web Test from changing request details

    - by keithwarren7
    I have a service that accepts Xmla queries for Analysis services, often times those queries themselves will have a string that contains a fragment that looks something like {{[Time].[Year].[All]}} Recording these requests works fine but when I try to re-run the test I get an error from the test runner... Request failed: Exception occurred: There is no context parameter with the name ' [Time].[Year].[All]' in the WebTestContext This was confusing for some time but when I asked VS to generate a coded version of the test I was able to see the problem a bit better. VS searches for the '{{' and '}}' tokens and makes changes, considering those areas to refer to Context parameters, the code looks like this.Context["\n\t[Time].[Year].[All]"].ToString() Anyone know how to instruct Visual Studio to not perform this replacement operation? Or another way around this issue?

    Read the article

  • Mockito verify no more interactions but omit getters

    - by michael lucas
    Mockito api provides method: Mockito.verifyNoMoreInteractions(someMock); but is it possible in Mockito to declare that I don't want more interactions with a given mock with the exceptions of interactions with its getter methods? The simple scenario is the one in which I test that sut changes only certain properties of a given mock and lefts other properties untapped. In example I want to test that UserActivationService changes property Active on an instance of class User but does't do anything to properties like Role, Password, AccountBalance, etc. I'm open to criticism regarding my approach to the problem.

    Read the article

  • Weirdness with cabal, HTF, and HUnit assertions

    - by rampion
    So I'm trying to use HTF to run some HUnit-style assertions % cat tests/TestDemo.hs {-# OPTIONS_GHC -Wall -F -pgmF htfpp #-} module Main where import Test.Framework import Test.HUnit.Base ((@?=)) import System.Environment (getArgs) -- just run some tests main :: IO () main = getArgs >>= flip runTestWithArgs Main.allHTFTests -- all these tests should fail test_fail_int1 :: Assertion test_fail_int1 = (0::Int) @?= (1::Int) test_fail_bool1 :: Assertion test_fail_bool1 = True @?= False test_fail_string1 :: Assertion test_fail_string1 = "0" @?= "1" test_fail_int2 :: Assertion test_fail_int2 = [0::Int] @?= [1::Int] test_fail_string2 :: Assertion test_fail_string2 = "true" @?= "false" test_fail_bool2 :: Assertion test_fail_bool2 = [True] @?= [False] And when I use ghc --make, it seems to work correctly. % ghc --make tests/TestDemo.hs [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( tests/TestDemo.hs, tests/TestDemo.o ) Linking tests/TestDemo ... % tests/TestDemoA ... * Tests: 6 * Passed: 0 * Failures: 6 * Errors: 0 Failures: * Main:fail_int1 (tests/TestDemo.hs:9) * Main:fail_bool1 (tests/TestDemo.hs:12) * Main:fail_string1 (tests/TestDemo.hs:15) * Main:fail_int2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:19) * Main:fail_string2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:22) * Main:fail_bool2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:25) But when I use cabal to build it, not all the tests that should fail, fail. % cat Demo.cabal ... executable test-demo build-depends: base >= 4, HUnit, HTF main-is: TestDemo.hs hs-source-dirs: tests % cabal configure Resolving dependencies... Configuring Demo-0.0.0... % cabal build Preprocessing executables for Demo-0.0.0... Building Demo-0.0.0... [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( tests/TestDemo.hs, dist/build/test-demo/test-demo-tmp/Main.o ) Linking dist/build/test-demo/test-demo ... % dist/build/test-demo/test-demo ... * Tests: 6 * Passed: 3 * Failures: 3 * Errors: 0 Failures: * Main:fail_int2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:23) * Main:fail_string2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:26) * Main:fail_bool2 (tests/TestDemo.hs:29) What's going wrong and how can I fix it?

    Read the article

  • Getting Unit Tests to work with Komodo IDE for Python

    - by devoured elysium
    I've tried to run the following code on Komodo IDE (for python): import unittest class MathLibraryTests(unittest.TestCase): def test1Plus1Equals2(self): self.assertEqual(1+1, 2) Then, I created a new test plan, pointing to this project(file) directory and tried to run it the test plan. It seems to run but it doesn't seem to find any tests. If I try to run the following code with the "regular" run command (F7) class MathLibraryTests(unittest.TestCase): def testPlus1Equals2(self): self.assertEqual(1+1, 2) if __name__ == "__main__": unittest.main() it works. I get the following output: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ran 1 test in 0.000s OK What might I be doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Junit and EasyMock understanding clarifications

    - by harigm
    Still Now I am using JUnit, I came across EasyMock, I am understanding both are for the same purpose. Is my understanding correct? What are the advantages does EasyMock has over the Junit? Which one is easier to configure? Does EasyMock has any limitations? Please help me to learn

    Read the article

  • Website stress test in Python - Django

    - by RadiantHex
    Hi folks, I'm trying to build a small stress test script to test how quickly a set of requests gets done. Need to measure speed for 100 requests. Problem is that I wouldn't know how to implement it, as it would require parallel url requests to be called. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Practical refactoring using unit tests

    - by awhite
    Having just read the first four chapters of Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code, I embarked on my first refactoring and almost immediately came to a roadblock. It stems from the requirement that before you begin refactoring, you should put unit tests around the legacy code. That allows you to be sure your refactoring didn't change what the original code did (only how it did it). So my first question is this: how do I unit-test a method in legacy code? How can I put a unit test around a 500 line (if I'm lucky) method that doesn't do just one task? It seems to me that I would have to refactor my legacy code just to make it unit-testable. Does anyone have any experience refactoring using unit tests? And, if so, do you have any practical examples you can share with me? My second question is somewhat hard to explain. Here's an example: I want to refactor a legacy method that populates an object from a database record. Wouldn't I have to write a unit test that compares an object retrieved using the old method, with an object retrieved using my refactored method? Otherwise, how would I know that my refactored method produces the same results as the old method? If that is true, then how long do I leave the old deprecated method in the source code? Do I just whack it after I test a few different records? Or, do I need to keep it around for a while in case I encounter a bug in my refactored code? Lastly, since a couple people have asked...the legacy code was originally written in VB6 and then ported to VB.NET with minimal architecture changes.

    Read the article

  • Creating a context in custom shoulda macro does not work.

    - by Honza
    I have a custom should macro in my test_helper.rb which looks like this. def self.should_require_login(actions = [:index]) if (actions.is_a? Symbol) actions = [actions] end context "without user" do actions.each do |action| should "redirect #{action.to_s} away" do get action assert_redirected_to login_path end end end if block_given? context "active user logged in" do setup do @user = Factory.create(:user) @user.register! @user.activate! login_as(@user) end yield end end end I would like to use it like this: should_require_login(:protected_action) do should "do something" do ... end end And I am expecting the "do something" test to run in the "active user logged in" context, but the test executes in the top context, like the "active user logged in" context never existed and I fail to see the reason why.

    Read the article

  • AutoFixture refactoring

    - by Thomas Jaskula
    I started to use AutoFixture http://autofixture.codeplex.com/ as my unit tests was bloated with a lot of data setup. I was spending more time on seting up the data than to write my unit test. Here's an example of how my initial unit test looks like (example taken from cargo application sample from DDD blue book) [Test] public void should_create_instance_with_correct_ctor_parameters() { var carrierMovements = new List<CarrierMovement>(); var deparureUnLocode1 = new UnLocode("AB44D"); var departureLocation1 = new Location(deparureUnLocode1, "HAMBOURG"); var arrivalUnLocode1 = new UnLocode("XX44D"); var arrivalLocation1 = new Location(arrivalUnLocode1, "TUNIS"); var departureDate1 = new DateTime(2010, 3, 15); var arrivalDate1 = new DateTime(2010, 5, 12); var carrierMovement1 = new CarrierMovement(departureLocation1, arrivalLocation1, departureDate1, arrivalDate1); var deparureUnLocode2 = new UnLocode("CXRET"); var departureLocation2 = new Location(deparureUnLocode2, "GDANSK"); var arrivalUnLocode2 = new UnLocode("ZEZD4"); var arrivalLocation2 = new Location(arrivalUnLocode2, "LE HAVRE"); var departureDate2 = new DateTime(2010, 3, 18); var arrivalDate2 = new DateTime(2010, 3, 31); var carrierMovement2 = new CarrierMovement(departureLocation2, arrivalLocation2, departureDate2, arrivalDate2); carrierMovements.Add(carrierMovement1); carrierMovements.Add(carrierMovement2); new Schedule(carrierMovements).ShouldNotBeNull(); } Here's how I tried to refactor it with AutoFixture [Test] public void should_create_instance_with_correct_ctor_parameters_AutoFixture() { var fixture = new Fixture(); fixture.Register(() => new UnLocode(UnLocodeString())); var departureLoc = fixture.CreateAnonymous<Location>(); var arrivalLoc = fixture.CreateAnonymous<Location>(); var departureDateTime = fixture.CreateAnonymous<DateTime>(); var arrivalDateTime = fixture.CreateAnonymous<DateTime>(); fixture.Register<Location, Location, DateTime, DateTime, CarrierMovement>( (departure, arrival, departureTime, arrivalTime) => new CarrierMovement(departureLoc, arrivalLoc, departureDateTime, arrivalDateTime)); var carrierMovements = fixture.CreateMany<CarrierMovement>(50).ToList(); fixture.Register<List<CarrierMovement>, Schedule>((carrierM) => new Schedule(carrierMovements)); var schedule = fixture.CreateAnonymous<Schedule>(); schedule.ShouldNotBeNull(); } private static string UnLocodeString() { var stringBuilder = new StringBuilder(); for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) stringBuilder.Append(GetRandomUpperCaseCharacter(i)); return stringBuilder.ToString(); } private static char GetRandomUpperCaseCharacter(int seed) { return ((char)((short)'A' + new Random(seed).Next(26))); } I would like to know if there's better way to refactor it. Would like to do it shorter and easier than that.

    Read the article

  • How do I assert that two arbitrary type objects are equivalent, without requiring them to be equal?

    - by Tomas Lycken
    To accomplish this (but failing to do so) I'm reflecting over properties of an expected and actual object and making sure their values are equal. This works as expected as long as their properties are single objects, i.e. not lists, arrays, IEnumerable... If the property is a list of some sort, the test fails (on the Assert.AreEqual(...) inside the for loop). public void WithCorrectModel<TModelType>(TModelType expected, string error = "") where TModelType : class { var actual = _result.ViewData.Model as TModelType; Assert.IsNotNull(actual, error); Assert.IsInstanceOfType(actual, typeof(TModelType), error); foreach (var prop in typeof(TModelType).GetProperties()) { Assert.AreEqual(prop.GetValue(expected, null), prop.GetValue(actual, null), error); } } If dealing with a list property, I would get the expected results if I instead used CollectionAssert.AreEquivalent(...) but that requires me to cast to ICollection, which in turn requries me to know the type listed, which I don't (want to). It also requires me to know which properties are list types, which I don't know how to. So, how should I assert that two objects of an arbitrary type are equivalent? Note: I specifically don't want to require them to be equal, since one comes from my tested object and one is built in my test class to have something to compare with.

    Read the article

  • How to display default text "--Select Team --" in combo box on pageload in WPF?

    - by Aditya
    Hi, In a WPF app, in MVP app I have a combo box,for which I display the data fetched from Database. Before the items added to the Combo box, I want to display the default text such as " -- Select Team --" , so that on pageload it displays and on selecting it the text should be cleared and the items should be displayed. Selecting data from DB is happening. I need to display the default text until the user selects an item from combo box. Please guide me Thanks Ramm

    Read the article

  • How to compare the output of serializeArray using qunit

    - by dorelal
    I am using qunit and jquery. Latest version of both. In my code when I submit the form I have the event as e. I call e.serializeArray() Here is my test. equals(args.data, [ { "name": "user_name", "value": "john" } ], 'input data'); And this is the error message from qunit. expected: [ { "name": "user_name", "value": "david" } ] result: [ { "name": "user_name", "value": "david" } ] As you can see to the naked eye the expected and result value is same but qunit is not liking it. I guess I am missing something.

    Read the article

  • Are unit tests also used to find bugs?

    - by Draco
    I was reading the following article and the author made it quite clear that unit tests are NOT used to find bugs. I would like to know what your thoughts are on this. I do know that unit tests makes the design of your application much more robust but isn't it the fact that finding bugs through unit tests that make the application robust, besides its other advantages? http://blog.stevensanderson.com/2009/08/24/writing-great-unit-tests-best-and-worst-practises/

    Read the article

  • Is listing developer's full names in splash screen or about box still a widely spread and desirable practice?

    - by Pierre 303
    Just like in the closing credits of movies, some software vendors list the full names of the team that worked on the piece of software you are using. They are usually displayed in the splash screen (Photoshop) ... or in the about box (Traktor). In the demoscene, it is a mandatory practice, like in the movie industry. How do you see that in your own software? Is there any reason why not doing it? Is there any reason encouraging companies to do it?

    Read the article

  • How do I change a child's parent in NHibernate when cascade is delete-all-orphan?

    - by Daniel T.
    I have two entities in a bi-directional one-to-many relationship: public class Storage { public IList<Box> Boxes { get; set; } } public class Box { public Storage CurrentStorage { get; set; } } And the mapping: <class name="Storage"> <bag name="Boxes" cascade="all-delete-orphan" inverse="true"> <key column="Storage_Id" /> <one-to-many class="Box" /> </bag> </class> <class name="Box"> <many-to-one name="CurrentStorage" column="Storage_Id" /> </class> A Storage can have many Boxes, but a Box can only belong to one Storage. I have them mapped so that the one-to-many has a cascade of all-delete-orphan. My problem arises when I try to change a Box's Storage. Assuming I already ran this code: var storage1 = new Storage(); var storage2 = new Storage(); storage1.Boxes.Add(new Box()); Session.Create(storage1); Session.Create(storage2); The following code will give me an exception: // get the first and only box in the DB var existingBox = Database.GetBox().First(); // remove the box from storage1 existingBox.CurrentStorage.Boxes.Remove(existingBox); // add the box to storage2 after it's been removed from storage1 var storage2 = Database.GetStorage().Second(); storage2.Boxes.Add(existingBox); Session.Flush(); // commit changes to DB I get the following exception: NHibernate.ObjectDeletedException : deleted object would be re-saved by cascade (remove deleted object from associations) This exception occurs because I have the cascade set to all-delete-orphan. The first Storage detected that I removed the Box from its collection and marks it for deletion. However, when I added it to the second Storage (in the same session), it attempts to save the box again and the ObjectDeletedException is thrown. My question is, how do I get the Box to change its parent Storage without encountering this exception? I know one possible solution is to change the cascade to just all, but then I lose the ability to have NHibernate automatically delete a Box by simply removing it from a Storage and not re-associating it with another one. Or is this the only way to do it and I have to manually call Session.Delete on the box in order to remove it?

    Read the article

  • What sort of Circular Dependencies does Oracle allow?

    - by Neil
    Hi all, I am creating test cases and I need to cover circular dependencies. So far I have been able to create two tables such that Table A has a FK to B and B has a FK to A. What other circular dependencies exist / are allowed between objects? I tried to create cycles between Views but Oracle successfully rejected that.

    Read the article

  • Rhino Mocks Partial Mock

    - by dotnet crazy kid
    I am trying to test the logic from some existing classes. It is not possible to re-factor the classes at present as they are very complex and in production. What I want to do is create a mock object and test a method that internally calls another method that is very hard to mock. So I want to just set a behaviour for the secondary method call. But when I setup the behaviour for the method, the code of the method is invoked and fails. Am I missing something or is this just not possible to test without re-factoring the class? I have tried all the different mock types (Strick,Stub,Dynamic,Partial ect.) but they all end up calling the method when I try to set up the behaviour. using System; using MbUnit.Framework; using Rhino.Mocks; namespace MMBusinessObjects.Tests { [TestFixture] public class PartialMockExampleFixture { [Test] public void Simple_Partial_Mock_Test() { const string param = "anything"; //setup mocks MockRepository mocks = new MockRepository(); var mockTestClass = mocks.StrictMock<TestClass>(); //record beahviour *** actualy call into the real method stub *** Expect.Call(mockTestClass.MethodToMock(param)).Return(true); //never get to here mocks.ReplayAll(); //this is what i want to test Assert.IsTrue(mockTestClass.MethodIWantToTest(param)); } public class TestClass { public bool MethodToMock(string param) { //some logic that is very hard to mock throw new NotImplementedException(); } public bool MethodIWantToTest(string param) { //this method calls the if( MethodToMock(param) ) { //some logic i want to test } return true; } } } }

    Read the article

  • ReSharper Unit Test Runner: Support for Deployment Items

    - by driis
    I like the Unit test runner in ReSharper 4.5, and would like to use it with my MSTest tests, but one thing annoys me: In some of our solutions, we have set up some Deployment Items in the .testrunconfig file. The ReSharper Unit Test runner does not seem to respect this, so I get errors when trying to run the unit tests from ReSharper. Is there any workraound for this ? Update: citizenmatt's answer was correct, the option to use a .testrunconfig with ReSharper exists in the Options dialog of ReSharper. You have to select the unit test provider on the list, then the controls to do that appears. (That was not obvious or discoverable, at least not for me ;-)

    Read the article

  • How to create contexts in shoulda macros

    - by Honza
    Asking this question again with smaller code sample: # this is a dummy shoulda macro that creates a context def self.macro_context context "macro" do yield end end # i am expecting this test to fail within the macro context context "some context" do macro_context do should "test" do fail end end end So what I would expect is to see: 1) Error: test: some context macro context should test. (TestClassName) But I am getting only this: So what I would expect is to see: 1) Error: test: some context should test. (TestClassName) Any idea what am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Running PHP Zend Test in Eclipse

    - by Carlos Eiroa
    Is it possible to run PHP Zend test cases (those that extend Zend_Test_PHPUnit_ControllerTestCase, etc.) through Eclipse PDT? I would like to be able to run them in a similar fashion as you run JUnit tests in Eclipse, by right-clicking the test file and selecting "Run as a JUnit test case." I'd love to see the green or red bar instead of having to go to the command line :). Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159  | Next Page >