Search Results

Search found 4724 results on 189 pages for 'c unit'.

Page 19/189 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

  • MVC moq unit test the object before RedirecToAction()

    - by Daoming Yang
    I want to test the data inside the "item" object before it redirect to another action. public ActionResult WebPageEdit(WebPage item, FormCollection form) { if (ModelState.IsValid) { item.Description = Utils.CrossSiteScriptingAttackCheck(item.Description); item.Content = Utils.CrossSiteScriptingAttackCheck(item.Content); item.Title = item.Title.Trim(); item.DateUpdated = DateTime.Now; // Other logic stuff here webPagesRepository.Save(item); return RedirectToAction("WebPageList"); } Here is my Test method: [Test] public void Admin_WebPageEdit_Save() { var controller = new AdminController(); controller.webPagesRepository = DataMock.WebPageDataInit(); controller.categoriesRepository = DataMock.WebPageCategoryDataInit(); FormCollection form = DataMock.CreateWebPageFormCollection(); RedirectToRouteResult actionResult = (RedirectToRouteResult)controller.WebPageEdit(webPagesRepository.Get(1), form); Assert.IsNotNull(actionResult); Assert.AreEqual("WebPageList", actionResult.RouteValues["action"]); var item = ((ViewResult)controller.WebPageEdit(webPagesRepository.Get(1), form)).ViewData.Model as WebPage; Assert.NotNull(item); Assert.AreEqual(2, item.CategoryID); } It failed at this line: var item = ((ViewResult)controller.WebPageEdit(webPagesRepository.Get(1), form)).ViewData.Model as WebPage; I am thinking about is there any ways to test the "item" object before it redirect to other actions?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing & Fake Repository implementation with cascading CRUD operations

    - by Erik Ashepa
    Hi, i'm having trouble writing integration tests which use a fake repository, For example : Suppose I have a classroom entity, which aggregates students... var classroom = new Classroom(); classroom.Students.Add(new Student("Adam")); _fakeRepository.Save(classroom); _fakeRepostiory.GetAll<Student>().Where((student) => student.Name == "Adam")); // This query will return null... When using my real implementation for repository (NHibernate based), the above code works (because the save operation would cascade to the student added at the previous line), Do you know of any fake repository implementation which support this behaviour? Ideas on how to implement one myself? Or do you have any other suggestions which could help me avoid this issue? Thanks in advance, Erik.

    Read the article

  • How to run concurrency unit test?

    - by janetsmith
    Hi, How to use junit to run concurrency test? Let's say I have a class public class MessageBoard { public synchronized void postMessage(String message) { .... } public void updateMessage(Long id, String message) { .... } } I wan to test multiple access to this postMessage concurrently. Any advice on this? I wish to run this kind of concurrency test against all my setter functions (or any methodn that involves create/update/delete operation). Thanks

    Read the article

  • Unit testing JSON output module, best practices

    - by Banang
    I am currently working on a module that takes one of our business objects and returns a json representation of that object to the caller. Due to limitations in our environment I am unable to use any existing json writer, so I have written my own, which is then used by the business object writer to serialize my objects. The json writer is tested in a way similar to this @Test public void writeEmptyArrayTest() { String expected = "[ ]"; writer.array().endArray(); assertEquals(expected, writer.toString()); } which is only manageable because of the small output each instruction produces, even though I keep feeling there must be a better way. The problem I am now facing is writing tests for the object writer module, where the output is much larger and much less manageable. The risk of spelling mistakes in the expected strings mucking up my tests seem too great, and writing code in this fashion seems both silly and unmanageable in a long term perspective. I keep feeling like I want to write tests to ensure that my tests are behaving correctly, and this feeling worries me. Therefore, is there a better way of doing this? Surely there must be? Does anyone know of any good literature in regard to this specific case (doesn't have to be json, but you know what I mean)? Grateful for all help.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Codeigniter Classes with fooStack - clashes

    - by DrPep
    I'm having 'fun' testing interactions in a CodeIgniter based web app. It seems when running the entire test suite "phpunit AllTests.php" it loads all of the test classes, their targets (Systems under Test) and creates a PHPUnit_Framework_TestSuite instance which presumably iterates over the classes which extend CIUnit_TestCase and runs them. The problem comes where you have multiple classes referencing another class (such as a library). As all the classes are loaded into the same process space, PHP reports "cannot redefine class xyz". Have I missed something here or doing something haenously wrong? In my test class i'm doing something like: include_once dirname(__FILE__).'/../CIUnit.php'; include_once dirname(__FILE__).'/../../libraries/ProductsService.php'; class testProductsService extends CIUnit_TestCase { public function testGetProducts_ReturnsArrayOfProducts(){ $service = new ProductsService(); $products = $service->getProducts(); $this->assertTrue(is_array($products)); } } The problem manifests as I have a controller which does: $this->load->library('ProductsService');

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing a Django Form with a FileField

    - by Jason Christa
    I have a form like: #forms.py from django import forms class MyForm(forms.Form): title = forms.CharField() file = forms.FileField() #tests.py from django.test import TestCase from forms import MyForm class FormTestCase(TestCase) def test_form(self): upload_file = open('path/to/file', 'r') post_dict = {'title': 'Test Title'} file_dict = {} #?????? form = MyForm(post_dict, file_dict) self.assertTrue(form.is_valid()) How do I construct the *file_dict* to pass *upload_file* to the form?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Refcounted Critical Section Class

    - by BillyONeal
    Hello all :) I'm looking at a simple class I have to manage critical sections and locks, and I'd like to cover this with test cases. Does this make sense, and how would one go about doing it? It's difficult because the only way to verify the class works is to setup very complicated threading scenarios, and even then there's not a good way to test for a leak of a Critical Section in Win32. Is there a more direct way to make sure it's working correctly? Here's the code: CriticalSection.hpp: #pragma once #include <windows.h> namespace WindowsAPI { namespace Threading { class CriticalSection; class CriticalLock { std::size_t *instanceCount; CRITICAL_SECTION * criticalStructure; bool lockValid; friend class CriticalSection; CriticalLock(std::size_t *, CRITICAL_SECTION *, bool); public: bool IsValid() { return lockValid; }; void Unlock(); ~CriticalLock() { Unlock(); }; }; class CriticalSection { std::size_t *instanceCount; CRITICAL_SECTION * criticalStructure; public: CriticalSection(); CriticalSection(const CriticalSection&); CriticalSection& operator=(const CriticalSection&); CriticalSection& swap(CriticalSection&); ~CriticalSection(); CriticalLock Enter(); CriticalLock TryEnter(); }; }} CriticalSection.cpp: #include "CriticalSection.hpp" namespace WindowsAPI { namespace Threading { CriticalSection::CriticalSection() { criticalStructure = new CRITICAL_SECTION; instanceCount = new std::size_t; *instanceCount = 1; InitializeCriticalSection(criticalStructure); } CriticalSection::CriticalSection(const CriticalSection& other) { criticalStructure = other.criticalStructure; instanceCount = other.instanceCount; instanceCount++; } CriticalSection& CriticalSection::operator=(const CriticalSection& other) { CriticalSection copyOfOther(other); swap(copyOfOther); return *this; } CriticalSection& CriticalSection::swap(CriticalSection& other) { std::swap(other.instanceCount, instanceCount); std::swap(other.criticalStructure, other.criticalStructure); return *this; } CriticalSection::~CriticalSection() { if (!--(*instanceCount)) { DeleteCriticalSection(criticalStructure); delete criticalStructure; delete instanceCount; } } CriticalLock CriticalSection::Enter() { EnterCriticalSection(criticalStructure); (*instanceCount)++; return CriticalLock(instanceCount, criticalStructure, true); } CriticalLock CriticalSection::TryEnter() { bool lockAquired; if (TryEnterCriticalSection(criticalStructure)) { (*instanceCount)++; lockAquired = true; } else lockAquired = false; return CriticalLock(instanceCount, criticalStructure, lockAquired); } void CriticalLock::Unlock() { if (!lockValid) return; LeaveCriticalSection(criticalStructure); lockValid = false; if (!--(*instanceCount)) { DeleteCriticalSection(criticalStructure); delete criticalStructure; delete instanceCount; } } }}

    Read the article

  • Emma - Block Coverage vs Line Coverage

    - by MasterGaurav
    I have a strange scenario... while doing a EMMA coverage for UT, I get the total block coverage size more than line coverage size. For block coverage, the total size is some 50,000 while the line coverage is out of 18,000. I get (block-coverage-value) / 50,000 and (line-coverage-value) / 18,000 in the report. Is it possible? How can the number of blocks be more than the number of lines in code? btw, you can assume that I know what Block Coverage is: http://emma.sourceforge.net/faq.html#q.blockcoverage

    Read the article

  • How do I unit test a finalizer?

    - by GraemeF
    I have the following class which is a decorator for an IDisposable object (I have omitted the stuff it adds) which itself implements IDisposable using a common pattern: public class DisposableDecorator : IDisposable { private readonly IDisposable _innerDisposable; public DisposableDecorator(IDisposable innerDisposable) { _innerDisposable = innerDisposable; } #region IDisposable Members public void Dispose() { Dispose(true); GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } #endregion ~DisposableDecorator() { Dispose(false); } protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) { if (disposing) _innerDisposable.Dispose(); } } I can easily test that innerDisposable is disposed when Dispose() is called: [Test] public void Dispose__DisposesInnerDisposable() { var mockInnerDisposable = new Mock<IDisposable>(); new DisposableDecorator(mockInnerDisposable.Object).Dispose(); mockInnerDisposable.Verify(x => x.Dispose()); } But how do I write a test to make sure innerDisposable does not get disposed by the finalizer? I want to write something like this but it fails, presumably because the finalizer hasn't been called by the GC thread: [Test] public void Finalizer__DoesNotDisposeInnerDisposable() { var mockInnerDisposable = new Mock<IDisposable>(); new DisposableDecorator(mockInnerDisposable.Object); GC.Collect(); mockInnerDisposable.Verify(x => x.Dispose(), Times.Never()); }

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing in ASP.NET MVC: Minimising the number of asserts per test

    - by Neil Barnwell
    I'm trying out TDD on a greenfield hobby app in ASP.NET MVC, and have started to get test methods such as the following: [Test] public void Index_GetRequest_ShouldReturnPopulatedIndexViewModel() { var controller = new EmployeeController(); controller.EmployeeService = GetPrePopulatedEmployeeService(); var actionResult = (ViewResult)controller.Index(); var employeeIndexViewModel = (EmployeeIndexViewModel)actionResult.ViewData.Model; EmployeeDetailsViewModel employeeViewModel = employeeIndexViewModel.Items[0]; Assert.AreEqual(1, employeeViewModel.ID); Assert.AreEqual("Neil Barnwell", employeeViewModel.Name); Assert.AreEqual("ABC123", employeeViewModel.PayrollNumber); } Now I'm aware that ideally tests will only have one Assert.xxx() call, but does that mean I should refactor the above to separate tests with names such as: Index_GetRequest_ShouldReturnPopulatedIndexViewModelWithCorrectID Index_GetRequest_ShouldReturnPopulatedIndexViewModelWithCorrectName Index_GetRequest_ShouldReturnPopulatedIndexViewModelWithCorrectPayrollNumber ...where the majority of the test is duplicated code (which therefore is being tested more than once and violates the "keep tests fast" advice)? That seems to be taking it to the extreme to me, so if I'm right as I am, what is the real-world meaning of the "one assert per test" advice?

    Read the article

  • iPHone: Unit/Logic Tests initWithNibName

    - by pion
    I have setup my Logic Tests following the instructions on http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/Xcode/Conceptual/iphone_development/135-Unit_Testing_Applications/unit_testing_applications.html. I could test a couple classes successfully. But I got error when testing the following: - (id)init { if (self = [super initWithNibName:@"Foo" bundle:nil]) { ... } return self; } The error message is -[UIViewController _loadViewFromNibNamed:bundle:] was unable to load a nib named "Foo" My question: Did I do something wrong? Missed something? or I cannot test -initWithNibName using Logic Tests technique. Thanks in advance for your help.

    Read the article

  • Unit tests and Test Runner problems under .Net 4.0

    - by Brett Rigby
    Hi there, We're trying to migrate a .Net 3.5 solution into .Net 4.0, but are experiencing complications with the testing frameworks that can operate using an assembly that is built using version 4.0 of the .Net Framework. Previously, we used NUnit 2.4.3.0 and NCover 1.5.8.0 within our NAnt scripts, but NUnit 2.4.3.0 doesn't like .Net 4.0 projects. So, we upgraded to a newer version of the NUnit framework within the test project itself, but then found that NCover 1.5.8.0 doesn't support this version of NUnit. We get errors in the code saying words to the effect of the assembly was built using a newer version of the .Net Framework than is currently in use, as it's using .Net Framework 2.0 to run the tools. We then tried using Gallio's Icarus test runner GUI, but found that this and MbUnit only support up to version 3.5 of the .Net Frameword and the result is "the tests will be ignored". In terms of the coverage side of things (for reporting into CruiseControl.net), we have found that PartCover is a good candidate for substituting-out NCover, (as the newer version of NCover is quite dear, and PartCover is free), but this is a few steps down the line yet, as we can't get the test runners to work first!! Can any shed any light on a testnig framework that will run under .Net 4.0 in the same way as I've described above? If not, I fear we may have to revert back to using .Net 3.5 until the manufacturers of the tooling that we're currently using have a chance to upgrade to .Net 4.0. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • JPA - How to truncate tables between unit tests

    - by Theo
    I want to cleanup the database after every test case without rolling back the transaction. I have tried DBUnit's DatabaseOperation.DELETE_ALL, but it does not work if a deletion violates a foreign key constraint. I know that I can disable foreign key checks, but that would also disable the checks for the tests (which I want to prevent). I'm using JUnit 4, JPA 2.0 (Eclipselink), and Derby's in-memory database. Any ideas? Thanks, Theo

    Read the article

  • Unit testing with django-celery?

    - by Jason Webb
    I am trying to come up with a testing methodology for our django-celery project. I have read the notes in the documentation, but it didn't give me a good idea of what to actually do. I am not worried about testing the tasks in the actual daemons, just the functionality of my code. Mainly I am wondering: How can we bypass task.delay() during the test (I tried setting CELERY_ALWAYS_EAGER = True but it made no difference)? How do we use the test settings that are recommended (if that is the best way) without actually changing our settings.py? Can we still use manage.py test or do we have to use a custom runner? Overall any hints or tips for testing with celery would be very helpful.

    Read the article

  • Flex Unit testing of library and mxml using FlexUnit

    - by user344722
    Hi, I have some software classes(library) to run commands on any mxml file. These classes(library) are wrapped in a SWC file. This SWC file is referenced by any sample mxml application (by adding as SWC file). My problem is that I want to test these software classes(library) against my sample mxml file using FlexUnit. That is, I should test methods run by software classes on the mxml file. How can I accomplish this? Thanks, Pradeep

    Read the article

  • Unit test complex classes with many private methods

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I've got a class with one public method and many private methods which are run depending on what parameter are passed to the public method so my code looks something like: public class SomeComplexClass { IRepository _repository; public SomeComplexClass() this(new Repository()) { } public SomeComplexClass(IRepository repository) { _repository = repository; } public List<int> SomeComplexCalcualation(int option) { var list = new List<int>(); if (option == 1) list = CalculateOptionOne(); else if (option == 2) list = CalculateOptionTwo(); else if (option == 3) list = CalculateOptionThree(); else if (option == 4) list = CalculateOptionFour(); else if (option == 5) list = CalculateOptionFive(); return list; } private List<int> CalculateOptionOne() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionTwo() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionThree() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionFour() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionFive() { // Some calculation } } I've thought of a few ways to test this class but all of them seem overly complex or expose the methods more than I would like. The options so far are: Set all the private methods to internal and use [assembly: InternalsVisibleTo()] Separate out all the private methods into a separate class and create an interface. Make all the methods virtual and in my tests create a new class that inherits from this class and override the methods. Are there any other options for testing the above class that would be better that what I've listed? If you would pick one of the ones I've listed can you explain why? Thanks

    Read the article

  • py.test import context problems (causes Django unit test failure)

    - by dhill
    I made a following test: # main.py import imported print imported.f.__module__ # imported.py def f(): pass # test_imported.py (py.test test case) import imported def test_imported(): result = imported.f.__module__ assert result == 'imported' Running python main.py, gives me imported, but running py.test gives me error and result value is moduletest.imported (moduletest is the name of the directory I keep the test in. It doesn't contain __init__.py, moduletest is the only directory containing *.py files in ~/tmp). How can I fix result value? The long story: I'm getting strange errors, while testing Django application. A call to reverse() from (django.urlresolvers). with function object foo as argument in tests crashes with NoReverseMatch: Reverse for 'site.app.views.foo'. The same call inside application works. I checked and it is converted to 'app.views.foo' (without site prefix). I first suspected my customised test setup for Django, but then I made above test.

    Read the article

  • junit mock objects

    - by Codenotguru
    i am new to junit so any help is appreciated. I have a class called sysconfig.java for which i have written a junit class file called TestSysconfig.java that tests some methods in the sysconfig.java. The method that i am testing in sysconfig.java calls another class file "ethipmapping.java" i have created a mock of this class file as Testethipmapping.java. so my question is how do i tell sysconfig.java to call this mock object?

    Read the article

  • Rails Unit Testing with MyISAM Tables

    - by tadman
    I've got an application that requires the use of MyISAM on a few tables, but the rest are the traditional InnoDB type. The application itself is not concerned with transactions where it applies to these records, but performance is a concern. The Rails testing environment assumes the engine used is transactional, though, so when the test database is generated from the schema.rb it is imported with the same engine. Is it possible to over-ride this behaviour in a simple manner? I've resorted to an awful hack to ensure the tables are the correct type by appending this to test_helper.rb: (ActiveRecord::Base.connection.select_values("SHOW TABLES") - %w[ schema_info ]).each do |table_name| ActiveRecord::Base.connection.execute("ALTER TABLE `#{table_name}` ENGINE=InnoDB") end Is there a better way to make a MyISAM-backed model be testable?

    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

  • Unit Test json output in Zend Framework

    - by lyle
    The Zend Tutorial lists many assertions to check the output generated by a request. http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/zend.test.phpunit.html But they all seem to assume that the output is html. I need to test json output instead. Are there any assertions helpful to check json, or is there at least a generic way to make assertions against the output? Anything that doesn't rely on the request outputting html?

    Read the article

  • How to unit test chrome extensions?

    - by swampsjohn
    Is there a good way to do this? I'm writing an extension that interacts with a website as a content script and saves data using localstorage. Are there any tools, frameworks, etc. that I can use to test this behavior? I realize there are some generic tools for testing javascript, but are those sufficiently power to test an extension?

    Read the article

  • unit test for proxy checking

    - by zubin71
    Proxy configuration of a machine can be easily fetched using def check_proxy(): import urllib2 http_proxy = urllib2.getproxies().get('http') I need to write a test for the above written function. In order to do that I need to:- Set the system-wide proxy to an invalid URL during the test(sounds like a bad idea). Supply an invalid URL to http_proxy. How can I achieve either of the above?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >