Search Results

Search found 26978 results on 1080 pages for 'load testing'.

Page 207/1080 | < Previous Page | 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214  | 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

  • 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 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

  • unittest in python: ignore an import from the code I want to test

    - by vaidab
    I have a python program that imports pythoncom (and uses pythoncom.CoCreateInstance from it). I want to create a unittest for the program logic without it importing pythoncom (so I can run the test on Linux as well). What options are there? Can I do it without modifying the system under test? What I found so far: sys.modules["pythoncom"] = "test" import module_that_imports_pythoncom My problem with it is if I have: from pythoncom.something import something I'll get: ImportError: No module named something.something And sys.modules["something.something"] or sys.modules["pythoncom.something.something"] doesn't work. Any ideas?

    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 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 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

  • How can I tell the number of replacements in a formatter string?

    - by sdanna
    Given the following method: (real method has a few more parameters, but the important ones are below...) public string DoSomething(string formatter, params string[] values) { // Do something eventually involving a call to String.Format(formatter, values); } Is there a way to tell if my values array has enough objects in it to cover the formatter, so that I can throw an exception if there aren't (short of doing the string.Format; that isn't an option until the end due to some lambda conversions)?

    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

  • 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

  • Speed of running a test suite in Rails

    - by Milan Novota
    I have 357 tests (534 assertions) for my app (using Shoulda). The whole test suite runs in around 80 seconds. Is this time OK? I'm just curious, since this is one of my first apps where I write tests extensively. No fancy stuff in my app. Btw.: I tried to use in memory sqlite3 database, but the results were surprisingly worse (around 83 seconds). Any clues here? I'm using Macbook with 2GB of RAM and 2GHz Intel Core Duo processor as my development machine.

    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

  • why assert_equal() in Ruby on Rails sometimes seem to compare by Identity and sometimes by value?

    - by Jian Lin
    it was very weird that yesterday, I was do an integration test in Rails and assert_equal array_of_obj1, array_of_obj2 # obj1 from db, obj2 created in test and it failed. The values shown inside the array and objects were identical. If I change the test to assert array_of_obj1 == array_of_obj2 Then it will pass. But today, the first test actually passed. What reason could it be? Is assert_equal always using == or .equal? in Rails 2.2 or 2.3.5?

    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

  • 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

  • C# Attributes Aren't Supposed to Inherit

    - by Adam
    Since attributes don't inherit in C# (at least I didn't think they did) - how does the following code still display the Hello popup when the MyTestMethod test is run: [TestClass] public class BaseTestClass { [TestInitialize] public void Foo() { System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show("Hello"); } } [TestClass] public class TestClass : BaseTestClass { [TestMethod] public void MyTestMethod() { Assert.IsTrue(true); } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214  | Next Page >