Search Results

Search found 4783 results on 192 pages for 'tests'.

Page 29/192 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • Is unit testing or test-driven development worthwhile?

    - by Owen Johnson
    My team at work is moving to Scrum and other teams are starting to do test-driven development using unit tests and user acceptance tests. I like the UATs, but I'm not sold on unit testing for test-driven development or test-driven development in general. It seems like writing tests is extra work, gives people a crutch when they write the real code, and might not be effective very often. I understand how unit tests work and how to write them, but can anyone make the case that it's really a good idea and worth the effort and time? Also, is there anything that makes TDD especially good for Scrum?

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • SQL University: What and why of database refactoring

    - by Mladen Prajdic
    This is a post for a great idea called SQL University started by Jorge Segarra also famously known as SqlChicken on Twitter. It’s a collection of blog posts on different database related topics contributed by several smart people all over the world. So this week is mine and we’ll be talking about database testing and refactoring. In 3 posts we’ll cover: SQLU part 1 - What and why of database testing SQLU part 2 - What and why of database refactoring SQLU part 3 - Tools of the trade This is a second part of the series and in it we’ll take a look at what database refactoring is and why do it. Why refactor a database To know why refactor we first have to know what refactoring actually is. Code refactoring is a process where we change module internals in a way that does not change that module’s input/output behavior. For successful refactoring there is one crucial thing we absolutely must have: Tests. Automated unit tests are the only guarantee we have that we haven’t broken the input/output behavior before refactoring. If you haven’t go back ad read my post on the matter. Then start writing them. Next thing you need is a code module. Those are views, UDFs and stored procedures. By having direct table access we can kiss fast and sweet refactoring good bye. One more point to have a database abstraction layer. And no, ORM’s don’t fall into that category. But also know that refactoring is NOT adding new functionality to your code. Many have fallen into this trap. Don’t be one of them and resist the lure of the dark side. And it’s a strong lure. We developers in general love to add new stuff to our code, but hate fixing our own mistakes or changing existing code for no apparent reason. To be a good refactorer one needs discipline and focus. Now we know that refactoring is all about changing inner workings of existing code. This can be due to performance optimizations, changing internal code workflows or some other reason. This is a typical black box scenario to the outside world. If we upgrade the car engine it still has to drive on the road (preferably faster) and not fly (no matter how cool that would be). Also be aware that white box tests will break when we refactor. What to refactor in a database Refactoring databases doesn’t happen that often but when it does it can include a lot of stuff. Let us look at a few common cases. Adding or removing database schema objects Adding, removing or changing table columns in any way, adding constraints, keys, etc… All of these can be counted as internal changes not visible to the data consumer. But each of these carries a potential input/output behavior change. Dropping a column can result in views not working anymore or stored procedure logic crashing. Adding a unique constraint shows duplicated data that shouldn’t exist. Foreign keys break a truncate table command executed from an application that runs once a month. All these scenarios are very real and can happen. With the proper database abstraction layer fully covered with black box tests we can make sure something like that does not happen (hopefully at all). Changing physical structures Physical structures include heaps, indexes and partitions. We can pretty much add or remove those without changing the data returned by the database. But the performance can be affected. So here we use our performance tests. We do have them, right? Just by adding a single index we can achieve orders of magnitude performance improvement. Won’t that make users happy? But what if that index causes our write operations to crawl to a stop. again we have to test this. There are a lot of things to think about and have tests for. Without tests we can’t do successful refactoring! Fixing bad code We all have some bad code in our systems. We usually refer to that code as code smell as they violate good coding practices. Examples of such code smells are SQL injection, use of SELECT *, scalar UDFs or cursors, etc… Each of those is huge code smell and can result in major code changes. Take SELECT * from example. If we remove a column from a table the client using that SELECT * statement won’t have a clue about that until it runs. Then it will gracefully crash and burn. Not to mention the widely unknown SELECT * view refresh problem that Tomas LaRock (@SQLRockstar on Twitter) and Colin Stasiuk (@BenchmarkIT on Twitter) talk about in detail. Go read about it, it’s informative. Refactoring this includes replacing the * with column names and most likely change to application using the database. Breaking apart huge stored procedures Have you ever seen seen a stored procedure that was 2000 lines long? I have. It’s not pretty. It hurts the eyes and sucks the will to live the next 10 minutes. They are a maintenance nightmare and turn into things no one dares to touch. I’m willing to bet that 100% of time they don’t have a single test on them. Large stored procedures (and functions) are a clear sign that they contain business logic. General opinion on good database coding practices says that business logic has no business in the database. That’s the applications part. Refactoring such behemoths requires writing lots of edge case tests for the stored procedure input/output behavior and then start to refactor it. First we split the logic inside into smaller parts like new stored procedures and UDFs. Those then get called from the master stored procedure. Once we’ve successfully modularized the database code it’s best to transfer that logic into the applications consuming it. This only leaves the stored procedure with common data manipulation logic. Of course this isn’t always possible so having a plethora of performance and behavior unit tests is absolutely necessary to confirm we’ve actually improved the codebase in some way.   Refactoring is not a popular chore amongst developers or managers. The former don’t like fixing old code, the latter can’t see the financial benefit. Remember how we talked about being lousy at estimating future costs in the previous post? But there comes a time when it must be done. Hopefully I’ve given you some ideas how to get started. In the last post of the series we’ll take a look at the tools to use and an example of testing and refactoring.

    Read the article

  • Mutation Testing

    You may have a twinge of doubt when your code passes all its unit tests. They might say that the code is OK, but if the code is definitely incorrect, will the unit tests fail? Mutation Testing is a relatively simple, but ingenious, way of checking that your tests will spot the fact that your code is malfunctioning. It is definitely something that every developer should be aware of.

    Read the article

  • Is unit testing development or testing?

    - by Rubio
    I had a discussion with a testing manager about the role of unit and integration testing. She requested that developers report what they have unit and integration tested and how. My perspective is that unit and integration testing are part of the development process, not the testing process. Beyond semantics what I mean is that unit and integration tests should not be included in the testing reports and systems testers should not be concerned about them. My reasoning is based on two things. Unit and integration tests are planned and performed against an interface and a contract, always. Regardless of whether you use formalized contracts you still test what e.g. a method is supposed to do, i.e. a contract. In integration testing you test the interface between two distinct modules. The interface and the contract determine when the test passes. But you always test a limited part of the whole system. Systems testing on the other hand is planned and performed against the system specifications. The spec determines when the test passes. I don't see any value in communicating the breadth and depth of unit and integration tests to the (systems) tester. Suppose I write a report that lists what kind of unit tests are performed on a particular business layer class. What is he/she supposed to take away from that? Judging what should and shouldn't be tested from that is a false conclusion because the system may still not function the way the specs require even though all unit and integration tests pass. This might seem like useless academic discussion but if you work in a strictly formal environment as I do, it's actually important in determining how we do things. Anyway, am I totally wrong? (Sorry for the long post.)

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • Why is testing MVC Views frowned upon?

    - by Peter Bernier
    I'm currently setting the groundwork for an ASP.Net MVC application and I'm looking into what sort of unit-tests I should be prepared to write. I've seen in multiple places people essentially saying 'don't bother testing your views, there's no logic and it's trivial and will be covered by an integration test'. I don't understand how this has become the accepted wisdom. Integration tests serve an entirely different purpose than unit tests. If I break something, I don't want to know a half-hour later when my integration tests break, I want to know immediately. Sample Scenario : Lets say we're dealing with a standard CRUD app with a Customer entity. The customer has a name and an address. At each level of testing, I want to verify that the Customer retrieval logic gets both the name and the address properly. To unit-test the repository, I write an integration test to hit the database. To unit-test the business rules, I mock out the repository, feed the business rules appropriate data, and verify my expected results are returned. What I'd like to do : To unit-test the UI, I mock out the business rules, setup my expected customer instance, render the view, and verify that the view contains the appropriate values for the instance I specified. What I'm stuck doing : To unit-test the repository, I write an integration test, setup an appropriate login, create the required data in the database, open a browser, navigate to the customer, and verify the resulting page contains the appropriate values for the instance I specified. I realize that there is overlap between the two scenarios discussed above, but the key difference it time and effort required to setup and execute the tests. If I (or another dev) removes the address field from the view, I don't want to wait for the integration test to discover this. I want is discovered and flagged in a unit-test that gets multiple times daily. I get the feeling that I'm just not grasping some key concept. Can someone explain why wanting immediate test feedback on the validity of an MVC view is a bad thing? (or if not bad, then not the expected way to get said feedback)

    Read the article

  • If your unit test code "smells" does it really matter?

    - by Buttons840
    Usually I just throw my unit tests together using copy and paste and all kind of other bad practices. The unit tests usually end up looking quite ugly, they're full of "code smell," but does this really matter? I always tell myself as long as the "real" code is "good" that's all that matters. Plus, unit testing usually requires various "smelly hacks" like stubbing functions. How concerned should I be over poorly designed ("smelly") unit tests?

    Read the article

  • What should be done first: Code reviews or Unit tests?

    - by goldenmean
    Hello, If a developer implements code for some module and wants to get it reviewed. What should be the order : *First unit test the module after designing test cases for the module, debugging and fixing the bugs and then give the modified code for peer code review (Pros- Code to be reviewed is 'clean' to a good extent. Reduces some avoidable review comments and rework. Cons- Developer might spend large time debugging/fixing a bug which could have pointed/anticipated in peer code reviews) Or *First do the code review with peers and then go for unit testing. What are your thoughts/experience on this? I believe this approach for unit testing, code reviewing should be programming language agnostic, but it would be interesting to know otherwise(if applicable) with specific examples. -AD

    Read the article

  • Redgate ANTS Performance Profiler

    - by Jon Canning
    Seemingly forever I've been working on a business idea, it's a REST API delivering content to mobiles, and I've never really had much idea about its performance. Yes, I have a suite of unit tests and integration tests, but these only tell me that it works, not how well it works. I was also about to embark on a major refactor, swapping the database from MongoDB to RavenDB, and was curious to see if that impacted performance at all, so I needed a profiler that supported IIS Express that I can run my integration tests against, and Google gave me:   http://www.red-gate.com/supportcenter/content/ANTS_Performance_Profiler/help/7.4/app_iise   Excellent. Following the above guide an instance of IIS Express and is launched, as is Internet Explorer. The latter eventually becomes annoying, I would like to decide whether I want a browser opened, but thankfully the guide is wrong in that it can be closed and profiling will continue. So I ran my tests, stopped profiling, and was presented with a call tree listing the endpoints called and allowing me to drill down to the source code beneath.     Although useful and fascinating this wasn't what I was expecting to see, I was after the method timings from the entire test suite. Switching Show to Methods Grid presented me with a list of my methods, with the slowest lit up in red at the top. Marvellous.     I did find that if you switch to Methods Grid before Call tree has loaded, you do not get the red warnings.   StructureMap was very busy, and next on the list was a request filter that I didn't expect to be so overworked. Highlighting it, the source code was presented to me in the bottom window with timings and a nice red indicator to show me where to look. Oh horror, that reflection hack I put in months ago, I'd forgotten all about it. It was calling Validate<T>() which in turn was resolving a validator from StructureMap. Note to self, use //TODO: when leaving smelly code lying around.     Before refactoring, remember to Save Profile Results from the File menu. Annoyingly you are not prompted to save your results when exiting, and using Save Project will only leave you thankful that you have version control and can go back in time to run your tests again.   Having implemented StructureMap’s ForGenericType, I ran my tests again and:     Win, thankyou ANTS (What does ANTS stand for BTW?)   There's definitely room in my toolbox for a profiler; what started out as idle curiosity actually solved a potential problem. When presented with a new codebase I can see enormous benefit from getting an overview of the pipeline from the call tree before drilling into the code, and as a sanity check before release it gives a little more reassurance that you've done your best, and shows you exactly where to look if you haven’t.   Next I’m going to profile a load test.

    Read the article

  • Testing Reference Data Mappings

    - by Michael Stephenson
    Background Mapping reference data is one of the common scenarios in BizTalk development and its usually a bit of a pain when you need to manage a lot of reference data whether it be through the BizTalk Cross Referencing features or some kind of custom solution. I have seen many cases where only a couple of the mapping conditions are ever tested. Approach As usual I like to see these things tested in isolation before you start using them in your BizTalk maps so you know your mapping functions are working as expected. This approach can be used for almost all of your reference data type mapping functions where you can take advantage of MSTests data driven tests to test lots of conditions without having to write millions of tests. Walk Through Rather than go into the details of this here, I'm going to call out to one of my colleagues who wrote a nice little walk through about using data driven tests a while back. Check out Callum's blog: http://callumhibbert.blogspot.com/2009/07/data-driven-tests-with-mstest.html

    Read the article

  • Code Coverage for Maven Integrated in NetBeans IDE 7.2

    - by Geertjan
    In NetBeans IDE 7.2, JaCoCo is supported natively, i.e., out of the box, as a code coverage engine for Maven projects, since Cobertura does not work with JDK 7 language constructs. (Although, note that Cobertura is supported as well in NetBeans IDE 7.2.) It isn't part of NetBeans IDE 7.2 Beta, so don't even try there; you need some development build from after that. I downloaded the latest development build today. To enable JaCoCo features in NetBeans IDE, you need do no different to what you'd do when enabling JaCoCo in Maven itself, which is rather wonderful. In both cases, all you need to do is add this to the "plugins" section of your POM: <plugin> <groupId>org.jacoco</groupId> <artifactId>jacoco-maven-plugin</artifactId> <version>0.5.7.201204190339</version> <executions> <execution> <goals> <goal>prepare-agent</goal> </goals> </execution> <execution> <id>report</id> <phase>prepare-package</phase> <goals> <goal>report</goal> </goals> </execution> </executions> </plugin> Now you're done and ready to examine the code coverage of your tests, whether they are JUnit or TestNG. At this point, i.e., for no other reason than that you added the above snippet into your POM, you will have a new Code Coverage menu when you right-click on the project node: If you click Show Report above, the Code Coverage Report window opens. Here, once you've run your tests, you can actually see how many classes have been covered by your tests, which is pretty useful since 100% tests passing doesn't mean much when you've only tested one class, as you can see very graphically below: Then, when you click the bars in the Code Coverage Report window, the class under test is shown, with the methods for which tests exist highlighted in green and those that haven't been covered in red: (Note: Of course, striving for 100% code coverage is a bit nonsensical. For example, writing tests for your getters and setters may not be the most useful way to spend one's time. But being able to measure, and visualize, code coverage is certainly useful regardless of the percentage you're striving to achieve.) Best of all about all this is that everything you see above is available out of the box in NetBeans IDE 7.2. Take a look at what else NetBeans IDE 7.2 brings for the first time to the world of Maven: http://wiki.netbeans.org/NewAndNoteworthyNB72#Maven

    Read the article

  • Database unit testing is now available for SSDT

    - by jamiet
    Good news was announced yesterday for those that are using SSDT and want to write unit tests, unit testing functionality is now available. The announcement was made on the SSDT team blog in post Available Today: SSDT—December 2012. Here are a few thoughts about this news. Firstly, there seems to be a general impression that database unit testing was not previously available for SSDT – that’s not entirely true. Database unit testing was most recently delivered in Visual Studio 2010 and any database unit tests written therein work perfectly well against SQL Server databases created using SSDT (why wouldn’t they – its just a database after all). In other words, if you’re running SSDT inside Visual Studio 2010 then you could carry on freely writing database unit tests; some of the tight integration between the two (e.g. right-click on an object in SQL Server Object Explorer and choose to create a unit test) was not there – but I’ve never found that to be a problem. I am currently working on a project that uses SSDT for database development and have been happily running VS2010 database unit tests for a few months now. All that being said, delivery of database unit testing for SSDT is now with us and that is good news, not least because we now have the ability to create unit tests in VS2012. We also get tight integration with SSDT itself, the like of which I mentioned above. Having now had a look at the new features I was delighted to find that one of my big complaints about database unit testing has been solved. As I reported here on Connect a refactor operation would cause unit test code to get completely mangled. See here the before and after from such an operation: SELECT    * FROM    bi.ProcessMessageLog pml INNER JOIN bi.[LogMessageType] lmt     ON    pml.[LogMessageTypeId] = lmt.[LogMessageTypeId] WHERE    pml.[LogMessage] = 'Ski[LogMessageTypeName]of message: IApplicationCanceled' AND        lmt.[LogMessageType] = 'Warning'; which is obviously not ideal. Thankfully that seems to have been solved with this latest release. One disappointment about this new release is that the process for running tests as part of a CI build has not changed from the horrendously complicated process required previously. Check out my blog post Setting up database unit testing as part of a Continuous Integration build process [VS2010 DB Tools - Datadude] for instructions on how to do it. In that blog post I describe it as “fiddly” – I was being kind when I said that! @Jamiet

    Read the article

  • How to inject ServletContext for JUnit tests with Spring?

    - by Juri Glass
    Hi I want to unit test a RESTful interface written with Apache CXF. I use a ServletContext to load some resources, so I have: @Context private ServletContext servletContext; If I deploy this on Glassfish, the ServletContext is injected and it works like expected. But I don't know how to inject the ServletContext in my service class, so that I can test it with a JUnit test. I use Spring 3.0, JUnit 4, CXF 2.2.3 and Maven.

    Read the article

  • Take Two: Comparing JVMs on ARM/Linux

    - by user12608080
    Although the intent of the previous article, entitled Comparing JVMs on ARM/Linux, was to introduce and highlight the availability of the HotSpot server compiler (referred to as c2) for Java SE-Embedded ARM v7,  it seems, based on feedback, that everyone was more interested in the OpenJDK comparisons to Java SE-E.  In fact there were two main concerns: The fact that the previous article compared Java SE-E 7 against OpenJDK 6 might be construed as an unlevel playing field because version 7 is newer and therefore potentially more optimized. That the generic compiler settings chosen to build the OpenJDK implementations did not put those versions in a particularly favorable light. With those considerations in mind, we'll institute the following changes to this version of the benchmarking: In order to help alleviate an additional concern that there is some sort of benchmark bias, we'll use a different suite, called DaCapo.  Funded and supported by many prestigious organizations, DaCapo's aim is to benchmark real world applications.  Further information about DaCapo can be found at http://dacapobench.org. At the suggestion of Xerxes Ranby, who has been a great help through this entire exercise, a newer Linux distribution will be used to assure that the OpenJDK implementations were built with more optimal compiler settings.  The Linux distribution in this instance is Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot. Having experienced difficulties getting Ubuntu 11.10 to run on the original D2Plug ARMv7 platform, for these benchmarks, we'll switch to an embedded system that has a supported Ubuntu 11.10 release.  That platform is the Freescale i.MX53 Quick Start Board.  It has an ARMv7 Coretex-A8 processor running at 1GHz with 1GB RAM. We'll limit comparisons to 4 JVM implementations: Java SE-E 7 Update 2 c1 compiler (default) Java SE-E 6 Update 30 (c1 compiler is the only option) OpenJDK 6 IcedTea6 1.11pre 6b23~pre11-0ubuntu1.11.10.2 CACAO build 1.1.0pre2 OpenJDK 6 IcedTea6 1.11pre 6b23~pre11-0ubuntu1.11.10.2 JamVM build-1.6.0-devel Certain OpenJDK implementations were eliminated from this round of testing for the simple reason that their performance was not competitive.  The Java SE 7u2 c2 compiler was also removed because although quite respectable, it did not perform as well as the c1 compilers.  Recall that c2 works optimally in long-lived situations.  Many of these benchmarks completed in a relatively short period of time.  To get a feel for where c2 shines, take a look at the first chart in this blog. The first chart that follows includes performance of all benchmark runs on all platforms.  Later on we'll look more at individual tests.  In all runs, smaller means faster.  The DaCapo aficionado may notice that only 10 of the 14 DaCapo tests for this version were executed.  The reason for this is that these 10 tests represent the only ones successfully completed by all 4 JVMs.  Only the Java SE-E 6u30 could successfully run all of the tests.  Both OpenJDK instances not only failed to complete certain tests, but also experienced VM aborts too. One of the first observations that can be made between Java SE-E 6 and 7 is that, for all intents and purposes, they are on par with regards to performance.  While it is a fact that successive Java SE releases add additional optimizations, it is also true that Java SE 7 introduces additional complexity to the Java platform thus balancing out any potential performance gains at this point.  We are still early into Java SE 7.  We would expect further performance enhancements for Java SE-E 7 in future updates. In comparing Java SE-E to OpenJDK performance, among both OpenJDK VMs, Cacao results are respectable in 4 of the 10 tests.  The charts that follow show the individual results of those four tests.  Both Java SE-E versions do win every test and outperform Cacao in the range of 9% to 55%. For the remaining 6 tests, Java SE-E significantly outperforms Cacao in the range of 114% to 311% So it looks like OpenJDK results are mixed for this round of benchmarks.  In some cases, performance looks to have improved.  But in a majority of instances, OpenJDK still lags behind Java SE-Embedded considerably. Time to put on my asbestos suit.  Let the flames begin...

    Read the article

  • Is it necessary to remove the metaClass after use mockDomain in Grails unit tests?

    - by Arturo Herrero
    mockDomain provide a dynamic methods like save(), validate(), ... for a domain class. Is it necessary to remove the meta classes for each class I mock using mockDomain? class UserTests extends GrailsUnitTestCase { protected void setUp() { super.setUp() mockDomain User mockDomain Address } protected void tearDown() { super.tearDown() def remove = GroovySystem.metaClassRegistry.&removeMetaClass remove User remove Address } }

    Read the article

  • Benefits of Behavior Driven Development

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/07/26/benefits-of-behavior-driven-development.aspxContinuing my previous article on BDD, I wanted to point out some benefits of BDD and since BDD is an extension of Test Driven Development (TDD), you get those as well. I’ll add another article on some possible downsides of this approach. There are many articles about the benefits of TDD and they apply to BDD. I’ve pointed out some here and copied some of the main points for each article, but there are many more including the book The Art of Unit Testing by Roy Osherove. http://geekswithblogs.net/leesblog/archive/2008/04/30/the-benefits-of-test-driven-development.aspx (Lee Brandt) Stability Accountability Design Ability Separated Concerns Progress Indicator http://tddftw.com/benefits-of-tdd/ Help maintainers understand the intention behind the code Bring validation and proper data handling concerns to the forefront. Writing the tests first is fun. Better APIs come from writing testable code. TDD will make you a better developer. http://www.slideshare.net/dhelper/benefit-from-unit-testing-in-the-real-world (from Typemock). Take a look at the slides, especially the extra time required for TDD (slide 10) and the next one of the bugs avoided using TDD (slide 11). Less bugs (slide 11) about testing and development (13) Increase confidence in code (14) Fearlessly change your code (14) Document Requirements (14) also see http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2013/06/01/roc-rocks.aspx Discover usability issues early (14) All these points and articles are great and there are many more. The following are my additions to the benefits of BDD from using it in real projects for my company. July 2013 on MSDN - Behavior-Driven Design with SpecFlow Scott Allen did a very informative TDD and MVC module, but to me he is doing BDDCompile and Execute Requirements in Microsoft .NET ~ Video from TechEd 2012 Communication I was working through a complicated task that the decision tree kept growing. After writing out the Given, When, Then of the scenario, I was able tell QA what I had worked through for their initial test cases. They were able to add from there. It is also useful to use this language with other developers, managers, or clients to help make informed decisions on if it meets the requirements or if it can simplified to save time (money). Thinking through solutions, before starting to code This was the biggest benefit to me. I like to jump into coding to figure out the problem. Many times I don't understand my path well enough and have to do some parts over. A past supervisor told me several times during reviews that I need to get better at seeing "the forest for the trees". When I sit down and write out the behavior that I need to implement, I force myself to think things out further and catch scenarios before they get to QA. A co-worker that is new to BDD and we’ve been using it in our new project for the last 6 months, said “It really clarifies things”. It took him awhile to understand it all, but now he’s seeing the value of this approach (yes there are some downsides, but that is a different issue). Developers’ Confidence This is huge for me. With tests in place, my confidence grows that I won’t break code that I’m not directly changing. In the past, I’ve worked on projects with out tests and we would frequently find regression bugs (or worse the users would find them). That isn’t fun. We don’t catch all problems with the tests, but when QA catches one, I can write a test to make sure it doesn’t happen again. It’s also good for Releasing code, telling your manager that it’s good to go. As time goes on and the code gets older, how confident are you that checking in code won’t break something somewhere else? Merging code - pre release confidence If you’re merging code a lot, it’s nice to have the tests to help ensure you didn’t merge incorrectly. Interrupted work I had a task that I started and planned out, then was interrupted for a month because of different priorities. When I started it up again, and un-shelved my changes, I had the BDD specs and it helped me remember what I had figured out and what was left to do. It would have much more difficult without the specs and tests. Testing and verifying complicated scenarios Sometimes in the UI there are scenarios that get tricky, because there are a lot of steps involved (click here to open the dialog, enter the information, make sure it’s valid, when I click cancel it should do {x}, when I click ok it should close and do {y}, then do this, etc….). With BDD I can avoid some of the mouse clicking define the scenarios and have them re-run quickly, without using a mouse. UI testing is still needed, but this helps a bunch. The same can be true for tricky server logic. Documentation of Assumptions and Specifications The BDD spec tests (Jasmine or SpecFlow or other tool) also work as documentation and show what the original developer was trying to accomplish. It’s not a different Word document, so developers will keep this up to date, instead of letting it become obsolete. What happens if you leave the project (consulting, new job, etc) with no specs or at the least good comments in the code? Sometimes I think of a new scenario, so I add a failing spec and continue in the same stream of thought (don’t forget it because it was on a piece of paper or in a notepad). Then later I can come back and handle it and have it documented. Jasmine tests and JavaScript –> help deal with the non-typed system I like JavaScript, but I also dislike working with JavaScript. I miss C# telling me if a property doesn’t actually exist at build time. I like the idea of TypeScript and hope to use it more in the future. I also use KnockoutJs, which has observables that need to be called with ending (), since the observable is a function. It’s hard to remember when to use () or not and the Jasmine specs/tests help ensure the correct usage.   This should give you an idea of the benefits that I see in using the BDD approach. I’m sure there are more. It talks a lot of practice, investment and experimentation to figure out how to approach this and to get comfortable with it. I agree with Scott Allen in the video I linked above “Remember that TDD can take some practice. So if you're not doing test-driven design right now? You can start and practice and get better. And you'll reach a point where you'll never want to get back.”

    Read the article

  • Benchmarks Using Oracle Solaris 11

    - by Brian
    The following is a list of links to recent benchmarks which used Oracle Solaris 11. Oracle TimesTen In-Memory Database Performance on SPARC T4-2 World Record Performance on PeopleSoft Enterprise Financials Benchmark on SPARC T4-2 SPARC T4 Servers Running Oracle Solaris 11 and Oracle RAC Deliver World Record on PeopleSoft HRMS 9.1 SPEC CPU2006 Results on Oracle's Sun x86 Servers SPARC T4-4 Beats 8-CPU IBM POWER7 on TPC-H @3000GB Benchmark SPARC T4-2 Delivers World Record SPECjvm2008 Result with Oracle Solaris 11 SPARC T4-2 Server Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on ZFS Encryption Tests SPARC T4 Processor Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on AES Encryption Tests SPARC T4 Processor Outperforms IBM POWER7 and Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on OpenSSL AES Encryption Test SPARC T4-1 Server Outperforms Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on IPsec Encryption Tests SPARC T4-2 Server Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on SSL Network Tests SPARC T4-2 Server Beats Intel (Westmere AES-NI) on Oracle Database Tablespace Encryption Queries

    Read the article

  • Achieving decoupling in Model classes

    - by Guven
    I am trying to test-drive (or at least write unit tests) my Model classes but I noticed that my classes end up being too coupled. Since I can't break this coupling, writing unit tests is becoming harder and harder. To be more specific: Model Classes: These are the classes that hold the data in my application. They resemble pretty much the POJO (plain old Java objects), but they also have some methods. The application is not too big so I have around 15 model classes. Coupling: Just to give an example, think of a simple case of Order Header - Order Item. The header knows the item and the item knows the header (needs some information from the header for performing certain operations). Then, let's say there is the relationship between Order Item - Item Report. The item report needs the item as well. At this point, imagine writing tests for Item Report; you need have a Order Header to carry out the tests. This is a simple case with 3 classes; things get more complicated with more classes. I can come up with decoupled classes when I design algorithms, persistence layers, UI interactions, etc... but with model classes, I can't think of a way to separate them. They currently sit as one big chunk of classes that depend on each other. Here are some workarounds that I can think of: Data Generators: I have a package that generates sample data for my model classes. For example, the OrderHeaderGenerator class creates OrderHeaders with some basic data in it. I use the OrderHeaderGenerator from my ItemReport unit-tests so that I get an instance to OrderHeader class. The problem is these generators get complicated pretty fast and then I also need to test these generators; defeating the purpose a little bit. Interfaces instead of dependencies: I can come up with interfaces to get rid of the hard dependencies. For example, the OrderItem class would depend on the IOrderHeader interface. So, in my unit tests, I can easily mock the behaviour of an OrderHeader with a FakeOrderHeader class that implements the IOrderHeader interface. The problem with this approach is the complexity that the Model classes would end up having. Would you have other ideas on how to break this coupling in the model classes? Or, how to make it easier to unit-test the model classes?

    Read the article

  • Stylecop 4.7.36.0 is out!

    - by TATWORTH
    Stylecop 4.7.36.0 has been released at http://stylecop.codeplex.com/releases/view/79972This is an update to coincide with the latest ReSharper. The full fix list is:4.7.36.0 (508dbac00ffc)=======================Fix for 7344. Don't throw 1126 inside default expressions.Fix for 7371. Compare Namespace parts using the CurrentCulture and not InvariantCulture.Fix for 7386. Don't throw casing violations for filed names in languages that do not support case (like Chinese). Added new tests.fix for 7380. Catch Exception caused by CRM Toolkit.Update ReSharper 7.0 dependency to 7.0.1 (7.0.1098.2760)Fix for 7358. Use the RuleId in the call to MSBuild Logging.Fix for 7348. Update suggestion text for constructors.Fix for 7364. Don't throw 1126 for New Array Expressions.Fix for 7372. Throw 1126 inside catch blocks wasn't working. Add new tests.Fix for 7369. Await is allowed to be inside parenthesis. Add new tests.Fix testsCorrect styling issues.Fix for 7373. Typeparam violations were not being thrown in all cases. Added new tests.Fix for 7361. Rule 1120 was logging against the root element and so Suppressions wouldn't work. Fixed and added tests.Updating de-DE resources - from Michael Diermeier - thank you.Change for 7368. Add the violation count into the Task outputs.Fix for 7383. Fix for memory leak in plugins.Update environment to detect ReSharper 7Fix for 7378. Null reference exception from command line run in message output.Update release history.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >