Search Results

Search found 7802 results on 313 pages for 'unit tests'.

Page 50/313 | < Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >

  • Testing subpackage modules in Python 3

    - by Mitchell Model
    I have been experimenting with various uses of hierarchies like this and the differences between absolute and relative imports, and can't figure out how to do routine things with the package, subpackages, and modules without simply putting everything on sys.path. I have a two-level package hierarchy: MyApp __init__.py Application __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... Domain __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... UI __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... I want to be able to do the following: Run test code in a Module's "if main" when the module imports from other modules in the same directory. Have one or more test code modules in each subpackage that runs unit tests on the modules in the subpackage. Have a set of unit tests that reside in someplace reasonable, but outside the subpackages, either in a sibling package, at the top-level package, or outside the top-level package (though all these might end up doing is running the tests in each subpackage) "Enter" the structure from any of the three subpackage levels, e.g. run code that just uses Domain modules, run code that just uses Application modules, but Application uses code from both Application and Domain modules, and run code from GUI uses code from both GUI and Application; for instance, Application test code would import Application modules but not Domain modules. After developing the bulk of the code without subpackages, continue developing and testing after organizing the modules into this hierarchy. I know how to use relative imports so that external code that puts MyApp on its sys.path can import MyApp, import any subpackages it wants, and import things from their modules, while the modules in each subpackage can import other modules from the same subpackage or from sibling packages. However, the development needs listed above seem incompatible with subpackage structuring -- in other words, I can't have it both ways: a well-structured multi-level package hierarchy used from the outside and also used from within, in particular for testing but also because modules from one design level (in particular the UI) should not import modules from a design level below the next one down. Sorry for the long essay, but I think it fairly represents the struggles a lot of people have been having adopting to the new relative import mechanisms.

    Read the article

  • Should the code being tested compile to a DLL or an executable file?

    - by uriDium
    I have a solution with two projects. One for project for the production code and another project for the unit tests. I did this as per the suggestions I got here from SO. I noticed that in the Debug Folder that it includes the production code in executable form. I used NUnit to run the tests after removing the executable and they all fail trying to find the executable. So it definitely is trying to find it. I then did a quick read to find out which is better, a DLL or an executable. It seems that an DLL is much faster as they share memory space where communication between executables is slower. Unforunately our production code needs to be an exectuable. So the unit tests will be slightly slower. I am not too worried about that. But the project does rely on code written in another library which is also in executable format at the moment. Should the projects that expose some sort of SDK rather be compiled to an DLL and then the projects that use the SDK be compiled to executable?

    Read the article

  • How to map a test onto a list of numbers

    - by Arthur Ulfeldt
    I have a function with a bug: user> (-> 42 int-to-bytes bytes-to-int) 42 user> (-> 128 int-to-bytes bytes-to-int) -128 user> looks like I need to handle overflow when converting back... Better write a test to make sure this never happens again. This project is using clojure.contrib.test-is so i write: (deftest int-to-bytes-to-int (let [lots-of-big-numbers (big-test-numbers)] (map #(is (= (-> % int-to-bytes bytes-to-int) %)) lots-of-big-numbers))) This should be testing converting to a seq of bytes and back again produces the origional result on a list of 10000 random numbers. Looks OK in theory? except none of the tests ever run. Testing com.cryptovide.miscTest Ran 23 tests containing 34 assertions. 0 failures, 0 errors. why don't the tests run? what can I do to make them run?

    Read the article

  • Mocking non-virtual methods in C++ without editing production code?

    - by wk1989
    Hello, I am a fairly new software developer currently working adding unit tests to an existing C++ project that started years ago. Due to a non-technical reason, I'm not allowed to modify any existing code. The base class of all my modules has a bunch of methods for Setting/Getting data and communicating with other modules. Since I just want to unit testing each individual module, I want to be able to use canned values for all my inter-module communication methods. I.e. for a method Ping() which checks if another module is active, I want to have it return true or false based on what kind of test I'm doing. I've been looking into Google Test and Google Mock, and it does support mocking non-virtual methods. However the approach described (http://code.google.com/p/googlemock/wiki/CookBook#Mocking_Nonvirtual_Methods) requires me to "templatize" the original methods to take in either real or mock objects. I can't go and templatize my methods in the base class due to the requirement mentioned earlier, so I need some other way of mocking these virtual methods Basically, the methods I want to mock are in some base class, the modules I want to unit test and create mocks of are derived classes of that base class. There are intermediate modules in between my base Module class and the modules that I want to test. I would appreciate any advise! Thanks, JW EDIT: A more concrete examples My base class is lets say rootModule, the module I want to test is leafModule. There is an intermediate module which inherits from rootModule, leafModule inherits from this intermediate module. In my leafModule, I want to test the doStuff() method, which calls the non virtual GetStatus(moduleName) defined in the rootModule class. I need to somehow make GetStatus() to return a chosen canned value. Mocking is new to me, so is using mock objects even the right approach?

    Read the article

  • Does new JUnit 4.8 @Category render test suites almost obsolete?

    - by grigory
    Given question 'How to run all tests belonging to a certain Category?' and the answer would the following approach be better for test organization? define master test suite that contains all tests (e.g. using ClasspathSuite) design sufficient set of JUnit categories (sufficient means that every desirable collection of sets is identifiable using one or more categories) define targeted test suites based on master test suite and set of categories For example: identify categories for speed (slow, fast), dependencies (mock, database, integration), function (), domain ( demand that each test is properly qualified (tagged) with relevant set of categories. create master test suite using ClasspathSuite (all tests found in classpath) create targeted suites by qualifying master test suite with categories, e.g. mock test suite, fast database test suite, slow integration for domain X test suite, etc. My question is more like soliciting approval rate for such approach vs. classic test suite approach. One unbeatable benefit is that every new test is immediately contained by relevant suites with no suite maintenance. One concern is proper categorization of each test.

    Read the article

  • How do I prevent qFatal() from aborting the application?

    - by Dave
    My Qt application uses Q_ASSERT_X, which calls qFatal(), which (by default) aborts the application. That's great for the application, but I'd like to suppress that behavior when unit testing the application. (I'm using the Google Test Framework.) I have by unit tests in a separate project, statically linking to the class I'm testing. The documentation for qFatal() reads: Calls the message handler with the fatal message msg. If no message handler has been installed, the message is printed to stderr. Under Windows, the message is sent to the debugger. If you are using the default message handler this function will abort on Unix systems to create a core dump. On Windows, for debug builds, this function will report a _CRT_ERROR enabling you to connect a debugger to the application. ... To supress the output at runtime, install your own message handler with qInstallMsgHandler(). So here's my main.cpp file: #include <gtest/gtest.h> #include <QApplication> void testMessageOutput(QtMsgType type, const char *msg) { switch (type) { case QtDebugMsg: fprintf(stderr, "Debug: %s\n", msg); break; case QtWarningMsg: fprintf(stderr, "Warning: %s\n", msg); break; case QtCriticalMsg: fprintf(stderr, "Critical: %s\n", msg); break; case QtFatalMsg: fprintf(stderr, "My Fatal: %s\n", msg); break; } } int main(int argc, char **argv) { qInstallMsgHandler(testMessageOutput); testing::InitGoogleTest(&argc, argv); return RUN_ALL_TESTS(); } But my application is still stopping at the assert. I can tell that my custom handler is being called, because the output when running my tests is: My Fatal: ASSERT failure in MyClass::doSomething: "doSomething()", file myclass.cpp, line 21 The program has unexpectedly finished. What can I do so that my tests keep running even when an assert fails?

    Read the article

  • implementation musical instrument using audio unit

    - by Develop.Kim
    post same question at apple developer forum ,too hi first sorry that my english is poor.. i want develop iphone application that playing musical instrument like 'ocarina' but don't need blow mic features. so first i tried to find that how implementation 'virtual musical instrument ' in iphone development. the during the decide implementation using 'Audio Unit' to report this article (link) so i want two kind of questions. i recognize that the 'musical instrument' can be divided into three sound that 'attack', 'sustain' , 'release'. 'decay' maybe included (link) . How implementation when audio unit base 'AUInstrumentBase' each sound ? i download sample 'SinSynth' (link) . i want play note this instrument unit for analyze source and study. Is there way to using AULab? expected the way using MIDI input . but i don't have MIDI. in addition, i wonder that i would think it right the way. to ask the advice... thank for reading poor english my article.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing a 'legacy' WPF Application

    - by sc_ray
    The product I have been working on has been in development for the past six years. It started as a generic data entry portal into an insanely complex part WPF/part legacy application. The system has been developed for all these years without a single Unit test in its fold. Now, the point has been raised for a comprehensive unit testing framework. I have been recruited recently to work on this product and have been tasked to get the 'Testing' in order. Since the team that worked on the product for the last six years adopted 'Agile', the project lacks any documentation of the business rules or any design documents. I have been trying to write unit tests for some of the modules. But I am not sure what to Mock, how to setup my Test fixture and eventually what to Test for, since a casual glance of the methods does not reveal its intentions. Also, it has come to my attention that the code was not developed with a particular methodology in mind. Given the situation, I was wondering if the good people of Stackoverflow could provide me with some advise on how to salvage this situation. I have heard about the book 'Working with Legacy Code' that has something to say about this general situation but I was thinking about getting some pointers from individuals who have encountered similar situations within the technology stack(C#,VB,C++,.NET 3.5,WCF,SQL Server 2005).

    Read the article

  • White-box testing in Javascript - how to deal with privacy?

    - by Max Shawabkeh
    I'm writing unit tests for a module in a small Javascript application. In order to keep the interface clean, some of the implementation details are closed over by an anonymous function (the usual JS pattern for privacy). However, while testing I need to access/mock/verify the private parts. Most of the tests I've written previously have been in Python, where there are no real private variables (members, identifiers, whatever you want to call them). One simply suggests privacy via a leading underscore for the users, and freely ignores it while testing the code. In statically typed OO languages I suppose one could make private members accessible to tests by converting them to be protected and subclassing the object to be tested. In Javascript, the latter doesn't apply, while the former seems like bad practice. I could always wall back to black box testing and simply check the final results. It's the simplest and cleanest approach, but unfortunately not really detailed enough for my needs. So, is there a standard way of keeping variables private while still retaining some backdoors for testing in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • How can this Ambient Context become null?

    - by Mark Seemann
    Can anyone help me explain how TimeProvider.Current can become null in the following class? public abstract class TimeProvider { private static TimeProvider current = DefaultTimeProvider.Instance; public static TimeProvider Current { get { return TimeProvider.current; } set { if (value == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("value"); } TimeProvider.current = value; } } public abstract DateTime UtcNow { get; } public static void ResetToDefault() { TimeProvider.current = DefaultTimeProvider.Instance; } } Observations All unit tests that directly reference TimeProvider also invokes ResetToDefault() in their Fixture Teardown. There is no multithreaded code involved. Once in a while, one of the unit tests fail because TimeProvider.Current is null (NullReferenceException is thrown). This only happens when I run the entire suite, but not when I just run a single unit test, suggesting to me that there is some subtle test interdependence going on. It happens approximately once every five or six test runs. When a failure occurs, it seems to be occuring in the first executed tests that involves TimeProvider.Current. More than one test can fail, but only one fails in a given test run. FWIW, here's the DefaultTimeProvider class as well: public class DefaultTimeProvider : TimeProvider { private readonly static DefaultTimeProvider instance = new DefaultTimeProvider(); private DefaultTimeProvider() { } public override DateTime UtcNow { get { return DateTime.UtcNow; } } public static DefaultTimeProvider Instance { get { return DefaultTimeProvider.instance; } } } I suspect that there's some subtle interplay going on with static initialization where the runtime is actually allowed to access TimeProvider.Current before all static initialization has finished, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Any help is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Catch test case order [on hold]

    - by DeadMG
    Can I guarantee the order of execution with multiple TEST_CASEs with Catch? I am testing some code using LLVM, and they have some despicable global state that I need to explicitly initialize. Right now I have one test case that's like this: TEST_CASE("", "") { // Initialize really shitty LLVM global variables. llvm::InitializeAllTargets(); llvm::InitializeAllTargetMCs(); llvm::InitializeAllAsmPrinters(); llvm::InitializeNativeTarget(); llvm::InitializeAllAsmParsers(); // Some per-test setup I can make into its own function CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Interpret(...)); CHECK_THROWS(Compile(...)); CHECK_THROWS(Compile(...)); } What I want is to refactor it into three TEST_CASE, one for tests that should pass compilation, one for tests that should fail, and -one for tests that should pass interpretation (and in the future, further such divisions, perhaps). But I can't simply move the test contents into another TEST_CASE because if that TEST_CASE is called before the one that sets up the inconvenient globals, then they won't be initialized and the testing will spuriously fail.

    Read the article

  • Quick, Linux-compatible unit-aware calculator

    - by endolith
    I want to be able to press a keyboard combination, start typing a mathematical expression that includes units and slightly advanced math (not just a four-function calculator), and get a result immediately, in units that I specify, that I can copy and paste. Currently I open Firefox and press Ctrl+K, type in the search box, and it usually gives me a result in the drop-down from Google Calculator. It doesn't always, though, so I press "=" at the end, wait for a result, remove the equals, wait for a result, realize it doesn't understand the way I typed a unit, open the result in a new tab, etc. it sucks. Wolfram Alpha is smarter, but very much slower, and the output is all images, not text, and I don't have a quick widget for it, if such a thing could even exist. GNU units has a ton of units, which is great, and I can define my own units, which is great, but they have to be written in specific, unintuitive ways, it doesn't handle much advanced math, and I'd need to open a terminal, start units, etc. I hate the command line. I wasted a lot of time trying to make front-ends for units in Deskbar and Launchy, but I'm not a real coder and I don't use either of those anymore. Any other solutions or enhancements of these?

    Read the article

  • Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-After

    - by Timothy Klenke
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-after.aspxIn this post I’m going to outline a few common methods that can be used to increase the coverage of of your test suite.  This won’t be yet another post on why you should be doing testing; there are plenty of those types of posts already out there.  Assuming you know you should be testing, then comes the problem of how do I actual fit that into my day job.  When the opportunity to automate testing comes do you take it, or do you even recognize it? There are a lot of ways (workflows) to go about creating automated tests, just like there are many workflows to writing a program.  When writing a program you can do it from a top-down approach where you write the main skeleton of the algorithm and call out to dummy stub functions, or a bottom-up approach where the low level functionality is fully implement before it is quickly wired together at the end.  Both approaches are perfectly valid under certain contexts. Each approach you are skilled at applying is another tool in your tool belt.  The more vectors of attack you have on a problem – the better.  So here is a short, incomplete list of some of the workflows that can be applied to increasing the amount of automation in your testing and level of quality in general.  Think of each workflow as an opportunity that is available for you to take. Test workflows basically fall into 2 categories:  test first or test after.  Test first is the best approach.  However, this post isn’t about the one and only best approach.  I want to focus more on the lesser known, less ideal approaches that still provide an opportunity for adding tests.  In this post I’ll enumerate some test-after workflows.  In my next post I’ll cover test-first. Bug Reporting When someone calls you up or forwards you a email with a vague description of a bug its usually standard procedure to create or verify a reproduction plan for the bug via manual testing and log that in a bug tracking system.  This can be problematic.  Often reproduction plans when written down might skip a step that seemed obvious to the tester at the time or they might be missing some crucial environment setting. Instead of data entry into a bug tracking system, try opening up the test project and adding a failing unit test to prove the bug.  The test project guarantees that all aspects of the environment are setup properly and no steps are missing.  The language in the test project is much more precise than the English that goes into a bug tracking system. This workflow can easily be extended for Enhancement Requests as well as Bug Reporting. Exploratory Testing Exploratory testing comes in when you aren’t sure how the system will behave in a new scenario.  The scenario wasn’t planned for in the initial system requirements and there isn’t an existing test for it.  By definition the system behaviour is “undefined”. So write a new unit test to define that behaviour.  Add assertions to the tests to confirm your assumptions.  The new test becomes part of the living system specification that is kept up to date with the test suite. Examples This workflow is especially good when developing APIs.  When you are finally done your production API then comes the job of writing documentation on how to consume the API.  Good documentation will also include code examples.  Don’t let these code examples merely exist in some accompanying manual; implement them in a test suite. Example tests and documentation do not have to be created after the production API is complete.  It is best to write the example code (tests) as you go just before the production code. Smoke Tests Every system has a typical use case.  This represents the basic, core functionality of the system.  If this fails after an upgrade the end users will be hosed and they will be scratching their heads as to how it could be possible that an update got released with this core functionality broken. The tests for this core functionality are referred to as “smoke tests”.  It is a good idea to have them automated and run with each build in order to avoid extreme embarrassment and angry customers. Coverage Analysis Code coverage analysis is a tool that reports how much of the production code base is exercised by the test suite.  In Visual Studio this can be found under the Test main menu item. The tool will report a total number for the code coverage, which can be anywhere between 0 and 100%.  Coverage Analysis shouldn’t be used strictly for numbers reporting.  Companies shouldn’t set minimum coverage targets that mandate that all projects must have at least 80% or 100% test coverage.  These arbitrary requirements just invite gaming of the coverage analysis, which makes the numbers useless. The analysis tool will break down the coverage by the various classes and methods in projects.  Instead of focusing on the total number, drill down into this view and see which classes have high or low coverage.  It you are surprised by a low number on a class this is an opportunity to add tests. When drilling through the classes there will be generally two types of reaction to a surprising low test coverage number.  The first reaction type is a recognition that there is low hanging fruit to be picked.  There may be some classes or methods that aren’t being tested, which could easy be.  The other reaction type is “OMG”.  This were you find a critical piece of code that isn’t under test.  In both cases, go and add the missing tests. Test Refactoring The general theme of this post up to this point has been how to add more and more tests to a test suite.  I’ll step back from that a bit and remind that every line of code is a liability.  Each line of code has to be read and maintained, which costs money.  This is true regardless whether the code is production code or test code. Remember that the primary goal of the test suite is that it be easy to read so that people can easily determine the specifications of the system.  Make sure that adding more and more tests doesn’t interfere with this primary goal. Perform code reviews on the test suite as often as on production code.  Hold the test code up to the same high readability standards as the production code.  If the tests are hard to read then change them.  Look to remove duplication.  Duplicate setup code between two or more test methods that can be moved to a shared function.  Entire test methods can be removed if it is found that the scenario it tests is covered by other tests.  Its OK to delete a test that isn’t pulling its own weight anymore. Remember to only start refactoring when all the test are green.  Don’t refactor the tests and the production code at the same time.  An automated test suite can be thought of as a double entry book keeping system.  The unchanging, passing production code serves as the tests for the test suite while refactoring the tests. As with all refactoring, it is best to fit this into your regular work rather than asking for time later to get it done.  Fit this into the standard red-green-refactor cycle.  The refactor step no only applies to production code but also the tests, but not at the same time.  Perhaps the cycle should be called red-green-refactor production-refactor tests (not quite as catchy).   That about covers most of the test-after workflows I can think of.  In my next post I’ll get into test-first workflows.

    Read the article

  • Optimal Networking Setup for a 2-Story unit?

    - by user29336
    I am moving into a 4 bedroom two-story unit. It’s roughly 2,200 sq ft. I want absolute max throughput possible to be achieved in all focal points. We’re all in internet related industries. Between gaming and web-development latency and throughput are major factors for us. Here’s our main focal points: 1) Garage (office). downstairs 2) Each bedroom x4. upstairs 3) Living room. downstairs The fastest line we can get is Comcast 50mbdown/5up (Wideband). I am looking for the best way to achieve wireless and wired performance for our setup. Our gaming computers may be in our bedroom, and we also may bring it down to the office every now and then for “LAN” sessions. Most wireless will be happening downstairs with our laptops, but since we may do LAN sessions then hard wired latency may be important there too. My concerns: If we do only wireless there would be too much latency for gaming. I don’t know if placing one D-link DGL 4500 on the top floor would be enough; which I currently own. (http://dlink.com/us/en/home-solutions/support/product/dgl-4500-xtreme-n-gaming-router) As far as I’m aware wireless signals transfer best top down. Would this wireless router be enough on top floor and that’s it? My second strategy was a combination of wiring and wireless but I’m not sure what’s easiest way to do this? This is a place we’re renting, so I’m not sure how much leeway we have with wiring, but we’re all pretty competent... if we can’t drill through a wall we can probably “stitch” them across the edges wherever needed. Thoughts on the optimal way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Should tests be in the same ruby file or in separeted ruby files?

    - by Junior Mayhé
    While using Selenium and Ruby to do some functional tests, I am worried with the performance. So is it better to add all test methods in the same ruby file, or I should put each one in separated code files? Below a sample with all tests in the same file: # encoding: utf-8 require "selenium-webdriver" require "test/unit" class Tests < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @driver = Selenium::WebDriver.for :firefox @base_url = "http://mysite" @driver.manage.timeouts.implicit_wait = 30 @verification_errors = [] @wait = Selenium::WebDriver::Wait.new :timeout => 10 end def teardown @driver.quit assert_equal [], @verification_errors end def element_present?(how, what) @driver.find_element(how, what) true rescue Selenium::WebDriver::Error::NoSuchElementError false end def verify(&blk) yield rescue Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError => ex @verification_errors << ex end def test_1 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_2 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_3 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_4 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_5 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end end

    Read the article

  • Using automated bdd-gui-tests to keep user-documentation-screenshots up do date?

    - by k3b
    Are there developpers out there, who (ab)use the CaptureScreenshot() function of their automated gui-tests to also create uptodate-screenshots for the userdocumentation? Background: Whithin the lifetime of an application, its gui-elements are constantly changing. It makes a lot of work to keep the userdocumentation uptodate, especially if the example data in the pictures should match the textual description. If you already have automated bdd-gui-tests why not let them take screenshots at certain points? I am currently playing with webapps in dotnet+specflow+selenium, but this topic also applies to other bdd-engines (JRuby-Cucumber, mspec, rspec, ...) and gui-test-Frameworks (WaitN, WaitR, MsWhite, ....) Any experience, thoughts or url-links to this topic would be helpfull. How is the cost/benefit relation? Is it worth the efford? What are the Drawbacks? See also: Is it practical to retroactively write specifications documenting a system via automated acceptance tests?

    Read the article

  • At which architecture level are you running BDD tests (e.g. Cucumber)

    - by Pete
    I have in the last year gotten quite fond of using SpecFlow (which is a .NET port of Cucumber) I have used it both to test a ASP.NET MVC application at the web layer, i.e. using browser automation, but also at the controller layer. The first gives me a higher confidence in the correctness of the application, because JavaScript is tested, and improper controller configuration is also caught. But those tests are slower to execute, and more complex to implement, than those just testing on the controller layer. My tests are full functional tests, i.e. they exercise all layers of the application, all the way down to the database. So the first thing before any scenario is that the database is cleared of data, allowing the test to assume that only data specified in the "Given" block exists. Then I see example on how to use it, where they test just exercise the model layer. So what are your experiences with these tools? Which layer of the application do you test?

    Read the article

  • Should tests be in the same Ruby file or in separated Ruby files?

    - by Junior Mayhé
    While using Selenium and Ruby to do some functional tests, I am worried with the performance. So is it better to add all test methods in the same Ruby file, or I should put each one in separated code files? Below a sample with all tests in the same file: # encoding: utf-8 require "selenium-webdriver" require "test/unit" class Tests < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @driver = Selenium::WebDriver.for :firefox @base_url = "http://mysite" @driver.manage.timeouts.implicit_wait = 30 @verification_errors = [] @wait = Selenium::WebDriver::Wait.new :timeout => 10 end def teardown @driver.quit assert_equal [], @verification_errors end def element_present?(how, what) @driver.find_element(how, what) true rescue Selenium::WebDriver::Error::NoSuchElementError false end def verify(&blk) yield rescue Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError => ex @verification_errors << ex end def test_1 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_2 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_3 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_4 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_5 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end end

    Read the article

  • Why not write all tests at once when doing TDD? [closed]

    - by RichK
    Possible Duplicate: Why not write all tests at once when doing TDD? The Red - Green - Refactor cycle for TDD is well established and accepted. We write one failing unit test and make it pass as simply as possible. What are the benefits to this approach over writing many failing unit tests for a class and make them all pass in one go. The test suite still protects you against writing incorrect code or making mistakes in the refactoring stage, and code coverage should be just as high, so what's the harm? Sometimes it's easier to write all the tests first as a form of 'brain dump' to quickly write down all the expected behavior in one go.

    Read the article

  • Unit Tests in Visual Studio 2010

    - by Ben
    Hi, i am trying to create a Unit test for a WinForm in a Visual Studio 2010 project. I add a new "Coded UI Test" to my project, open up the code file, then right click and select "Generate Code for Coded UI Test" - "Use Coded UI Test builder". I then start my application up, select "Record" on the UI Map control. I run my tests (in this case simply select a textbox, type in a random value, them click a button). I then select "Generate Code" from the UI Map control which generates the code which the test will use. When running this test, i get the error: Test method HelloWorldTest.CodedUITest1.CodedUITestMethod1 threw exception: Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UITest.Extension.UITestControlNotFoundException: The playback failed to find the control with the given search properties. Additional Details: TechnologyName: 'MSAA' ControlType: 'Window' Name: 'Form1' ClassName: 'WindowsForms10.Window' --- System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException: Error HRESULT E_FAIL has been returned from a call to a COM component. Does anyone know where i am going wrong? Thanks

    Read the article

  • CompliationLock throws HttpException when registering areas for ASP.NET MVC unit tests

    - by patridge
    The moment I added a unit test to my ASP.NET MVC application to test some of the area routing, I got an HttpException coming out of the System.Web.Complication.CompilationLock type initializer with the following stack trace. System.Web.HttpException : The type initializer for 'System.Web.Compilation.CompilationLock' threw an exception. ----> System.TypeInitializationException : The type initializer for 'System.Web.Compilation.CompilationLock' threw an exception. ----> System.NullReferenceException : Object reference not set to an instance of an object. at System.Web.Compilation.BuildManager.ReportTopLevelCompilationException() at System.Web.Compilation.BuildManager.EnsureTopLevelFilesCompiled() at System.Web.Compilation.BuildManager.GetReferencedAssemblies() at System.Web.Mvc.BuildManagerWrapper.System.Web.Mvc.IBuildManager.GetReferencedAssemblies() at System.Web.Mvc.TypeCacheUtil.FilterTypesInAssemblies(IBuildManager buildManager, Predicate`1 predicate) at System.Web.Mvc.TypeCacheUtil.GetFilteredTypesFromAssemblies(String cacheName, Predicate`1 predicate, IBuildManager buildManager) at System.Web.Mvc.AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas(RouteCollection routes, IBuildManager buildManager, Object state) at System.Web.Mvc.AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas(Object state) at System.Web.Mvc.AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas() at StpWeb.MvcApplication.RegisterRoutes(RouteCollection routes) in Global.asax.cs: line 16 at StpWeb.Tests.RoutesTest.TestFixtureSetUp() in RoutesTest.cs: line 11 --TypeInitializationException at System.Web.Compilation.CompilationLock.GetLock(ref Boolean gotLock) at System.Web.Compilation.BuildManager.EnsureTopLevelFilesCompiled() --NullReferenceException at System.Web.Compilation.CompilationLock..cctor()

    Read the article

  • "Forked Java VM exited abnormally" error from junit tests

    - by Alb
    I have a java junit test that passes when run alone on a development machine. We also have a hudson job which runs all the tests, invoked via ant, on a Mac OS X 10.4 node with Java 1.5. The test was passing in the hudson build until recently but now (with no related code changes) one test fails everytime with the following error: Error Message Forked Java VM exited abnormally. Please note the time in the report does not reflect the time until the VM exit. Stacktrace junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Forked Java VM exited abnormally. Please note the time in the report does not reflect the time until the VM exit. googling shows many others seem to have run into the same problem but there I couldn't find any answer.

    Read the article

  • Self Assessment Tests for Programmers

    - by THX1138.6
    I want to help the Dev team identify areas of knowledge (practical and theoretical) that they can work on. Though I am big believer in focusing on people's strengths being a good programmer requires (I think) being challenged by concepts and ideas that don't always come naturally. We work largely in the web app space using PHP & MySQL but better skills in data modelling, query optimisation, use of MVC and OOP etc. would help the team and the company a lot. I want to help the Dev team manage their careers, explore and expand their skills sets. Be all they can be and better than they were previously. I know its an idealistic goal but work must be about more than simply getting the work done. There should be some time to review, to learn, to grow and get better. Any thoughts, ideas, opinions and directions to tests or similar resources would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Sef-packed training kit practice tests

    - by Costa
    Hi I have a book called .Net framework 2.0 application development foundation, self-packed training kit by Tony Northup and Shawn wildermuth. the book CD contains practice tests, Can I rely on this CD to take the exam, or it will be just like the book itself, a wast of money? someone rely on it and success? I am not talking about memorizing or cheating the exam I am talking about studying and practice it. Also When I visit MS website they did not determine the number of questions, type of questions, or the time, someone have this info? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Self Assesstment Tests for Programmers

    - by THX1138.6
    I want to help the Dev team identify areas of knowledge (practical and theoretical) that they can work on. Though I am big believer in focusing on people's strengths being a good programmer requires (I think) being challenged by concepts and ideas that don't always come naturally. We work largely in the web app space using PHP & MySQL but better skills in data modelling, query optimisation, use of MVC and OOP etc. would help the team and the company a lot. I want to help the Dev team manage their careers, explore and expand their skills sets. Be all they can be and better than they were previously. I know its an idealistic goal but work must be about more than simply getting the work done. There should be some time to review, to learn, to grow and get better. Any thoughts, ideas, opinions and directions to tests or similar resources would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >