Search Results

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

Page 55/313 | < Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >

• Will IOC solve our problems?

  - by user127954

  Just trying to implement unit testing into a brownfield type system. Be aware i'm relatively new into the unit testing world. Its going to be a gradual migration of course because there are just so many areas of pain. The current problem i'm trying to solve is we followed a lot of bad practices from our VB6 days and in the conversion of our app to .Net. We have LOT AN LOTS of shared/static functions which call other shared functions and those call others and so on. Sometimes depedencies are passed in as parameters and sometimes they are just newed up within the calling function. I've already instructed our developers to stop creating shared functions and instead create instance members and only use those instance members off of interfaces but that doesn't alleviate the current situation. So you must recursively pass in each and every dependency at the top layer for each function in your code path and method signatures are turning into a mess. I'm hoping this is something that IOC will fix. Currently we are using NUnit/Moq and i'm starting to investigate StructureMap. So far i understand that you pretty much tell StructureMap for x interface i want to default to the concrete class y: ObjectFactory.Initialize(x=>{x.ForRequestType<IInterface>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<MyClass>()}); Then to runtime: var mytype = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IInterface>(); the IOC container will initialize the correct type for you. Not sure yet how to swap a fake in for the concrete type but hopefully thats simple. Again will IOC solve the problems i was talking about above? Is there a specific IOC framework that will do it better than StructureMap or can they all handle this situation. Any help would be much appreciated.

  Read the article

• Create System.Data.Linq.Table in Code for Testing

  - by S. DePouw

  I have an adapter class for Linq-to-Sql: public interface IAdapter : IDisposable { Table<Data.User> Activities { get; } } Data.User is an object defined by Linq-to-Sql pointing to the User table in persistence. The implementation for this is as follows: public class Adapter : IAdapter { private readonly SecretDataContext _context = new SecretDataContext(); public void Dispose() { _context.Dispose(); } public Table<Data.User> Users { get { return _context.Users; } } } This makes mocking the persistence layer easy in unit testing, as I can just return whatever collection of data I want for Users (Rhino.Mocks): Expect.Call(_adapter.Users).Return(users); The problem is that I cannot create the object 'users' since the constructors are not accessible and the class Table is sealed. One option I tried is to just make IAdapter return IEnumerable or IQueryable, but the problem there is that I then do not have access to the methods ITable provides (e.g. InsertOnSubmit()). Is there a way I can create the fake Table in the unit test scenario so that I may be a happy TDD developer?

  Read the article

• asp mvc unit test HttpContext.Current.Cache?

  - by Paul Creasey

  Here is the first part of my controller code: public class ControlMController : Controller { IControlMService _controlMservice; public IList<User> Users { get { if (System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Cache["users"] == null) { System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Cache["users"] = _controlMservice.GetUsers(); } return (IList<User>)System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Cache["users"]; } } public ControlMController(IControlMService controlMservice) { this._controlMservice = controlMservice; var users = Users; ViewData["Users"] = users; ViewData["jqSelectUsers"] = string.Join(";", users.Select(x => x.UserID + ":" + x.Name).ToArray()); } I'm trying to test it, and because i'm caching using the HttpContext, i'm struggling with null reference exceptions. I've tried using MvcContrib.TestHelper; here is my sample test... [TestMethod] public void EventDetails_Returns_view_with_correct_event() { var builder = new TestControllerBuilder(); var controller = builder.CreateController<ControlMController>( new ControlMService( new MockControlMRepository() )); var view = (controller.EventDetails(1) as ViewResult); Assert.AreEqual(1, (view.ViewData.Model as Event).EventId); } (I haven't quite got round to using DI for my tests! I'm still getting the same null reference exception when the code hits the httpcontext: Error 1 TestCase 'SupportTool.Tests.Services.ControlM.ControlMControllerTests.EventDetails_Returns_view_with_correct_event' failed: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. at SupportTool.web.Controllers.ControlMController.get_Users() Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Mocking with Boost::Test

  - by Billy ONeal

  Hello everyone :) I'm using the Boost::Test library for unit testing, and I've in general been hacking up my own mocking solutions that look something like this: //In header for clients struct RealFindFirstFile { static HANDLE FindFirst(LPCWSTR lpFileName, LPWIN32_FIND_DATAW lpFindFileData) { return FindFirstFile(lpFileName, lpFindFileData); }; }; template <typename FirstFile_T = RealFindFirstFile> class DirectoryIterator { //.. Implementation } //In unit tests (cpp) #define THE_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_THE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING 42 struct FakeFindFirstFile { static HANDLE FindFirst(LPCWSTR lpFileName, LPWIN32_FIND_DATAW lpFindFileData) { return THE_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_THE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING; }; }; BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( MyTest ) { DirectoryIterator<FakeFindFirstFile> LookMaImMocked; //Test } I've grown frustrated with this because it requires that I implement almost everything as a template, and it is a lot of boilerplate code to achieve what I'm looking for. Is there a good method of mocking up code using Boost::Test over my Ad-hoc method? I've seen several people recommend Google Mock, but it requires a lot of ugly hacks if your functions are not virtual, which I would like to avoid. Oh: One last thing. I don't need assertions that a particular piece of code was called. I simply need to be able to inject data that would normally be returned by Windows API functions.

  Read the article

• Array help needed for unit conversion application

  - by Manolis

  I have a project to do in Visual Basic. My problem is that the outcome is always wrong (ex. instead of 2011 it gives 2000). And i cannot set as Desired unit the Inch(1) or feet(3), it gives the Infinity error. And if i put as Original and Desired unit the inch(1), the outcome is "Not a Number". Here's the code i made so far. The project is about arrays. Any help appreciated. Public Class Form1 Private Sub btnConvert_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles btnConvert.Click Dim original(9) As Long Dim desired(9) As Long Dim a As Integer Dim o As Integer Dim d As Integer Dim inch As Long, fathom As Long, furlong As Long, kilometer As Long Dim meter As Long, miles As Long, rod As Long, yard As Long, feet As Long a = Val(Input3.Text) o = Val(Input1.Text) d = Val(Input2.Text) inch& = 0.0833 rod& = 16.5 yard& = 3 furlong& = 660 meter& = 3.28155 kilometer& = 3281.5 fathom& = 6 miles& = 5280 original(1) = inch original(2) = fathom original(3) = feet original(4) = furlong original(5) = kilometer original(6) = meter original(7) = miles original(8) = rod original(9) = yard desired(1) = inch desired(2) = fathom desired(3) = feet desired(4) = furlong desired(5) = kilometer desired(6) = meter desired(7) = miles desired(8) = rod desired(9) = yard If o < 1 Or o > 9 Or d < 1 Or d > 9 Then MessageBox.Show("Units must range from 1-9.", "Error", _ MessageBoxButtons.OK, _ MessageBoxIcon.Information) Return End If Output.Text = (a * original(o)) / desired(d) End Sub End Class

  Read the article

• Creating Dependencies Only to be able to Unit Test

  - by arin

  I just created a Manager that deals with a SuperClass that is extended all over the code base and registered with some sort of SuperClassManager (SCM). Now I would like to test my Manager that is aware of only the SuperClass. I tried to create a concrete SCM, however, that depends on a third party library and therefore I failed to do that in my jUnit test. Now the option is to mock all instances of this SCM. All is good until now, however, when my Manager deals with the SCM, it returns children of the SuperClass that my Manager does not know or care about. Nevertheless, the identities of these children are vital for my tests (for equality, etc.). Since I cannot use the concrete SCM, I have to mock the results of calls to the appropriate functions of the SCM, however, this means that my tests and therefore my Manager need to know and care about the children of the SuperClass. Checking the code base, there does not seem to be a more appropriate location for my test (that already maintains the appropriate real dependencies). Is it worth it to introduce unnecessary dependencies for the sake of unit testing?

  Read the article

• How to not pass around the container when using IoC in Winforms

  - by L2Type

  I'm new to the world of IoC and having a problem with implementing it in a Winforms application. I have an extremely basic application Winform application that uses MVC, it is one controller that does all the work and a working dialog (obviously with a controller). So I load all my classes in to my IoC container in program.cs and create the main form controller using the container. But this is where I am having problems, I only want to create the working dialog controller when it's used and inside a using statement. At first I passed in the container but I've read this is bad practice and more over the container is a static and I want to unit test this class. So how do you create classes in a unit test friendly way without passing in the container, I was considering the abstract factory pattern but that alone would solve my problem without using the IoC. I'm not using any famous framework, I borrowed a basic one from this blog post http://www.kenegozi.com/Blog/2008/01/17/its-my-turn-to-build-an-ioc-container-in-15-minutes-and-33-lines.aspx How do I do this with IoC? Is this the wrong use for IoC?

  Read the article

• Why not lump all service classes into a Factory method (instead of injecting interfaces)?

  - by Andrew

  We are building an ASP.NET project, and encapsulating all of our business logic in service classes. Some is in the domain objects, but generally those are rather anemic (due to the ORM we are using, that won't change). To better enable unit testing, we define interfaces for each service and utilize D.I.. E.g. here are a couple of the interfaces: IEmployeeService IDepartmentService IOrderService ... All of the methods in these services are basically groups of tasks, and the classes contain no private member variables (other than references to the dependent services). Before we worried about Unit Testing, we'd just declare all these classes as static and have them call each other directly. Now we'll set up the class like this if the service depends on other services: public EmployeeService : IEmployeeService { private readonly IOrderService _orderSvc; private readonly IDepartmentService _deptSvc; private readonly IEmployeeRepository _empRep; public EmployeeService(IOrderService orderSvc , IDepartmentService deptSvc , IEmployeeRepository empRep) { _orderSvc = orderSvc; _deptSvc = deptSvc; _empRep = empRep; } //methods down here } This really isn't usually a problem, but I wonder why not set up a factory class that we pass around instead? i.e. public ServiceFactory { virtual IEmployeeService GetEmployeeService(); virtual IDepartmentService GetDepartmentService(); virtual IOrderService GetOrderService(); } Then instead of calling: _orderSvc.CalcOrderTotal(orderId) we'd call _svcFactory.GetOrderService.CalcOrderTotal(orderid) What's the downfall of this method? It's still testable, it still allows us to use D.I. (and handle external dependencies like database contexts and e-mail senders via D.I. within and outside the factory), and it eliminates a lot of D.I. setup and consolidates dependencies more. Thanks for your thoughts!

  Read the article

• Using Moq callbacks correctly according to AAA

  - by Hadi Eskandari

  I've created a unit test that tests interactions on my ViewModel class in a Silverlight application. To be able to do this test, I'm mocking the service interface, injected to the ViewModel. I'm using Moq framework to do the mocking. to be able to verify bounded object in the ViewModel is converted properly, I've used a callback: [Test] public void SaveProposal_Will_Map_Proposal_To_WebService_Parameter() { var vm = CreateNewCampaignViewModel(); var proposal = CreateNewProposal(1, "New Proposal"); Services.Setup(x => x.SaveProposalAsync(It.IsAny<saveProposalParam>())).Callback((saveProposalParam p) => { Assert.That(p.plainProposal, Is.Not.Null); Assert.That(p.plainProposal.POrderItem.orderItemId, Is.EqualTo(1)); Assert.That(p.plainProposal.POrderItem.orderName, Is.EqualTo("New Proposal")); }); proposal.State = ObjectStates.Added; vm.CurrentProposal = proposal; vm.Save(); } It is working fine, but if you've noticed, using this mechanism the Assert and Act part of the unit test have switched their parts (Assert comes before Acting). Is there a better way to do this, while preserving correct AAA order?

  Read the article

• Problem while executing test case in VS2008 test project

  - by sukumar

  Hi all I have the situation as follows I have develpoed one test project in visual studio 2008 to test my target project. I was getting the following exception when i ran test case in my PC System.IO.FileNotFoundException: The specified module could not be found. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007007E) at System.Reflection.Assembly._nLoad(AssemblyName fileName, String codeBase, Evidence assemblySecurity, Assembly locationHint, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean throwOnFileNotFound, Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.nLoad(AssemblyName fileName, String codeBase, Evidence assemblySecurity, Assembly locationHint, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean throwOnFileNotFound, Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoad(AssemblyName assemblyRef, Evidence assemblySecurity, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean forIntrospection) at System.Reflection.Assembly.InternalLoadFrom(String assemblyFile, Evidence securityEvidence, Byte[] hashValue, AssemblyHashAlgorithm hashAlgorithm, Boolean forIntrospection, StackCrawlMark& stackMark) at System.Reflection.Assembly.LoadFrom(String assemblyFile) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestTypes.Unit.UnitTestExecuter.GetType(UnitTestElement unitTest, String type) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestTypes.Unit.UnitTestExecuter.ResolveMethods(). but the same project runs successfully in my colleague PC. as per my Understanding System.IO.FileNotFoundException will occur in case of missing out the dlls. i checked up with dependency walker to trace out the missed dll.dependency walke traced out the following dlls 1)MFC90D.dll 2)mSvcr90d.dll 3)msvcp90d.dll i copied this dlls to C:\windows\system32 from Microsoft visual studio 9.0 dir and again i ran the dependency walker.this time dependency walker is able to open the given testproject dll with 0 errors .even then the same exception comes up when i ran the test. i got fed up with this. can any one tell why it is behaving as PC dependent.is there any thing that i still missing? any suggestion can be helpfull Thakns in Advance Sukumar i

  Read the article

• Convert a Unit Vector to a Quaternion

  - by Hmm

  So I'm very new to quaternions, but I understand the basics of how to manipulate stuff with them. What I'm currently trying to do is compare a known quaternion to two absolute points in space. I'm hoping what I can do is simply convert the points into a second quaternion, giving me an easy way to compare the two. What I've done so far is to turn the two points into a unit vector. From there I was hoping I could directly plug in the i j k into the imaginary portion of the quaternion with a scalar of zero. From there I could multiply one quaternion by the other's conjugate, resulting in a third quaternion. This third quaternion could be converted into an axis angle, giving me the degree by which the original two quaternions differ by. Is this thought process correct? So it should just be [ 0 i j k ]. I may need to normalize the quaternion afterwards, but I'm not sure about that. I have a bad feeling that it's not a direct mapping from a vector to a quaternion. I tried looking at converting the unit vector to an axis angle, but I'm not sure this would work, since I don't know what angle to give as an input.

  Read the article

• PHPUnit - multiple stubs of same class

  - by keithjgrant

  I'm building unit tests for class Foo, and I'm fairly new to unit testing. A key component of my class is an instance of BarCollection which contains a number of Bar objects. One method in Foo iterates through the collection and calls a couple methods on each Bar object in the collection. I want to use stub objects to generate a series of responses for my test class. How do I make the Bar stub class return different values as I iterate? I'm trying to do something along these lines: $stubs = array(); foreach ($array as $value) { $barStub->expects($this->any()) ->method('GetValue')) ->will($this->returnValue($value)); $stubs[] = $barStub; } // populate stubs into `Foo` // assert results from `Foo->someMethod()` So Foo->someMethod() will produce data based on the results it receives from the Bar objects. But this gives me the following error whenever the array is longer than one: There was 1 failure: 1) testMyTest(FooTest) with data set #2 (array(0.5, 0.5)) Expectation failed for method name is equal to <string:GetValue> when invoked zero or more times. Mocked method does not exist. /usr/share/php/PHPUnit/Framework/MockObject/Mock.php(193) : eval()'d code:25 One thought I had was to use ->will($this->returnCallback()) to invoke a callback method, but I don't know how to indicate to the callback which Bar object is making the call (and consequently what response to give). Another idea is to use the onConsecutiveCalls() method, or something like it, to tell my stub to return 1 the first time, 2 the second time, etc, but I'm not sure exactly how to do this. I'm also concerned that if my class ever does anything other than ordered iteration on the collection, I won't have a way to test it.

  Read the article

• simpletest - Why does setReturnValue() seem to change behaviour depending whether test is run in iso

  - by JW

  I am using SimpleTest version 1.0.1 for a unit test. I create a new mock object within a test method and on it i do: $MockDbAdaptor->setReturnValue('query',1); Now, when i run this in a standalone unit test my tested object is happy to see 1 returned when query() is called on the mock db adaptor. However, when this exact same test is run as part of my 'all_tests' TestSuite, the test is failing. This happens because a call to the mock's query() method does not appear to return any value - thus causing my test subject to complain and trigger an unexpected exception that fails the test. So, the behaviour of setReturnValue() seems to change depending on whether the test is run in isolation or not. I can get it to work in both a standalone and TestSuite contexts by using this instead: $MockDbAdaptor->setReturnValueAt(0,'query',1); So my immediate problem can be fixed ...but it feels like a hack. I thought if i create a new mock within a test method then why is the setReturnValue() behaviour getting affected by the context in which the test class instance is run? It feel like a bug.

  Read the article

• How to test a struts 2.1.x developer?

  - by Jason Pyeron

  We employ test to filter out those who can't. The tests are designed to be very low effort for those who can and too much effort for those who can't. Here is an example for java web application developer on an Oracle project: We only work with contractors who can use the tools we use, to determine if you can use the tools we have devised some very simple tests. Instructions If you are prepared and knowledgeable this will take you about 2-5 minutes. Suggested knowledge and tools: * subversion 1.6 see http://subversion.tigris.org/ or http://cygwin.com/setup.exe * java 1.6 see http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index.jsp * oracle >=10g see http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/jdev/index.html * j2ee server see http://tomcat.apache.org/download-55.cgi or http://www.jboss.org/jbossas/downloads/ Steps 1. check out svn://statics32.pdinc.us/home/subversion/guest 2. deploy the war file found at trunk/test.war 3. browse to the web application you installed from the war file and answer the one SQL question: How many rows are in the table 'testdata' where column 'value' ends with either an 'A' or an 'a'? The login credentials are in trunk/doc/oracle.txt 4. make a RESULTS HASH by submitting your answer to the form. 5. create a file in tmp/YourUserName.txt and put the RESULTS HASH in it, not the answer. 6. check in your file (don't forget to add the file first). 7. message me with the revision number of your check in. As such I am looking for ideas on how to test for someone to be a struts 2.1 w/ annotations.

  Read the article

• How do I test database-related code with NUnit?

  - by Michael Haren

  I want to write unit tests with NUnit that hit the database. I'd like to have the database in a consistent state for each test. I thought transactions would allow me to "undo" each test so I searched around and found several articles from 2004-05 on the topic: http://weblogs.asp.net/rosherove/archive/2004/07/12/180189.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/rosherove/archive/2004/10/05/238201.aspx http://davidhayden.com/blog/dave/archive/2004/07/12/365.aspx http://haacked.com/archive/2005/12/28/11377.aspx These seem to resolve around implementing a custom attribute for NUnit which builds in the ability to rollback DB operations after each test executes. That's great but... Does this functionality exists somewhere in NUnit natively? Has this technique been improved upon in the last 4 years? Is this still the best way to test database-related code? Edit: it's not that I want to test my DAL specifically, it's more that I want to test pieces of my code that interact with the database. For these tests to be "no-touch" and repeatable, it'd be awesome if I could reset the database after each one. Further, I want to ease this into an existing project that has no testing place at the moment. For that reason, I can't practically script up a database and data from scratch for each test.

  Read the article

• Visual Studio 2010 Professional - Problem Unit-Testing Web Services

  - by Ben

  Have created a very simple Web Service (asmx) in Visual Studio 2010 Professional, and am trying to use the auto-generated unit test cases. I get something that seems quite familiar on this site: The web site could not be configured correctly; getting ASP.NET process information failed. Requesting http://localhost:81/zfp/VSEnterpriseHelper.axd return an error: The remote server returned an error: (500) Internal Server Error. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/260432/500-error-running-visual-studio-asp-net-unit-test I have tried: 1. Running the tests on IIS rather than ASP.NET Development Server 2. Adding and then removing the XML fragment to my Web Service's .config file 3. Giving the MACHINE\ASPNET account Full control to the local folder My current questions: 1. Why am I being bothered with this instrumentation / code coverage DLL, when this doesn't seem to be something that ships with Visual Studio 2010 Professional? Is there any way I can turn it off? 2. I'm placing the node under in Web.config - is that the correct node? 3. Is it possible to bind to a web service without using the webby test attributes? I've seen other people advising making the Web Service as light-weight as possible. I'm trying to call it with jQuery / AJAX / JSON, so being able to debug the actual web service would be really helpful. Best wishes, Ben

  Read the article

• JUnit confusion: use 'extend Testcase' or '@Test' ?

  - by Rabarberski

  I've found the proper use (or at least the documentation) of JUnit very confusing. This question serves both as a future reference and as a real question. If I've understood correctly, there are two main approaches to create and run a JUnit test: Approach A: create a class that extends TestCase, and start test methods with the word test. When running the class as a JUnit Test (in Eclipse), all methods starting with the word test are automatically run. import junit.framework.TestCase; public class DummyTestA extends TestCase { public void testSum() { int a = 5; int b = 10; int result = a + b; assertEquals(15, result); } } Approach B: create a 'normal' class and prepend a @Test annotation to the method. Note that you do NOT have to start the method with the word test. import org.junit.*; import static org.junit.Assert.*; public class DummyTestB { @Test public void Sum() { int a = 5; int b = 10; int result = a + b; assertEquals(15, result); } } Mixing the two seems not to be a good idea, see e.g. this stackoverflow question: Now, my questions(s): What is the preferred approach, or when would you use one instead of the other? Approach B allows for testing for exceptions by extending the @Test annotation like in @Test(expected = ArithmeticException.class). But how do you test for exceptions when using approach A? When using approach A, you can group a number of test classes in a test suite. TestSuite suite = new TestSuite("All tests");<br/> suite.addTestSuite(DummyTestA.class); suite.addTestSuite(DummyTestAbis.class);` But this can't be used with approach B (since each testclass should subclass TestCase). What is the proper way to group tests for approach B?

  Read the article

• Automatic testing of GUI related private methods

  - by Stein G. Strindhaug

  When it comes to GUI programming (at least for web) I feel that often the only thing that would be useful to unit test is some of the private methods*. While unit testing makes perfect sense for back-end code, I feel it doesn't quite fit the GUI classes. What is the best way to add automatic testing of these? * Why I think the only methods useful to test is private: Often when I write GUI classes they don't even have any public methods except for the constructor. The public methods if any is trivial, and the constructor does most of the job calling private methods. They receive some data from server does a lot of trivial output and feeds data to the constructor of other classes contained inside it, adding listeners that calls a (more or less directly) calls the server... Most of it pretty trivial (the hardest part is the layout: css, IE, etc.) but sometimes I create some private method that does some advanced tricks, which I definitely do not want to be publicly visible (because it's closely coupled to the implementation of the layout, and likely to change), but is sufficiently complicated to break. These are often only called by the constructor or repeatedly by events in the code, not by any public methods at all. I'd like to have a way to test this type of methods, without making it public or resorting to reflection trickery. (BTW: I'm currently using GWT, but I feel this applies to most languages/frameworks I've used when coding for GUI)

  Read the article

• Managing logs/warnings in Python extensions

  - by Dimitri Tcaciuc

  TL;DR version: What do you use for configurable (and preferably captured) logging inside your C++ bits in a Python project? Details follow. Say you have a a few compiled .so modules that may need to do some error checking and warn user of (partially) incorrect data. Currently I'm having a pretty simplistic setup where I'm using logging framework from Python code and log4cxx library from C/C++. log4cxx log level is defined in a file (log4cxx.properties) and is currently fixed and I'm thinking how to make it more flexible. Couple of choices that I see: One way to control it would be to have a module-wide configuration call. # foo/__init__.py import sys from _foo import import bar, baz, configure_log configure_log(sys.stdout, WARNING) # tests/test_foo.py def test_foo(): # Maybe a custom context to change the logfile for # the module and restore it at the end. with CaptureLog(foo) as log: assert foo.bar() == 5 assert log.read() == "124.24 - foo - INFO - Bar returning 5" Have every compiled function that does logging accept optional log parameters. # foo.c int bar(PyObject* x, PyObject* logfile, PyObject* loglevel) { LoggerPtr logger = default_logger("foo"); if (logfile != Py_None) logger = file_logger(logfile, loglevel); ... } # tests/test_foo.py def test_foo(): with TemporaryFile() as logfile: assert foo.bar(logfile=logfile, loglevel=DEBUG) == 5 assert logfile.read() == "124.24 - foo - INFO - Bar returning 5" Some other way? Second one seems to be somewhat cleaner, but it requires function signature alteration (or using kwargs and parsing them). First one is.. probably somewhat awkward but sets up entire module in one go and removes logic from each individual function. What are your thoughts on this? I'm all ears to alternative solutions as well. Thanks,

  Read the article

• Using ZLib unit to compress files vs using ZipForge

  - by user193655

  There are many questions on zipping in Delphi, anyway this is not a duplicate. I am using ZipForge for zip/unzip capability in my application. Currently I use 2 features of ZipForge: 1) zip and unzip (!) 2) password protect the archives Now I am removing the password from all the archives so I need only to zip and unzip files. I zip them just for minimizing bandwith when uploading/downloading files from the server. So my idea is to process all files once for unzipping them (with password) and rezipping them without password. I have nothing against ZipForge, anyway it is an extra component, every time I upgrade to a newest Delphi version I have to wait for the new IDE support and moreover the more components the more problems during the installation. So since what I do is very simple I'd like to replace ZipForge with 2 simple functinos using the ZLib unit. I found (and tested) the functions here on Torry's. What do you think of using Zlib unit? Do you see any potential problem that I would not have with ZipForge? Can you comment on speed?

  Read the article

• Python unittest (using SQLAlchemy) does not write/update database?

  - by Jerry

  Hi, I am puzzled at why my Python unittest runs perfectly fine without actually updating the database. I can even see the SQL statements from SQLAlchemy and step through the newly created user object's email -- ...INFO sqlalchemy.engine.base.Engine.0x...954c INSERT INTO users (user_id, user_name, email, ...) VALUES (%(user_id)s, %(user_name)s, %(email)s, ...) ...INFO sqlalchemy.engine.base.Engine.0x...954c {'user_id': u'4cfdafe3f46544e1b4ad0c7fccdbe24a', 'email': u'[email protected]', ...} > .../tests/unit_tests/test_signup.py(127)test_signup_success() -> user = user_q.filter_by(user_name='test').first() (Pdb) n ...INFO sqlalchemy.engine.base.Engine.0x...954c SELECT users.user_id AS users_user_id, ... FROM users WHERE users.user_name = %(user_name_1)s LIMIT 1 OFFSET 0 ...INFO sqlalchemy.engine.base.Engine.0x...954c {'user_name_1': 'test'} > .../tests/unit_tests/test_signup.py(128)test_signup_success() -> self.assertTrue(isinstance(user, model.User)) (Pdb) user <pweb.models.User object at 0x9c95b0c> (Pdb) user.email u'[email protected]' Yet at the same time when I login to the test database, I do not see the new record there. Is it some feature from Python/unittest/SQLAlchemy/Pyramid/PostgreSQL that I'm totally unaware of? Thanks. Jerry

  Read the article

• Maven Cobertura: unit test failed but build success

  - by Pavel Drobushevich

  Hi all, I've configured cobertura code coverage in my pom: <plugin> <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId> <artifactId>cobertura-maven-plugin</artifactId> <version>2.4</version> <configuration> <instrumentation> <excludes> <exclude>**/*Exception.class</exclude> </excludes> </instrumentation> <formats> <format>xml</format> <format>html</format> </formats> </configuration> </plugin> And start test by following command: mvn clean cobertura:cobertura But if one of unit test fail Cobertura only log this information and doesn't mark build fail. Tests run: 287, Failures: 1, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0 Flushing results... Flushing results done Cobertura: Loaded information on 139 classes. Cobertura: Saved information on 139 classes. [ERROR] There are test failures. ................................. [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS How to configure Cobertura marks build failed in one of unit test fail? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Is Assert.Fail() considered bad practice?

  - by Mendelt

  I use Assert.Fail a lot when doing TDD. I'm usually working on one test at a time but when I get ideas for things I want to implement later I quickly write an empty test where the name of the test method indicates what I want to implement as sort of a todo-list. To make sure I don't forget I put an Assert.Fail() in the body. When trying out xUnit.Net I found they hadn't implemented Assert.Fail. Of course you can always Assert.IsTrue(false) but this doesn't communicate my intention as well. I got the impression Assert.Fail wasn't implemented on purpose. Is this considered bad practice? If so why? @Martin Meredith That's not exactly what I do. I do write a test first and then implement code to make it work. Usually I think of several tests at once. Or I think about a test to write when I'm working on something else. That's when I write an empty failing test to remember. By the time I get to writing the test I neatly work test-first. @Jimmeh That looks like a good idea. Ignored tests don't fail but they still show up in a separate list. Have to try that out. @Matt Howells Great Idea. NotImplementedException communicates intention better than assert.Fail() in this case @Mitch Wheat That's what I was looking for. It seems it was left out to prevent it being abused in another way I abuse it.

  Read the article

• Seeking suggestions on redesigning the interface

  - by ratkok

  As a part of maintaining large piece of legacy code, we need to change part of the design mainly to make it more testable (unit testing). One of the issues we need to resolve is the existing interface between components. The interface between two components is a class that contains static methods only. Simplified example: class ABInterface { static methodA(); static methodB(); ... static methodZ(); }; The interface is used by component A so that different methods can use ABInterface::methodA() in order to prepare some input data and then invoke appropriate functions within component B. Now we are trying to redesign this interface for various reasons: Extending our unit test coverage - we need to resolve this dependency between the components and stubs/mocks are to be introduced The interface between these components diverged from the original design (ie. a lots of newer functions, used for the inter-component i/f are created outside this interface class). The code is old, changed a lot over the time and needs to be refactored. The change should not be disruptive for the rest of the system. We try to limit leaving many test-required artifacts in the production code. Performance is very important and should be no (or very minimal) degradation after the redesign. Code is OO in C++. I am looking for some ideas what approach to take. Any suggestions on how to do this efficiently?

  Read the article

• method used like a type error in a unit test

  - by Josepth Vodary

  I am trying to unit test a simple factory - but it keeps telling me that I am trying to use a method like a type? My unit test using System; using System.Text; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using Home; namespace HomeTest { [TestClass] public class TestFactory { [TestMethod] public void DoTestFactory() { InventoryType.InventorySelect select = new InventoryType.InventorySelect(); select.inventoryTypes.Add("cds"); Home.Services.Factory.CreateInventory get = new Home.Services.Factory.CreateInventory(); get.InventoryImpl(); if (select.Validate() == true) Console.WriteLine("Test Passed"); else if (select.Validate() == false) Console.WriteLine("Test Returned False"); else Console.WriteLine("Test Failed To Run"); Console.ReadLine(); } } } My facotry using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace Home.Services { public class Factory { public InventorySvc CreateInventory() { return new InventoryImpl(); } } }

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >