Search Results

Search found 544 results on 22 pages for 'tdd'.

Page 7/22 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • ParallelWork: Feature rich multithreaded fluent task execution library for WPF

    - by oazabir
    ParallelWork is an open source free helper class that lets you run multiple work in parallel threads, get success, failure and progress update on the WPF UI thread, wait for work to complete, abort all work (in case of shutdown), queue work to run after certain time, chain parallel work one after another. It’s more convenient than using .NET’s BackgroundWorker because you don’t have to declare one component per work, nor do you need to declare event handlers to receive notification and carry additional data through private variables. You can safely pass objects produced from different thread to the success callback. Moreover, you can wait for work to complete before you do certain operation and you can abort all parallel work while they are in-flight. If you are building highly responsive WPF UI where you have to carry out multiple job in parallel yet want full control over those parallel jobs completion and cancellation, then the ParallelWork library is the right solution for you. I am using the ParallelWork library in my PlantUmlEditor project, which is a free open source UML editor built on WPF. You can see some realistic use of the ParallelWork library there. Moreover, the test project comes with 400 lines of Behavior Driven Development flavored tests, that confirms it really does what it says it does. The source code of the library is part of the “Utilities” project in PlantUmlEditor source code hosted at Google Code. The library comes in two flavors, one is the ParallelWork static class, which has a collection of static methods that you can call. Another is the Start class, which is a fluent wrapper over the ParallelWork class to make it more readable and aesthetically pleasing code. ParallelWork allows you to start work immediately on separate thread or you can queue a work to start after some duration. You can start an immediate work in a new thread using the following methods: void StartNow(Action doWork, Action onComplete) void StartNow(Action doWork, Action onComplete, Action<Exception> failed) For example, ParallelWork.StartNow(() => { workStartedAt = DateTime.Now; Thread.Sleep(howLongWorkTakes); }, () => { workEndedAt = DateTime.Now; }); Or you can use the fluent way Start.Work: Start.Work(() => { workStartedAt = DateTime.Now; Thread.Sleep(howLongWorkTakes); }) .OnComplete(() => { workCompletedAt = DateTime.Now; }) .Run(); Besides simple execution of work on a parallel thread, you can have the parallel thread produce some object and then pass it to the success callback by using these overloads: void StartNow<T>(Func<T> doWork, Action<T> onComplete) void StartNow<T>(Func<T> doWork, Action<T> onComplete, Action<Exception> fail) For example, ParallelWork.StartNow<Dictionary<string, string>>( () => { test = new Dictionary<string,string>(); test.Add("test", "test"); return test; }, (result) => { Assert.True(result.ContainsKey("test")); }); Or, the fluent way: Start<Dictionary<string, string>>.Work(() => { test = new Dictionary<string, string>(); test.Add("test", "test"); return test; }) .OnComplete((result) => { Assert.True(result.ContainsKey("test")); }) .Run(); You can also start a work to happen after some time using these methods: DispatcherTimer StartAfter(Action onComplete, TimeSpan duration) DispatcherTimer StartAfter(Action doWork,Action onComplete,TimeSpan duration) You can use this to perform some timed operation on the UI thread, as well as perform some operation in separate thread after some time. ParallelWork.StartAfter( () => { workStartedAt = DateTime.Now; Thread.Sleep(howLongWorkTakes); }, () => { workCompletedAt = DateTime.Now; }, waitDuration); Or, the fluent way: Start.Work(() => { workStartedAt = DateTime.Now; Thread.Sleep(howLongWorkTakes); }) .OnComplete(() => { workCompletedAt = DateTime.Now; }) .RunAfter(waitDuration);   There are several overloads of these functions to have a exception callback for handling exceptions or get progress update from background thread while work is in progress. For example, I use it in my PlantUmlEditor to perform background update of the application. // Check if there's a newer version of the app Start<bool>.Work(() => { return UpdateChecker.HasUpdate(Settings.Default.DownloadUrl); }) .OnComplete((hasUpdate) => { if (hasUpdate) { if (MessageBox.Show(Window.GetWindow(me), "There's a newer version available. Do you want to download and install?", "New version available", MessageBoxButton.YesNo, MessageBoxImage.Information) == MessageBoxResult.Yes) { ParallelWork.StartNow(() => { var tempPath = System.IO.Path.Combine( Environment.GetFolderPath(Environment.SpecialFolder.ApplicationData), Settings.Default.SetupExeName); UpdateChecker.DownloadLatestUpdate(Settings.Default.DownloadUrl, tempPath); }, () => { }, (x) => { MessageBox.Show(Window.GetWindow(me), "Download failed. When you run next time, it will try downloading again.", "Download failed", MessageBoxButton.OK, MessageBoxImage.Warning); }); } } }) .OnException((x) => { MessageBox.Show(Window.GetWindow(me), x.Message, "Download failed", MessageBoxButton.OK, MessageBoxImage.Exclamation); }); The above code shows you how to get exception callbacks on the UI thread so that you can take necessary actions on the UI. Moreover, it shows how you can chain two parallel works to happen one after another. Sometimes you want to do some parallel work when user does some activity on the UI. For example, you might want to save file in an editor while user is typing every 10 second. In such case, you need to make sure you don’t start another parallel work every 10 seconds while a work is already queued. You need to make sure you start a new work only when there’s no other background work going on. Here’s how you can do it: private void ContentEditor_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (!ParallelWork.IsAnyWorkRunning()) { ParallelWork.StartAfter(SaveAndRefreshDiagram, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10)); } } If you want to shutdown your application and want to make sure no parallel work is going on, then you can call the StopAll() method. ParallelWork.StopAll(); If you want to wait for parallel works to complete without a timeout, then you can call the WaitForAllWork(TimeSpan timeout). It will block the current thread until the all parallel work completes or the timeout period elapses. result = ParallelWork.WaitForAllWork(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); The result is true, if all parallel work completed. If it’s false, then the timeout period elapsed and all parallel work did not complete. For details how this library is built and how it works, please read the following codeproject article: ParallelWork: Feature rich multithreaded fluent task execution library for WPF http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WPF/parallelwork.aspx If you like the article, please vote for me.

    Read the article

  • JustMock and Moles – A short overview for TDD alpha geeks

    - by RoyOsherove
    People have been lurking near my house, asking me to write something about Moles and JustMock, so I’ll try to be as objective as possible, taking in the fact that I work at Typemock. If I were NOT working at Typemock I’d write: JustMock JustMock tries to be Typemock at so many levels it’s not even funny. Technically they work the same and the API almost looks like it’s a search and replace work based on the Isolator API (awesome compliment!), but JustMock still has too many growing pains and bugs to be usable. Also, JustMock is missing alot of the legacy abilities such as Non public faking, faking all types and various other things that are really needed in real legacy code. Biggest thing (in terms of isolation integration) is that it does not integrate with other profilers such as coverage, NCover etc.) When JustMock comes out of beta, I feel that it should cost about half as Isolator costs, as it currently provides about half the abilities. Moles Moles is an addon of Pex and was originally only intended to work within the Pex environment. It started as a research project and now it’s a power-tool for VS (so it’s a separate install) Now it’s it’s own little stubbing framework. It’s not really an Isolation framework in the classic sense, because it does not provide any kind of API built in to verify object interactions. You have to use manual flags all on your own to do that. It generates two types of classes per assembly: Manual Stubs(just like you’d hand code them) and Mole classes. Each Mole class is a special API to change and break the behavior that the corresponding type. so MDateTime is how you change behavior for DateTime. In that sense the API is al over the place, and it can become highly unreadable and unmentionable over time in your test. Also, the Moles API isn’t really designed to deal with real Legacy code. It only deals with public types and methods. anything internal or private is ignored and you can’t change its behavior. You also can’t control static constructors. That takes about 95% of legacy scenarios out of the picture if that’s what you’re trying to use it for. Personally, I found it hard to get used to the idea of two parallel APIs for different abilities, and when to choose which. and I know this stuff. I would expect more usability from the API to make it more widely used. I don’t think that Moles in planning to go that route. Publishing it as an Isolation framework is really an afterthought of a tool that was design with a specific task in mind, and generic Isolation isn’t it. it’s only hope is DEQ – a simple code example that shows a simple Isolation API built on the Moles generic engine. Moles can and should be used for very simple cases of detouring functionality such a simple static methods or interfaces and virtual functions (like rhinomock and MOQ do).   Oh, Wait. Ah, good thing I work at Typemock. I won’t write all that. I’ll just write: JustMock and Moles are great tools that enlarge the market space for isolation related technologies, and they prove that the idea of productivity and unit testing can go hand in hand and get people hooked. I look forward to compete with them at this growing market.

    Read the article

  • Regular Expressions. Remember it, write it, test it.

    - by outcoldman
    I should say that I’m fan of regular expressions. Whenever I see the problem, which I can solve with Regex, I felt a burning desire to do it and going to write new test for new regex. Previously I had installed SharpDevelop Studio just for good regular expression tool in it (Why VS doesn’t have one?). But now I’m a little wiser, and for each Regex I write a separate test. I find it difficult to remember the syntax of regular expressions (I don’t write them very often); I always forget which character is responsible for the beginning of the line, etc. So I use external small and easy articles like this “Regular expressions - An introduction”. Now I want to show you little samples of regular expressions and want to show you how to test these samples. Read more... (redirect to http://outcoldman.ru)

    Read the article

  • Sharp Architecture 1.9.5 Released

    - by AlecWhittington
    The S#arp Architecture team is proud to announce the release of version 1.9.5. This version has had the following changes: Upgraded to MVC 3 RTM Solution upgraded to .NET 4 Implementation of IDependencyResolver provided, but not implemented This marks the last scheduled release of 1.X for S#arp Architecture . The team is working hard to get the 2.0 release out the door and we hope to have a preview of that coming soon. With regards to IDependencyResolver, we have provided an implementation, but have...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Rescue overdue offshore projects and convince management to use automated tests

    - by oazabir
    I have published two articles on codeproject recently. One is a story where an offshore project was two months overdue, my friend who runs it was paying the team from his own pocket and he was drowning in ever increasing number of change requests and how we brainstormed together to come out of that situation. Tips and Tricks to rescue overdue projects Next one is about convincing management to go for automated test and give developers extra time per sprint, at the cost of reduced productivity for couple of sprints. It’s hard to negotiate this with even dev leads, let alone managers. Whenever you tell them - there’s going to be less features/bug fixes delivered for next 3 or 4 sprints because we want to automate the tests and reduce manual QA effort; everyone gets furious and kicks you out of the meeting. Especially in a startup where every sprint is jam packed with new features and priority bug fixes to satisfy various stakeholders, including the VCs, it’s very hard to communicate the benefits of automated tests across the board. Let me tell you of a story of one of my startups where I had the pleasure to argue on this and came out victorious. How to convince developers and management to use automated test instead of manual test If you like these, please vote for me!

    Read the article

  • What are the disadvantages of automated testing?

    - by jkohlhepp
    There are a number of questions on this site that give plenty of information about the benefits that can be gained from automated testing. But I didn't see anything that represented the other side of the coin: what are the disadvantages? Everything in life is a tradeoff and there are no silver bullets, so surely there must be some valid reasons not to do automated testing. What are they? Here's a few that I've come up with: Requires more initial developer time for a given feature Requires a higher skill level of team members Increase tooling needs (test runners, frameworks, etc.) Complex analysis required when a failed test in encountered - is this test obsolete due to my change or is it telling me I made a mistake? Edit I should say that I am a huge proponent of automated testing, and I'm not looking to be convinced to do it. I'm looking to understand what the disadvantages are so when I go to my company to make a case for it I don't look like I'm throwing around the next imaginary silver bullet. Also, I'm explicity not looking for someone to dispute my examples above. I am taking as true that there must be some disadvantages (everything has trade-offs) and I want to understand what those are.

    Read the article

  • S#arp Architecture 1.5.2 released

    - by AlecWhittington
    It has been a few weeks since S#arp Architecture 1.5 RTM has been released. While it was a major success a few issues were found that needed to be addressed. These mostly involved the Visual Studio templates. What's new in S#arp Architecture 1.5.2? Merged the SharpArch.* assemblies into a single assembly (SharpArch.dll) Updated both VS 2008 and 2010 templates to reflect the use of the merged assembly Updated SharpArch.build with custom script that allows the merging of the assemblies. Copys new merged...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Don't Use Static? [closed]

    - by Joshiatto
    Possible Duplicate: Is static universally “evil” for unit testing and if so why does resharper recommend it? Heavy use of static methods in a Java EE web application? I submitted an application I wrote to some other architects for code review. One of them almost immediately wrote me back and said "Don't use "static". You can't write automated tests with static classes and methods. "Static" is to be avoided." I checked and fully 1/4 of my classes are marked "static". I use static when I am not going to create an instance of a class because the class is a single global class used throughout the code. He went on to mention something involving mocking, IOC/DI techniques that can't be used with static code. He says it is unfortunate when 3rd party libraries are static because of their un-testability. Is this other architect correct?

    Read the article

  • Writing Unit Tests for an ASP.NET MVC Action Method that handles Ajax Request and Normal Request

    - by shiju
    In this blog post, I will demonstrate how to write unit tests for an ASP.NET MVC action method, which handles both Ajax request and normal HTTP Request. I will write a unit test for specifying the behavior of an Ajax request and will write another unit test for specifying the behavior of a normal HTTP request. Both Ajax request and normal request will be handled by a single action method. So the ASP.NET MVC action method will be execute HTTP Request object’s IsAjaxRequest method for identifying whether it is an Ajax request or not. So we have to create mock object for Request object and also have to make as a Ajax request from the unit test for verifying the behavior of an Ajax request. I have used NUnit and Moq for writing unit tests. Let me write a unit test for a Ajax request Code Snippet [Test] public void Index_AjaxRequest_Returns_Partial_With_Expense_List() {     // Arrange       Mock<HttpRequestBase> request = new Mock<HttpRequestBase>();     Mock<HttpResponseBase> response = new Mock<HttpResponseBase>();     Mock<HttpContextBase> context = new Mock<HttpContextBase>();       context.Setup(c => c.Request).Returns(request.Object);     context.Setup(c => c.Response).Returns(response.Object);     //Add XMLHttpRequest request header     request.Setup(req => req["X-Requested-With"]).         Returns("XMLHttpRequest");       IEnumerable<Expense> fakeExpenses = GetMockExpenses();     expenseRepository.Setup(x => x.GetMany(It.         IsAny<Expression<Func<Expense, bool>>>())).         Returns(fakeExpenses);     ExpenseController controller = new ExpenseController(         commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object,         expenseRepository.Object);     controller.ControllerContext = new ControllerContext(         context.Object, new RouteData(), controller);     // Act     var result = controller.Index(null, null) as PartialViewResult;     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual("_ExpenseList", result.ViewName);     Assert.IsNotNull(result, "View Result is null");     Assert.IsInstanceOf(typeof(IEnumerable<Expense>),             result.ViewData.Model, "Wrong View Model");     var expenses = result.ViewData.Model as IEnumerable<Expense>;     Assert.AreEqual(3, expenses.Count(),         "Got wrong number of Categories");         }   In the above unit test, we are calling Index action method of a controller named ExpenseController, which will returns a PartialView named _ExpenseList, if it is an Ajax request. We have created mock object for HTTPContextBase and setup XMLHttpRequest request header for Request object’s X-Requested-With for making it as a Ajax request. We have specified the ControllerContext property of the controller with mocked object HTTPContextBase. Code Snippet controller.ControllerContext = new ControllerContext(         context.Object, new RouteData(), controller); Let me write a unit test for a normal HTTP method Code Snippet [Test] public void Index_NormalRequest_Returns_Index_With_Expense_List() {     // Arrange               Mock<HttpRequestBase> request = new Mock<HttpRequestBase>();     Mock<HttpResponseBase> response = new Mock<HttpResponseBase>();     Mock<HttpContextBase> context = new Mock<HttpContextBase>();       context.Setup(c => c.Request).Returns(request.Object);     context.Setup(c => c.Response).Returns(response.Object);       IEnumerable<Expense> fakeExpenses = GetMockExpenses();       expenseRepository.Setup(x => x.GetMany(It.         IsAny<Expression<Func<Expense, bool>>>())).         Returns(fakeExpenses);     ExpenseController controller = new ExpenseController(         commandBus.Object, categoryRepository.Object,         expenseRepository.Object);     controller.ControllerContext = new ControllerContext(         context.Object, new RouteData(), controller);     // Act     var result = controller.Index(null, null) as ViewResult;     // Assert     Assert.AreEqual("Index", result.ViewName);     Assert.IsNotNull(result, "View Result is null");     Assert.IsInstanceOf(typeof(IEnumerable<Expense>),             result.ViewData.Model, "Wrong View Model");     var expenses = result.ViewData.Model         as IEnumerable<Expense>;     Assert.AreEqual(3, expenses.Count(),         "Got wrong number of Categories"); }   In the above unit test, we are not specifying the XMLHttpRequest request header for Request object’s X-Requested-With, so that it will be normal HTTP Request. If this is a normal request, the action method will return a ViewResult with a view template named Index. The below is the implementation of Index action method Code Snippet public ActionResult Index(DateTime? startDate, DateTime? endDate) {     //If date is not passed, take current month's first and last date     DateTime dtNow;     dtNow = DateTime.Today;     if (!startDate.HasValue)     {         startDate = new DateTime(dtNow.Year, dtNow.Month, 1);         endDate = startDate.Value.AddMonths(1).AddDays(-1);     }     //take last date of start date's month, if end date is not passed     if (startDate.HasValue && !endDate.HasValue)     {         endDate = (new DateTime(startDate.Value.Year,             startDate.Value.Month, 1)).AddMonths(1).AddDays(-1);     }     var expenses = expenseRepository.GetMany(         exp => exp.Date >= startDate && exp.Date <= endDate);     //if request is Ajax will return partial view     if (Request.IsAjaxRequest())     {         return PartialView("_ExpenseList", expenses);     }     //set start date and end date to ViewBag dictionary     ViewBag.StartDate = startDate.Value.ToShortDateString();     ViewBag.EndDate = endDate.Value.ToShortDateString();     //if request is not ajax     return View("Index",expenses); }   The index action method will returns a PartialView named _ExpenseList, if it is an Ajax request and will returns a View named Index if it is a normal request. Source Code The source code has been taken from my EFMVC app which can download from here

    Read the article

  • In which cases Robolectric is a relevant solution?

    - by Francis Toth
    As you may now, Robolectric is a framework that provides stubs for Android objects, in order to make tests runnable outside the Dalvik environment. My concern is that, by doing this, one can fake a third party library, which is, I believe, not a good practice (it should be encapsulated instead). If you make assumptions about an interface you don't own, which is changed once your test has been written, you won't be always noticed about the modifications. This can lead to a misunderstanding between your implementations and the interface they depends on. In addition, Android use mostly inheritance over interfaces which limits contract testing. So here's my question: Are there situations when Robolectric is the way to go? Here are some links you can check for further information: test-doubles-with-mockito in-brief-contract-tests

    Read the article

  • Step by Step screencasts to do Behavior Driven Development on WCF and UI using xUnit

    - by oazabir
    I am trying to encourage my team to get into Behavior Driven Development (BDD). So, I made two quick video tutorials to show how BDD can be done from early requirement collection stage to late integration tests. It explains breaking user stories into behaviors, and then developers and test engineers taking the behavior specs and writing a WCF service and unit test for it, in parallel, and then eventually integrating the WCF service and doing the integration tests. It introduces how mocking is done using the Moq library. Moreover, it shows a way how you can write test once and do both unit and integration tests at the flip of a config setting. Watch the screencast here: Doing BDD with xUnit, Subspec and on a WCF Service  Warning: you might hear some noise in the audio in some places. Something wrong with audio bit rate. I suggest you let the video download for a while and then play it. If you still get noise, go back couple of seconds earlier and then resume play. It eliminates the noise.  The next video tutorial is about doing BDD to do automated UI tests. It shows how test engineers can take behaviors and then write tests that tests a prototype UI in isolation (just like Service Contract) in order to ensure the prototype conforms to the expected behaviors, while developers can write the real code and build the real product in parallel. When the real stuff is done, the same test can test the real stuff and ensure the agreed behaviors are satisfied. I have used WatiN to automate UI and test UI for expected behaviors. Doing BDD with xUnit and WatiN on a ASP.NET webform Hope you like it!

    Read the article

  • Test driven vs Business requirements constant changing

    - by James Lin
    One of the new requirement of our dev team set by the CTO/CIO is to become test driven development, however I don't think the rest of the business is going to help because they have no sense of development life cycles, and requirements get changed all the time within a single sprint. Which gets me frustrated about wasting time writing 10 test cases and will become useless tomorrow. We have suggested setting up processes to dodge those requirement changes and educate the business about development life cycles. What if the business fails to get the idea? What would you do?

    Read the article

  • How do I make code bound to an ORM testable?

    - by RPK
    In Test Driven Development, how do I make code bound to an ORM testable? I am using a Micro-ORM (PetaPoco) and I have several methods that interact with the database like: AddCustomer UpdateRecord etc. I want to know how to write a test for these methods. I searched YouTube for videos on writing a test for DAL, but I didn't find any. I want to know which method or class is testable and how to write a test before writing the code itself.

    Read the article

  • Returning a mock object from a mock object

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to return an object when mocking a parser class. This is the test code using PHPUnit 3.7 //set up the result object that I want to be returned from the call to parse method $parserResult= new ParserResult(); $parserResult->setSegment('some string'); //set up the stub Parser object $stubParser=$this->getMock('Parser'); $stubParser->expects($this->any()) ->method('parse') ->will($this->returnValue($parserResult)); //injecting the stub to my client class $fileHeaderParser= new FileWriter($stubParser); $output=$fileParser->writeStringToFile(); Inside my writeStringToFile() method I'm using $parserResult like this: writeStringToFile(){ //Some code... $parserResult=$parser->parse(); $segment=$parserResult->getSegment();//that's why I set the segment in the test. } Should I mock ParserResult in the first place, so that the mock returns a mock? Is it good design for mocks to return mocks? Is there a better approach to do this all?!

    Read the article

  • JustMock and Moles A short overview for TDD alpha geeks

    People have been lurking near my house, asking me to write something about Moles and JustMock, so Ill try to be as objective as possible, taking in the fact that I work at Typemock. If I were NOT working at Typemock Id write: JustMock JustMock tries to be Typemock at so many levels its not even funny. Technically they work the same and the API almost looks like its a search and replace work based on the Isolator API (awesome compliment!), but JustMock still has too many growing pains and bugs...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing statically typed functional code

    - by back2dos
    I wanted to ask you people, in which cases it makes sense to unit test statically typed functional code, as written in haskell, scala, ocaml, nemerle, f# or haXe (the last is what I am really interested in, but I wanted to tap into the knowledge of the bigger communities). I ask this because from my understanding: One aspect of unit tests is to have the specs in runnable form. However when employing a declarative style, that directly maps the formalized specs to language semantics, is it even actually possible to express the specs in runnable form in a separate way, that adds value? The more obvious aspect of unit tests is to track down errors that cannot be revealed through static analysis. Given that type safe functional code is a good tool to code extremely close to what your static analyzer understands. However a simple mistake like using x instead of y (both being coordinates) in your code cannot be covered. However such a mistake could also arise while writing the test code, so I am not sure whether its worth the effort. Unit tests do introduce redundancy, which means that when requirements change, the code implementing them and the tests covering this code must both be changed. This overhead of course is about constant, so one could argue, that it doesn't really matter. In fact, in languages like Ruby it really doesn't compared to the benefits, but given how statically typed functional programming covers a lot of the ground unit tests are intended for, it feels like it's a constant overhead one can simply reduce without penalty. From this I'd deduce that unit tests are somewhat obsolete in this programming style. Of course such a claim can only lead to religious wars, so let me boil this down to a simple question: When you use such a programming style, to which extents do you use unit tests and why (what quality is it you hope to gain for your code)? Or the other way round: do you have criteria by which you can qualify a unit of statically typed functional code as covered by the static analyzer and hence needs no unit test coverage?

    Read the article

  • What type of code is suitable for unit testing?

    - by RPK
    In Test Driven Development, what type of code is testable? I am using a Micro-ORM (PetaPoco) and I have several methods that interact with the database like: AddCustomer UpdateRecord etc. I want to know how to write a test for these methods. I searched YouTube for videos on writing a test for DAL, but I didn't find any. I want to know which method or class is testable and how to write a test before writing the code itself.

    Read the article

  • Unit test SHA256 wrapper queries

    - by Sam Leach
    I am just beginning to write unit tests. So please bear with me. I have the following SHA256 wrapper. public static string SHA256(string plainText) { StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); SHA256CryptoServiceProvider provider = new SHA256CryptoServiceProvider(); var hashedBytes = provider.ComputeHash(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(plainText)); for (int i = 0; i < hashedBytes.Length; i++) { sb.Append(hashedBytes[i].ToString("x2").ToLower()); } return sb.ToString(); } Do I want to be testing it? If so, what do you recommend? My thought process is as follows: What logic is there here. The answer is my for loop and ToString("x2") so from my understanding I want to be testing this part? I can assume Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(plainText) works. Correct assumption? I can assume SHA256CryptoServiceProvider.ComputeHash() works. Correct assumption? I want to be only testing my logic. In this case is limited to the printing of hex encoded hash. Correct? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • A new name for unit tests

    - by Will
    I never used to like unit testing. I always thought it increased the amount of work I had to do. Turns out, that's only true in terms of the actual number of lines of code you write and furthermore, this is completely offset by the increase in the number of lines of useful code that you can write in an hour with tests and test driven development. Now I love unit tests as they allow me to write useful code, that quite often works first time! (knock on wood) I have found that people are reluctant to do unit tests or start a project with test driven development if they are under strict time-lines or in an environment where others don't do it, so they don't. Kinda like, a cultural refusal to even try. I think one of the most powerful things about unit testing is the confidence that it gives you to undertake refactoring. It also gives new found hope, that I can give my code to someone else to refactor/improve, and if my unit tests still work, I can use the new version of the library that they modified, pretty much, without fear. It's this last aspect of unit testing that I think needs a new name. The unit test is more like a contract of what this code should do now, and in the future. When I hear the word testing, I think of mice in cages, with multiple experiments done on them to see the effectiveness of a compound. This is not what unit testing is, we're not trying out different code to see what is the most affective approach, we're defining what outputs we expect with what inputs. In the mice example, unit tests are more like the definitions of how the universe will work as opposed to the experiments done on the mice. Am I on crack or does anyone else see this refusal to do testing and do they think it's a similar reason they don't want to do it? What reasons do you / others give for not testing? What do you think their motivations are in not unit testing? And as a new name for unit testing that might get over some of the objections, how about jContract? (A bit Java centric I know :), or Unit Contracts?

    Read the article

  • S#arp Architecture 1.5 Beta 1 released

    - by AlecWhittington
    Well it is official, I just finished my first release for S#arp Architecture . While this is only a beta release, it does contain some big upgrades and we are hoping to get any bugs handled quickly so that we can get the RTM release completed. This will be a short post, with a more detailed posts coming in the next few days. A big thanks goes out to Billy McCafferty , Michael Aird, Hoang Tang, and everyone else that had a say in this release. Release notes Built on top of ASP.NET MVC 2 RTM release...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Finally! Entity Framework working in fully disconnected N-tier web app

    - by oazabir
    Entity Framework was supposed to solve the problem of Linq to SQL, which requires endless hacks to make it work in n-tier world. Not only did Entity Framework solve none of the L2S problems, but also it made it even more difficult to use and hack it for n-tier scenarios. It’s somehow half way between a fully disconnected ORM and a fully connected ORM like Linq to SQL. Some useful features of Linq to SQL are gone – like automatic deferred loading. If you try to do simple select with join, insert, update, delete in a disconnected architecture, you will realize not only you need to make fundamental changes from the top layer to the very bottom layer, but also endless hacks in basic CRUD operations. I will show you in this article how I have  added custom CRUD functions on top of EF’s ObjectContext to make it finally work well in a fully disconnected N-tier web application (my open source Web 2.0 AJAX portal – Dropthings) and how I have produced a 100% unit testable fully n-tier compliant data access layerfollowing the repository pattern. http://www.codeproject.com/KB/linq/ef.aspx In .NET 4.0, most of the problems are solved, but not all. So, you should read this article even if you are coding in .NET 4.0. Moreover, there’s enough insight here to help you troubleshoot EF related problems. You might think “Why bother using EF when Linq to SQL is doing good enough for me.” Linq to SQL is not going to get any innovation from Microsoft anymore. Entity Framework is the future of persistence layer in .NET framework. All the innovations are happening in EF world only, which is frustrating. There’s a big jump on EF 4.0. So, you should plan to migrate your L2S projects to EF soon.

    Read the article

  • Isolated Unit Tests and Fine Grained Failures

    - by Winston Ewert
    One of the reasons often given to write unit tests which mock out all dependencies and are thus completely isolated is to ensure that when a bug exists, only the unit tests for that bug will fail. (Obviously, an integration tests may fail as well). That way you can readily determine where the bug is. But I don't understand why this is a useful property. If my code were undergoing spontaneous failures, I could see why its useful to readily identify the failure point. But if I have a failing test its either because I just wrote the test or because I just modified the code under test. In either case, I already know which unit contains a bug. What is the useful in ensuring that a test only fails due to bugs in the unit under test? I don't see how it gives me any more precision in identifying the bug than I already had.

    Read the article

  • Node.JS testing with Jasmine, databases, and pre-existing code

    - by Jim Rubenstein
    I've recently built the start of a core system which is likely going turn into a monster product. I'm building the system with node.js, and decided after I got a small base built, that It'd be a great idea to start using some sort of automated test suite to test the application. I decided to use jasmine, as it seems pretty solid and has a lot of features for stubbing spying and mocking methods and classes. The application has a lot of external data stores and api access (kestrel, mysql, mongodb, facebook, and more). My issue is, I've got a good amount of code written that I want to start testing - as it represents the underpinnings of the application. What are the best practices for testing methods/classes that access external APIs that I may or may not have control over? As an example, I have a data structure that fetches a bunch of data from a MySQL database. I want to test the method that retrieves the data; and I'm not sure how to go about it. I could test the fetch method which is supposed to return an array of objects, but to isolate the method from the database, I need to define my own fixture data. So what I end up doing is stubbing the mysql execution, and returning a static dataset. So, I end up writing a function that returns the dataset that makes my test pass. That doesn't seem to actually test the code, other than verifying a method is being called. I know this is kind of abstract and vague, it seems that the idea of testing is very much abstract though, so hopefully someone has some experience and can guide me in the right direction. Any advice, or reading I can do is more than welcomed. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Requesting quality analysis test cases up front of implementation/change

    - by arin
    Recently I have been assigned to work on a major requirement that falls between a change request and an improvement. The previous implementation was done (badly) by a senior developer that left the company and did so without leaving a trace of documentation. Here were my initial steps to approach this problem: Considering that the release date was fast approaching and there was no time for slip-ups, I initially asked if the requirement was a "must have". Since the requirement helped the product significantly in terms of usability, the answer was "If possible, yes". Knowing the wide-spread use and affects of this requirement, had it come to a point where the requirement could not be finished prior to release, I asked if it would be a viable option to thrash the current state and revert back to the state prior to the ex-senior implementation. The answer was "Most likely: no". Understanding that the requirement was coming from the higher management, and due to the complexity of it, I asked all usability test cases to be written prior to the implementation (by QA) and given to me, to aid me in the comprehension of this task. This was a big no-no for the folks at the management as they failed to understand this approach. Knowing that I had to insist on my request and the responsibility of this requirement, I insisted and have fallen out of favor with some of the folks, leaving me in a state of "baffledness". Basically, I was trying a test-driven approach to a high-risk, high-complexity and must-have requirement and trying to be safe rather than sorry. Is this approach wrong or have I approached it incorrectly? P.S.: The change request/improvement was cancelled and the implementation was reverted back to the prior state due to the complexity of the problem and lack of time. This only happened after a 2 hour long meeting with other seniors in order to convince the aforementioned folks.

    Read the article

  • How to unit test with lots of IO

    - by Eric
    I write Linux embedded software which closely integrates with hardware. My modules are such as : -CMOS video input with kernel driver (v4l2) -Hardware h264/mpeg4 encoders (texas instuments) -Audio Capture/Playback (alsa) -Network IO I'd like to have automated testing for those functionalities, such as integration testing. I am not sure how I can automate this process since most of the top level functionalities I face are IO bound. Sure, it is easy to test functions individually, but whole process checking means depending on tons of external dependencies only available at runtime.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >