Search Results

Search found 381 results on 16 pages for 'mocking'.

Page 8/16 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

• mockito mock a constructor with parameter

  - by Shengjie

  I have a class as below: public class A { public A(String test) { bla bla bla } public String check() { bla bla bla } } The logic in the constructor A(String test) and check() are the things I am trying to mock. I want any calls like: new A($$$any string$$$).check() returns a dummy string "test". I tried: A a = mock(A.class); when(a.check()).thenReturn("test"); String test = a.check(); // to this point, everything works. test shows as "tests" whenNew(A.class).withArguments(Matchers.anyString()).thenReturn(rk); // also tried: //whenNew(A.class).withParameterTypes(String.class).withArguments(Matchers.anyString()).thenReturn(rk); new A("random string").check(); // this doesn't work But it doesn't seem to be working. new A($$$any string$$$).check() is still going through the constructor logic instead of fetch the mocked object of A.

  Read the article

• Should I practice "mockist" or "classical" TDD?

  - by Daryl Spitzer

  I've read (and re-read) Martin Fowler's Mocks Aren't Stubs. In it, he defines two different approaches to TDD: "Classical" and "Mockist". He attempts to answer the question "So should I be a classicist or a mockist?", but he admits that he has never tried mockist TDD on "anything more than toys." So I thought I'd ask the question here. Good answers may repeat Fowler's arguments (but hopefully more clearly) or add arguments that he didn't think of or that others have come up with since Fowler last updated the essay back in January 2007.

  Read the article

• How to keep your unit test Arrange step simple and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

  - by ian31

  DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

  Read the article

• Unit testing with Mocks. Test behaviour not implementation

  - by Kenny Eliasson

  Hi.. I always had a problem when unit testing classes that calls other classes, for example I have a class that creates a new user from a phone-number then saves it to the database and sends a SMS to the number provided. Like the code provided below. public class UserRegistrationProcess : IUserRegistration { private readonly IRepository _repository; private readonly ISmsService _smsService; public UserRegistrationProcess(IRepository repository, ISmsService smsService) { _repository = repository; _smsService = smsService; } public void Register(string phone) { var user = new User(phone); _repository.Save(user); _smsService.Send(phone, "Welcome", "Message!"); } } It is a really simple class but how would you go about and test it? At the moment im using Mocks but I dont really like it [Test] public void WhenRegistreringANewUser_TheNewUserIsSavedToTheDatabase() { var repository = new Mock<IRepository>(); var smsService = new Mock<ISmsService>(); var userRegistration = new UserRegistrationProcess(repository.Object, smsService.Object); var phone = "0768524440"; userRegistration.Register(phone); repository.Verify(x => x.Save(It.Is<User>(user => user.Phone == phone)), Times.Once()); } [Test] public void WhenRegistreringANewUser_ItWillSendANewSms() { var repository = new Mock<IRepository>(); var smsService = new Mock<ISmsService>(); var userRegistration = new UserRegistrationProcess(repository.Object, smsService.Object); var phone = "0768524440"; userRegistration.Register(phone); smsService.Verify(x => x.Send(phone, It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>()), Times.Once()); } It feels like I am testing the wrong thing here? Any thoughts on how to make this better?

  Read the article

• How to keep your unit tests simple and isolated and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

  - by ian31

  DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

  Read the article

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

  - by Arturo Herrero

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

  Read the article

• Usage of Assert.Inconclusive

  - by Johannes Rudolph

  Hi, Im wondering how someone should use Assert.Inconclusive(). I'm using it if my Unit test would be about to fail for a reason other than what it is for. E.g. i have a method on a class that calculates the sum of an array of ints. On the same class there is also a method to calculate the average of the element. It is implemented by calling sum and dividing it by the length of the array. Writing a Unit test for Sum() is simple. However, when i write a test for Average() and Sum() fails, Average() is likely to fail also. The failure of Average is not explicit about the reason it failed, it failed for a reason other than what it should test for. That's why i would check if Sum() returns the correct result, otherwise i Assert.Inconclusive(). Is this to be considered good practice? What is Assert.Inconclusive intended for? Or should i rather solve the previous example by means of an Isolation Framework?

  Read the article

• Mock dll methods for unit tests

  - by sanjeev40084

  I am trying to write a unit test for a method, which has a call to method from dll. Is there anyway i can mock the dll methods so that i can unit test? public string GetName(dllobject, int id) { var eligibileEmp = dllobject.GetEligibleEmp(id); <---------trying to mock this method if(eligibleEmp.Equals(empValue) { .......... } }

  Read the article

• rspec and ruby 1.9.1: problem with dummy controller and routes

  - by giorgian

  I want to test a module that basically executes some verify statements, to ensure that actions are invoked with the correct method. # /lib/rest_verification.rb module RestVerification def self.included(base) # :nodoc: base.extend(ClassMethods) end module ClassMethods def verify_rest_actions verify :method => :post, :only => [:create], :redirect_to => { :action => :new } ... end end end I tried this: describe RestVerification do class FooController < ActionController::Base include RestVerification verify_rest_actions def new ; end def index ; end def create ; end def edit ; end def update ; end def destroy ; end end # controller_name 'foo' # this only works with ruby 1.8.7 : 1.9.1 says "uninitialized constant FooController" tests FooController # this works with both before(:each) do ActionController::Routing::Routes.draw do |map| map.resources :foo end end after(:each) do ActionController::Routing::Routes.reload! end it ':create should redirect to :new if invoked with wrong verb' do [:get, :put, :delete].each do |verb| send verb, :create response.should redirect_to(new_foo_url) end end ... end When testing: $ ruby -v ruby 1.8.7 (2010-01-10 patchlevel 249) [i486-linux] $ rake RestVerification :create should redirect to :new if invoked with wrong verb Finished in 0.175586 seconds $ rvm use 1.9.1 Using ruby 1.9.1 p378 $ rake RestVerification :create should redirect to :new if invoked with wrong verb (FAILED - 1) 1) 'RestVerification :create should redirect to :new if invoked with wrong verb' FAILED expected redirect to "http://test.host/foo/new", got redirect to "http://test.host/spec/rails/example/controller_example_group/subclass_1/foo/new" Is this a known issue? Is there a workaround?

  Read the article

• A consistent and simple group of IDE and tools for embedded code and unit test in C++ ?

  - by TridenT

  I’m starting a new firmware project in C++ for Texas Instrument C283xx and C6xxx targets. The unit tests will not run on the target, but will be compiled with gcc/gcov on a PC with windows (and run as well on PC) with simple metrics for tested code coverage. The whole project will be part of Cruise Control.NET for continuous integrations. My question is: what are the consistent IDE / framework / tools to work together? A/ One of the developers says CodeComposerStudio V3.1 for application and CodeBlocks + CxxUnit for the Unit tests. B/ I’m more attracted with CodeComposerStudio V4 for application, Eclipse CDT (well, as CCS V4) and CppUnit for unit test + MockCpp for mocks. I don’t want the best in class tools for each process, but a global, consistent and easy solution (or group of tools if you prefer).

  Read the article

• Rhino Mocks - Do we really need stubs?

  - by Marcelo Oliveira

  If it's possible to change mock behaviour in Rhino Mocks using mock.Stub().Return(), why do we need Stubs anyway? What do we lose by always using MockRepository.GenerateMock()? One big benefit of using Mocks instead of Stubs is that we will be able to reuse the same instance among all the tests keeping them cleaner and straightforward. The moq framework works in a similar way... we don't have different objects for mocks and stubs. (please, don't answer with a link to Fowler's "Mocks aren't stubs" article)

  Read the article

• Unit testing an MVC action method with a Cache dependency?

  - by Steve

  I’m relatively new to testing and MVC and came across a sticking point today. I’m attempting to test an action method that has a dependency on HttpContext.Current.Cache and wanted to know the best practice for achieving the “low coupling” to allow for easy testing. Here's what I've got so far... public class CacheHandler : ICacheHandler { public IList<Section3ListItem> StateList { get { return (List<Section3ListItem>)HttpContext.Current.Cache["StateList"]; } set { HttpContext.Current.Cache["StateList"] = value; } } ... I then access it like such... I'm using Castle for my IoC. public class ProfileController : ControllerBase { private readonly ISection3Repository _repository; private readonly ICacheHandler _cache; public ProfileController(ISection3Repository repository, ICacheHandler cacheHandler) { _repository = repository; _cache = cacheHandler; } [UserIdFilter] public ActionResult PersonalInfo(Guid userId) { if (_cache.StateList == null) _cache.StateList = _repository.GetLookupValues((int)ELookupKey.States).ToList(); ... Then in my unit tests I am able to mock up ICacheHandler. Would this be considered a 'best practice' and does anyone have any suggestions for other approaches? Thanks in advance. Cheers

  Read the article

• Questions regarding PHPUnit mock feature

  - by Andree

  Can someone provide me a reference to a good PHPUnit mock guide? The one in the official documentation doesn't seem to be detailed enough. I need to know about the following: 1) How to expect multiple calls to a mock object's method, but each return a different sets of value? $tableMock->expects($this->exactly(2)) ->method('find') ->will($this->returnValue(2)); // I need the second call to return different value 2) How to expect a call to a mock object's method with multiple parameters?

  Read the article

• Mock a void method which change the input value

  - by Kar

  Hi, How could I mock a void method with parameters and change the value parameters? My void method looks like this: public interface IFoo { void GetValue(int x, object y) // takes x and do something then access another class to get the value of y } I prepared a delegate class: private delegate void GetValueDelegate(int x, object y); private void GetValue(int x, object y) { // process x // prepare a new object obj if (y == null) y = new Object(); if (//some checks) y = obj; } I wrote something like this: Expect.Call(delegate {x.GetValue(5, null);}).Do (new GetValueDelegate(GetValue)).IgnoreArguments().Repeat.Any(); But seems like it's not working. Any clue on what could be wrong?

  Read the article

• How to mock a String using mockito?

  - by Alceu Costa

  I need to simulate a test scenario in which I call the getBytes() method of a String object and I get an UnsupportedEncodingException. I have tried to achieve that using the following code: String nonEncodedString = mock(String.class); when(nonEncodedString.getBytes(anyString())).thenThrow(new UnsupportedEncodingException("Parsing error.")); The problem is that when I run my test case I get a MockitoException that says that I can't mock a java.lang.String class. Is there a way to mock a String object using mockito or, alternatively, a way to make my String object throw an UnsupportedEncodingException when I call the getBytes method? Here are more details to illustrate the problem: This is the class that I want to test: public final class A{ public static String f(String str){ try{ return new String(str.getBytes("UTF-8")); } catch (UnsupportedEncodingException e) { // This is the catch block that I want to exercise. ... } } } This is my testing class (I'm using JUnit 4 and mockito): public class TestA { @Test(expected=UnsupportedEncodingException.class) public void test(){ String aString = mock(String.class); when(nonEncodedString.getBytes(anyString())).thenThrow(new UnsupportedEncodingException("Parsing error.")); A.f(aString); } }

  Read the article

• Unittest and mock

  - by user1410756

  I'm testing with unittest in python and it's ok. Now, I have introduced mock and I need to resolve a question. This is my code: from mock import Mock import unittest class Matematica(object): def __init__(self, op1, op2): self.op1 = op1 self.op2 = op2 def adder(self): return self.op1 + self.op2 def subs(self): return abs(self.op1 - self.op2) def molt(self): return self.op1 * self.op2 def divid(self): return self.op1 / self.op2 class TestMatematica(unittest.TestCase): """Test della classe Matematica""" def testing(self): """Somma""" mat = Matematica(10,20) self.assertEqual(mat.adder(),30) """Sottrazione""" self.assertEqual(mat.subs(),10) class test_mock(object): def __init__(self, matematica): self.matematica = matematica def execute(self): self.matematica.adder() self.matematica.adder() self.matematica.subs() if __name__ == "__main__": result = unittest.TextTestRunner(verbosity=2).run(TestMatematica('testing')) a = Matematica(10,20) b = test_mock(a) b.execute() mock_foo = Mock(b.execute)#return_value = 'rafa') mock_foo() print mock_foo.called print mock_foo.call_count print mock_foo.method_calls This code is functionally and result of print is: True, 1, [] . Now, I need to count how many times are called self.matematica.adder() and self.matematica.subs() . THANKS

  Read the article

• How to let the matcher to match the second invocation on mock?

  - by Alex Luya

  I have an interface like this public interface EventBus{ public void fireEvent(GwtEvent<?> event); } and test code(testng method) looks like this: @Test public void testFireEvent(){ EventBus mock=mock(EventBus.class); //when both Event1 and Event2 are subclasses of GwtEvent<?> mock.fireEvent(new Event1()); mock.fireEvent(new Event2()); //then verify(mock).fireEvent(argThat(new Event2Matcher())); } Event2Matcher looks like this: private class Event2Matcher extends ArgumentMatcher<Event2> { @Override public boolean matches(Object arg) { return ((Event2) arg).getSth==sth; } } But get an error indicating that: Event1 can't be cast to Event2 And obviously,the matcher matched the first invoking mock.fireEvent(new Event1()); So,the statement within matcher return ((Event2) arg).getSth==sth; Will throw out this exception.So the question is how to let verify(mock).fireEvent(argThat(new Event2Matcher())); to match the second invoking?

  Read the article

• How to verify that "puts" has been called with a certain message?

  - by soulnafein

  Hello there. I'm trying to make this test fail :) it "should display the question" do @ui.should_receive(:puts).with("What's your name?").once @ui.ask_question("What's your name?") end At the moment it passes even if I don't call puts in my function.

  Read the article

• ASP.NET MVC Unit Testing Controllers - Repositories

  - by Brian McCord

  This is more of an opinion seeking question, so there may not be a "right" answer, but I would welcome arguments as to why your answer is the "right" one. Given an MVC application that is using Entity Framework for the persistence engine, a repository layer, a service layer that basically defers to the repository, and a delete method on a controller that looks like this: public ActionResult Delete(State model) { try { if( model == null ) { return View( model ); } _stateService.Delete( model ); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } catch { return View( model ); } } I am looking for the proper way to Unit Test this. Currently, I have a fake repository that gets used in the service, and my unit test looks like this: [TestMethod] public void Delete_Post_Passes_With_State_4() { //Arrange var stateService = GetService(); var stateController = new StateController( stateService ); ViewResult result = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var model = (State)result.ViewData.Model; //Act RedirectToRouteResult redirectResult = stateController.Delete( model ) as RedirectToRouteResult; stateController = new StateController( stateService ); var newresult = stateController.Delete( 4 ) as ViewResult; var newmodel = (State)newresult.ViewData.Model; //Assert Assert.AreEqual( redirectResult.RouteValues["action"], "Index" ); Assert.IsNull( newmodel ); } Is this overkill? Do I need to check to see if the record actually got deleted (as I already have Service and Repository tests that verify this)? Should I even use a fake repository here or would it make more sense just to mock the whole thing? The examples I'm looking at used this model of doing things, and I just copied it, but I'm really open to doing things in a "best practices" way. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Boost.Test: Looking for a working non-Trivial Test Suite Example / Tutorial

  - by Robert S. Barnes

  The Boost.Test documentation and examples don't really seem to contain any non-trivial examples and so far the two tutorials I've found here and here while helpful are both fairly basic. I would like to have a master test suite for the entire project, while maintaining per module suites of unit tests and fixtures that can be run independently. I'll also be using a mock server to test various networking edge cases. I'm on Ubuntu 8.04, but I'll take any example Linux or Windows since I'm writing my own makefiles anyways.

  Read the article

• How do you unit test the real world?

  - by Kim Sun-wu

  I'm primarily a C++ coder, and thus far, have managed without really writing tests for all of my code. I've decided this is a Bad Idea(tm), after adding new features that subtly broke old features, or, depending on how you wish to look at it, introduced some new "features" of their own. But, unit testing seems to be an extremely brittle mechanism. You can test for something in "perfect" conditions, but you don't get to see how your code performs when stuff breaks. A for instance is a crawler, let's say it crawls a few specific sites, for data X. Do you simply save sample pages, test against those, and hope that the sites never change? This would work fine as regression tests, but, what sort of tests would you write to constantly check those sites live and let you know when the application isn't doing it's job because the site changed something, that now causes your application to crash? Wouldn't you want your test suite to monitor the intent of the code? The above example is a bit contrived, and something I haven't run into (in case you haven't guessed). Let me pick something I have, though. How do you test an application will do its job in the face of a degraded network stack? That is, say you have a moderate amount of packet loss, for one reason or the other, and you have a function DoSomethingOverTheNetwork() which is supposed to degrade gracefully when the stack isn't performing as it's supposed to; but does it? The developer tests it personally by purposely setting up a gateway that drops packets to simulate a bad network when he first writes it. A few months later, someone checks in some code that modifies something subtly, so the degradation isn't detected in time, or, the application doesn't even recognize the degradation, this is never caught, because you can't run real world tests like this using unit tests, can you? Further, how about file corruption? Let's say you're storing a list of servers in a file, and the checksum looks okay, but the data isn't really. You want the code to handle that, you write some code that you think does that. How do you test that it does exactly that for the life of the application? Can you? Hence, brittleness. Unit tests seem to test the code only in perfect conditions(and this is promoted, with mock objects and such), not what they'll face in the wild. Don't get me wrong, I think unit tests are great, but a test suite composed only of them seems to be a smart way to introduce subtle bugs in your code while feeling overconfident about it's reliability. How do I address the above situations? If unit tests aren't the answer, what is? Thanks!

  Read the article

• What is the best way to mock a 3rd party object in ruby?

  - by spinlock

  I'm writing a test app using the twitter gem and I'd like to write an integration test but I can't figure out how to mock the objects in the Twitter namespace. Here's the function that I want to test: def build_twitter(omniauth) Twitter.configure do |config| config.consumer_key = TWITTER_KEY config.consumer_secret = TWITTER_SECRET config.oauth_token = omniauth['credentials']['token'] config.oauth_token_secret = omniauth['credentials']['secret'] end client = Twitter::Client.new user = client.current_user self.name = user.name end and here's the rspec test that I'm trying to write: feature 'testing oauth' do before(:each) do @twitter = double("Twitter") @twitter.stub!(:configure).and_return true @client = double("Twitter::Client") @client.stub!(:current_user).and_return(@user) @user = double("Twitter::User") @user.stub!(:name).and_return("Tester") end scenario 'twitter' do visit root_path login_with_oauth page.should have_content("Pages#home") end end But, I'm getting this error: 1) testing oauth twitter Failure/Error: login_with_oauth Twitter::Error::Unauthorized: GET https://api.twitter.com/1/account/verify_credentials.json: 401: Invalid / expired Token # ./app/models/user.rb:40:in `build_twitter' # ./app/models/user.rb:16:in `build_authentication' # ./app/controllers/authentications_controller.rb:47:in `create' # ./spec/support/integration_spec_helper.rb:3:in `login_with_oauth' # ./spec/integration/twit_test.rb:16:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>' The mocks above are using rspec but I'm open to trying mocha too. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Ruby: Alter class static method in a code block

  - by Phuong Nguy?n

  Given the Thread class with it current method. Now inside a test, I want to do this: def test_alter_current_thread Thread.current = a_stubbed_method # do something that involve the work of Thread.current Thread.current = default_thread_current end Basically, I want to alter the method of a class inside a test method and recover it after that. I know it sound complex for another language, like Java & C# (in Java, only powerful mock framework can do it). But it's ruby and I hope such nasty stuff would be available

  Read the article

• python mock patch : a method of instance is called?

  - by JuanPablo

  In python 2.7, I have this function from slacker import Slacker def post_message(token, channel, message): channel = '#{}'.format(channel) slack = Slacker(token) slack.chat.post_message(channel, message) with mock and patch, I can check that the token is used in Slacker class import unittest from mock import patch from slacker_cli import post_message class TestMessage(unittest.TestCase): @patch('slacker_cli.Slacker') def test_post_message_use_token(self, mock_slacker): token = 'aaa' channel = 'channel_name' message = 'message string' post_message(token, channel, message) mock_slacker.assert_called_with(token) how I can check the string use in post_message ? I try with mock_slacker.chat.post_message.assert_called_with('#channel') but I get AssertionError: Expected call: post_message('#channel') Not called

  Read the article

• Creating TCP network errors for unit testing

  - by Robert S. Barnes

  I'd like to create various network errors during testing. I'm using the Berkely sockets API directly in C++ on Linux. I'm running a mock server in another thread from within Boost.Test which listens on localhost. For instance, I'd like to create a timeout during connect. So far I've tried not calling accept in my mock server and setting the backlog to 1, then making multiple connections, but all seem to successfully connect. I would think that if there wasn't room in the backlog queue I would at least get a connection refused error if not a timeout. I'd like to do this all programatically if possible, but I'd consider using something external like IPchains to intentionally drop certain packets to certain ports during testing, but I'd need to automate creating and removing rules so I could do it from within my Boost.Test unit tests. I suppose I could mock the various system calls involved, but I'd rather go through a real TCP stack if possible. Ideas?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >