Search Results

Search found 12476 results on 500 pages for 'unit testing'.

Page 8/500 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Testing Spring MVC Output

    - by Sammy
    Hello, So I have an MVC project that exposes my services in JSON format. What would be the ideal method of (unit?) testing whether or not my methods return correct content (in terms of JSON syntax as well)? Thank you, Sammy

    Read the article

  • What's your approach to testing iPhone / iPad apps?

    - by R0MANARMY
    When developing for iPhone/iPad do you Do unit/integration/etc testing? What framework(s) do you use? What other framework(s) have you tried (if you decided to not use them, why not?) NOTE This is based on a question asked a few days ago (that has since been heavily edited). Question generated some interesting responses that may be useful to aggregate in one place.

    Read the article

  • Test Data in a Distributed System

    - by Davin Tryon
    A question that has been vexing me lately has been about how to effectively test (end-to-end) features in a distributed system. Particuarly, how to effectively manage (through time) test data for feature testing. The system in question is a typical SOA setup. The composition is done in JavaScript when call to several REST APIs. Each service is built as an independent block. Each service has some kind of persistent storage (SQL Server in most cases). The main issue at the moment is how to approach test data when testing end-to-end features. Functional end-to-end testing occurs through the UI, and it is therefore necessary for test data to be set up before the test run (this could be manual or automated testing). As is typical in a distributed system, identifiers from one service are used as a link in another service. So, some level of synchronization needs to be present in the data to effectively test. What is the best way to manage and set up this data after a successful deployment to a test environment? For example, is it better to manage this test data inside each service? Or package it together with the testing suite? Does that testing suite exist as a separate project? I'm interested in design guidance about how to store and manage this test data as the application features evolve.

    Read the article

  • Should we test all our methods?

    - by Zenzen
    So today I had a talk with my teammate about unit testing. The whole thing started when he asked me "hey, where are the tests for that class, I see only one?". The whole class was a manager (or a service if you prefer to call it like that) and almost all the methods were simply delegating stuff to a DAO so it was similar to: SomeClass getSomething(parameters) { return myDao.findSomethingBySomething(parameters); } A kind of boilerplate with no logic (or at least I do not consider such simple delegation as logic) but a useful boilerplate in most cases (layer separation etc.). And we had a rather lengthy discussion whether or not I should unit test it (I think that it is worth mentioning that I did fully unit test the DAO). His main arguments being that it was not TDD (obviously) and that someone might want to see the test to check what this method does (I do not know how it could be more obvious) or that in the future someone might want to change the implementation and add new (or more like "any") logic to it (in which case I guess someone should simply test that logic). This made me think, though. Should we strive for the highest test coverage %? Or is it simply an art for art's sake then? I simply do not see any reason behind testing things like: getters and setters (unless they actually have some logic in them) "boilerplate" code Obviously a test for such a method (with mocks) would take me less than a minute but I guess that is still time wasted and a millisecond longer for every CI. Are there any rational/not "flammable" reasons to why one should test every single (or as many as he can) line of code?

    Read the article

  • web application load / stress testing services

    - by Booji Boy
    Can you recommend reputable companies that offer help (consulting services, etc) in load testing (ASP.NET) web applications? We have a client looking to load test an ASP.NET application and we don't have any expertise in load testing web applications. The client is located in central Massachusetts. My employer http://www.goADNET.com was looking for an option besides, “I can figure out how to do it”.

    Read the article

  • What should come first: testing or code review?

    - by Silver Light
    Hello! I'm quite new to programming design patterns and life cycles and I was wondering, what should come first, code review or testing, regarding that those are done by separate people? From the one side, why bother reviewing code if nobody checked if it even works? From the other, some errors can be found early, if you do the review before testing. Which approach is recommended and why? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-First

    - by Timothy Klenke
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-first.aspxThis is the second of two posts on some common strategies for approaching the job of writing tests.  The previous post covered test-after workflows where as this will focus on test-first.  Each workflow presented is a method of attack for adding tests to a project.  The more tools in your tool belt the better.  So here is a partial list of some test-first methodologies. Ping Pong Ping Pong is a methodology commonly used in pair programing.  One developer will write a new failing test.  Then they hand the keyboard to their partner.  The partner writes the production code to get the test passing.  The partner then writes the next test before passing the keyboard back to the original developer. The reasoning behind this testing methodology is to facilitate pair programming.  That is to say that this testing methodology shares all the benefits of pair programming, including ensuring multiple team members are familiar with the code base (i.e. low bus number). Test Blazer Test Blazing, in some respects, is also a pairing strategy.  The developers don’t work side by side on the same task at the same time.  Instead one developer is dedicated to writing tests at their own desk.  They write failing test after failing test, never touching the production code.  With these tests they are defining the specification for the system.  The developer most familiar with the specifications would be assigned this task. The next day or later in the same day another developer fetches the latest test suite.  Their job is to write the production code to get those tests passing.  Once all the tests pass they fetch from source control the latest version of the test project to get the newer tests. This methodology has some of the benefits of pair programming, namely lowering the bus number.  This can be good way adding an extra developer to a project without slowing it down too much.  The production coder isn’t slowed down writing tests.  The tests are in another project from the production code, so there shouldn’t be any merge conflicts despite two developers working on the same solution. This methodology is also a good test for the tests.  Can another developer figure out what system should do just by reading the tests?  This question will be answered as the production coder works there way through the test blazer’s tests. Test Driven Development (TDD) TDD is a highly disciplined practice that calls for a new test and an new production code to be written every few minutes.  There are strict rules for when you should be writing test or production code.  You start by writing a failing (red) test, then write the simplest production code possible to get the code working (green), then you clean up the code (refactor).  This is known as the red-green-refactor cycle. The goal of TDD isn’t the creation of a suite of tests, however that is an advantageous side effect.  The real goal of TDD is to follow a practice that yields a better design.  The practice is meant to push the design toward small, decoupled, modularized components.  This is generally considered a better design that large, highly coupled ball of mud. TDD accomplishes this through the refactoring cycle.  Refactoring is only possible to do safely when tests are in place.  In order to use TDD developers must be trained in how to look for and repair code smells in the system.  Through repairing these sections of smelly code (i.e. a refactoring) the design of the system emerges. For further information on TDD, I highly recommend the series “Is TDD Dead?”.  It discusses its pros and cons and when it is best used. Acceptance Test Driven Development (ATDD) Whereas TDD focuses on small unit tests that concentrate on a small piece of the system, Acceptance Tests focuses on the larger integrated environment.  Acceptance Tests usually correspond to user stories, which come directly from the customer. The unit tests focus on the inputs and outputs of smaller parts of the system, which are too low level to be of interest to the customer. ATDD generally uses the same tools as TDD.  However, ATDD uses fewer mocks and test doubles than TDD. ATDD often complements TDD; they aren’t competing methods.  A full test suite will usually consist of a large number of unit (created via TDD) tests and a smaller number of acceptance tests. Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) BDD is more about audience than workflow.  BDD pushes the testing realm out towards the client.  Developers, managers and the client all work together to define the tests. Typically different tooling is used for BDD than acceptance and unit testing.  This is done because the audience is not just developers.  Tools using the Gherkin family of languages allow for test scenarios to be described in an English format.  Other tools such as MSpec or FitNesse also strive for highly readable behaviour driven test suites. Because these tests are public facing (viewable by people outside the development team), the terminology usually changes.  You can’t get away with the same technobabble you can with unit tests written in a programming language that only developers understand.  For starters, they usually aren’t called tests.  Usually they’re called “examples”, “behaviours”, “scenarios”, or “specifications”. This may seem like a very subtle difference, but I’ve seen this small terminology change have a huge impact on the acceptance of the process.  Many people have a bias that testing is something that comes at the end of a project.  When you say we need to define the tests at the start of the project many people will immediately give that a lower priority on the project schedule.  But if you say we need to define the specification or behaviour of the system before we can start, you’ll get more cooperation.   Keep these test-first and test-after workflows in your tool belt.  With them you’ll be able to find new opportunities to apply them.

    Read the article

  • How does the workflow between testers doing testing and coders doing the coding for pending testing

    - by dotnetdev
    In a large company that does software development, they often have dedicated teams for build management, testing, development, and so forth. Agile or not, how does this workflow amongst teams work? I mean would the test team write unit tests and then the dev team write code to adhere to these tests (basically TDD)? And then the test team may write tests for a completely different project or have a slight quiet period until the dev team have done their coding. What possible workflows are there? This is something that interests me greatly. I know that in my current company we are doing it incorrectly (we have 1 tester about 5 devs, which is small scale) but I am not sure how exactly to draw out the ideal workflow. Many (ok, an ex-Project Manager) have tried, but all failed.

    Read the article

  • Testing complex entities

    - by Carlos
    I've got a C# form, with various controls on it. The form controls an ongoing process, and there are many, many aspects that need to be right for the program to run correctly. Each part can be unit tested (for instance, loading some coefficients, drawing some diagnostics) but I often run into problems that are best described with an example: "If I click here, then here, then change this, then re-open the form, then click here, it crashes or produces an error" I've tried my best to use common code organisational ideas (inheritance, DRY, separation of concerns) but there never seems to be a way to test every single path, and inevitably, a form with several controls will have a huge number of ways to execute. What can I read (preferably online) that addresses this kind of issue, and is there a (non-generic) term for it. This isn't a specific problem I'm having, but one that creeps up on me, especially with WinForms.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing functions within repository interfaces - ASP.net MVC3 & Moq

    - by RawryLions
    I'm getting into writing unit testing and have implemented a nice repository pattern/moq to allow me to test my functions without using "real" data. So far so good.. However.. In my repository interface for "Posts" IPostRepository I have a function: Post getPostByID(int id); I want to be able to test this from my Test class but cannot work out how. So far I am using this pattern for my tests: [SetUp] public void Setup() { mock = new Mock<IPostRepository>(); } [Test] public void someTest() { populate(10); //This populates the mock with 10 fake entries //do test here } In my function "someTest" I want to be able to call/test the function GetPostById. I can find the function with mock.object.getpostbyid but the "object" is null. Any help would be appreciated :) iPostRepository: public interface IPostRepository { IQueryable<Post> Posts {get;} void SavePost(Post post); Post getPostByID(int id); }

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing iPhone Code That Uses NSLocalizedString

    - by Jay Haase
    I have an iPhone iOS4.1 application that uses localized strings. I have just started building unit tests using the SenTestingKit. I have been able to successfully test many different types of values. I am unable to correctly test any of my code that uses NSLocalizedString calls, because when the code runs in my LogicTests target, all of my NSLocalizedString calls only return the string key. I have added my Localizable.strings file to the LogicTests target. My question is: How must I configure my LogicTests target so that calls to NSLocalizedString will return the localized string and not the string key.

    Read the article

  • Framework/tool for processing C++ unit tests with numerical output

    - by David Claridge
    Hi, I am working on a C++ application that uses computer vision techniques to identify various types of objects in a sequence of images. The (1000+) images have been hand-classified, so we have an XML file for each image containing a description of where the objects are actually located in the images. I would like to know if there is a testing framework that can understand/graph results from tests that are numeric, in this case some measure of the error in the program's classification of the images, rather than just pass/fail style unit tests. We would like to use something like CDash/CTest for running these automated tests, and viewing over time how improvements to the vision algorithms are causing the images to be more correctly classified. Does anyone know of a tool/framework that can do this?

    Read the article

  • Unit Tests as a learning tool - a good idea?

    - by Ekkehard.Horner
    I'm interested in ways and means for learning (a) programming language(s) efficiently. I believe that using Unit Test concepts and infrastructure early in that process is a good thing, even better than starting with "Hello world". Why: To write a decent program even for a toy/restricted problem in a new language, you'll have to master many heterogenous concepts (control flow & variables & IO ...), you are tempted to glance over details just to get your program 'to work'. Putting (your understanding of) the facts about the new language in assertions with good descriptions (=success messages) enforces thinking thru/clearness/precision. Grouping topics and adding assertions to such groups is much easier than incorporation features from the 2. chapter of your "Learning X" book to your chapter 1 program. Why not: 'Real' Unit Tests are meant to output "1234 tests ok; 1 failure: saveWorld() chokes on negative input"; 'didactic' Unit Tests should output relevant facts about the new language like perl6 10-string.t # ### p5chop ... ok 13 - p5chop( "cbä" ) returns "ä" ok 14 - after that, victim is changed to "cb" # ### (p6) chop ... ok 27 - (p6) chop( "cbä" ) returns chopped copy: "cb" ok 18 - after that, victim is unchanged: "cbä" # ### chomp ... So (mis?)using Unit Tests may be counterproductive - practicing actions while learning you wouldn't use professionally. How: Writing 'didactic' Unit Tests in languages with lightweight testing systems (Perl 5/6) is easy; (mis?)using more elaborate systems (JUnit, CppUnit) may be not worth the effort or not suitable for a person just starting with a new language. So Is using Unit Tests as a learning tool a bad idea? Can the Unit Test tool(s) of your favourite language(s) used didactically? Should implementation details (eventually) be discussed here or over at stackoverflow.com?

    Read the article

  • VisualAssert Testing in C++, Loading a test fixture.

    - by C_Bevan
    Good day, I am learning Testing in Visual Studio C++ and I have several tutorials which I have followed. I am trying to load a test fixture. I have tried to put the test .cpp file in many different places but it will still not pick up on it when I click on "Run Tests" or "Run Tests without debugging" In the tutorials I found, they seemed to load into the Test Explorer automatically, but in mine is an icon with a X + (PROJECTNAME).EXE and when I hoover over it I get the process exited without registering with the agent... this is due to the model not containing any test fixtures... How can I load my tests into the Test Explorer...or register them with my project... I've tried right click and "Add Fixture...".... but that just starts a new test file and I have the same problem. Anybody know how I solve this issue?

    Read the article

  • Web Performance testing using VS2010 "Testing a file download"

    - by cheedep
    Hi All, I am trying out the VS 2010 testing tools for the first time. And I tried recording a web performance test and my actions had a file download implemented as in the KB article here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/812406 by streaming chunks of 10000 bytes. However my test is failing at the download saying "The response stream has been closed". Please help me understand why it is happening this way also any suggestions how you would test such a file download. My main aim was to see how the download was performing for a load test with Intercontinental 350kbps connection on files of about 30-50 MB. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to get access under testing

    - by Friedrich
    This question is related to: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3027705/experiences-with-language-converters I just can tell I searched the web for quite a few days but hardly found anything about somewhat "proper" test in access. I found some framworks like accessunit but that's Unit testing, what abouut the forms? What about the different reports etc. A counter-example in "testing" is e.g the rails or Seaside or Smalltalk area. Where testing is thought of as integral part. But I have not found anything comparable for Access based solutions. Maybe some of you know better?

    Read the article

  • What is the role of asserts in C++ programs that have unit tests?

    - by lhumongous
    Greetings, I've been adding unit tests to some legacy C++ code, and I've run into many scenarios where an assert inside a function will get tripped during a unit test run. A common idiom that I've run across is functions that take pointer arguments and immediately assert if the argument is NULL. I could easily get around this by disabling asserts when I'm unit testing. But I'm starting to wonder if unit tests are supposed to alleviate the need for runtime asserts. Is this a correct assessment? Are unit tests supposed to replace runtime asserts by happening sooner in the pipeline (ie: the error is caught in a failing test instead of when the program is running). On the other hand, I don't like adding soft fails to code (eg: if(param == NULL) return false;). A runtime assert at least makes it easier to debug a problem in case a unit test missed a bug. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Problem with Unit testing of ASP.NET project (NullReferenceException when running the test)

    - by Alex
    Hi, I'm trying to create a bunch of MS visual studio unit tests for my n-tiered web app but for some reason I can't run those tests and I get the following error - "Object reference not set to an instance of an object" What I'm trying to do is testing of my data access layer where I use LINQ data context class to execute a certain function and return a result,however during the debugging process I found out that all the tests fail as soon as they get to the LINQ data context class and it has something to do with the connection string but I cant figure out what is the problem. The debugging of tests fails here(the second line): public EICDataClassesDataContext() : base(global::System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["EICDatabaseConnectionString"].ConnectionString, mappingSource) { OnCreated(); } And my test is as follows: TestMethod()] public void OnGetCustomerIDTest() { FrontLineStaffDataAccess target = new FrontLineStaffDataAccess(); // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value string regNo = "jonh"; // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value int expected = 10; // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value int actual; actual = target.OnGetCustomerID(regNo); Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); } The method which I call from DAL is: public int OnGetCustomerID(string regNo) { using (LINQDataAccess.EICDataClassesDataContext dataContext = new LINQDataAccess.EICDataClassesDataContext()) { IEnumerable<LINQDataAccess.GetCustomerIDResult> sProcCustomerIDResult = dataContext.GetCustomerID(regNo); int customerID = sProcCustomerIDResult.First().CustomerID; return customerID; } } So basically everything fails after it reaches the 1st line of DA layer method and when it tries to instantiate the LINQ data access class... I've spent around 10 hours trying to troubleshoot the problem but no result...I would really appreciate any help! UPDATE: Finally I've fixed this!!!!:) I dont know why but for some reasons in the app.config file the connection to my database was as follows: AttachDbFilename=|DataDirectory|\EICDatabase.MDF So what I did is I just changed the path and instead of |DataDirectory| I put the actual path where my MDF file sits,i.e C:\Users\1\Documents\Visual Studio 2008\Projects\EICWebSystem\EICWebSystem\App_Data\EICDatabase.mdf After I had done that it worked out!But still it's a bit not clear what was the problem...probably incorrect path to the database?My web.config of ASP.NET project contains the |DataDirectory|\EICDatabase.MDF path though..

    Read the article

  • Testing Web Application: "Mirror" ad-hoc testing in another window

    - by Narcissus
    I don't even really know if the title is the best way to explain what I'm trying to do, but anyway... We have a web app that is being ported to a number of DB backends via MDB2. Our unit tests are pretty lacking at the moment, but our internal users are pretty good at knowing what to test to see if things are broken. What I'm 'imagining' is a browser plug in (don't really care which browser it is for) or a similar system that essentially takes every event from one window and 'mirrors' it in the other browser/s. The reason I'd like this is so that I can have various installations that use different DB backends, and have the user open a window/tab to each installation. From there, however, I'd like them to be able to 'work' in one window and have that 'work' I occur at the same time in each of the 'cloned' windows. From there, they should be able to do some quick eyeballing of the information that comes back, without having to worry about timing differences and so (very much). I know it's a big ask, but I figure if anyone knows of a solution, I'd find it here... Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to test using grails using IDEA?

    - by egervari
    I am seriously having a very non-pleasant time testing using Grails. I will describe my experience, and I'd like to know if there's a better way. The first problem I have with testing is that Grails doesn't give immediate feedback to the developer when .save() fails inside of an integration test. So let's say you have a domain class with 12 fields, and 1 of them is violating a constraint and you don't know it when you create the instance... it just doesn't save. Naturally, the test code afterward is going to fail. This is most troublesome because the thingy under test is probably fine... and the real risk and pain is the setup code for the test itself. So, I've tried to develop the habit of using .save(failOnError: true) to avoid this problem, but that's not something that can be easily enforced by everyone working on the project... and it's kind of bloaty. It'd be nice to turn this on for code that is running as part of a unit test automatically. Integration Tests run slow. I cannot understand how 1 integration test that saves 1 object takes 15-20 seconds to run. With some careful test planning, I've been able to get 1000 tests talking to an actual database and doing dbunit dumps after every test to happen in about the same time! This is dumb. It is hard to run all the unit tests and not integration tests in IDEA. Integration tests are a massive pain. Idea actually shows a GREEN BAR when integration tests fail. The output given by grails indicates that something failed, but it doesn't say what it was. It says to look in the test reports... which forces the developer to launch up their file system to hunt the stupid html file down. What a pain. Then once you got the html file and click to the failing test, it'll tell you a line number. Since these reports are not in the IDE, you can't just click the stack trace to go to that line of code... you gotta go back and find it yourself. ARGGH!@!@! Maybe people put up with this, but I refuse. Testing should not be this painful. It should be fast and painless, or people won't do it. Please help. What is the solution? Rails instead of Grails? Something else entirely? I love the Grails framework, but they never demo their testing for a reason. They have a snazzy framework, but the testing is painful. After having used Scala for the last 1.5 months, and being totally spoiled by ScalaTest... I can't go back to this.

    Read the article

  • When is type testing OK?

    - by svidgen
    Assuming a language with some inherent type safety (e.g., not JavaScript): Given a method that accepts a SuperType, we know that in most cases wherein we might be tempted to perform type testing to pick an action: public void DoSomethingTo(SuperType o) { if (o isa SubTypeA) { o.doSomethingA() } else { o.doSomethingB(); } } We should usually, if not always, create a single, overridable method on the SuperType and do this: public void DoSomethingTo(SuperType o) { o.doSomething(); } ... wherein each subtype is given its own doSomething() implementation. The rest of our application can then be appropriately ignorant of whether any given SuperType is really a SubTypeA or a SubTypeB. Wonderful. But, we're still given is a-like operations in most, if not all, type-safe languages. And that seems suggests a potential need for explicit type testing. So, in what situations, if any, should we or must we perform explicit type testing? Forgive my absent mindedness or lack of creativity. I know I've done it before; but, it was honestly so long ago I can't remember if what I did was good! And in recent memory, I don't think I've encountered a need to test types outside my cowboy JavaScript.

    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

  • Unit test complex classes with many private methods

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I've got a class with one public method and many private methods which are run depending on what parameter are passed to the public method so my code looks something like: public class SomeComplexClass { IRepository _repository; public SomeComplexClass() this(new Repository()) { } public SomeComplexClass(IRepository repository) { _repository = repository; } public List<int> SomeComplexCalcualation(int option) { var list = new List<int>(); if (option == 1) list = CalculateOptionOne(); else if (option == 2) list = CalculateOptionTwo(); else if (option == 3) list = CalculateOptionThree(); else if (option == 4) list = CalculateOptionFour(); else if (option == 5) list = CalculateOptionFive(); return list; } private List<int> CalculateOptionOne() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionTwo() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionThree() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionFour() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionFive() { // Some calculation } } I've thought of a few ways to test this class but all of them seem overly complex or expose the methods more than I would like. The options so far are: Set all the private methods to internal and use [assembly: InternalsVisibleTo()] Separate out all the private methods into a separate class and create an interface. Make all the methods virtual and in my tests create a new class that inherits from this class and override the methods. Are there any other options for testing the above class that would be better that what I've listed? If you would pick one of the ones I've listed can you explain why? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Testing Finite State Machines

    - by Pondidum
    I have inherited a large and firaly complex state machine at work. It has 31 possbile states to be in. It has the following inputs: Enum: Current State (so 0 - 30) Enum: source (currently only 2 entries) Boolean: Request Boolean: type Enum: Status (3 states) Enum: Handling (3 states) Boolean: Completed The 31 States are really needed (big business process). Breaking into seperate state machines doesnt seem feasable - each state is distinct. I have written tests for one set of inputs (the most common set), with one test per input (all inputs constant, except for the State input): [Subject("Application Process States")] public class When_state_is_meeting2Requested : AppProcessBase { Establish context = () => { //Setup.... }; Because of = () => process.Load(jas, vac); It Current_node_should_be_meeting2Requested = () => process.CurrentNode.ShouldBeOfType<meetingRequestedNode>(); It Can_move_to_clientDeclined = () => Check(process, process.clientDeclined); It Can_move_to_meeting1Arranged = () => Check(process, process.meeting1Arranged); It Can_move_to_meeting2Arranged = () => Check(process, process.meeting2Arranged); It Can_move_to_Reject = () => Check(process, process.Reject); It Cannot_move_to_any_other_state = () => AllOthersFalse(process); } As no one is entirely sure on what the output should be for each state and set of inputs i have been starting to write tests for it, however on calculation i will need to write 4320 ( 30*2*2*2*3*3*2 ) tests for it. Does anyone have any suggestions on how i should go about testing this?

    Read the article

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