Search Results

Search found 13748 results on 550 pages for 'split testing'.

Page 125/550 | < Previous Page | 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132  | Next Page >

  • Java unit test coverage numbers do not match.

    - by Dan
    Below is a class I have written in a web application I am building using Java Google App Engine. I have written Unit Tests using TestNG and all the tests pass. I then run EclEmma in Eclipse to see the test coverage on my code. All the functions show 100% coverage but the file as a whole is showing about 27% coverage. Where is the 73% uncovered code coming from? Can anyone help me understand how EclEmma works and why I am getting the discrepancy in numbers? package com.skaxo.sports.models; import javax.jdo.annotations.IdGeneratorStrategy; import javax.jdo.annotations.IdentityType; import javax.jdo.annotations.PersistenceCapable; import javax.jdo.annotations.Persistent; import javax.jdo.annotations.PrimaryKey; @PersistenceCapable(identityType= IdentityType.APPLICATION) public class Account { @PrimaryKey @Persistent(valueStrategy=IdGeneratorStrategy.IDENTITY) private Long id; @Persistent private String userId; @Persistent private String firstName; @Persistent private String lastName; @Persistent private String email; @Persistent private boolean termsOfService; @Persistent private boolean systemEmails; public Account() {} public Account(String firstName, String lastName, String email) { super(); this.firstName = firstName; this.lastName = lastName; this.email = email; } public Account(String userId) { super(); this.userId = userId; } public void setId(Long id) { this.id = id; } public Long getId() { return id; } public String getUserId() { return userId; } public void setUserId(String userId) { this.userId = userId; } public String getFirstName() { return firstName; } public void setFirstName(String firstName) { this.firstName = firstName; } public String getLastName() { return lastName; } public void setLastName(String lastName) { this.lastName = lastName; } public String getEmail() { return email; } public void setEmail(String email) { this.email = email; } public boolean acceptedTermsOfService() { return termsOfService; } public void setTermsOfService(boolean termsOfService) { this.termsOfService = termsOfService; } public boolean acceptedSystemEmails() { return systemEmails; } public void setSystemEmails(boolean systemEmails) { this.systemEmails = systemEmails; } } Below is the test code for the above class. package com.skaxo.sports.models; import static org.testng.Assert.assertEquals; import static org.testng.Assert.assertNotNull; import static org.testng.Assert.assertTrue; import static org.testng.Assert.assertFalse; import org.testng.annotations.BeforeTest; import org.testng.annotations.Test; public class AccountTest { @Test public void testId() { Account a = new Account(); a.setId(1L); assertEquals((Long) 1L, a.getId(), "ID"); a.setId(3L); assertNotNull(a.getId(), "The ID is set to null."); } @Test public void testUserId() { Account a = new Account(); a.setUserId("123456ABC"); assertEquals(a.getUserId(), "123456ABC", "User ID incorrect."); a = new Account("123456ABC"); assertEquals(a.getUserId(), "123456ABC", "User ID incorrect."); } @Test public void testFirstName() { Account a = new Account("Test", "User", "[email protected]"); assertEquals(a.getFirstName(), "Test", "User first name not equal to 'Test'."); a.setFirstName("John"); assertEquals(a.getFirstName(), "John", "User first name not equal to 'John'."); } @Test public void testLastName() { Account a = new Account("Test", "User", "[email protected]"); assertEquals(a.getLastName(), "User", "User last name not equal to 'User'."); a.setLastName("Doe"); assertEquals(a.getLastName(), "Doe", "User last name not equal to 'Doe'."); } @Test public void testEmail() { Account a = new Account("Test", "User", "[email protected]"); assertEquals(a.getEmail(), "[email protected]", "User email not equal to '[email protected]'."); a.setEmail("[email protected]"); assertEquals(a.getEmail(), "[email protected]", "User email not equal to '[email protected]'."); } @Test public void testAcceptedTermsOfService() { Account a = new Account(); a.setTermsOfService(true); assertTrue(a.acceptedTermsOfService(), "Accepted Terms of Service not true."); a.setTermsOfService(false); assertFalse(a.acceptedTermsOfService(), "Accepted Terms of Service not false."); } @Test public void testAcceptedSystemEmails() { Account a = new Account(); a.setSystemEmails(true); assertTrue(a.acceptedSystemEmails(), "System Emails is not true."); a.setSystemEmails(false); assertFalse(a.acceptedSystemEmails(), "System Emails is not false."); } }

    Read the article

  • Is there a efficient way to do multiple test cases in c?

    - by Ahmed Abdelaal
    I use MS Visual Studio and I am new to C++, so I am just wondering if there is an faster more efficient way to do multiple test cases instead of keep clicking CTRL+F5 and re-opening the console many times. Like for example if I have this code #include <iostream> using namespace std; void main () { int x; cout<<"Enter a number"<<endl; cin>>x; cout<<x*2<<endl; } Is there a way I could try different values of x at once and getting the results together? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Test MVC using moq

    - by Raminder
    I am new to moq and I was trying to test a controller (MVC) behaviour that when the view raises a certain event, controller calls a certain function on model, here are the classes - public class Model { public void CalculateAverage() { ... } ... } public class View { public event EventHandler CalculateAverage; private void RaiseCalculateAverage() { if (CalculateAverage != null) { CalculateAverage(this, EventArgs.Empty); } } ... } public class Controller { private Model model; private View view; public Controller(Model model, View view) { this.model = model this.view = view; view.CalculaeAverage += view_CalculateAverage; } priavate void view_CalculateAverage(object sender, EventArgs args) { model.CalculateAverage(); } } and the test - [Test] public void ModelCalculateAverageCalled() { Mock<Model> modelMock = new Mock<Model>(); Mock<View> viewMock = new Mock<View>(); Controller controller = new Controller(modelMock.Object, viewMock.Object); viewMock.Raise(x => x.CalculateAverage += null, new EventArgs.Empty); modelMock.Verify(x => x.CalculateAverage()); //never comes here, test fails in above line and exits Assert.True(true); } The issue is that the test is failing in the second last line with "Invocation was not performed on the mock: x = x.CalculateAverage()". Another thing I noticed is that the test terminates on this second last line and the last line is never executed. Am I doing everything correct?

    Read the article

  • functional test for rails controller private method

    - by mohit
    I have a private method in my controller. which is used for some database update. this method i am calling from another controller method. and it works fine. But when i am trying to write a test case for that method then It is tripping on accessing (session variable and params) in my functional all other methods are working fine the problem is only with private method? In my setup method in functional test, I am setting session also.?

    Read the article

  • Why do we need mocking frameworks like Easymock , JMock or Mockito?

    - by Praneeth
    Hi, We use hand written stubs in our unit tests and I'm exploring the need for a Mock framework like EasyMock or Mockito in our project. I do not find a compelling reason for switching to Mocking frameworks from hand written stubs. Can anyone please answer why one would opt for mocking frameworks when they are already doing unit tests using hand written mocks/stubs. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How do I change the base class at runtime in C#?

    - by MatthewMartin
    I may be working on mission impossible here, but I seem to be getting close. I want to extend a ASP.NET control, and I want my code to be unit testable. Also, I'd like to be able to fake behaviors of a real Label (namely things like ID generation, etc), which a real Label can't do in an nUnit host. Here a working example that makes assertions on something that depends on a real base class and something that doesn't-- in a more realistic unit test, the test would depend on both --i.e. an ID existing and some custom behavior. Anyhow the code says it better than I can: public class LabelWrapper : Label //Runtime //public class LabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } //Ugh, now I have to test FakeLabelWrapper public class FakeLabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } [TestFixture] public class UnitTest { [Test] public void Test() { //Wish this was LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(new FakeBase()) LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(); //FakeLabelWrapper label = new FakeLabelWrapper(); label.Text = "ToUpper"; Assert.AreEqual("TOUPPER",label.Text); StringWriter stringWriter = new StringWriter(); HtmlTextWriter writer = new HtmlTextWriter(stringWriter); label.RenderControl(writer); Assert.AreEqual(1,label.ID); Assert.AreEqual("<span>TOUPPER</span>", stringWriter.ToString()); } } public class FakeLabel { virtual public string Text { get; set; } public void RenderControl(TextWriter writer) { writer.Write("<span>" + Text + "</span>"); } } //System Under Test internal class LabelLogic { internal string ProcessGetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } internal string ProcessSetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } }

    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

  • ASP.NET MVC - How to Unit Test boundaries in the Repository pattern?

    - by JK
    Given a basic repository interface: public interface IPersonRepository { void AddPerson(Person person); List<Person> GetAllPeople(); } With a basic implementation: public class PersonRepository: IPersonRepository { public void AddPerson(Person person) { ObjectContext.AddObject(person); } public List<Person> GetAllPeople() { return ObjectSet.AsQueryable().ToList(); } } How can you unit test this in a meaningful way? Since it crosses the boundary and physically updates and reads from the database, thats not a unit test, its an integration test. Or is it wrong to want to unit test this in the first place? Should I only have integration tests on the repository? I've been googling the subject and blogs often say to make a stub that implements the IRepository: public class PersonRepositoryTestStub: IPersonRepository { private List<Person> people = new List<Person>(); public void AddPerson(Person person) { people.Add(person); } public List<Person> GetAllPeople() { return people; } } But that doesnt unit test PersonRepository, it tests the implementation of PersonRepositoryTestStub (not very helpful).

    Read the article

  • How can I get to the value of my WPF UserControl DependencyProperty from UI Automation Framework?

    - by Surfbutler
    Hi, I'm having trouble getting access to my WPF UserControl DependencyProperty values through the UI Automation Framework. I've used James McCaffreys article in MSDN as a starting point (Automating IO Tests in WPF Applications, MSDN March 2009), but I can only see properties etc in standard controls such as buttons. I'm assuming there's some Automation interface I have to implement on my UserControl, but what and how? I can already see my control fine e.g. in UISpy, but I can't see the dependency properties within it. Here's what my usercontrol looks like currently in UISpy: AutomationElement General Accessibility AccessKey: "" AcceleratorKey: "" IsKeyboardFocusable: "False" LabeledBy: "(null)" HelpText: "Switches 48v Phantom Power On/Off (for Mic inputs only)." State IsEnabled: "True" HasKeyboardFocus: "False" Identification ClassName: "" ControlType: "ControlType.Custom" Culture: "(null)" AutomationId: "V48SwL" LocalizedControlType: "custom" Name: "" ProcessId: "5684 (VirtualSix)" RuntimeId: "7 5684 40026340" IsPassword: "False" IsControlElement: "True" IsContentElement: "True" Visibility BoundingRectangle: "(140, 457, 31, 20)" ClickablePoint: "155,467" IsOffscreen: "False" ControlPatterns

    Read the article

  • custom attribute changes in .NET 4

    - by Sarah Vessels
    I recently upgraded a C# project from .NET 3.5 to .NET 4. I have a method that extracts all MSTest test methods from a given list of MethodBase instances. Its body looks like this: return null == methods || methods.Count() == 0 ? null : from method in methods let testAttribute = Attribute.GetCustomAttribute(method, typeof(TestMethodAttribute)) where null != testAttribute select method; This worked in .NET 3.5, but since upgrading my projects to .NET 4, this code always returns an empty list, even when given a list of methods containing a method that is marked with [TestMethod]. Did something change with custom attributes in .NET 4? Debugging, I found that the results of GetCustomAttributesData() on the test method gives a list of two CustomAttributeData which are described in Visual Studio 2010's 'Locals' window as: Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.DeploymentItemAttribute("myDLL.dll") Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TestMethodAttribute() -- this is what I'm looking for When I call GetType() on that second CustomAttributeData instance, however, I get {Name = "CustomAttributeData" FullName = "System.Reflection.CustomAttributeData"} System.Type {System.RuntimeType}. How can I get TestMethodAttribute out of the CustomAttributeData, so that I can extract test methods from a list of MethodBases?

    Read the article

  • C# why datetime cannot compare?

    - by 5YrsLaterDBA
    my C# unit test has the following statement: Assert.AreEqual(logoutTime, log.First().Timestamp); Why it is failed with following information: Assert.AreEqual failed. Expected:<4/28/2010 2:30:37 PM>. Actual:<4/28/2010 2:30:37 PM>. Are they not the same?

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio Unit Test failure to start

    - by swmi
    Hi, I am having an issue when starting the tests under debug mode in Visual Studio 2008 Team Test where it gives the following error: "Failed to queue test run '{user@machinename}': Object reference not set to an instance of an object." I googled for the error but no joy. Don't even understand what it means as it is too brief. Has anyone come across this? Note that I can run tests fine if I am not debugging and I get the same error irrespective of the test I run. Thank you, Swati ETA: Being new to Visual Studio Team Test, I didn't know there was a better exception log then what I was seeing. Anyhow, here it is: <Exception> System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestCaseManagement.QualityToolsPackage. ShowToolWindow [T](T&amp; toolWindow, String errorMessage, Boolean show) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestCaseManagement.QualityToolsPackage. OpenTestResultsToolWindow() at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestCaseManagement.SolutionIntegrationManager. DebugTarget(DebugInfo debugInfo, Boolean prepareEnvironment) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestManagement.DebugProcessLauncher.Launch( String exeFileName, String args, String workingDir, EventHandler processExitedHandler, Process&amp; process) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestManagement.LocalControllerProxy.StartProcess( TestRun run) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestManagement.LocalControllerProxy.RestartProcess( TestRun run) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestManagement.LocalControllerProxy.PrepareProcess( TestRun run) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestManagement.LocalControllerProxy. InitializeController(TestRun run) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.TestManagement.ControllerProxy.QueueTestRunWorker( Object state) </Exception>

    Read the article

  • Why are my rails tests so slow?

    - by ryeguy
    Is it normal for my test suite to take 5 seconds just to launch? Even when running an empty suite it still takes this long. Is it because it's firing up a new instance of rails on each run? If so, is there anyway to keep it persistent? I'm using Test::Unit with Shoulda.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • How to specify a web service URL within a Drupal module's simpletest?

    - by Matt V.
    I have a Drupal module that talks to a REST API on a separate server for user registration and authentication. The module runs on multiple sites which point to different servers which may run different versions of the REST API. Ideally, I'd like to be able to run each site against its own end-point, in case changes on the back end break things. Is there a way to dynamically specify a different end-point URL when running a test? Or do I have to edit the .test file for each site? I'm trying to keep the module's files as generic and flexible as possible. I guess I could have the .test file look for a .inc file that could override the URL, if needed for a particular site. Is there a better way though?

    Read the article

  • How do you test a command object in a grails controller integration test?

    - by egervari
    I'm new to grails. How do I test a form command object to make sure that it's working? Here's some setup code in a test. When I try to do it, I get the following exceptions: Error occurred creating command object. org.codehaus.groovy.grails.web.servlet.mvc.exceptions.ControllerExecutionException: Error occurred creating command object. at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method) .... Caused by: groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: password for class: project.user.RegistrationForm Possible solutions: password Here is my test case. As you can see, I set "password" on the params map... void testSaveWhenDataIsCorrect() { controller.params.emailAddress = "[email protected]" controller.params.password = "secret" controller.params.confirmPassword = "secret" controller.save() assertEquals "success", redirectArgs.view ... } Here's the controller action, that adds the command object as a closure parameter: def save = { RegistrationForm form -> if(form.hasErrors()) { render view: "create", model: [form: form] } else { def user = new User(form.properties) user.password = form.encryptedPassword if(user.save()) { redirect(action: "success") } else { render view: "create", model: [form: form] } } } Here's the command object itself... and note that it DOES have a "password" field... class RegistrationForm { def springSecurityService String emailAddress String password String confirmPassword String getEncryptedPassword() { springSecurityService.encodePassword(password) } static constraints = { emailAddress(blank: false, email: true) password(blank: false, size:4..10) confirmPassword(blank: false, validator: { password != confirmPassword }) } } I'm totally lost in the non-intuitive way to do controllers... Please help.

    Read the article

  • In an Android test, how to check that a View is shown?

    - by Jan Zankowski
    Hello, I'm writing a UI test case (using ActivityUnitTestCase) and would like to check if at a given time a View subclass is visible to the user. I've found the View#isShown() method, which claims to do exactly this - checking the visibility field of this element and all its parents - but somehow it always returns "false" for all the elements. I'll be grateful for some help. If it makes it easier, I can paste some code. Also, I found ViewAsserts#assertOnScreen(View origin, View view) but it doesn't seem to do the right thing either - always returns true. Am I perhaps calling it wrong: assertOnScreen(viewImTesting.getRootView(), viewImTesting)? Thanks, Jan

    Read the article

  • Start dependent application with eunit

    - by ruslander
    I start lager as a dependent application when I run a unit test but for some reason the code under test does not see it. -module(main_tests). -include_lib("eunit/include/eunit.hrl"). main_test_() -> {foreach, fun distr_setup/0, fun distr_cleanup/1, [ fun must_retain/1 ]}. must_retain(_) -> {"Should do ping pong when is fully initialized", fun() -> ?assertEqual(pong, abuse_counter:ping()) end}. %%------------------------------------------------------------------ distr_setup() -> abuse_counter:start_link(), ok. distr_cleanup(_) -> abuse_counter:stop(), ok. Here is the output of the log which is complaining that lager is not defined {undef,[{lager,info,["up and running"],[]} though in the run output is definitely there. Here is how I run it: erl -pa ebin/ ../../deps/*/ebin -s lager -eval 'eunit:test(main_tests,[verbose]), init:stop().' Fails with the output Eshell V5.10.2 (abort with ^G) 1> 17:13:31.506 [info] Application lager started on node nonode@nohost ======================== EUnit ======================== module 'main_tests' undefined 17:13:31.528 [error] CRASH REPORT Process <0.57.0> with 1 neighbours exited with reason: call to undefined function lager:info("up and running") in gen_server:init_it/6 line 328 *unexpected termination of test process* ::**{undef,[{lager,info,["up and running"],[]}**, {abuse_counter,init,1,[{file,"src/abuse_counter.erl"},{line,37}]}, {gen_server,init_it,6,[{file,"gen_server.erl"},{line,304}]}, {proc_lib,init_p_do_apply,3,[{file,"proc_lib.erl"},{line,239}]}]} ======================================================= Failed: 0. Skipped: 0. Passed: 0. One or more tests were cancelled. Already spent 3-4h hours on google and stack overflow but nothing seems to work. One option is to hide this call behind a ?INFO(Mgs) macro but do not like the idea. Any help will be highly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Google Web Optimizer -- How long until winning combination?

    - by Django Reinhardt
    I've had an A/B Test running in Google Web Optimizer for six weeks now, and there's still no end in sight. Google is still saying: "We have not gathered enough data yet to show any significant results. When we collect more data we should be able to show you a winning combination." Is there any way of telling how close Google is to making up its mind? (Does anyone know what algorithm does it use to decide if there's been any "high confidence winners"?) According to the Google help documentation: Sometimes we simply need more data to be able to reach a level of high confidence. A tested combination typically needs around 200 conversions for us to judge its performance with certainty. But all of our conversions have over 200 conversations at the moment: 230 / 4061 (Original) 223 / 3937 (Variation 1) 205 / 3984 (Variation 2) 205 / 4007 (Variation 3) How much longer is it going to have to run?? Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • 2 Questions about nUnit.

    - by Night Walker
    Hi all I have 2 questions about functionality of nunit. What is the difference between [TestFixtureSetUp] and [SetUp] attributes ? I am writing a some class with tests and I see that half of my test functions need one setup, And an another half needs another set up. How can I have in one class two little different SetUp functions that are called with different functions Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to: generate UnhandledException?

    - by serhio
    I use this code to catch the WinForm application UnhandledException. [STAThread] static void Main(string[] args) { // Add the event handler for handling UI thread exceptions to the event. Application.ThreadException += new System.Threading.ThreadExceptionEventHandler(Application_ThreadException); // Set the unhandled exception mode to force all Windows Forms errors // to go through our handler. Application.SetUnhandledExceptionMode(UnhandledExceptionMode.CatchException); // Add the event handler for handling non-UI thread exceptions to the event. AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException += new UnhandledExceptionEventHandler(CurrentDomain_UnhandledException); try { Application.Run(new MainForm()); } catch.... There I will try to restart the application. Now my problem is to simulate a exception like this. I tried before try (in main): throw new NullReferenceException("test"); VS caught it. Tried also in MainForm code with button : private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs ev) { ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(TestMe), null); } protected void TestMe(object state) { string s = state.ToString(); } did not help, VS caught it, even in Release mode. How should I, finally, force the application generate UnhandleldException? Will I be able to restart the application in CurrentDomain_UnhandledException?

    Read the article

  • Difference in techniques for setting a stubbed method's return value with Rhino Mocks

    - by CRice
    What is the main difference between these following two ways to give a method some fake implementation? I was using the second way fine in one test but in another test the behaviour can not be achieved unless I go with the first way. These are set up via: IMembershipService service = test.Stub<IMembershipService>(); so (the first), using (test.Record()) //test is MockRepository instance { service.GetUser("dummyName"); LastCall.Return(new LoginUser()); } vs (the second). service.Stub(r => r.GetUser("dummyName")).Return(new LoginUser()); Edit The problem is that the second technique returns null in the test, when I expect it to return a new LoginUser. The first technique behaves as expected by returning a new LoginUser. All other test code used in both cases is identical.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132  | Next Page >