Search Results

Search found 42756 results on 1711 pages for 'model based testing'.

Page 191/1711 | < Previous Page | 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198  | Next Page >

• Asp.net with MVC multiple model in one view (create, update)

  - by Abdalmohaymen

  I have problem in asp.ne Mvc with multiple model in one view on create and update I 'm work on exams system class Questions and class Answers Question is aparent class and Answers is a child class [Bind(exclude("id"))] class Quesions { public string question{get; set;} public Datetime Timepostquestion{get; set;} } [Bind(exclude("id"))] class Answers { public string answer{get; set;} public Datetime Timepostanswer{get; set;} public questionId {get; set;} } in a view I use two classes how to use classes in insert and update what a way which I have to solve my problem

  Read the article

• Why am I getting "ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (1 for 0)" when running my rails function

  - by Hisham

  I'm stumped on what's causing this. I get this error and stack trace in all my functional tests where I call 'post'. Here is the full stack trace: 7) Error: test_should_validate(UsersControllerTest): ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (1 for 0) /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing/route.rb:48:in `to_query' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing/route.rb:48:in `build_query_string' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing/route.rb:46:in `each' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing/route.rb:46:in `build_query_string' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing/route.rb:233:in `append_query_string' generated code (/Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing/route.rb:154):3:in `generate' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing/route_set.rb:365:in `__send__' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing/route_set.rb:365:in `generate' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing/route_set.rb:364:in `each' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/routing/route_set.rb:364:in `generate' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/url_rewriter.rb:208:in `rewrite_path' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/url_rewriter.rb:187:in `rewrite_url' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/url_rewriter.rb:165:in `rewrite' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/test_process.rb:450:in `build_request_uri' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/test_process.rb:406:in `process' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/test_process.rb:376:in `post' functional/users_controller_test.rb:57:in `test_should_validate' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/activesupport/lib/active_support/testing/setup_and_teardown.rb:60:in `__send__' /Users/hisham/src/rails/ftuBackend/vendor/rails/activesupport/lib/active_support/testing/setup_and_teardown.rb:60:in `run' This is the test I'm running: def test_should_validate post :validate, :user => { :email => '[email protected]', :password => 'quire', :password_confirmation => 'quire', :agreed_to_terms => "true" } assert assigns(:user).errors.empty? assert_response :success end

  Read the article

• How to Unit Test HtmlHelper similar to using(Html.BeginForm()){ }

  - by DaveDev

  Can somebody please suggest how I could write a Unit Test with Moq for following HtmlHelper method? public static HtmlTagBase GenerateTag<T>(this HtmlHelper htmlHelper , object elementData , object attributes) where T : HtmlTagBase { return (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T) , htmlHelper.ViewContext , elementData , attributes); } which you would use as follows (please note the using statement - this is causing me confusion): <%--Model is a type of ShareClass--%> <% using (Html.GenerateTag<DivTag>(Model)) { %> My Div <% } %> using this method, if you specify T as type DivTag, where ShareClass is defined as public class ShareClass { public string Name { get; set; } public string Type { get; set; } public IEnumerable<Fund> Funds { get; set; } public ShareClass(string name, string shareClassType) { this.Name = name; this.Type = shareClassType; } } the following html will be rendered: <div class="ShareClass" shareclass-type="ShareClass_A" shareclass-name="MyShareClass">My Div</div>

  Read the article

• Core Data migration of to-one relationship to to-many relationship

  - by westsider

  I have a deployed app that samples measurements from sensors (e.g., Temp °C, Pressure kPa). The user can create Experiments and collect samples. Each sample is stored as a Run, such that there is a one-to-many relationship from Experiment to Run. In the interest of performance, Run has a to-one relationship with Data entity (which is where the actual raw data is stored); this allows some Run attributes to be loaded without necessarily loading lots of data. Most of our sensors have multiple measurements, so it would be nice to store all the data that is actually being sampled. But this means that the Run <--- Data relationship needs to become Run <-- Data (to use Xcode's convention). I am faced with trying to migrate data from old Run to-one Data model to new Run to-many Data model. Can this be done using Mapping Models? If so, does anyone have any pointers to examples? If not, does anyone have any pointers to examples of how to do that? Thanks for any pointers or advice.

  Read the article

• Bind postback data from a strong type view of type List<T>

  - by Robert Koritnik

  I have a strong type view of type List<List<MyViewModelClass>> The outer list will always have two lists of List<MyViewModelClass>. For each of the two outer lists I want to display a group of checkboxes. Each set can have an arbitrary number of choices. My view model class looks similar to this: public class MyViewModelClass { public Area Area { get; set; } public bool IsGeneric { get; set; } public string Code { get; set; } public bool IsChecked { get; set; } } So the final view will look something like: Please select those that apply: First set of choices: x Option 1 x Option 2 x Option 3 etc. Second set of choices: x Second Option 1 x Second Option 2 x Second Option 3 x Second Option 4 etc. Checkboxes should display MyViewModelClass.Area.Name, and their value should be related to MyViewModelClass.Area.Id. Checked state is of course related to MyViewModel.IsChecked. Question I wonder how should I use Html.CheckBox() or Html.CheckBoxFor() helper to display my checkboxes? I have to get these values back to the server on a postback of course. I would like to have my controller action like one of these: public ActionResult ConsumeSelections(List<List<MyViewModelClass>> data) { // process data } public ActionResult ConsumeSelections(List<MyViewModelClass> first, List<MyViewModelClass> second) { // process data } If it makes things simpler, I could make a separate view model type like: public class Options { public List First { get; set; } public List Second { get; set; } } As well as changing my first version of controller action to: public ActionResult ConsumeSelections(Options data) { // process data }

  Read the article

• Ruby on rails generates tests for you. Do those give a false sense of a safety net?

  - by Hamish Grubijan

  Disclaimer: I have not used RoR, and I have not generated tests. But, I will still dare to post this question. Quality Assurance is theoretically impossible to get 100% right in general (Undecidable problem ;), and it is hard in practice. So many developers do not understand that writing good automated tests is an art, and it is hard. When I hear that RoR generates the tests for you, I get very skeptical. It cannot be that easy. Testing is a general concept; it applies across languages. So does the concept of code contracts, it is similar for languages that support it. Code contracts do not generate themselves. The programmer must add the requirements and the promises manually, after doing some thinking about the algorithm / function. If a human gets it wrong, then the tools will propagate the error. Similarly with testing - it takes human judgement about what should happen. Tests do not write themselves, and we are far from the day when a business analyst can just have a conversation with a computer and tell it informally what the requirements are and have the computer do all the work. There is no magic ... how can RoR generate good tests for you? Please shed some light on this. Opinions are ok, for this is a community wiki. Thanks!

  Read the article

• How do I run JUnit from NetBeans?

  - by FarmBoy

  I've been trying to understand how to start writing and running JUnit tests. When I'm reading this article: http://junit.sourceforge.net/doc/testinfected/testing.htm I get the the middle of the page and they write, "JUnit comes with a graphical interface to run tests. Type the name of your test class in the field at the top of the window. Press the Run button." I don't know how to launch this program. I don't even know which package it is in, or how you run a library class from an IDE. Being stuck, I tried this NetBeans tutorial: http://www.netbeans.org/kb/docs/java/junit-intro.html It seemed to be going OK, but then I noticed that the menu options for this tutorial for testing a Java Class Library are different from those for a regular Java application, or for a Java Web App. So the instructions in this tutorial don't apply generally. I'm using NetBeans 6.7, and I've imported JUnit 4.5 into the libraries folder. What would be the normal way to run JUnit, after having written the tests? The JUnit FAQ describes the process from the Console, and I'm willing to do that if that is what is typical, but given all that I can do inside netbeans, it seems hard to believe that there isn't an easier way. Thanks much. EDIT: If I right-click on the project and select "Test" the output is: init: deps-jar: compile: compile-test: test-report: test: BUILD SUCCESSFUL (total time: 0 seconds) This doesn't strike me as the desired output of a test, especially since this doesn't change whether the test condition is true or not. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• MVC moq unit test the object before RedirecToAction()

  - by Daoming Yang

  I want to test the data inside the "item" object before it redirect to another action. public ActionResult WebPageEdit(WebPage item, FormCollection form) { if (ModelState.IsValid) { item.Description = Utils.CrossSiteScriptingAttackCheck(item.Description); item.Content = Utils.CrossSiteScriptingAttackCheck(item.Content); item.Title = item.Title.Trim(); item.DateUpdated = DateTime.Now; // Other logic stuff here webPagesRepository.Save(item); return RedirectToAction("WebPageList"); } Here is my Test method: [Test] public void Admin_WebPageEdit_Save() { var controller = new AdminController(); controller.webPagesRepository = DataMock.WebPageDataInit(); controller.categoriesRepository = DataMock.WebPageCategoryDataInit(); FormCollection form = DataMock.CreateWebPageFormCollection(); RedirectToRouteResult actionResult = (RedirectToRouteResult)controller.WebPageEdit(webPagesRepository.Get(1), form); Assert.IsNotNull(actionResult); Assert.AreEqual("WebPageList", actionResult.RouteValues["action"]); var item = ((ViewResult)controller.WebPageEdit(webPagesRepository.Get(1), form)).ViewData.Model as WebPage; Assert.NotNull(item); Assert.AreEqual(2, item.CategoryID); } It failed at this line: var item = ((ViewResult)controller.WebPageEdit(webPagesRepository.Get(1), form)).ViewData.Model as WebPage; I am thinking about is there any ways to test the "item" object before it redirect to other actions?

  Read the article

• In WPF, Selecting ItemContainerStyle based on data bound content

  - by Bart Roozendaal

  In #WPF you have ItemTemplateSelectors. But, can you also select an ItemContainerStyle based on the datatype of a bound object? I am databinding a scatterview. I want to set some properties of the generated ScatterViewItems based on the object in their DataContext. A mechanism similar to ItemTemplateSelector for styles would be great. Is that at all possible? I am now binding to properties in the objects that I am displaying to get the effect, but that feels like overhead and too complex (and most importantly, something that our XU designers can't do by themselves). This is the XAML that I am using now. Your help is greatly appreciated. <s:ScatterView x:Name="topicsViewer"> <s:ScatterView.ItemTemplateSelector> <local:TopicViewerDataTemplateSelector> <DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type mvc:S7VideoTopic}"> <Grid> <ContentPresenter Content="{Binding MediaElement}" /> <s:SurfaceButton Visibility="{Binding MailToVisible}" x:Name="mailto" Tag="{Binding Titel}" Click="mailto_Click" HorizontalAlignment="Right" VerticalAlignment="Top" Background="Transparent" Width="62" Height="36"> <Image Source="/Resources/MailTo.png" /> </s:SurfaceButton> <StackPanel Orientation="Horizontal" VerticalAlignment="Bottom" HorizontalAlignment="Center" Height="32"> <s:SurfaceButton Tag="{Binding MediaElement}" x:Name="btnPlay" Click="btnPlay_Click"> <Image Source="/Resources/control_play.png" /> </s:SurfaceButton> <s:SurfaceButton Tag="{Binding MediaElement}" x:Name="btnPause" Click="btnPause_Click"> <Image Source="/Resources/control_pause.png" /> </s:SurfaceButton> <s:SurfaceButton Tag="{Binding MediaElement}" x:Name="btnStop" Click="btnStop_Click"> <Image Source="/Resources/control_stop.png" /> </s:SurfaceButton> </StackPanel> </Grid> </DataTemplate> <DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type mvc:S7ImageTopic}"> <Grid> <ContentPresenter Content="{Binding Resource}" /> <s:SurfaceButton Visibility="{Binding MailToVisible}" x:Name="mailto" Tag="{Binding Titel}" Click="mailto_Click" HorizontalAlignment="Right" VerticalAlignment="Top" Background="Transparent" Width="62" Height="36"> <Image Source="/Resources/MailTo.png" /> </s:SurfaceButton> </Grid> </DataTemplate> <DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type local:Kassa}"> <ContentPresenter Content="{Binding}" Width="300" Height="355" /> </DataTemplate> </local:TopicViewerDataTemplateSelector> </s:ScatterView.ItemTemplateSelector> <s:ScatterView.ItemContainerStyle> <Style TargetType="s:ScatterViewItem"> <Setter Property="MinWidth" Value="200" /> <Setter Property="MinHeight" Value="150" /> <Setter Property="MaxWidth" Value="800" /> <Setter Property="MaxHeight" Value="700" /> <Setter Property="Width" Value="{Binding DefaultWidth}" /> <Setter Property="Height" Value="{Binding DefaultHeight}" /> <Setter Property="s:ScatterViewItem.CanMove" Value="{Binding CanMove}" /> <Setter Property="s:ScatterViewItem.CanScale" Value="{Binding CanScale}" /> <Setter Property="s:ScatterViewItem.CanRotate" Value="{Binding CanRotate}" /> <Setter Property="Background" Value="Transparent" /> </Style> </s:ScatterView.ItemContainerStyle> </s:ScatterView> Bart Roozendaal, Sevensteps

  Read the article

• Will IOC solve our problems?

  - by user127954

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

  Read the article

• EF4 Generate Database

  - by shaneseaton

  Hi, I am trying my hardest to find the simplest way to create a basic "model first" entity framework example. However I am struggling with the actually generation of the database, particularly the running of the SQL against the database. Tools Visual Studio 2010 SQL Server 2008 Express Process Create a new class project Add a new Server-Database item (mdf) named "Database1.mdf" to the project Add an empty ADO.net Entity Model Create a simple entity (Person: Id, Name) Generate the Script selecting the Database1 connection created for me by visual studio Right click the script editor and select the "Execute SQL..." option Log in to SQLEXPRESS This is where is falls over saying it cant find a database name "Database1". The "problem" is that the SQL server has not had Database1 attached to it. I am 100% positive that Visual Studio use to attach a database to SQLExpress when it created a new database (Step 2). This appears to not be the case any more (even the beta of VS2010 did it). Can someone confirm this? or tell me how to get this to happen? Is there a way that I can modify the TSQL script to use an un-attached database. ie a file. I know I can use SQL Management Studio or sqlcmd to attach the database, but I would ideally like to avoid the solutions as I would like to see the cleanest method of just using visual studio. Ideal Solutions (in order of most prefered) Get visual studio to attach the newly created database Modify the generated SQL to point to file Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Session variables with Cucumber Stories

  - by Matthew Savage

  I am working on some Cucumber stories for a 'sign up' application which has a number of steps. Rather then writing a Huuuuuuuge story to cover all the steps at once, which would be bad, I'd rather work through each action in the controller like a regular user. My problem here is that I am storing the account ID which is created in the first step as a session variable, so when step 2, step 3 etc are visited the existing registration data is loaded. I'm aware of being able to access controller.session[..] within RSpec specifications however when I try to do this in Cucumber stories it fails with the following error (and, I've also read somewhere this is an anti-pattern etc...): Using controller.session[:whatever] or session[:whatever] You have a nil object when you didn't expect it! The error occurred while evaluating nil.session (NoMethodError) Using session(:whatever) wrong number of arguments (1 for 0) (ArgumentError) So, it seems accession the session store isn't really possible. What I'm wondering is if it might be possible to (and I guess which would be best..): Mock out the session store etc Have a method within the controller and stub that out (e.g. get_registration which assigns an instance variable...) I've looked through the RSpec book (well, skimmed) and had a look through WebRat etc, but I haven't really found an answer to my problem... To clarify a bit more, the signup process is more like a state machine - e.g. the user progresses through four steps before the registration is complete - hence 'logging in' isn't really an option (it breaks the model of how the site works)... In my spec for the controller I was able to stub out the call to the method which loads the model based on the session var - but I'm not sure if the 'antipattern' line also applies to stubs as well as mocks? Thanks!

  Read the article

• externalizing junit stub objects.

  - by Ajay

  Hi!    In my project we created stub files for testing junits in java(factories) itself. However, we have to externalize these stubs. After seeing a number of serializers/deserializers, we settled on using XStream to serialize and deserialize these stub objects. XStream works like a charm. Its pretty good at what it claims to be. Previously, we had a single factory class say AFactory which produced all the stubs needed for testing different test cases. Now when externalizing each of the stub generated, we hit a road block. We had to create 1 xml file for each stub produced by the factory. For example, public final class AFactory{ public static A createStub1(){ /*Code here */} public static A createStub2(){ /*Code here */} public static A createStub3(){ /*Code here */} } Now, when trying to move this stubs to external files, we had to create 1 xml file for each stub created(A-stub1.xml, A-stub2.xml and A-stub3.xml). The problem with this approach is that, it leads to proliferation of xml stub files. I was thinking, how about keeping all the stubs related to a single bean class in a single xml file. <?xml version="1.0"?> <stubs class="A"> <stub id="stub1"> <!-- Here comes the externalized xml stub representation --> </stub> <stub id="stub2"> </stub> </stubs> Is there a framework which allows you keep all the stub in xml representation in a single xml file as above ? Or What do you guys suggest should be the right approach to adhere to ?

  Read the article

• asp.net mvc - How to create fake test objects quickly and efficiently

  - by Simon G

  Hi, I'm currently testing the controller in my mvc app and I'm creating a fake repository for testing. However I seem to be writing more code and spending more time for the fakes than I do on the actual repositories. Is this right? The code I have is as follows: Controller public partial class SomeController : Controller { IRepository repository; public SomeController(IRepository rep) { repository = rep; } public virtaul ActionResult Index() { // Some logic var model = repository.GetSomething(); return View(model); } } IRepository public interface IRepository { Something GetSomething(); } Fake Repository public class FakeRepository : IRepository { private List<Something> somethingList; public FakeRepository(List<Something> somethings) { somthingList = somthings; } public Something GetSomething() { return somethingList; } } Fake Data class FakeSomethingData { public static List<Something> CreateSomethingData() { var somethings = new List<Something>(); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { somethings.Add(new Something { value1 = String.Format("value{0}", i), value2 = String.Format("value{0}", i), value3 = String.Format("value{0}", i) }); } return somethings; } } Actual Test [TestClass] public class SomethingControllerTest { SomethingController CreateSomethingController() { var testData = FakeSomethingData.CreateSomethingData(); var repository = new FakeSomethingRepository(testData); SomethingController controller = new SomethingController(repository); return controller; } [TestMethod] public void SomeTest() { // Arrange var controller = CreateSomethingController(); // Act // Some test here // Arrange } } All this seems to be a lot of extra code, especially as I have more than one repository. Is there a more efficient way of doing this? Maybe using mocks? Thanks

  Read the article

• java.lang.IllegalStateException: missing behavior definition for the preceding method call getMessag

  - by user362199

  Hi All, I'm using EasyMock(version 2.4) and TestNG for writing UnitTest. I have a following scenario and I cannot change the way class hierarchy is defined. I'm testing ClassB which is extending ClassA. ClassB look like this public class ClassB extends ClassA { public ClassB() { super("title"); } @Override public String getDisplayName() { return ClientMessages.getMessages("ClassB.title"); } } ClassA code public abstract class ClassA { private String title; public ClassA(String title) { this.title = ClientMessages.getMessages(title); } public String getDisplayName() { return this.title; } } ClientMessages class code public class ClientMessages { private static MessageResourse messageResourse; public ClientMessages(MessageResourse messageResourse) { this.messageResourse = messageResourse; } public static String getMessages(String code) { return messageResourse.getMessage(code); } } MessageResourse Class code public class MessageResourse { public String getMessage(String code) { return code; } } Testing ClassB import static org.easymock.classextension.EasyMock.createMock; import org.easymock.classextension.EasyMock; import org.testng.Assert; import org.testng.annotations.Test; public class ClassBTest { private MessageResourse mockMessageResourse = createMock(MessageResourse.class); private ClassB classToTest; private ClientMessages clientMessages; @Test public void testGetDisplayName() { EasyMock.expect(mockMessageResourse.getMessage("ClassB.title")).andReturn("someTitle"); clientMessages = new ClientMessages(mockMessageResourse); classToTest = new ClassB(); Assert.assertEquals("someTitle" , classToTest.getDisplayName()); EasyMock.replay(mockMessageResourse); } } When I'm running this this test I'm getting following exception: java.lang.IllegalStateException: missing behavior definition for the preceding method call getMessage("title") While debugging what I found is, it's not considering the mock method call mockMessageResourse.getMessage("ClassB.title") as it has been called from the construtor (ClassB object creation). Can any one please help me how to test in this case. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Defining jUnit Test cases Correctly

  - by Epitaph

  I am new to Unit Testing and therefore wanted to do some practical exercise to get familiar with the jUnit framework. I created a program that implements a String multiplier public String multiply(String number1, String number2) In order to test the multiplier method, I created a test suite consisting of the following test cases (with all the needed integer parsing, etc) @Test public class MultiplierTest { Multiplier multiplier = new Multiplier(); // Test for 2 positive integers assertEquals("Result", 5, multiplier.multiply("5", "1")); // Test for 1 positive integer and 0 assertEquals("Result", 0, multiplier.multiply("5", "0")); // Test for 1 positive and 1 negative integer assertEquals("Result", -1, multiplier.multiply("-1", "1")); // Test for 2 negative integers assertEquals("Result", 10, multiplier.multiply("-5", "-2")); // Test for 1 positive integer and 1 non number assertEquals("Result", , multiplier.multiply("x", "1")); // Test for 1 positive integer and 1 empty field assertEquals("Result", , multiplier.multiply("5", "")); // Test for 2 empty fields assertEquals("Result", , multiplier.multiply("", "")); In a similar fashion, I can create test cases involving boundary cases (considering numbers are int values) or even imaginary values. 1) But, what should be the expected value for the last 3 test cases above? (a special number indicating error?) 2) What additional test cases did I miss? 3) Is assertEquals() method enough for testing the multiplier method or do I need other methods like assertTrue(), assertFalse(), assertSame() etc 4) Is this the RIGHT way to go about developing test cases? How am I "exactly" benefiting from this exercise? 5)What should be the ideal way to test the multiplier method? I am pretty clueless here. If anyone can help answer these queries I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Basic jUnit Questions

  - by Epitaph

  I was testing a String multiplier class with a multiply() method that takes 2 numbers as inputs (as String) and returns the result number (as String) `public String multiply(String num1, String num2); I have done the implementation and created a test class with the following test cases involving the input String parameter as 1) valid numbers 2) characters 3) special symbol 4) empty string 5) Null value 6) 0 7) Negative number 8) float 9) Boundary values 10) Numbers that are valid but their product is out of range 11) numbers will + sign (+23) 1) I'd like to know if "each and every" assertEquals() should be in it's own test method? Or, can I group similar test cases like testInvalidArguments() to contains all asserts involving invalid characters since ALL of them throw the same NumberFormatException ? 2) If testing an input value like character ("a"), do I need to include test cases for ALL scenarios? "a" as the first argument "a" as the second argument "a" and "b" as the 2 arguments 3) As per my understanding, the benefit of these unit tests is to find out the cases where the input from a user might fail and result in an exception. And, then we can give the user with a meaningful message (asking them to provide valid input) instead of an exception. Is that the correct? And, is it the only benefit? 4) Are the 11 test cases mentioned above sufficient? Did I miss something? Did I overdo? When is enough? 5) Following from the above point, have I successfully tested the multiply() method?

  Read the article

• What should i do to test EasyMock objects when using Generics ? EasyMock

  - by Arthur Ronald F D Garcia

  See code just bellow Our generic interface public interface Repository<INSTANCE_CLASS, INSTANCE_ID_CLASS> { void add(INSTANCE_CLASS instance); INSTANCE_CLASS getById(INSTANCE_ID_CLASS id); } And a single class public class Order { private Integer id; private Integer orderNumber; // getter's and setter's public void equals(Object o) { if(o == null) return false; if(!(o instanceof Order)) return false; // business key if(getOrderNumber() == null) return false; final Order other = (Order) o; if(!(getOrderNumber().equals(other.getOrderNumber()))) return false; return true; } // hashcode } And when i do the following test private Repository<Order, Integer> repository; @Before public void setUp { repository = EasyMock.createMock(Repository.class); Order order = new Order(); order.setOrderNumber(new Integer(1)); repository.add(order); EasyMock.expectLasCall().once(); EasyMock.replay(repository); } @Test public void addOrder() { Order order = new Order(); order.setOrderNumber(new Integer(1)); repository.add(order); EasyMock.verify(repository) } I get Unexpected method call add(br.com.smac.model.domain.Order@ac66b62): add(br.com.smac.model.domain.Order@ac66b62): expected: 1, actual: 0 Why does it not work as expected ??? What should i do to pass the test ???

  Read the article

• TDD test data loading methods

  - by Dave Hanson

  I am a TDD newb and I would like to figure out how to test the following code. I am trying to write my tests first, but I am having trouble for creating a test that touches my DataAccessor. I can't figure out how to fake it. I've done the extend the shipment class and override the Load() method; to continue testing the object. I feel as though I end up unit testing my Mock objects/stubs and not my real objects. I thought in TDD the unit tests were supposed to hit ALL of the methods on the object; however I can never seem to test that Load() code only the overriden Mock Load My tests were write an object that contains a list of orders based off of shipment number. I have an object that loads itself from the database. public class Shipment { //member variables protected List<string> _listOfOrders = new List<string>(); protected string _id = "" //public properties public List<string> ListOrders { get{ return _listOfOrders; } } public Shipment(string id) { _id = id; Load(); } //PROBLEM METHOD // whenever I write code that needs this Shipment object, this method tries // to hit the DB and fubars my tests // the only way to get around is to have all my tests run on a fake Shipment object. protected void Load() { _listOfOrders = DataAccessor.GetOrders(_id); } } I create my fake shipment class to test the rest of the classes methods .I can't ever test the Real load method without having an actual DB connection public class FakeShipment : Shipment { protected new void Load() { _listOfOrders = new List<string>(); } } Any thoughts? Please advise. Dave

  Read the article

• Cakephp Function in mode not executing

  - by Rixius

  I have a function in my Comic Model as such: <?php class Comic extends AppModel { var $name = "Comic"; // Methods for retriving information. function testFunc(){ $mr = $this->find('all'); return $mr; } } ?> And I am calling it in my controller as such: <?php class ComicController extends AppController { var $name = "Comic"; var $uses = array('Comic'); function index() { } function view($q) { $this->set('array',$this->Comic->testFunc()); } } ?> When I try to load up the page; I get the following error: Warning (512): SQL Error: 1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'testFunc' at line 1 [CORE/cake/libs/model/datasources/dbo_source.php, line 525] Query: testFunc And the SQL dump looks like this: (default) 2 queries took 1 ms Nr Query Error Affected Num. rows Took (ms) 1 DESCRIBE comics 10 10 1 2 testFunc 1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'testFunc' at line 1 0 So it looks like, instead of running the testFunc() function, it is trying to run a query of "testFunc" and failing...

  Read the article

• I cannot grok MVC, what it is, and what it is not?

  - by Hao

  I cannot grok what MVC is, what mindset or programming model should I acquire so MVC stuff can instantly "lightbulb" on my head? If not instantly, what simple programs/projects should I try to do first so I can apply the neat things MVC brings to programming. OOP is intuitive and easier, object is all around us, and the benefits of code reuse using OOP-paradigm instantly click to anyone. You can probably talk to anybody about OOP in a few minutes and lecture some examples and they would get it. While OOP somehow raise the intuitiveness aspect of programming, MVC seems to do the opposite. I'm getting negative thoughts that some future employers(or even clients) would look down upon me for not using MVC technology. Though I probably get the skinnable aspect of MVC, but when I try to apply it to my own project, I don't know where to start. And also some programmers even have diverging views on how to accomplish MVC properly. Take this for instance from Jeff's post about MVC: The view is simply how you lay the data out, how it is displayed. If you want a subset of some data, for example, my opinion is that is a responsibility of the model. So maybe some programmers use MVC, but they somehow inadvertently use the View or the Controller to extract a subset of data. Why we can't have a definitive definition of what and how to accomplish MVC properly? And also, when I search for MVC .NET programs, most of it applies to web programs, not desktop apps, this intrigue me further. My guess is, this is most advantageous to web apps, there's not much problem about intermixed view(html) and controller(program code) in desktop apps.

  Read the article

• Web Automation Tool

  - by Aaron

  I've realized I need a full-fledged browser automation tool for testing user interactions with our JavaScript widget library. I was using qunit, starting with unit testing and then I unwisely started incorporating more and more functional tests. That was a bad idea: trying to simulate a lot of user actions with JavaScript. The timing issues have gotten out of control and have made the suite too brittle. Now I spend more time fixing the tests, then I do developing. Is it possible to find a browser automation tool that works in: Windows XP: IE6,7,8, FF3 OSX: Safari, FF3 ? I've looked into SeleniumIDE and RC, but there seems to be some IE8 problems. I've also seen some things about Google's WebDriver, which confusingly seems to work with Selenium. Our organziation has licenses for IBM's Rational Functional Tester, but I don' think that will work on the MAC. The idea is to try to run tests on all the browsers our organization supports. Doable? Are my requirements unrealistic? Any recommendations as far as software to try? Thanks!

  Read the article

• How can I test this SQL Server performance Utility?

  - by Martin Smith

  As part of my MSc I need to do a three month project later this year. I have decided to do something which will likely be useful for me in the workplace and spend the time getting to understand SQL Server internals. The deliverable for this project will be a performance advisor looking at a variety of different rules. Some static such as finding redundant indexes, some more dynamic such as using XEvents to find outlying invocations of stored procedure execution times when certain parameters are passed. I am struggling to come up with a good way of testing this though. I can obviously design a "bad" database and a synthetic workload that my tool will pick up issues on but I also need to demonstrate that it has real world utility. Looking at the self tuning database literature it is common to use TPC benchmarks but I've had a look at the TPCC site and it looks very time consuming to implement and not that good a fit to my project's testing needs in any event (I would still be able to "rig" it by the decisions I made on indexing or physical architecture). Plan A would be to find willing beta tester(s) but in the event that isn't possible I will need a fallback plan. The best idea I have come up with so far is to use the various MS sample applications as examples of real world applications. e.g. http://msftdpprodsamples.codeplex.com/ http://www.asp.net/community/projects/ Does anyone have any better suggestions?

  Read the article

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

  - by Andrew

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

  Read the article

• MVVM: Thin ViewModels and Rich Models

  - by Dan Bryant

  I'm continuing to struggle with the MVVM pattern and, in attempting to create a practical design for a small/medium project, have run into a number of challenges. One of these challenges is figuring out how to get the benefits of decoupling with this pattern without creating a lot of repetitive, hard-to-maintain code. My current strategy has been to create 'rich' Model classes. They are fully aware that they will be consumed by an MVVM pattern and implement INotifyPropertyChanged, allow their collections to be observed and remain cognizant that they may always be under observation. My ViewModel classes tend to be thin, only exposing properties when data actually needs to be transformed, with the bulk of their code being RelayCommand handlers. Views happily bind to either ViewModels or Models directly, depending on whether any data transformation is required. I use AOP (via Postsharp) to ease the pain of INotifyPropertyChanged, making it easy to make all of my Model classes 'rich' in this way. Are there significant disadvantages to using this approach? Can I assume that the ViewModel and View are so tightly coupled that if I need new data transformation for the View, I can simply add it to the ViewModel as needed?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198  | Next Page >