Search Results

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

Page 221/1711 | < Previous Page | 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228  | Next Page >

  • How to implement or emulate an "abstract" OCUnit test class?

    - by Quinn Taylor
    I have a number of Objective-C classes organized in an inheritance hierarchy. They all share a common parent which implements all the behaviors shared among the children. Each child class defines a few methods that make it work, and the parent class raises an exception for the methods designed to be implemented/overridden by its children. This effectively makes the parent a pseudo-abstract class (since it's useless on its own) even though Objective-C doesn't explicitly support abstract classes. The crux of this problem is that I'm unit testing this class hierarchy using OCUnit, and the tests are structured similarly: one test class that exercises the common behavior, with a subclass corresponding to each of the child classes under test. However, running the test cases on the (effectively abstract) parent class is problematic, since the unit tests will fail in spectacular fashion without the key methods. (The alternative of repeating the common tests across 5 test classes is not really an acceptable option.) The non-ideal solution I've been using is to check (in each test method) whether the instance is the parent test class, and bail out if it is. This leads to repeated code in every test method, a problem that becomes increasingly annoying if one's unit tests are highly granular. In addition, all such tests are still executed and reported as successes, skewing the number of meaningful tests that were actually run. What I'd prefer is a way to signal to OCUnit "Don't run any tests in this class, only run them in its child classes." To my knowledge, there isn't (yet) a way to do that, something similar to a +(BOOL)isAbstractTest method I can implement/override. Any ideas on a better way to solve this problem with minimal repetition? Does OCUnit have any ability to flag a test class in this way, or is it time to file a Radar? Edit: Here's a link to the test code in question. Notice the frequent repetition of if (...) return; to start a method, including use of the NonConcreteClass() macro for brevity.

    Read the article

  • How to mock the Request.ServerVariables using MOQ for ASP.NET MVC?

    - by melaos
    hi guys, i'm just learning to put in unit testing for my asp.net mvc when i came to learn about the mock and the different frameworks there is out there now. after checking SO, i found that MOQ seems to be the easiest to pick up. as of now i'm stuck trying to mock the Request.ServerVariables, as after reading this post, i've learned that it's better to abstract them into property. as such: /// <summary> /// Return the server port /// </summary> protected string ServerPort { get { return Request.ServerVariables.Get("SERVER_PORT"); } } But i'm having a hard time learning how to properly mock this. I have a home controller ActionResult function which grabs the user server information and proceed to create a form to grab the user's information. i tried to use hanselman's mvcmockhelpers class but i'm not sure how to use it. this is what i have so far... [Test] public void Create_Redirects_To_ProductAdded_On_Success() { FakeViewEngine engine = new FakeViewEngine(); HomeController controller = new HomeController(); controller.ViewEngine = engine; MvcMockHelpers.SetFakeControllerContext(controller); controller.Create(); var results = controller.Create(); var typedResults = results as RedirectToRouteResult; Assert.AreEqual("", typedResults.RouteValues["action"], "Wrong action"); Assert.AreEqual("", typedResults.RouteValues["controller"], "Wrong controller"); } Questions: As of now i'm still getting null exception error when i'm running the test. So what am i missing here? And if i use the mvcmockhelpers class, how can i still call the request.verifyall function to ensure all the mocking are properly setup?

    Read the article

  • Why is "rake tests" running an empty suite when I use shoulda?

    - by ryeguy
    So here is my test suite: class ReleaseTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase should_not_allow_values_for :title, '', 'blah', 'blah blah' should_allow_values_for :title, 'blah - bleh', 'blah blah - bleh bleh' def test_something assert true end end Shoulda's macros generate 5 tests, and then I have test_something below (just to see if that would matter), totalling 6 tests. They all pass as you can see below, but then it runs a 0-test suite. This happens even if I completely empty out ReleaseTest. This problem only exists if I have config.gem 'shoulda' in my environment.rb. If I explicitly do require 'shoulda' at the top of my tests, everything works fine. What would be causing this? /usr/bin/ruby -e STDOUT.sync=true;STDERR.sync=true;load($0=ARGV.shift) /var/lib/gems/1.9.1/bin/rake test Testing started at 6:58 PM ... (in /home/rlepidi/projects/rails/testproject) /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1 -I"lib:test" "/var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/unit/release_test.rb" Loaded suite /var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader Started ...... Finished in 0.029335778 seconds. 6 tests, 6 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 100% passed /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1 -I"lib:test" "/var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1 -I"lib:test" "/var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" Loaded suite /var/lib/gems/1.9.1/bin/rake Started Finished in 0.000106717 seconds. 0 tests, 0 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 0% passed Empty test suite.

    Read the article

  • Mocking View with RhinoMocks

    - by blu
    We are using MVP (Supervising Controller) for ASP.NET WebForms with 3.5 SP1. What is the preferred way to check the value of a view property that only has the a set operation with RhinoMocks? Here is what we have so far: var service = MockRepository.GenerateStub<IFooService>(); // stub some data for the method used in OnLoad in the presenter var view = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IFooView>(); var presenter = new FooPresenter(view, service); view.Raise(v => v.Load += null, this, EventArgs.Empty); Assert.IsTrue(view.Bars.Count == 10); // there is no get on Bars Should we use Expects or another way, any input would be great. Thanks Update based on Darin Dimitrov's reply. var bars = new List<Bar>() { new Bar() { BarId = 1 } }; var fooService = MockRepository.GenerateStub<IFooService>(); // this is called in OnLoad in the Presenter fooService.Stub(x => x.GetBars()).Return(bars); var view = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IFooView>(); var presenter = new FooPresenter(view, fooService); view.Raise(v => v.Load += null, this, EventArgs.Empty); view.AssertWasCalled(x => x.Bars = bars); // this does not pass This doesn't work. Should I be testing it this way or is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Unittesting aspect-oriented features.

    - by Tomas Brambora
    Hi, I'd like to know what would you propose as the best way to unit test aspect-oriented application features (well, perhaps that's not the best name, but it's the best I was able to come up with :-) ) such as logging or security? These things are sort of omni-present in the application, so how to test them properly? E.g. say that I'm writing a Cherrypy web server in Python. I can use a decorator to check whether the logged-in user has the permission to access a given page. But then I'd need to write a test for every page to see whether it works oK (or more like to see that I had not forgotten to check security perms for that page). This could maybe (emphasis on maybe) be bearable if logging and/or security were implemented during the web server "normal business implementation". However, security and logging usually tend to be added to the app as an afterthough (or maybe that's just my experience, I'm usually given a server and then asked to implement security model :-) ). Any thoughts on this are very welcome. I have currently 'solved' this issue by, well - not testing this at all. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Unit tests and Test Runner problems under .Net 4.0

    - by Brett Rigby
    Hi there, We're trying to migrate a .Net 3.5 solution into .Net 4.0, but are experiencing complications with the testing frameworks that can operate using an assembly that is built using version 4.0 of the .Net Framework. Previously, we used NUnit 2.4.3.0 and NCover 1.5.8.0 within our NAnt scripts, but NUnit 2.4.3.0 doesn't like .Net 4.0 projects. So, we upgraded to a newer version of the NUnit framework within the test project itself, but then found that NCover 1.5.8.0 doesn't support this version of NUnit. We get errors in the code saying words to the effect of the assembly was built using a newer version of the .Net Framework than is currently in use, as it's using .Net Framework 2.0 to run the tools. We then tried using Gallio's Icarus test runner GUI, but found that this and MbUnit only support up to version 3.5 of the .Net Frameword and the result is "the tests will be ignored". In terms of the coverage side of things (for reporting into CruiseControl.net), we have found that PartCover is a good candidate for substituting-out NCover, (as the newer version of NCover is quite dear, and PartCover is free), but this is a few steps down the line yet, as we can't get the test runners to work first!! Can any shed any light on a testnig framework that will run under .Net 4.0 in the same way as I've described above? If not, I fear we may have to revert back to using .Net 3.5 until the manufacturers of the tooling that we're currently using have a chance to upgrade to .Net 4.0. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How reliable is Verify() in Moq?

    - by matthewayinde
    I'm only new to Unit Testing and ASP.NET MVC. I've been trying to get my head into both using Steve Sanderson's "Pro ASP.NET MVC Framework". In the book there is this piece of code: public class AdminController : Controller { ... [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult Edit(Product product, HttpPostedFileBase image) { ... productsRepository.SaveProduct(product); TempData["message"] = product.Name + " has been saved."; return RedirectToAction("Index"); } } That he tests like so: [Test] public void Edit_Action_Saves_Product_To_Repository_And_Redirects_To_Index() { // Arrange AdminController controller = new AdminController(mockRepos.Object); Product newProduct = new Product(); // Act var result = (RedirectToRouteResult)controller.Edit(newProduct, null); // Assert: Saved product to repository and redirected mockRepos.Verify(x => x.SaveProduct(newProduct)); Assert.AreEqual("Index", result.RouteValues["action"]); } THE TEST PASSES. So I intensionally corrupt the code by adding "productsRepository.DeleteProduct(product);" after the "SaveProduct(product);" as in: ... productsRepository.SaveProduct(product); productsRepository.DeleteProduct(product); ... THE TEST PASSES.(i.e Condones a calamitous [hypnosis + intellisense]-induced typo :) ) Could this test be written better? Or is there something I should know? Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • With PascalMock how do I mock a method with an untyped out parameter and an open array parameter?

    - by Oliver Giesen
    I'm currently in the process of getting started with unit testing and mocking for good and I stumbled over the following method that I can't seem to fabricate a working mock implementation for: function GetInstance(const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID = CID_DEFAULT): Boolean; (TImplContextID is just an alias for Integer) I thought it would have to look something like this: function TImplementationProviderMock.GetInstance( const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID): Boolean; begin Result := AddCall('GetInstance') .WithParams([@AIID, AContextID]) .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) .ReturnValue; end; But the compiler complains about the .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) saying "Bad argument type in variable type array constructor.". Also I haven't found a way to specify the open array parameter AArgs at all. Also, is using the @-notation for the TGUID-typed parameter the right way to go? Is it possible to mock this method with the current version of PascalMock at all?

    Read the article

  • Rails performance tests "rake test:benchmark" and "rake test:profile" give me errors

    - by go minimal
    I'm trying to run a blank default performance test with Ruby 1.9 and Rails 2.3.5 and I just can't get it to work! What am I missing here??? rails testapp cd testapp script/generate scaffold User name:string rake db:migrate rake test:benchmark - /usr/local/bin/ruby19 -I"lib:test" "/usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/performance/browsing_test.rb" -- --benchmark Loaded suite /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader Started /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/activesupport-2.3.5/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:105:in `rescue in const_missing': uninitialized constant BrowsingTest::STARTED (NameError) from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/activesupport-2.3.5/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:94:in `const_missing' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/activesupport-2.3.5/lib/active_support/testing/performance.rb:38:in `run' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:415:in `block (2 levels) in run_test_suites' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:409:in `each' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:409:in `block in run_test_suites' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:408:in `each' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:408:in `run_test_suites' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:388:in `run' from /usr/local/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/minitest/unit.rb:329:in `block in autorun' rake aborted! Command failed with status (1): [/usr/local/bin/ruby19 -I"lib:test" "/usr/l...]

    Read the article

  • How do I test database-related code with NUnit?

    - by Michael Haren
    I want to write unit tests with NUnit that hit the database. I'd like to have the database in a consistent state for each test. I thought transactions would allow me to "undo" each test so I searched around and found several articles from 2004-05 on the topic: http://weblogs.asp.net/rosherove/archive/2004/07/12/180189.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/rosherove/archive/2004/10/05/238201.aspx http://davidhayden.com/blog/dave/archive/2004/07/12/365.aspx http://haacked.com/archive/2005/12/28/11377.aspx These seem to resolve around implementing a custom attribute for NUnit which builds in the ability to rollback DB operations after each test executes. That's great but... Does this functionality exists somewhere in NUnit natively? Has this technique been improved upon in the last 4 years? Is this still the best way to test database-related code? Edit: it's not that I want to test my DAL specifically, it's more that I want to test pieces of my code that interact with the database. For these tests to be "no-touch" and repeatable, it'd be awesome if I could reset the database after each one. Further, I want to ease this into an existing project that has no testing place at the moment. For that reason, I can't practically script up a database and data from scratch for each test.

    Read the article

  • PHPUnit - multiple stubs of same class

    - by keithjgrant
    I'm building unit tests for class Foo, and I'm fairly new to unit testing. A key component of my class is an instance of BarCollection which contains a number of Bar objects. One method in Foo iterates through the collection and calls a couple methods on each Bar object in the collection. I want to use stub objects to generate a series of responses for my test class. How do I make the Bar stub class return different values as I iterate? I'm trying to do something along these lines: $stubs = array(); foreach ($array as $value) { $barStub->expects($this->any()) ->method('GetValue')) ->will($this->returnValue($value)); $stubs[] = $barStub; } // populate stubs into `Foo` // assert results from `Foo->someMethod()` So Foo->someMethod() will produce data based on the results it receives from the Bar objects. But this gives me the following error whenever the array is longer than one: There was 1 failure: 1) testMyTest(FooTest) with data set #2 (array(0.5, 0.5)) Expectation failed for method name is equal to <string:GetValue> when invoked zero or more times. Mocked method does not exist. /usr/share/php/PHPUnit/Framework/MockObject/Mock.php(193) : eval()'d code:25 One thought I had was to use ->will($this->returnCallback()) to invoke a callback method, but I don't know how to indicate to the callback which Bar object is making the call (and consequently what response to give). Another idea is to use the onConsecutiveCalls() method, or something like it, to tell my stub to return 1 the first time, 2 the second time, etc, but I'm not sure exactly how to do this. I'm also concerned that if my class ever does anything other than ordered iteration on the collection, I won't have a way to test it.

    Read the article

  • How to organize live data integrity tests and code unit tests?

    - by karlthorwald
    I have several files with code testing code (which uses a "unittest" class). Later I found it would be nice to test database integrity also. I put this into a separate directory tree. (Things like the keys have correct format, parent and child nodes are pointing correctly and such.) I use the same unittest class for the integrity tests. Now I wonder if it makes really sense to keep this separate. To test the integrity of data I often duplicate parts of code that I use to test the code that handles the data. But it is not the same. The code tests use test databases (that get deleted after each test) and the integrity tests connect to the live data and analyze it. The integrity tests I want to call from cron and send an alarm if something happens in the live database. How would you handle that? Are there standards for such a setup? What is your experience? My tendency is to put everything in the same file, which would result in the code tests also being executed by the cron on the production environment.

    Read the article

  • How to organize integrity tests and code unit tests?

    - by karlthorwald
    I have several files with code testing code (which uses a "unittest" class). Later I found it would be nice to test database integrity also. I put this into a separate directory tree. (Things like the keys have correct format, parent and child nodes are pointing correctly and such.) I use the same unittest class for the integrity tests. Now I wonder if it makes really sense to keep this separate. To test the integrity of data I often duplicate parts of code that I use to test the code that handles the data. But it is not the same. The code tests use test databases (that get deleted after each test) and the integrity tests connect to the live data and analyze it. The integrity tests I want to call from cron and send an alarm if something happens in the live database. How would you handle that? Are there standards for such a setup? What is your experience? My tendency is to put everything in the same file, which would result in the code tests also being executed by the cron on the production environment.

    Read the article

  • Uncaught TypeError: Object [object Object] has no method 'onAdded'

    - by user3604227
    I am using ExtJS4 with Java servlets. I am following the MVC architecture for ExtJS. I am trying a simple example of displaying a border layout but it doesnt work and I get the following error in ext-all.js in the javascript console: Uncaught TypeError: Object [object Object] has no method 'onAdded' Here is my code: app.js Ext.Loader.setConfig({ enabled : true }); Ext.application({ name : 'IN', appFolder : 'app', controllers : [ 'Items' ], launch : function() { console.log('in LAUNCH-appjs'); Ext.create('Ext.container.Viewport', { items : [ { xtype : 'borderlyt' } ] }); } }); Items.js (controller) Ext.define('IN.controller.Items', { extend : 'Ext.app.Controller', views : [ 'item.Border' ], init : function() { this.control({ 'viewport > panel' : { render : this.onPanelRendered } }); }, onPanelRendered : function() { console.log('The panel was rendered'); } }); Border.js (view) Ext.define('IN.view.item.Border',{extend : 'Ext.layout.container.Border', alias : 'widget.borderlyt', title : 'Border layout' , autoShow : true, renderTo : Ext.getBody(), defaults : { split : true, layout : 'border', autoScroll : true, height : 800, width : 500 }, items : [ { region : 'north', html : "Header here..", id : 'mainHeader' }, { region : 'west', width : 140, html : "Its West..", }, { region : 'south', html : "This is my temp footer content", height : 30, margins : '0 5 5 5', bodyPadding : 2, id : 'mainFooter' }, { id : 'mainContent', collapsible : false, region : 'center', margins : '5', border : true, } ] }); The folder structure for the Webcontent is as follows: WebContent app controller Items.js model store view item Border.js ext_js resources src ext_all.js index.html app.js Can someone help me resolve this error? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • UI Automation Button Style Enabled

    - by Victor Gaspar
    Hi, I'm evaluating UI Automation for UI testing for that I have a WPF application with the following button defined: <Button Style="{DynamicResource ButtonStyle}" x:Name="MyBtn"/> when I need to visually disable the button I just change the style so the user is aware that the button is disabled (the colour changed) but still the button is internally enabled so I can still launch the OnClick event in order to show a message when the user clicks on a "disabled" button. Now the problem is that I don't know how to check from UI Automation the Style that its currently applied i.e. if the button is disabled or enabled. Do you know how can I do that? In a normal situation I should do something like that: Automation.Condition cEBtn = new PropertyCondition(AutomationElement.AutomationIdProperty, "MyBtn"); AutomationElement mybtnElement = appRegraceElement.FindFirst(TreeScope.Children, cEBtn); bool disMyBtn = (bool)mybtnElement .GetCurrentPropertyValue(AutomationElement.IsEnabledProperty); but in my case the button is always enabled therefore I need to check the Style applied to the button. Thank you very much. Best regards

    Read the article

  • Rhino Mocks and ordered test with unordered calls

    - by Shaddix
    I'm using Rhino.Mocks for testing the system. I'm going to check the order of calling .LoadConfig and .Backup methods. I need .LoadConfig to be the first. Currently the code is like this: var module1 = mocks.Stub<IBackupModule>(); var module2 = mocks.Stub<IBackupModule>(); module1.Expect(x => x.Name).Return("test"); module2.Expect(x => x.Name).Return("test2"); using (mocks.Ordered()) { module1.Expect(x => x.LoadConfig(null)); module2.Expect(x => x.LoadConfig(null)); module1.Expect(x => x.Backup()); module2.Expect(x => x.Backup()); } mocks.ReplayAll(); The problem is, that there's also a call to .Name property, and i'm not interesting when it'll be called: before .LoadConfig or after the .Backup - it just doesn't matter. And when I run this I'm getting Exception: Unordered method call! The expected call is: 'Ordered: { IConfigLoader.LoadConfig(null); }' but was: 'IIdentification.get_Name();' Is there a way to deal with this? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Django formset unit test

    - by Py
    I can't running Unit Test with formset. I try to do a test: class NewClientTestCase(TestCase): def setUp(self): self.c = Client() def test_0_create_individual_with_same_adress(self): post_data = { 'ctype': User.CONTACT_INDIVIDUAL, 'username': 'dupond.f', 'email': '[email protected]', 'password': 'pwd', 'password2': 'pwd', 'civility': User.CIVILITY_MISTER, 'first_name': 'François', 'last_name': 'DUPOND', 'phone': '+33 1 34 12 52 30', 'gsm': '+33 6 34 12 52 30', 'fax': '+33 1 34 12 52 30', 'form-0-address1': '33 avenue Gambetta', 'form-0-address2': 'apt 50', 'form-0-zip_code': '75020', 'form-0-city': 'Paris', 'form-0-country': 'FRA', 'same_for_billing': True, } response = self.c.post(reverse('client:full_account'), post_data, follow=True) self.assertRedirects(response, '%s?created=1' % reverse('client:dashboard')) and i have this error: ValidationError: [u'ManagementForm data is missing or has been tampered with'] My view : def full_account(request, url_redirect=''): from forms import NewUserFullForm, AddressForm, BaseArticleFormSet fields_required = [] fields_notrequired = [] AddressFormSet = formset_factory(AddressForm, extra=2, formset=BaseArticleFormSet) if request.method == 'POST': form = NewUserFullForm(request.POST) objforms = AddressFormSet(request.POST) if objforms.is_valid() and form.is_valid(): user = form.save() address = objforms.forms[0].save() if url_redirect=='': url_redirect = '%s?created=1' % reverse('client:dashboard') logon(request, form.instance) return HttpResponseRedirect(url_redirect) else: form = NewUserFullForm() objforms = AddressFormSet() return direct_to_template(request, 'clients/full_account.html', { 'form':form, 'formset': objforms, 'tld_fr':False, }) and my form file : class BaseArticleFormSet(BaseFormSet): def clean(self): msg_err = _('Ce champ est obligatoire.') non_errors = True if 'same_for_billing' in self.data and self.data['same_for_billing'] == 'on': same_for_billing = True else: same_for_billing = False for i in [0, 1]: form = self.forms[i] for field in form.fields: name_field = 'form-%d-%s' % (i, field ) value_field = self.data[name_field].strip() if i == 0 and self.forms[0].fields[field].required and value_field =='': form.errors[field] = msg_err non_errors = False elif i == 1 and not same_for_billing and self.forms[1].fields[field].required and value_field =='': form.errors[field] = msg_err non_errors = False return non_errors class AddressForm(forms.ModelForm): class Meta: model = Address address1 = forms.CharField() address2 = forms.CharField(required=False) zip_code = forms.CharField() city = forms.CharField() country = forms.ChoiceField(choices=CountryField.COUNTRIES, initial='FRA')

    Read the article

  • Weird .net 4.0 exception when running unit tests

    - by vdh_ant
    Hi guys I am receiving the following exception when trying to run my unit tests using .net 4.0 under VS2010 with moq 3.1. Attempt by security transparent method 'SPPD.Backend.DataAccess.Test.Specs_for_Core.When_using_base.Can_create_mapper()' to access security critical method 'Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.Assert.IsNotNull(System.Object)' failed. Assembly 'SPPD.Backend.DataAccess.Test, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' is marked with the AllowPartiallyTrustedCallersAttribute, and uses the level 2 security transparency model. Level 2 transparency causes all methods in AllowPartiallyTrustedCallers assemblies to become security transparent by default, which may be the cause of this exception. The test I am running is really straight forward and looks something like the following: [TestMethod] public void Can_create_mapper() { this.SetupTest(); var mockMapper = new Moq.Mock<IMapper>().Object; this._Resolver.Setup(x => x.Resolve<IMapper>()).Returns(mockMapper).Verifiable(); var testBaseDa = new TestBaseDa(); var result = testBaseDa.TestCreateMapper<IMapper>(); Assert.IsNotNull(result); //<<< THROWS EXCEPTION HERE Assert.AreSame(mockMapper, result); this._Resolver.Verify(); } I have no idea what this means and I have been looking around and have found very little on the topic. The closest reference I have found is this http://dotnetzip.codeplex.com/Thread/View.aspx?ThreadId=80274 but its not very clear on what they did to fix it... Anyone got any ideas?

    Read the article

  • iPhone OS: Why is my managedModelObject not complying with Key Value Coding?

    - by nickthedude
    Ok so I'm trying to build this stat tracker for my app and I have built a data model object called statTracker that keeps track of all the stuff I want it to. I can set and retrieve values using the selectors, but if I try and use KVC (ie setValue: forKey: ) everything goes bad and says my StatTracker class is not KVC compliant: valueForUndefinedKey:]: the entity StatTracker is not key value coding-compliant for the key "timesLauched".' 2010-05-18 15:55:08.573 here's the code that is triggering it: NSArray *statTrackerArray = [[NSArray alloc] init]; statTrackerArray = [[CoreDataSingleton sharedCoreDataSingleton] getStatTracker]; NSNumber *number1 = [[NSNumber alloc] init]; number1 = [NSNumber numberWithInt:(1 + [[(StatTracker *)[statTrackerArray objectAtIndex:0] valueForKey:@"timesLauched"] intValue])]; [(StatTracker *)[statTrackerArray objectAtIndex:0] setValue:number1 forKey:@"timesLaunched" ]; NSError *error; if (![[[CoreDataSingleton sharedCoreDataSingleton] managedObjectContext] save:&error]) { NSLog(@"error writing to db"); } Not sure if this is enough code for you folks let me know what you need if you do need more. This would be so sweet if I could use KVC because I could then abstract all this stat tracking stuff into a single method call with a string argument for the value in question. At least that is what I hope to accomplish here. I'm actually now understanding the power of KVC but now I'm just trying to figure out how to make it work. Thanks! Nick

    Read the article

  • How do I assert that two arbitrary type objects are equivalent, without requiring them to be equal?

    - by Tomas Lycken
    To accomplish this (but failing to do so) I'm reflecting over properties of an expected and actual object and making sure their values are equal. This works as expected as long as their properties are single objects, i.e. not lists, arrays, IEnumerable... If the property is a list of some sort, the test fails (on the Assert.AreEqual(...) inside the for loop). public void WithCorrectModel<TModelType>(TModelType expected, string error = "") where TModelType : class { var actual = _result.ViewData.Model as TModelType; Assert.IsNotNull(actual, error); Assert.IsInstanceOfType(actual, typeof(TModelType), error); foreach (var prop in typeof(TModelType).GetProperties()) { Assert.AreEqual(prop.GetValue(expected, null), prop.GetValue(actual, null), error); } } If dealing with a list property, I would get the expected results if I instead used CollectionAssert.AreEquivalent(...) but that requires me to cast to ICollection, which in turn requries me to know the type listed, which I don't (want to). It also requires me to know which properties are list types, which I don't know how to. So, how should I assert that two objects of an arbitrary type are equivalent? Note: I specifically don't want to require them to be equal, since one comes from my tested object and one is built in my test class to have something to compare with.

    Read the article

  • Rails nested models and data separation by scope

    - by jobrahms
    I have Teacher, Student, and Parent models that all belong to User. This is so that a Teacher can create Students and Parents that can or cannot log into the app depending on the teacher's preference. Student and Parent both accept nested attributes for User so a Student and User object can be created in the same form. All four models also belong to Studio so I can do data separation by scope. The current studio is set in application_controller.rb by looking up the current subdomain. In my students controller (all of my controllers, actually) I'm using @studio.students.new instead of Student.new, etc, to scope the new student to the correct studio, and therefore the correct subdomain. However, the nested User does not pick up the studio from its parent - it gets set to nil. I was thinking that I could do something like params[:student][:user_attributes][:studio_id] = @student.studio.id in the controller, but that would require doing attr_accessible :studio_id in User, which would be bad. How can I make sure that the nested User picks up the same scope that the Student model gets when it's created? student.rb class Student < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :studio belongs_to :user, :dependent => :destroy attr_accessible :user_attributes accepts_nested_attributes_for :user, :reject_if => :all_blank end students_controller.rb def create @student = @studio.students.new @student.attributes = params[:student] if @student.save redirect_to @student, :notice => "Successfully created student." else render :action => 'new' end end user.rb class User < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :studio accepts_nested_attributes_for :studio attr_accessible :email, :password, :password_confirmation, :remember_me, :studio_attributes devise :invitable, :database_authenticatable, :recoverable, :rememberable, :trackable end

    Read the article

  • L10N: Trusted test data for Locale Specific Sorting

    - by Chris Betti
    I'm working on an internationalized database application that supports multiple locales in a single instance. When international users sort data in the applications built on top of the database, the database theoretically sorts the data using a collation appropriate to the locale associated with the data the user is viewing. I'm trying to find sorted lists of words that meet two criteria: the sorted order follows the collation rules for the locale the words listed will allow me to exercise most / all of the specific collation rules for the locale I'm having trouble finding such trusted test data. Are such sort-testing datasets currently available, and if so, what / where are they? "words.en.txt" is an example text file containing American English text: Andrew Brian Chris Zachary I am planning on loading the list of words into my database in randomized order, and checking to see if sorting the list conforms to the original input. Because I am not fluent in any language other than English, I do not know how to create sample datasets like the following sample one in French (call it "words.fr.txt"): cote côte coté côté The French prefer diacritical marks to be ordered right to left. If you sorted that using code-point order, it likely comes out like this (which is an incorrect collation): cote coté côte côté Thank you for the help, Chris

    Read the article

  • How to avoid multiple, unused has_many associations when using multiple models for the same entity (

    - by mikep
    Hello, I'm looking for a nice, Ruby/Rails-esque solution for something. I'm trying to split up some data using multiple tables, rather than just using one gigantic table. My reasoning is pretty much to try and avoid the performance drop that would come with having a big table. So, rather than have one table called books, I have multiple tables: books1, books2, books3, etc. (I know that I could use a partition, but, for now, I've decided to go the 'multiple tables' route.) Each user has their books placed into a specific table. The actual book table is chosen when the user is created, and all of their books go into the same table. The goal is to try and keep each table pretty much even -- but that's a different issue. One thing I don't particularly want to have is a bunch of unused associations in the User class. Right now, it looks like I'd have to do the following: class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :books1, :books2, :books3, :books4, :books5 end class Books1 < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user end class Books2 < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user end First off, for each specific user, only one of the book tables would be usable/applicable, since all of a user's books are stored in the same table. So, only one of the associations would be in use at any time and any other has_many :bookX association that was loaded would be a waste. I don't really know Ruby/Rails does internally with all of those has_many associations though, so maybe it's not so bad. But right now I'm thinking that it's really wasteful, and that there may just be a better, more efficient way of doing this. Is there's some sort of special Ruby/Rails methodology that could be applied here to avoid having to have all of those has_many associations? Also, does anyone have any advice on how to abstract the fact that there's multiple book tables behind a single books model/class?

    Read the article

  • How do I work with constructs in PHPUnit?

    - by Ben Dauphinee
    I am new into PHPUnit, and just digging through the manual. I cannot find a decent example of how to build a complete test from end to end though, and so, am left with questions. One of these is how can I prep my environment to properly test my code? I am trying to figure out how to properly pass various configuration values needed for both the test setup/teardown methods, and the configs for the class itself. // How can I set these variables on testing start? protected $_db = null; protected $_config = null; // So that this function runs properly? public function setUp(){ $this->_acl = new acl( $this->_db, // The database connection for the class passed // from whatever test construct $this->_config // Config values passed in from construct ); } // Can I just drop in a construct like this, and have it work properly? // And if so, how can I set the construct call properly? public function __construct( Zend_Db_Adapter_Abstract $db, $config = array(), $baselinedatabase = NULL, $databaseteardown = NULL ){ $this->_db = $db; $this->_config = $config; $this->_baselinedatabase = $baselinedatabase; $this->_databaseteardown = $databaseteardown; } // Or is the wrong idea to be pursuing?

    Read the article

  • Handling learning curve for new developers

    - by pete the pagan-gerbil
    Our company likes to hire new developers, with no experience. We have a core set of skills that we try to get them up to speed with, like ASP.NET and WinForms - to teach basic programming, the .NET languages, and the things they'll need to maintain and write. We also try and mentor them through early projects, so they can learn from someone more experienced. Recently, we've been seeing the benefits of new frameworks like MVC and ideas like Unit Testing and TDD (by extension, dependancy injection and IoC), and we'd like to start using these in the team. However, this increases the time that a junior would have before they can get started on a new project - because doing something like unit tests wrong could cause major headaches months or years later in maintenance, especially if we believe unit tests to be comprehensive. How do you handle the huge amount of things that a junior will need to take on, acknowledging that the business wants them working independantly as soon as possible? Is it acceptable to tell them not to unit test till a while after they are independant (and give them small, simpler projects in the meantime) before taking them to 'level 2' of the core skills?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228  | Next Page >