I'm testing a function that may modify a file. How do i test that it is unchanged in the cases where I want it to?
I don't want to check the content, because the file may have been overwritten with the same content, changing the modification time.
I can't really check the modification time, either. Since I like tests to be self-contained, the original file would be written just before the (non-)modification test, rendering the modification time unreliable.
You can use DI to mock your filewriter. This way you do not need the file at all, only check if the write function is called and you know if the file was modified.
I would split the function into two separate functions; the first decides whether the modification should be made, the second makes the notification. The second is only called if necessary. In pretend language:
function bool IsModificationRequired()
{
// return true or false based on your actual code
}
function void WriteFile()
{
new File().Write("file");
}
function void WriteIfModified()
{
if (IsModificationRequired())
WriteFile();
}
And test
Assert.IsTrue(IsModificationRequired());
Well assuming you are using a text file and reasonable size. Just hash the file content, if before modify and after modidfy hashcode is same then - it means the file content is not changed.
Here is the link to Algorithim Design Manual - Steve Skiena (Google Book Result)
Section 3.8
How can i convicne you that a file isn't changed ?
Related
Let me elaborate on the title:
I want to implement a system that would allow me to enable/disable/modify the general behavior of my program. Here are some examples:
I could switch off and on logging
I could change if my graphing program should use floating or pixel coordinates
I could change if my calculations should be based upon some method or some other method
I could enable/disable certain aspects like maybe a extension api
I could enable/disable some basic integrated profiler (if I had one)
These are some made-up examples.
Now I want to know what the most common solution for this sort of thing is.
I could imagine this working with some sort of singelton class that gets instanced globally or in some other globally available object. Another thing that would be possible would be just constexpr or other variables floating around in a namespace, again globally.
However doing something like that, globally, feels like bad practise.
second part of the question
This might sound like I cant decide what I want, but I want a way to modify all these switches/flags or whatever they are actually called in a single location, without tying any of my classes to it. I don't know if this is possible however.
Why don't I want to do that? Well I like to make my classes somewhat reusable and I don't like tying classes together, unless its required by the DRY principle and or inheritance. I basically couldn't get rid of the flags without modifying the possible hundreds of classes that used them.
What I have tried in the past
Having it all as compiler defines. This worked reasonably well, however I didnt like that I couldnt make it so if the flag file was gone there were some sort of default settings that would make the classes themselves still operational and changeable (through these default values)
Having it as a class and instancing it globally (system class). Worked ok, however I didnt like instancing anything globally. Also same problem as above
Instancing the system class locally and passing it to the classes on construction. This was kinda cool, since I could make multiple instruction sets. However at the same time that kinda ruined the point since it would lead to things that needed to have one flag set the same to have them set differently and therefore failing to properly work together. Also passing it on every construction was a pain.
A static class. This one worked ok for the longest time, however there is still the problem when there are missing dependencies.
Summary
Basically I am looking for a way to have a single "place" where I can mess with some values (bools, floats etc.) and that will change the behaviour of all classes using them for whatever, where said values either overwrite default values or get replaced by default values if said "place" isnt defined.
If a Singleton class does not work for you , maybe using a DI container may fit in your third approach? It may help with the construction and make the code more testable.
There are some DI frameworks for c++, like https://github.com/google/fruit/wiki or https://github.com/boost-experimental/di which you can use.
If you decide to use switch/flags, pay attention for "cyclometric complexity".
If you do not change the skeleton of your algorithm but only his behaviour according to the objets in parameter, have a look at "template design pattern". This method allow you to define a generic algorithm and specify particular step for a particular situation.
Here's an approach I found useful; I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but maybe it will give you some ideas.
First, I created a BehaviorFlags.h file that declares the following function:
// Returns true iff the given feature/behavior flag was specified for us to use
bool IsBehaviorFlagEnabled(const char * flagName);
The idea being that any code in any of your classes could call this function to find out if a particular behavior should be enabled or not. For example, you might put this code at the top of your ExtensionsAPI.cpp file:
#include "BehaviorFlags.h"
static const enableExtensionAPI = IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("enable_extensions_api");
[...]
void DoTheExtensionsAPIStuff()
{
if (enableExtensionsAPI == false) return;
[... otherwise do the extensions API stuff ...]
}
Note that the IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() call is only executed once at program startup, for best run-time efficiency; but you also have the option of calling IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() on every call to DoTheExtensionsAPIStuff(), if run-time efficiency is less important that being able to change your program's behavior without having to restart your program.
As far as how the IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() function itself is implemented, it looks something like this (simplified version for demonstration purposes):
bool IsBehaviorFlagEnabled(const char * fileName)
{
// Note: a real implementation would find the user's home directory
// using the proper API and not just rely on ~ to expand to the home-dir path
std::string filePath = "~/MyProgram_Settings/";
filePath += fileName;
FILE * fpIn = fopen(filePath.c_str(), "r"); // i.e. does the file exist?
bool ret = (fpIn != NULL);
fclose(fpIn);
return ret;
}
The idea being that if you want to change your program's behavior, you can do so by creating a file (or folder) in the ~/MyProgram_Settings directory with the appropriate name. E.g. if you want to enable your Extensions API, you could just do a
touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/enable_extensions_api
... and then re-start your program, and now IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("enable_extensions_api") returns true and so your Extensions API is enabled.
The benefits I see of doing it this way (as opposed to parsing a .ini file at startup or something like that) are:
There's no need to modify any "central header file" or "registry file" every time you add a new behavior-flag.
You don't have to put a ParseINIFile() function at the top of main() in order for your flags-functionality to work correctly.
You don't have to use a text editor or memorize a .ini syntax to change the program's behavior
In a pinch (e.g. no shell access) you can create/remove settings simply using the "New Folder" and "Delete" functionality of the desktop's window manager.
The settings are persistent across runs of the program (i.e. no need to specify the same command line arguments every time)
The settings are persistent across reboots of the computer
The flags can be easily modified by a script (via e.g. touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/blah or rm -f ~/MyProgram_Settings/blah) -- much easier than getting a shell script to correctly modify a .ini file
If you have code in multiple different .cpp files that needs to be controlled by the same flag-file, you can just call IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("that_file") from each of them; no need to have every call site refer to the same global boolean variable if you don't want them to.
Extra credit: If you're using a bug-tracker and therefore have bug/feature ticket numbers assigned to various issues, you can creep the elegance a little bit further by also adding a class like this one:
/** This class encapsulates a feature that can be selectively disabled/enabled by putting an
* "enable_behavior_xxxx" or "disable_behavior_xxxx" file into the ~/MyProgram_Settings folder.
*/
class ConditionalBehavior
{
public:
/** Constructor.
* #param bugNumber Bug-Tracker ID number associated with this bug/feature.
* #param defaultState If true, this beheavior will be enabled by default (i.e. if no corresponding
* file exists in ~/MyProgram_Settings). If false, it will be disabled by default.
* #param switchAtVersion If specified, this feature's default-enabled state will be inverted if
* GetMyProgramVersion() returns any version number greater than this.
*/
ConditionalBehavior(int bugNumber, bool defaultState, int switchAtVersion = -1)
{
if ((switchAtVersion >= 0)&&(GetMyProgramVersion() >= switchAtVersion)) _enabled = !_enabled;
std::string fn = defaultState ? "disable" : "enable";
fn += "_behavior_";
fn += to_string(bugNumber);
if ((IsBehaviorFlagEnabled(fn))
||(IsBehaviorFlagEnabled("enable_everything")))
{
_enabled = !_enabled;
printf("Note: %s Behavior #%i\n", _enabled?"Enabling":"Disabling", bugNumber);
}
}
/** Returns true iff this feature should be enabled. */
bool IsEnabled() const {return _enabled;}
private:
bool _enabled;
};
Then, in your ExtensionsAPI.cpp file, you might have something like this:
// Extensions API feature is tracker #4321; disabled by default for now
// but you can try it out via "touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/enable_feature_4321"
static const ConditionalBehavior _feature4321(4321, false);
// Also tracker #4222 is now enabled-by-default, but you can disable
// it manually via "touch ~/MyProgram_Settings/disable_feature_4222"
static const ConditionalBehavior _feature4222(4222, true);
[...]
void DoTheExtensionsAPIStuff()
{
if (_feature4321.IsEnabled() == false) return;
[... otherwise do the extensions API stuff ...]
}
... or if you know that you are planning to make your Extensions API enabled-by-default starting with version 4500 of your program, you can set it so that Extensions API will be enabled-by-default only if GetMyProgramVersion() returns 4500 or greater:
static ConditionalBehavior _feature4321(4321, false, 4500);
[...]
... also, if you wanted to get more elaborate, the API could be extended so that IsBehaviorFlagEnabled() can optionally return a string to the caller containing the contents of the file it found (if any), so that you could do shell commands like:
echo "opengl" > ~/MyProgram_Settings/graphics_renderer
... to tell your program to use OpenGL for its 3D graphics, or etc:
// In Renderer.cpp
std::string rendererType;
if (IsDebugFlagEnabled("graphics_renderer", &rendererType))
{
printf("The user wants me to use [%s] for rendering 3D graphics!\n", rendererType.c_str());
}
else printf("The user didn't specify what renderer to use.\n");
I've got an object Obj doing some (elaborate) computation and want to check weather the result (let's call it aComputed and bComputed) is correct or not. Therefore I want to split this task up into multiple test methods:
testA() { load aToBe; check if number aComputed = aToBe }
testB() { load bToBe; check if number bComputed = bToBe }
The problem is, that Obj is "executed" twice (which takes a lot of time) - one time per test. The question is: How can I manage that it's just "executed" once and the result is used used by both tests?
At the moment Obj is placed inside the setUp-function and saves the results to a private member of the test-class.
Thanks for helping!
There is no easy solution that allows you to split the code into two test methods. Each test method results in a new test object with an own set of local variables.
Obviously you could work around this problem through a static variable but in the long run this normally just causes issues and breaks the ideas behind the framework.
The better idea is to just write the two CPPUNIT_ASSERT in the same test method. If the results are part of the same calculation there is most likely not much value in splitting the checks into two independent test methods.
I've written my own access layer to a game engine. There is a GameLoop which gets called every frame which lets me process my own code. I'm able to do specific things and to check if these things happened. In a very basic way it could look like this:
void cycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
//read the value
std::string text = Engine::getText();
}
I want to test if my Engine-layer is working by writing automated tests. I have some experience in using the Boost Unittest Framework for simple comparison tests like this.
The problem is, that some things I want the engine to do are just processed after the call to cycle(). So calling Engine::getText() directly after Engine::setText(...) would return an empty string. If I would wait until the next call of cycle() the right value would be returned.
I now am wondering how I should write my tests if it is not possible to process them in the same cycle. Are there any best practices? Is it possible to use the "traditional testing" approach given by Boost Unittest Framework in such an environment? Are there perhaps other frameworks aimed at such a specialised case?
I'm using C++ for everything here, but I could imagine that there are answers unrelated to the programming language.
UPDATE:
It is not possible to access the Engine outside of cycle()
In your example above, std::string text = Engine::getText(); is the code you want to remember from one cycle but execute in the next. You can save it for later execution. For example - using C++11 you could use a lambda to wrap the test into a simple function specified inline.
There are two options with you:
If the library that you have can be used synchronously or using c++11 futures like facility (which can indicate the readyness of the result) then in your test case you can do something as below
void testcycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
while (!Engine::isResultReady());
//read the value
assert(Engine::getText() == "WHATEVERVALUEYOUEXPECT");
}
If you dont have the above the best you can do have a timeout (this is not a good option though because you may have spurious failures):
void testcycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
while (Engine::getText() != "WHATEVERVALUEYOUEXPECT") {
wait(1 millisec);
if (total_wait_time > 1 sec) // you can put whatever max time
assert(0);
}
}
I have a class that processes a 2 xml files and produces a text file.
I would like to write a bunch of unit / integration tests that can individually pass or fail for this class that do the following:
For input A and B, generate the output.
Compare the contents of the generated file to the contents expected output
When the actual contents differ from the expected contents, fail and display some useful information about the differences.
Below is the prototype for the class along with my first stab at unit tests.
Is there a pattern I should be using for this sort of testing, or do people tend to write zillions of TestX() functions?
Is there a better way to coax text-file differences from NUnit? Should I embed a textfile diff algorithm?
class ReportGenerator
{
string Generate(string inputPathA, string inputPathB)
{
//do stuff
}
}
[TextFixture]
public class ReportGeneratorTests
{
static Diff(string pathToExpectedResult, string pathToActualResult)
{
using (StreamReader rs1 = File.OpenText(pathToExpectedResult))
{
using (StreamReader rs2 = File.OpenText(pathToActualResult))
{
string actualContents = rs2.ReadToEnd();
string expectedContents = rs1.ReadToEnd();
//this works, but the output could be a LOT more useful.
Assert.AreEqual(expectedContents, actualContents);
}
}
}
static TestGenerate(string pathToInputA, string pathToInputB, string pathToExpectedResult)
{
ReportGenerator obj = new ReportGenerator();
string pathToResult = obj.Generate(pathToInputA, pathToInputB);
Diff(pathToExpectedResult, pathToResult);
}
[Test]
public void TestX()
{
TestGenerate("x1.xml", "x2.xml", "x-expected.txt");
}
[Test]
public void TestY()
{
TestGenerate("y1.xml", "y2.xml", "y-expected.txt");
}
//etc...
}
Update
I'm not interested in testing the diff functionality. I just want to use it to produce more readable failures.
As for the multiple tests with different data, use the NUnit RowTest extension:
using NUnit.Framework.Extensions;
[RowTest]
[Row("x1.xml", "x2.xml", "x-expected.xml")]
[Row("y1.xml", "y2.xml", "y-expected.xml")]
public void TestGenerate(string pathToInputA, string pathToInputB, string pathToExpectedResult)
{
ReportGenerator obj = new ReportGenerator();
string pathToResult = obj.Generate(pathToInputA, pathToInputB);
Diff(pathToExpectedResult, pathToResult);
}
You are probably asking for the testing against "gold" data. I don't know if there is specific term for this kind of testing accepted world-wide, but this is how we do it.
Create base fixture class. It basically has "void DoTest(string fileName)", which will read specific file into memory, execute abstract transformation method "string Transform(string text)", then read fileName.gold from the same place and compare transformed text with what was expected. If content is different, it throws exception. Exception thrown contains line number of the first difference as well as text of expected and actual line. As text is stable, this is usually enough information to spot the problem right away. Be sure to mark lines with "Expected:" and "Actual:", or you will be guessing forever which is which when looking at test results.
Then, you will have specific test fixtures, where you implement Transform method which does right job, and then have tests which look like this:
[Test] public void TestX() { DoTest("X"); }
[Test] public void TestY() { DoTest("Y"); }
Name of the failed test will instantly tell you what is broken. Of course, you can use row testing to group similar tests. Having separate tests also helps in a number of situations like ignoring tests, communicating tests to colleagues and so on. It is not a big deal to create a snippet which will create test for you in a second, you will spend much more time preparing data.
Then you will also need some test data and a way your base fixture will find it, be sure to set up rules about it for the project. If test fails, dump actual output to the file near the gold, and erase it if test pass. This way you can use diff tool when needed. When there is no gold data found, test fails with appropriate message, but actual output is written anyway, so you can check that it is correct and copy it to become "gold".
I would probably write a single unit test that contains a loop. Inside the loop, I'd read 2 xml files and a diff file, and then diff the xml files (without writing it to disk) and compare it to the diff file read from disk. The files would be numbered, e.g. a1.xml, b1.xml, diff1.txt ; a2.xml, b2.xml, diff2.txt ; a3.xml, b3.xml, diff3.txt, etc., and the loop stops when it doesn't find the next number.
Then, you can write new tests just by adding new text files.
Rather than call .AreEqual you could parse the two input streams yourself, keep a count of line and column and compare the contents. As soon as you find a difference, you can generate a message like...
Line 32 Column 12 - Found 'x' when 'y' was expected
You could optionally enhance that by displaying multiple lines of output
Difference at Line 32 Column 12, first difference shown
A = this is a txst
B = this is a tests
Note, as a rule, I'd generally only generate through my code one of the two streams you have. The other I'd grab from a test/text file, having verified by eye or other method that the data contained is correct!
I would probably use XmlReader to iterate through the files and compare them. When I hit a difference I would display an XPath to the location where the files are different.
PS: But in reality it was always enough for me to just do a simple read of the whole file to a string and compare the two strings. For the reporting it is enough to see that the test failed. Then when I do the debugging I usually diff the files using Araxis Merge to see where exactly I have issues.
I need to replace all WinAPI calls of the
CreateFile,
ReadFile,
SetFilePointer,
CloseHandle
with my own implementation (which use low-level file reading via Bluetooth).
The code, where functions will be replaced, is Video File Player and it already works with the regular hdd files.
It is also needed, that Video Player still can play files from HDD, if the file in the VideoPlayer input is a regular hdd file.
What is the best practice for such task?
I suggest that you follow these steps:
Write a set of wrapper functions, e.g MyCreateFile, MyReadFile, etc, that initially just call the corresponding API and pass the same arguments along, unmodified.
Use your text editor to search for all calls to the original APIs, and replace these with calls to your new wrapper functions.
Test that the application still functions correctly.
Modify the wrapper functions to suit your own purposes.
Note that CreateFile is a macro which expands to either CreateFileW or CreateFileA, depending on whether UNICODE is defined. Consider using LPCTSTR and the TCHAR functions so that your application can be built as either ANSI or Unicode.
Please don't use #define, as suggested in other responses here, as this will just lead to maintenance problems, and as Maximilian correctly points out, it's not a best-practice.
You could just write your new functions in a custom namespace. e.g.
namespace Bluetooth
{
void CreateFile(/*params*/);
void etc...
}
Then in your code, the only thing you would have to change is:
if (::CreateFile(...))
{
}
to
if (Bluetooth::CreateFile(...))
{
}
Easy! :)
If you're trying to intercept calls to these APIs from another application, consider Detours.
If you can edit the code, you should just re-write it to use a custom API that does what you want. Failing that, use Maximilian's technique, but be warned that it is a maintenance horror.
If you cannot edit the code, you can patch the import tables to redirect calls to your own code. A description of this technique can be found in this article - search for the section titled "Spying by altering of the Import Address Table".
This is dangerous, but if you're careful you can make it work. Also check out Microsoft Detours, which does the same sort of thing but doesn't require you to mess around with the actual patching.
If you really want to hijack the API, look at syringe.dll (L-GPL).
I don't think this is best practice but it should work if you put it in an include file that's included everywhere the function you want to change is called:
#define CreateFile MyCreateFile
HRESULT MyCreateFile(whatever the params are);
Implementation of MyCreateFile looks something like this:
#undef CreateFile
HRESULT MyCreateFile(NobodyCanRememberParamListsLikeThat params)
{
if (InputIsNormalFile())
CreateFile(params);
else
// do your thing
}
You basically make every CreateFile call a MyCreateFile call where you can decide if you want need to use your own implementation or the orginal one.
Disclaimer: I think doing this is ugly and I wouldn't do it. I'd rather search and replace all occurences or something.