I use the framework cppunit to test my classes,I want to know if the methods TestFixture::setUp() and TestFixture::tearDown() are called one time for TEST_SUITE or they are called for each method added to this suite
The methods wrap each individual test case. From the docs:
Each test runs in its own fixture so there can be no side effects
among test runs.
Related
I am using google test and trying to write test fixtures to test source code, in the test fixture, there are several test cases defined.
There are SetUp() and TearDown() functions, for those functions, if there are defined, will they be called for each test case or only once for the whole test suit?
Every test case have it's own fixture, so these are called every time.
Googletest does not reuse the same test fixture object across multiple tests. For each TEST_F, googletest will create a fresh test fixture object, immediately call SetUp(), run the test body, call TearDown(), and then delete the test fixture object. Source
You can verify they are called for each test by simply adding cout statements:
in SetUp():
cout << "SetUp called\n";
in TearDown():
cout << "TearDown called\n";
Run your tests and look at the output; then you can see if it is called per test or per suite.
We use CPPUnit to test our Test framework
The tests are organized in Test fixtures (inherited from CPPUNIT_NS::TestFixture)
There is a new requirement - To flush out the application buffer at the end of a test ONLY if it has failed.
I can do this in the overloaded teardown() function in the Test Fixture.
But how to know if a test has failed.
The result of a test is checked using CPPUNIT_ASSERT.
There are around 12 test fixtures with each fixture having around 10 tests.
How to achieve this with minimal code change?
I think it depends a bit on how you call your tests but my first idea would be to use a TestListener and react to the TestListener::addFailure call.
Note however that the tearDown can in theory also throw an exception (possibly through a CPPUNIT_ASSERT) which would also call the TestListener::addFailure.
If that does not work an obvious but really ugly solution is to set a flag at the end of each test method that signals that test finished successfully and call your code when the flag is not set.
I am using reason code entries in a Dialog form.
For writing the unit Test for the above, I need to first insert reasonCodes dynamically via code in setUpTestCase in UnitTestFramework in Dynamics AX 2012.
How can I do this? I havnt found any help on the internet yet.
Self learned the answer.
In order to write a Unit Test using UnitTestFramework, you create a class which extends SysTestCase class (a System class).
setUp(), setUpTestCase(), tearDown(), tearDownTestCase() are base class functions which are used for setting up and destroying the data during purposely for the test case.
setUp() & tearDown() methods are called at the start & end respectively for each test function in the test case class.
Note, setUp(), tearDown() is run once for every test function while setUpTestCase(), tearDownTestCase() is run only once for for a unit test at the start and end respectively.
Coming back to what I asked,
I had to setup reason codes together with reason comments for writing the test case.
Following is the X++ code required to do so.
private void createReason(str _reasonCode, str _reasonComment)
{
ReasonTable _reasonTable;
_reasonTable.clear();
_reasonTable.Asset = NoYes::Yes;
_reasonTable.Ledger = NoYes::Yes;
_reasonTable.Reason = _reasonCode;
_reasonTable.Description = _reasonComment;
_reasonTable.doInsert();
}
You might have different setting to setup reasons in your test case.
Example, you might wamt to set
_reasonTable.Asset = NoYes::No;
instead of
_reasonTable.Asset = NoYes::Yes;
Call createReason() function in the setUpTestCase() and reasons are inserted into database.
That's all. Hope that it helps someone at some point of time.
Be happy.
~Shakir Shabbir
Have you tried the setUp() and tearDown() methods on the test class?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/EN-US/library/bb496539.aspx
You can create data before the test class execution and delete it when testing ends.
I am developing one Windows phone 7 application. It has another project for unit testing. Now in the main application I have one method that executes some code to navigate to another page. While unit testing I don't want that method to execute and just return in the first line. Right now how I am doing it is defining a symbol while unit testing.
#define EnableUnitTest
public static void Navigate(string page)
{
#if EnableUnitTest
return;
#endif
.....
.....
}
Is there a better way of doing it.
Sorry to say it but that seems like a very bad design. In a unit test you are testing some code which shouldn't be conditioned that way. A unit test should consist of three steps: Arrange, Act, Assert where you prepare the input, call the actual method and assert the results. It's in the arrange step that you should prepare the method under test.
Also I notice that this method is static. Static methods are difficult to unit test. It would be better to abstract the logic of this class into an interface or abstract base class which could be easily mocked/stubbed in a unit test to weaken the coupling between the different parts of your code.
I am writing a unit test to check that a private method will close a stream.
The unit test calls methodB and the variable something is null
The unit test doesn't mock the class on test
The private method is within a public method that I am calling.
Using emma in eclipse (via the eclemma plugin) the method call is displayed as not being covered even though the code within the method is
e.g
public methodA(){
if (something==null) {
methodB(); //Not displayed as covered
}
}
private methodB(){
lineCoveredByTest; //displayed as covered
}
Why would the method call not be highlighted as being covered?
I have found that the eclipse plugin for EMMA is quite buggy, and have had similar experiences to the one you describe. Better to just use EMMA on its own (via ANT if required). Make sure you always regenerate the metadata files produced by EMMA, to avoid merging confusion (which I suspect is the problem with the eclipse plugin).
I assume when you say 'the unit test calls methodB()', you mean not directly and via methodA().
So, is it possible methodB() is being called elsewhere, by another unit test or methodC() maybe?