I have seen the [DebuggerNonUserCode] and [ExcludeFromCodeCoverage] attributes in resources and other SO questions about exlcuding code from coverage statistics, and wanted to know if it was possible to automatically add this attribute to the classes in the code generated by the Entity Framework using .NET 4.0.
Also would it need to be class level or could it be on the diagram.Designer.cs level, needing one attribute for all code generated by that diagram?
Since partial classes (which Entity Framework creates) merge attributes, extended functionality in other partial classes are also excluded if the attribute is class level in the template, it will have to be applied at the method level.
The best way that I've found to do this is using T4 (as recommended in #Craig Stuntz's answer) to:
include: using System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis; at the top of the file
Then apply [ExcludeFromCodeCoverage] to getters, setters and Factory methods by searching for:
#>get
#>set
Template_FactoryMethodComment
and placing them in the appropriate place.
This was made a lot easier using Tangible's T4 editor Extension for VS.
This is my first attempt and it seems to work, "your milage may vary", so complete a test run to make sure everything's working as necessary.
Related
Tailwind offers a feature where you can give an input element the peer class and then, in a sibling element use the peer-invalid: pseudoclass to apply conditional stylings. This is commonly used to provide helper text when a form field is not valid.
I don't see how this can be tested in JS-DOM though, as JS-DOM doesn't have access to the actual CSS when it is just rendering components in unit tests.
The information I have seen about getting JS-DOM to use CSS at all is kinda sketchy, so I was wondering if it's even worth trying to get it to evaluate a bunch of tailwind classes in a NextJS/Jest/RTL project. I'm using Tailwind 3 so it's not even like I have a big file full of generated classes I could try and pass to JS-DOM :/
So can it be done? (Note the hard fact please mods!!!)
(And, somewhat more subjectively, should it be done? Or is there a better way to approach this?)
Creating in-repo-addon in Ember.JS gives a lot of possibilities. Today I've stumbled into a case when I wanted to register all classes in directory (for example my-dir) into Dependency Injector (same way it's done with services by Ember, but I wanted to use some other namespace).
For example I want to allow developer to create multiple classes inside proxy directory, and register all of them in DI under proxy: namespace. So later we can use:
Ember.Component.extend({
myProxy: Ember.inject('proxy:my'),
});
You'll need to do this using an initializer. More details on this here: https://guides.emberjs.com/v2.12.0/applications/dependency-injection/
The hard part may be getting all proxy items in s folder to automatically register ...
Edit
Looks like I didn't spend enough time thinking about this. You should be able to do at least part of this easily. There are two parts to this.
Part 1
Ember currently uses the ember-resolver to handle lookups for various items. If you check the tests for the resolver you'll notice that you should be able to map in anything you want: https://github.com/ember-cli/ember-resolver/blob/master/tests/unit/resolvers/classic/basic-test.js
So in your case, if you do a Ember.getOwner(this).lookup('proxy:main') from within an Ember instantiated class (a route, controller or component for instance) it would look in app/proxy/main.js which your addon could be populating.
Details on the Ember.getOwner lookup are available here: https://emberjs.com/api/classes/Ember.html#method_getOwner
Part 2
So at this point you can lookup proxies (which would be doable in an init method). But if we want to get truly elegant we'd want to allow Ember.inject.proxy('main') syntax.
Doing so would involve calling a private method inside of Ember.inject in an initializer. Because that naming scheme is changing in the new Javascript modules RFC, it may be unwise to try to add this syntactic sugar ...
So I'd advise avoiding touching that private API unless it's really important to your app design.
When using sinatra-r18n to handle internationalisation, the r18n lib exposes a variable t for use within your helpers, routes and templates, as per these instructions.
I have written a simple unit test using rack-unit to confirm that some of my pluralisations work but the test throws an error claiming t is nil.
I've tried referencing it via app.t, MySillyApp.t (where MySillyApp is the name of my Sinatra app), MySillyApp.settings.t etc and none of them give me access to the t I need.
What I am trying to achieve is a confirmation that my translation files include all the keys I need corresponding to plurals of various metric units my app needs to understand. Perhaps there is a more direct way of testing this without going via the Sinatra app itself. I'd welcome any insight here.
I had similar task to check localized strings in my Cucumber scenarios.
I've made working example.
Here you can find how strings got translated.
This file halps to understand how to add R18n support to your testing framework:
require 'r18n-core'
...
class SinCucR18nWorld
...
include R18n::Helpers
end
As you can see instead of rack/unit I'm using RSpec/Cucumber, sorry.
I'm creating a DB web application with grails for my company and found myself in the need to change the default scaffolding templates.
So far so good, everything gets generated with the modified templates (controllers, views, ..).
Now, however, I get a request to create some "composite screens" with functionalities and a layout that differ from the overwritten templates.
So now my question is: is it possible in grails to create one or more templates (next the the default one) and pass this template name as an argument to the generate-* commands?
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: Adding the template name to the generate commands was just an idea, if it's possible to do this a different way, I'll be happy too.
Grails commands are scripts in grails/scripts. If you follow its logic you will see two things.
1) There is only one parameter passed to the script → domain.
2) Class for generating views is DefaultGrailsTemplateGenerator. You can analyse sourcecode and check what this class offers.
Update
Link to DefaultGrailsTemplateGenerator in GitHub.
I am not sure about the generate command parameters, but if you add another .gsp page into scaffolding directory, I believe it will try to run it through generation process.
So for example I used to have a show.gsp page as well as showBasic.gsp page, which showed fewer properties.
Is it possible to have a fixture change between test methods? If so, how can I do this?
My syntax for this problem :
In the cakephp framework i am building tests for a behavior that is configured by adding fields to the table. This is intended to work in the same way that adding the "created"
and "modified" fields will auto-populate these fields on save.
To test this I could create dozens of fixtures/model combos to test the different setups, but it would be a hundred times better, faster and easier to just have the fixture change "shape" between test methods.
If you are not familiar with the CakePHP framework, you can maybe still help me as it uses SimpleTest
Edit: rephrased question to be more general
I'm not familiar specifically with CakePHP, but this kind of thing seems to happen anywhere with fixtures.
There is no built in way in rails at least for this to happen, and I imagine not in cakePHP or anywhere else either because the whole idea of a fixture, is that it is fixed
There are 2 'decent' workarounds I'm aware of
Write a changefixture method, and just before you do your asserts/etc, run it with the parameters of what to change. It should go and update the database or whatever needs to be done.
Don't use fixtures at all, and use some kind of object factory or object generator to create your objects each time
This is not an answer to my quetion, but a solution to my issue example.
Instead of using multiple fixtures or changing the fixtures, I edit the Model::_schema arrays by removing the fields that I wanted to test without. This has the effect that the model acts as if the fields was not there, but I am unsure if this is a 100% test. I do not think it is for all cases, but it works for my example.