tdd

Two of the class properties have the following annotations: [Key] [Column] [Required] [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)] public int Id { get; set; } [MaxLength(25)] public string Name { get; set; } I understand that testing Key, Column and Required attributes is no longer a unit test, it's an integration test as it would depend on the underlying database, but how do you go about testing MaxLength(25) attribute? One of the alternatives that I can think of, is to add a code contract into the property. Update As suggested, I wrote the following helper: public class

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to simulate actual user events using jQuery or native element trigger functions. For example, if you have a text input and you don't want the user to be able to add a character, you can call e.preventDefault() with the jQuery-normalised event object on the keydown event. However, there is no way to programatically verify this test scenario. The following test passes even without the call to preventDefault because the jQuery keydown trigger isn't a "real" event. input.val('test').trigger(jQuery.Event({ which: 68 }); expect(input).toHaveValue('test');

Is it possible to test for the following example if the Method1 called 1st, then Method2 called after and then Method3 by using the AAA syntax, in Rhino-mocks 3.6 ? // Assert var mock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<ISomeService>(); // Act myObject.Service = mock; // How should I change this part to ensure that Rhino Mocks check the call order as well? mock.AssertWasCalled(m=>m.Method1()); mock.AssertWasCalled(m=>m.Method2()); mock.AssertWasCalled(m=>m.Method3()); Here's one way to do it... mock.AssertWasCalled(m=>m.Method1(), options => options.WhenCalled(w => mockService.AssertWasNotCalled(x=

Just wondering, if anyone thought like this: This is incorrect design to have async call within TestInitialize, as TestInitialize has to happen before any TestMethod. Can this be correct approach in any way to have async TestInitialize as well? private int val = 0; [TestInitialize] public async Task TestMehod1() { var result = await LongRunningMethod(); val = 10; } [TestMethod] public void TestMehod2() { Assert.AreEqual(10, val); } any thought? Stephen Cleary Probably the cleanest way to do this is to have TestInitialize start the asynchronous operation, as such: [TestClass] public class

Is there a way to test code coverage within visual studio if I'm using MSTest? Or do I have to buy NCover? Is the NCover Enterprise worth the money or are the old betas good enough if Microsoft doesn't provide built in tools to do code coverage? EDIT: Description of VS Products and which ones include code coverage https://www.visualstudio.com/vs/compare/ TestDriven.NET ( http://testdriven.net/ ) can be used if your VS version doesn't support it. Yes, you can find code coverage information from within Visual Studio, provided that you have a version of Visual Studio that provides that

Following Test-Driven Development that is. I've recently implemented a algorithm (A*) that required a clean interface. By clean all I want is a couple of properties and a single search method. What I've found hard is testing the search method. It contains around five steps but I'm essentially forced to code this method in one big go which makes things hard. Is there any advice for this? Edit I'm using C#. No I don't have the code at hand at the moment. My problem relies in the fact a test only passes after implementing the whole search method - rather than a step in the algorithm. I naturally