testing

问题 I'm trying to write automated test, to ensure that the installer for my program works okay. The program can be installed for all users (requires admin privs), or for current user (does not require admin privs). The program can also autoupdate itself, which in some cases requires admin privileges, and in some cases doesn't. I'm looking for a way where I can have an automated test click "Yes, Allow" on the UAC dialogs, so I can write tests for all different scenarios, on many different

问题 I'm trying to write automated test, to ensure that the installer for my program works okay. The program can be installed for all users (requires admin privs), or for current user (does not require admin privs). The program can also autoupdate itself, which in some cases requires admin privileges, and in some cases doesn't. I'm looking for a way where I can have an automated test click "Yes, Allow" on the UAC dialogs, so I can write tests for all different scenarios, on many different

问题 I'm using Codeception framework to perform acceptance tests in Laravel 5 application. I wanted to use a separate database for testing to keep real database from changing through testing. I configued the .yml files based on Codeception documentation. But the real database gets affected anyway. This is my configuration files: /codeception.yml actor: Tester paths: tests: tests log: tests/_output data: tests/_data support: tests/_support envs: tests/_envs settings: bootstrap: _bootstrap.php

问题 Times from times when we try to run our Xamarin UI Tests our app/test fails to start with the following error: System.Net.Http.HttpRequestException : An error occurred while sending the request ----> System.IO.IOException : Unable to write data to the transport connection: The socket has been shut down. ----> System.Net.Sockets.SocketException : The socket has been shut down What is happening? Here is my environment: MacOS High Sierra Visual Studio for Mac 7.6.1 (Build 9) 回答1: Solution: Don't

问题 In Xcode 4 is it possible to somehow setup so that with one click of the 'Run' button in the top left have Xcode build to more than one device with one click? It would save a lot of time, constantly having to click build to iPhone, then build to iPod, then iPad is irritating one after another. All in one click would be ideal. An example of how this would be helpful is when building a universal app, where I want to quickly build and run on both my iPhone and iPad at the same time. Any help

问题 When I click the export button, it makes a REST call to our endpoint then few seconds after, I receive the response then I also render the table. Unfortunately, I read that every call is asynchronous which means my expect will be executed even if table hasn't been rendered yet. The expect I wrote checks if the string is on the table but it's failing since it's not there yet. What is the proper approach to this? it('should generate global user report', function() { element(by.css('button

问题 Edit #2: Does anyone have a good method of testing the "middle" of a client-server application where we can intercept requests and responses, fake the client or server as needed, and which provides self-documentation of the api? Cucumber might be a good solution in many cases, but it's not quite what I'm looking for. And this middle layer should be client/server implementation agnostic. (e.g., black-box). Our client-server model is a ruby-on-rails server with a Flex client, using a RESTish

问题 During the Coverage.py with Ned Batchelder python&testing podcast, Brian and Ned briefly discussed that, if you need to run tests with coverage, it is preferred to run tests from coverage.py executing the coverage run as opposed to invoking a test runner with coverage. Why is that and what is the difference? To put some context into this: currently I'm using nose test runner and execute the tests with the help of nosetests command-line tool with --with-coverage option: $ nosetests --with

问题 During the Coverage.py with Ned Batchelder python&testing podcast, Brian and Ned briefly discussed that, if you need to run tests with coverage, it is preferred to run tests from coverage.py executing the coverage run as opposed to invoking a test runner with coverage. Why is that and what is the difference? To put some context into this: currently I'm using nose test runner and execute the tests with the help of nosetests command-line tool with --with-coverage option: $ nosetests --with

问题 During the Coverage.py with Ned Batchelder python&testing podcast, Brian and Ned briefly discussed that, if you need to run tests with coverage, it is preferred to run tests from coverage.py executing the coverage run as opposed to invoking a test runner with coverage. Why is that and what is the difference? To put some context into this: currently I'm using nose test runner and execute the tests with the help of nosetests command-line tool with --with-coverage option: $ nosetests --with