background preloader

Testing

Facebook Twitter

FsCheck/Docs/Documentation.md at master · fsharp/FsCheck. Directory of common test tools and utilities - Visual Studio ALM + Team Foundation Server Blog. DotCover :: .NET code coverage tool :: Screenshots. .NET Code Coverage Analysis dotCover calculates and reports statement-level code coverage in .NET Framework 2.0 to 4.5 applications, as well as in and 5. dotCover makes sure that developers know to what extent their code is covered with unit tests. It also helps QA engineers test software products as thoroughly as possible. Currently dotCover integrates into four versions of the IDE: Visual Studio 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2013. Running and Managing Unit Tests dotCover comes bundled with a unit test runner that it shares with another JetBrains .NET developer tool, ReSharper. The runner works in Visual Studio, allows managing unit tests through sessions, and supports multiple unit testing frameworks: MSTest, NUnit, xUnit, and MSpec.

Coverage Highlighting in Visual Studio To visualize coverage data, dotCover can highlight covered and uncovered lines of code right in Visual Studio code editor. Specific colors that dotCover uses for this highlighting can be configured to match your preferences. Continuous Tests. Last stable release can be found below. After installing and registering the product with your provided license code you are ready to go. To get more familiar with the various workflows provided with ContinuousTests go into the configuration screen (TheMoose->Configuration) and have a look at the various options.

Windows installer package (with Visual Studio integration) Cross platform standalone client. The "Testable Object" Pattern. This is a republished blog post from 2007. You can tell it's old because the tests were in NUnit instead of xUnit.net. :) I've demonstrated this a few times in presentations, and someone will inevitably ask for more information. Truth is, I don't remember when I came up with it, or where I might've been inspired for it. I should say up front that I don't believe in mock object frameworks (because they encourage white-box protocols), and I don't believe in [SetUp] and [TearDown] (because they hide intention and force the use of fields in test fixtures, which should be strongly discouraged).

An example I was giving yesterday was a user editor in Model-View-Presenter style (what Martin Fowler now calls Supervising Presenter). Given my dislike of [SetUp] and [TearDown], that means that each test starts out with code like this: Interestingly, we started with just the view, and then later added the user service. Since I'm averse to [SetUp], I like this alternative instead: