QUnit is very easy to get started with, as you only need to include two files and a little bit of markup, then you can start writing tests.

Jasmine strength, afaik is its BDD-style syntax, if that is something that you prefer (probably not a selling point for you) and tight integration into Ruby/Rails tools.

In the end both get the job done. I recommend to start with QUnit. Once you&#39;re feeling comfortable, try Jasmine and check if the BDD style fits better. If it does and you still want to keep using QUnit, you can add [Pavlov][1] to the mix, which provides BDD-style methods for QUnit.


  [1]: https://github.com/mmonteleone/pavlov

How would I get the first character from the first string in a list in Python?  

It seems that I could use `mylist[0][1:]` but that does not give me the first character.

    &gt;&gt;&gt; mylist = []
    &gt;&gt;&gt; mylist.append(&quot;asdf&quot;)
    &gt;&gt;&gt; mylist.append(&quot;jkl;&quot;)
    &gt;&gt;&gt; mylist[0][1:]
    &#39;sdf&#39;

 


Python: Get the first character of the first string in a list?

I want to activate a virtualenv instance from a Python script.

I know it&#39;s quite easy to do, but all the examples I&#39;ve seen use it to run commands within the env and then close the subprocess.

I simply want to activate the virtualenv and return to the shell, the same way that bin/activate does.

Something like this:

    $me: my-script.py -d env-name
    $(env-name)me:

Is this possible?

Relevant:

*[virtualenv › Invoking an env from a script][1]* 

  [1]: http://groups.google.com/group/python-virtualenv/browse_thread/thread/15f8a9b0506abeae


Activate a virtualenv with a Python script

What are the main differences between these two testing frameworks? 

I am a totally new to Test Driven Development and starting from the very beginning.

QUnit vs Jasmine?

<p>What are the main differences between these two testing frameworks?</p>
<p>I am a totally new to Test Driven Development and starting from the very beginning.</p>


&lt;sub&gt;**Moderator Note:**  *There are already 39 answers posted here (some have been deleted).*  Before you post *your* answer, consider whether or not you can add something meaningful to the discussion.  You&#39;re more than likely just repeating what someone else has already said.&lt;/sub&gt;


----------


I occasionally find myself needing to make a private method in a class public just to write some unit tests for it.

Usually this would be because the method contains logic shared between other methods in the class and it&#39;s tidier to test the logic on its own, or another reason could be possible be I want to test logic used in synchronous threads without having to worry about threading problems.

Do other people find themselves doing this, because I don&#39;t really like doing it?? I personally think the bonuses outweigh the problems of making a method public which doesn&#39;t really provide any service outside of the class...

**UPDATE**

Thanks for answers everyone, seems to have piqued peoples&#39; interest. I think the general consensus is testing should happen via the public API as this is the only way a class will ever be used, and I do agree with this. The couple of cases I mentioned above where I would do this above were uncommon cases and I thought the benefits of doing it was worth it.

I can however, see everyones point that it should never really happen. And when thinking about it a bit more I think changing your code to accommodate tests is a bad idea - after all I suppose testing is a support tool in a way and changing a system to &#39;support a support tool&#39; if you will, is blatant bad practice.


Making a private method public to unit test it...good idea?

Is it not possible with NUnit to go the following?

&lt;!-- language: lang-cs --&gt;

    [TestCase(new DateTime(2010,7,8), true)]
    public void My Test(DateTime startdate, bool expectedResult)
    {
        ...
    }

I really want to put a `datetime` in there, but it doesn&#39;t seem to like it. The error is:

&gt; An attribute argument must be a constant expression, typeof expression
&gt; or array creation expression of an attribute parameter type

Some documentation I read seems to suggest you should be able to, but I can&#39;t find any examples.





NUnit parameterized tests with datetime

Are there any good Node.js (server-side JavaScript) unit testing frameworks currently out there?

I&#39;m looking for something a little deeper than the provided Assert module.


Node.js unit testing

I have a test like this:

&lt;!-- language: lang-csharp --&gt;

        [TestCase(&quot;~/page/myaction&quot;)]
        public void Page_With_Custom_Action(string path) {
            // Arrange
            var pathData = new Mock&lt;IPathData&gt;();
            var pageModel = new Mock&lt;IPageModel&gt;();
            var repository = new Mock&lt;IPageRepository&gt;();
            var mapper = new Mock&lt;IControllerMapper&gt;();
            var container = new Mock&lt;IContainer&gt;();

            container.Setup(x =&gt; x.GetInstance&lt;IPageRepository&gt;()).Returns(repository.Object);

            repository.Setup(x =&gt; x.GetPageByUrl&lt;IPageModel&gt;(path)).Returns(() =&gt; pageModel.Object);

            pathData.Setup(x =&gt; x.Action).Returns(&quot;myaction&quot;);
            pathData.Setup(x =&gt; x.Controller).Returns(&quot;page&quot;);

            var resolver = new DashboardPathResolver(pathData.Object, repository.Object, mapper.Object, container.Object);

            // Act
            var data = resolver.ResolvePath(path);

            // Assert
            Assert.NotNull(data);
            Assert.AreEqual(&quot;myaction&quot;, data.Action);
            Assert.AreEqual(&quot;page&quot;, data.Controller);
        }

`GetPageByUrl` runs twice in my `DashboardPathResolver`, how can I tell Moq to return `null` the first time and `pageModel.Object` the second?


Different return values the first and second time with Moq

I see many people talking about the term SUT, but do not understand why they use that term.

SUT is what you want to test?

**Where does this term come from and what does it mean?**

For example in this test, what is my SUT?

    [TestMethod]
    public void UsersAction_should_return_IndexAction()
    {
        const long id = 1;
    
        UsersViewModel viewModel = new UsersViewModel()
        {
            SelectedUsers = new long[] { 1, 2, 3, 4 }
        };
    
        ActionResult result = _controller.Users(id, viewModel);
    
        result.AssertActionRedirect().ToAction(&quot;Index&quot;);
    }

What is SUT and where did it come from?

I want to test a file upload in rails, but am not sure how to do this.

Here is the controller code:

    def uploadLicense
        #Create the license object
        @license = License.create(params[:license]) 
        
        
        #Get Session ID
        sessid = session[:session_id]
    
    	puts &quot;\n\nSession_id:\n#{sessid}\n&quot;
        
        #Generate a random string
        chars = (&quot;a&quot;..&quot;z&quot;).to_a + (&quot;A&quot;..&quot;Z&quot;).to_a + (&quot;0&quot;..&quot;9&quot;).to_a
        newpass = &quot;&quot;
        1.upto(5) { |i| newpass &lt;&lt; chars[rand(chars.size-1)] }
        
        #Get the original file name
        upload=params[:upload]
        name =  upload[&#39;datafile&#39;].original_filename 
        
        @license.format = File.extname(name)
        
        #calculate license ID and location
        @license.location = &#39;./public/licenses/&#39; + sessid + newpass + name 
    
        #Save the license file
        #Fileupload.save(params[:upload], @license.location) 
        File.open(@license.location, &quot;wb&quot;) { |f| f.write(upload[&#39;datafile&#39;].read) }
        
         #Set license ID
        @license.license_id = sessid + newpass
        
        #Save the license
        @license.save
        
        redirect_to :action =&gt; &#39;show&#39;, :id =&gt; @license.id 
    end


I have tried this spec, but it doesnt work:

	it &quot;can upload a license and download a license&quot; do
		file = File.new(Rails.root + &#39;app/controllers/lic.xml&#39;)
		license = HashWithIndifferentAccess.new
		license[:datafile] = file
		info = {:id =&gt; 4}
		post :uploadLicense, {:license =&gt; info, :upload =&gt; license}
	end

How can I simulate the file upload, using rspec?

test a file upload using rspec - rails

When I create a new mock I need to call the expects method. What exactly it does? What about its arguments?

    $todoListMock = $this-&gt;getMock(&#39;\Model\Todo_List&#39;);
            $todoListMock-&gt;expects($this-&gt;any())
                -&gt;method(&#39;getItems&#39;)
                -&gt;will($this-&gt;returnValue(array($itemMock)));

I can&#39;t find the reason anywhere (I&#39;ve tried docs). I&#39;ve read the sources but I can&#39;t understand it.

PHPUnit: expects method meaning

Is there anyone that can clearly define these levels of testing as I find it difficult to differentiate when doing TDD or unit testing. Please if anyone can elaborate how, when to implement these?

Unit Test? Integration Test? Regression Test? Acceptance Test?

In the process of setting our C++ unit testing framework for the next years we shortlisted **GoogleTest** and **CppUnit**. I have some experience with both and my heavy preference is GoogleTest. Anyways to convince my boss I need some **facts** so I did some reading on the Internet, including the manuals, wiki pages and some of the sources. I came up with a list of GoogleTest advantages and a single CppUnit advantage(graphic test runners). Here they are ordered by **perceived** usefulness: 
 
 - INSTANTIATE_TEST_CASE_P to instantiate a test case with any set of parameters you want, including Cartesian products 
 - FRIEND_TEST for testing private class members(for all the legacy code) 
 - turning asserts into breakpoints 
 - non-fatal asserts 
 - &quot;out of the box&quot; googlemock integration 
 - automatic tests detection, no need to enumerate them
 - tests can be disabled and enabled 
 - tests to run can be selected using name patterns 
 - value/type-parameterized tests 
 - user-defined predicate asserts 
 - death tests 
 - much richer set of asserts 
 - type asserts  
 - asserting on subroutines 
 - additional debug info can be added to asserts using &lt;&lt;  
 - RecordProperty emits last value of property to the XML output 
 - SCOPED_TRACE helps understand the context of an assertion failure coming from inside a sub-routine or loop. 
 - xUnit XML output, can be shown by Jenkins right away without a XSLT transformation in between 
 - supports custom types printers
 - time consumed by test indication(I suspect this is also possible with CppUnit but I haven figured it out yet)   
 - test event listener API (user-defined plug-ins) 
 - test shuffling 
 - no exceptions and RTTI 
 
Am I correct in assuming that all of the above are not supported by CppUnit? Is there an useful GoogleTest feature **not available** in CppUnit I am missing?  
 
And last but not least: Are there any nice CppUnit features that GoogleTest **lacks**?   
 
 
Thanks!

GoogleTest vs CppUnit: The facts

I&#39;ve just started using Jasmine so please forgive the newbie question but is it possible to test for object types when using `toHaveBeenCalledWith`?

    expect(object.method).toHaveBeenCalledWith(instanceof String);

I know I could this but it&#39;s checking the return value rather than the argument.

    expect(k instanceof namespace.Klass).toBeTruthy();

Using object types with Jasmine&#39;s toHaveBeenCalledWith method

I have a [node.js][] project that contains some [Jasmine][] specifications. The specifications are in a spec/ subdirectory and have the .spec.coffee extension, as required by [jasmine-node][].

When I open one of my spec files in the [WebStorm][] IDE, all the calls to `beforeEach` and `describe` and `it` are shown with blue squiggly underlines with the tooltip: &quot;Unresolved function or method it()&quot;. So even though I&#39;m using the [3.0 EAP][] and it&#39;s supposed to [have some amount of Jasmine support][1], it&#39;s not automatically picking up on the fact that this is a Jasmine spec file.

I tried going into File &gt; Settings &gt; JavaScript Libraries, and adding Jasmine as a library (specifying the path to jasmine-2.0.0.rc1.js), and then going to the Usage Scope sub-page and checking &quot;Jasmine&quot; in the drop-down list next to &quot;Project&quot;, but that had no effect -- the Jasmine methods still show up as unresolved.

How can I tell WebStorm that all files in a spec subdirectory, and/or all files with a .spec.coffee extension, are Jasmine tests, and have it recognize the Jasmine APIs those tests are using?

  [1]: http://blog.jetbrains.com/webide/2011/10/javascript-unit-testing-support/
  [Jasmine]: http://pivotal.github.com/jasmine/
  [node.js]: http://nodejs.org/
  [jasmine-node]: https://github.com/mhevery/jasmine-node
  [WebStorm]: http://www.jetbrains.com/webstorm/
  [3.0 EAP]: http://confluence.jetbrains.net/display/WI/Web+IDE+EAP

How can I get WebStorm to recognize Jasmine methods?

is it possible to use Jasmine unit testing framework&#39;s spyon method upon a classes private methods?

The documentation gives this example but can this be flexivble for a private function?

    describe(&quot;Person&quot;, function() {
        it(&quot;calls the sayHello() function&quot;, function() {
            var fakePerson = new Person();
            spyOn(fakePerson, &quot;sayHello&quot;);
            fakePerson.helloSomeone(&quot;world&quot;);
            expect(fakePerson.sayHello).toHaveBeenCalled();
        });
    });


using Jasmines spyon upon a private method

I have a bunch of failing specs from a rather large architectural change. I&#39;d like to work on fixing them one by one by tagging each one with &#39;focus&#39;.

Does jasmine.js have a feature like this? I swore I read at one point that it does but I don&#39;t see it in the docs.

How do I focus on one spec in jasmine.js?

I want to test whether the following method is called with in my Javascript object constructor. From what I have seen in the Jasmine documentation, I can spy on a constructor method and I can spy on methods after an object has been instantiated, but I can&#39;t seem to be able to spy on a method before the object is constructed.

The object:

    Klass = function() {
        this.called_method();
    };

    Klass.prototype.called_method = function() {
      //method to be called in the constructor.
    }

I want to do something like this in the spec:

    it(&#39;should spy on a method call within the constructor&#39;, function() {
        spyOn(window, &#39;Klass&#39;);
        var obj = new Klass();
        expect(window.Klass.called_method).toHaveBeenCalled();
    });


Content Type	Original Author	Original Content on Stackoverflow
Question	Sahat Yalkabov	View Question on Stackoverflow
Solution 1 - Unit Testing	Jörn Zaefferer	View Answer on Stackoverflow

QUnit vs Jasmine?

Unit Testing Problem Overview

Unit Testing Solutions

Solution 1 - Unit Testing

Activate a virtualenv with a Python script

Python: Get the first character of the first string in a list?

Attributions