I have a (closed source) WPF application containing mainly two modules: A UI exe and a "Model" dll. One screen (for now) and about 30 classes.
I would like to start testing it with testing tools.
I have resharper.
I don't have time :). I don't want to strat learning about factories, mocking, IOC and so on. And I don't want to disturb the code too much (re IOC etc.)
I don't have alota money. I saw a recommendation here for SmartBear's TestComplete and then I saw its $2K price tag and I balked at the price: at $99 I would weep at pay, and you can't beat free :)
So, my question is: "What is the simplest and cheapest way for me to start WPF testing, not necessarily the best colution but something that will provide some benefit at low cost?"
If you want to go to the free route, you can have a look at System.Windows.Automation namespace : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.automation.aspx
See this article : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd483216.aspx
A free and interesting approach is Approval Tests: http://approvaltests.sourceforge.net/. You would essentially "approve" your UI and then execute tests against your app. If the resulting UI doesn't match up with the approved version then the test fails. The comparison here is based on images of your UI - this clearly has pros and cons when compared to other testing approaches.
This video is an example of using Approval Tests with WPF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc_ty03lZ9U&list=PL0C32F89E8BBB5368&index=17&feature=plpp_video
Probably the easiest way is to concentrate on the 30 classes (non GUI) to test. It seems (but I'm not sure) that most functionality is in those 30 classes.
If designed well, the model (those 30 classes) can be tested reasonably easy.
For GUI testing a lot more effort is normally needed.
So if you want to spend less time, concentrate on testing the model.
For testing the model, what you normally do is: write stubs for external components (if needed), set the input parameters (depending on your app) and check if the 'output' is what you expect.
Related
I have been using both in my projects and sometimes I find the need to use a Material UI component within a bootstrap component and the UI displays as I would expect. I have been advised though not to use this approach. Is there any reason why since both are using the grid and can be flexed?
I tend to be verbose so I'll put the concise answer up top here:
Conclusion:
Whoever said it was bad to use both might just be expressing their
opinion, in reality saying it's bad to use both really lacks context
in what you're designing. #user3770494 made a very good point- but the
point, while valid and truthy about the build size, it does depend on
the scope of the application. If it's an intraoffice application with
everyone on a fiber network local it'd all be cached in memory
anyways... but (not that you know me) I would not judge you negatively
if you mixed them together-- unless it was for a MAJOR million user
application to run on mobile (an very low devices), desktop, and other
devices around the world requiring real(ish) time updates, and
streaming dynamic content with 10000s of active users at any givin
time 24/7.
In all truth- if it's not life or death-- I'd say use both- and also
do your own. The experience of understanding more then one thing is
better then just "committing to a single solution" for personal
growth.
The rest of this reading is optional - you're welcome :)
I personally have used both in production applications (both together, and independently)... I've also done it all from scratch... (CSS is my least favorite part of job things I do - luckily I have a coworker who is great at it) Here are my thoughts:
Warning: I tend to be verbose.
Disclaimer:
As someone who likes function over form, form is an afterthought that is nit picky for clients to ask about tenuous little changes. I am going to try to leave my opinion on "how each option looks for feels" out of this as much as I can.
Also I'm looking at your question in a current choice I'm making- which is using ReactJS / create-react-app to make "demo" projects for touch screen embeaded systems- so I am going to roll out half a dozen mock programs for demos nothing that really does anytihng exactly (CCscanner, barcode scanner, gps, webcam integration, fun stuff like that). So I'm researching what will be easist for me to just commit to for this "beacuse I'm bored and got a pi3b+board for fun).
Answer:
If you have the time, dedication and resources, there is really
nothing wrong with mixing them together. But you just need to think
about the time/cost/benifit of it. DIY to make the end user happy-
even if you mix them. Totally yourself is remaking the wheel- but you
can always pull in boostrap styles etc.
The inherent risks is that if you use both- make sure you don't "Mix them" to much- because then you will always have issues with trying
to ever do version changes on either one.
I like a lot of MaterialUIs things, but I honestly dislike how a few things look (style wise by default)- functionally I like it better
then bootstrap, but at the same time, I do not like MaterialUIs React
programming style (as a purist who hates CSS But knows how important
it is- having to use !important ever ever ever ... is big big big
nonononononononon) compared to whatever way my coworkers and I use
for conventions. Not saying it's better or worse then my own
preference- but a few things about it really irk me (even if they are
done for good reasons).
Bootstrap has a lot of choices to use for- I like how it looks better, I like how it plays with ReactJS better- but there is
reactstrap vs. react-bootstrap (which is why I found your post trying
to figure which one to use for this demo thing I'm doing).
Most recently (for production projects) I do try to stick just with one but normally I'm making systems that are function over form. So
they don't really care that much about the UI elements, it's about
how to use it not make it pretty. So I stick with using a single one
just to make my job easier- and usally still override styles myself
... if the original styles piss me off. But I do not stick with one
because "It's bad form to use both" I just stick with one for that
reason mentioned above. I'd actually say if bandwidth is not an
issue- it's quality to use both- but only use the parts of them that
you actually use.
(I noticed someone once importing full jQuery when the only thing that they used from it was $.ajax (all be it a lot but still) ... I was like... is that not overkill?!) -- So if you use both and want to keep things slim- just make sure on compilation you're only importing what you're using. Pythonically I'm saying- never use import * from module (however you express that in Javascript as a concept - webpack/gulp/whomever should take care of most of that for you). Assuming you're using ES6/7 style Javascript.
I encountered this scenario recently and opted to use both but for specific tasks. With it being a responsive web app Bootstrap made the most sense to use for the layout and Material UI for the widgets (just my personal preference).
You can definitely use both but you should be aware of the following:
There will be a lot of overlap in offered features unless you take time and effort to manage it by carefully picking elements from each of those libraries. And even then you will face situations where you can't avoid overlap. This basically results in a bigger bundle.
You will have to maintain theming variables for both systems to have a consistent presentation across your app. Even then, there will be situations like where your table checkboxes look different from your form checkboxes because they are from different libraries.
You have to learn and understand both of the systems. It means sometimes it'll be harder to find what's causing a certain bug. You'll also be spending more time deciding which library to use for which component.
Overall, it's more work for you to work with two different systems and a higher chance of things looking inconsistent. That said, mixing in things like a grid system with limited theming might not be too bad.
If possible, I highly encourage you to choose one system and stick with it.
Using both will increase your production js size.
Material Ui and bootstrap both provide components with basic styles like buttons so choose one.
You can use bootsrap grid for structure only or even go with flex.
We are currently running smoke tests using Selenium Webdriver & JUnit against a B2C product. Since we are using Selenium, the scripts are totally dependent on the UI. Given that the product is out of a tech startup, the UI & workflows keep changing/evolving # an extremely high frequency.
The Consequence: Smoke tests which are supposed to validate the sanctity of the application keeps failing. The team spends more time fixing the scripts rather than validating the build.
I am pretty sure most of the Automation folks out there would have faced similar issues esp. with rapid dev cycles. Looking forward to see some approaches undertaken by others in the industry who have faced similar problems.
Note: The frontend is developed in PHP
Webdriver works roughly like this: there is a start point, webdriver interacts with it (by simulating a button press for example) and then finds the next item to interact with. The next item might be on the next page or the same page. It might be found in various ways, by id or the 3rd div that is class="foo" etc.
The tests are things like does the page load with 200 OK, does the string "login" appear in a particular place and so on
The problem with a changing UI is that all the elements "move about". The ids change and the 3rd div class foo disappears. This means that the webdriver interactions fail and the tests if they are looking for particular elements will fail too
One solution is to develop and test against a set of ids. These ids will refer to fixed UI elements. All searching in webdriver should use the ids. The development team writing the PHP will put the ids in the correct places.
The set of ids can also be used as the basis for a sort of specification and can be used to explain UI flow in different ways to different stake holders.
I do not know of any specific product that handles this process of managing ids in both tests and development code but maintaining a "lexicon" like this to describe the UI items should not be a major task
The more versatile the System under Test is the more important it is to have a framework on top of Selenium that reduces the maintenance effort for a change.
For the most common changes in a System under Test there are several known patterns that can help you to reduce the maintenance efforts:
By using UIMaps to model the UI of the application it is extremely easy to handle changed IDs, CSS classes or similar changes
PageObjects reduce the effort for larger UI changes (e.g. when an input field is changed from a TextBox to a Dropdown field)
Use Keyword Driven Testing to model test cases without any knowledge of the underlying technological representation. i.e. a keyword encapsulates an action from the users point of view – a example for a keyword can be: “loginWithValidUser()”
Don’t just utilize the UI for smoke testing if the UI / Application / Workflows change drastically and very often. Most of the time it is also helpful to test certain functionalities by calling WebServices without any Web-UI
I have recently attempted to generate reports in Silverlight 4. In my problem domain, these reports either need to go directly to the printer and/or the client-side SL application creates a PDF and allows the user to store it somewhere.
As for the report, it's roughly composed of 50% flow text (incl. enumerations), 30% tables and 20% charts. The flow text part makes it slighty more challenging, as proper line breaking would have to take place.
So far, I have tried the following approaches - each with its own shortcomings that make them not so much feasible:
Silverlight's own PrintDocument: technically, there are two major concerns. For one, getting page breaks to work and printing UIElements on it with proper layout is a bit of a dirty hackjob and full of compromises; thankfully that's the part I've managed to get working so far. However, the PrintDocument class always renders all visuals as bitmaps before sending them off; this is not so much fun, if one uses a PDF printer and hopes to still be able to search in / select text. David Poll's approach in "Silverlight and Beyond" [1] wasn't that helpful as well as it inherently follows the same approach and thus suffers from very similar issues.
silverPDF [2]: a barely documented library that requires to do most of the layout manually (the former approach at least allowed me to re-use Silverlight's layouting engine). So far, I see no way to (for instance) measure paragraphs and the only sample with long flowtext uses hardcoded absolute values for layout rectangles. Also, the developing party seems to be inactive.
Personally, I'm now thinking of following an entirely different strategy: simply generate HTML documents. But I was hoping that the community here might have hints for the two approaches above or know other good approaches.
Thanks in advance,
~Manny
Do you need to generate the report on the client, or can you get the server to generate it? Your options are better if you can generate it on the server. Personally, I think the way Silverlight printing works at the moment is pretty poor for report usage (sending each page to the printer as raster rather than vector, resulting in potentially huge amounts of data travelling through the network, and lower printing quality output). I've found the best strategy is to generate the PDF on the server (enabling you to take advantage of a reporting engine), and display it in your application. There are also a few commercial products (such as Telerik's Silverlight Report Viewer, Report Sharp Shooter, or even First Floor Software's Document Toolkit). If a client side solution is really required, perhaps one of these might be the best option (although the printing quality will still be poor). Note that Silverlight 5 is supposed to have support for vector printing, but it's another 6 months or more away from release. Yet another option is Pete Brown and David Poll's open source reporting framework here: http://silverlightreporting.codeplex.com/.
If you want to take the option of generating the report on the server as a PDF and displaying it in your application, I've written an article on doing so here: http://www.silverlightshow.net/items/Building-a-Silverlight-Line-Of-Business-Application-Part-6.aspx. This doesn't work for OOB applications, but the source code accompanying my book (Pro Business Applications with Silverlight 4) does: apress.com/book/view/9781430272076.
Hope this helps...
Chris Anderson
During localhost testing of modular Prism-based Silverlight applications, the XAP modules download too fast to get a feel for the final result. This makes it difficult to see where progress, splash-screens, or other visual states, needs to be shown.
What is the best (or most standard) method for intentionally slowing down the loading of XAP modules and other content in a local development set-up?
I've been adding the occasional timer delay (via a code-based storyboard), but I would prefer something I can place under the hood (in say the Unity loader?) to add a substantial delay to all module loads and in debug builds only.
Suggestions welcomed*
*Note: I have investigated the "large file" option and it is unworkable for large projects (and fails to create XAP with really large files with out of memory error). The solution needs to be code based and preferably integrate behind the scenes to slow down module loading in a local-host environment.
****Note: To clarify, we are specifically seeking an answer compatible with the Microsoft PRISM pattern & PRISM/CAL Libraries.**
Do not add any files to your module projects. This adds unnecessary regression testing to your module since you are changing the layout of the module by extending the non-executable portion. Chances are you won't do this regression testing, and, who knows if it will cause a problem. Best to be paranoid.
Instead, come up with a Delay(int milliseconds) procedure that you pass into a callback that materializes the callback you use to retrieve the remote assembly.
In other words, decouple assembly resource acquisition from assembly resource usage. Between these two phases insert arbitrarily random amounts of wait time. I would also recommend logging the actual time it took remote users to get the assembly, and use that for future test points so that your UI Designers & QA Team have valuable information on how long users are waiting. This will allow you to cheaply mock-up the end-user's experience in your QA environment. Just make sure your log includes relevant details like the size of the assembly requested.
I posed a question on StackOverflow a few weeks ago about something related to this, and had to deal with the question you posed, so I am confident this is the right answer, born from experience, not cleverness.
You could simply add huge files (such as videos) to your module projects. It'll take longer to build such projects, but they'll also be bigger and therefore take longer to download locally. When you move to production, simply remove the huge files.
I know it has great out-of-the-box features but is it easy to customize?
Like when I query stuff from the database or change css layouts.
Is it faster to create my own modules for it or just go on and write everything from scratch using frameworks like Cake
I'm currently working on an Elgg-based site and I absolutely hate it. The project was near completion when I stepped in, but the people who created were no longer available, so I took it over as a freelancer.
As a personal impression, you are much better off writing the app from scratch in a framework. I don't know if the people before me butchered it, but the code looks awful, the entity-based relationship model is wierd to say the least and debugging is horrendous. Also, from my point of view, it doesn't scale very well. If you were to have a consistent user base, I'd be really really worried.
It keeps two global objects ($vars and $CONFIG) that have more than 5000(!) members loaded in memory on each page. This is a crap indicator.
I've worked extensively with cake. With Elgg, for about a month in a project that is on QA stage right now.
My advise is: if you need something quick with a lot of features and you only need to customize a little, go with Elgg.
If you're going to customize a lot and you can afford the development of all the forums, friends, invites, etc. features, go with Cake or any other MVC framework.
I have been working on a Elgg site for the past month or so, its code is horrible, however it's not the worst I've seen :D. it's not built for programmers like Drupal is :D. But it's not too bad. Once I got a handle on the metadata functions and read most of the code I was able to navigate it well and create custom modules and such.
What would help immensely would be some real documentation and explanation of the Elgg system. I don't think that's going to happen though :).
Out of the box there are a few problems, there are some bugs that haven't been fixed for a while and I've had to go in and fix them myself. Overall, you can make it pretty and it has some cool functions, but i wouldn't dive in until i had read the main core code to get a handle on what's happening on the backend.
Oh and massive use of storing values in globals. and a crap ton of DB calls (same with Drupal though).
i wonder if the use of storing everything, and i mean everything for your site in the globals will really hinder the server if you have a massive user load.
If you want to build a product based on a social networking platform/framework then Elgg is definately a good way to go. The code is not that bad if you actually look before leaping and doing what elgg expects. You go against its processes and structures and it will leave you beaten by the side of the road.
Developing modules/plugins or editing CSS is easy and Elgg does give you great flexability to basically build your own product ontop of it. Dolphin, as comparrison, does not allow you to do anything outside of what it expects you to do.
If you however just need a framework (not primarily for social networking etc) with some user based functionality then i suggest Cake, or if your project is HUGE then maybe Symfony or Zend. They all have plugins you can download and use/hack which would be easirer to adjust for personalised needs.
To show what you can do with elgg here is a site Mobilitate we built with Elgg 1.7. This is a very complicated website and was built ontop of Elgg.
We are starting a new project with Elgg 1.8. The new version is a major improvement they have made a lot of elements easier, incorporated better JS and CSS implementation/structure and have better commented their own code.
Elgg's database schema is horrific. They've essentially implemented a NoSQL database in SQL. It completely defeats the purpose of using a relational table structure.
If you can ignore this, and aren't doing much customization, you might be OK with Elgg. If not, STAY AWAY.
I've been working with Elgg for over a year. It is easier to customize than it would be to build something from scratch using a framework like CakePHP. I tried CakePHP and found it even more complicated than Elgg.
It is difficult to query the database due to the entity-based relationship model. You should use the build-in methods for accessing data. However, I have written many queries to double check on what is actually stored in the database.
You cannot change layouts using CSS alone. You have to deal with the various Elgg views. But CakePHP uses the same Model/View/Controller MVC concept so that would be just as difficult.