Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PO
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>Personally I'd <em>consider</em> using a single test for all of the parameters. That doesn't follow the normal dogma of unit testing, but it increases the readability of the tests (by minimizing the amount of test code which is dedicated to a pretty repetitive case) and doesn't have much in the way of downsides. Yes, if the test fails you don't know whether all of the checks after the first failing one will also fail - but is that <em>really</em> a problem in practice?</p> <p>The important point is to make sure that you've got a short cut for testing the case. For instance, you might write something like this (if your unit test framework doesn't have it already):</p> <pre><code>public static void ExpectException&lt;T&gt;(Action action) where T : Exception { try { action(); Assert.Fail("Expected exception " + typeof(T).Name); } catch (T exception) { // Expected } } </code></pre> <p>Then you can write:</p> <pre><code>[Test] public void MyMethodFailsWithInvalidArguments() { ExpectException&lt;ArgumentNullException&gt;(() =&gt; myClass.MyMethod(null)); ExpectException&lt;ArgumentException&gt;(() =&gt; myClass.MyMethod("")); } </code></pre> <p>Much more concise than doing each one with an individual try/catch block, or even using an <code>ExpectedException</code> attribute and multiple tests.</p> <p>You might want overloads for cases where you also want to verify that in each case, no mocked objects have been touched (to check that side-effects are avoided) or possibly overloads for common exceptions like <code>ArgumentNullException</code>.</p> <p>For single-parameter methods you could even write a method to encapsulate exactly what you need:</p> <pre><code>public void ExpectExceptionForNullAndEmptyStrings(Action&lt;string&gt; action) { ExpectException&lt;ArgumentNullException&gt;(() =&gt; action(null)); ExpectException&lt;ArgumentException&gt;(() =&gt; action("")); } </code></pre> <p>then call it with:</p> <pre><code>[Test] public void MyMethodFailsWithInvalidArguments() { // This *might* work without the ExpectExceptionForNullAndEmptyStrings(myClass.MyMethod); } </code></pre> <p>... and maybe another one for methods with a single parameter but a non-void return type.</p> <p>That's possibly going a bit far though :)</p>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. POHow should I test null and/or empty string parameters in a method?
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. PTAnswer
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. USJon Skeet
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. POHow should I test null and/or empty string parameters in a method?
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COThank you for your quick response! I already created my own version of ExpectException (you may check it out here http://gerardocontijoch.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/uso-de-expectedexceptionattribute-para-testear-excepciones/), and use it in these cases. Can't live without it :P I like the solution you propose, I thought about it, but as you said, "that doesn't follow the normal dogma of unit testing" and I only wanted to follow it, you know, get used to good practices. I'll probably go for this solution after all. Let's see what other think...
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USGerardo Contijoch
    2. COThing is, I don't believe that following dogma and throwing pragmatism out of the window *is* a good practice :) It's worth *knowing* the dogma, but then consciously ignoring it when you've weighed up the pros and cons for a particular situation and found it not to work.
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USJon Skeet
    3. COI totally agree with you and that was the reason for my question. I found the cons of following a certain "good" practice, but not many pros (kind of a contradiction, a good practice with more cons than pros), so I posted a question to see if there was something I was missing.
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USGerardo Contijoch
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload