I wrote code without tests that ran in production without defects, and I wrote buggy code with TDD (Test Driven Development). Time to look back at 35 years of coding and when tests help, and when there is something better. And especially, what these better things are.
In the final part, we examine how LLMs affect testing and conclude the series.
I wrote code without tests that ran in production without defects, and I wrote buggy code with TDD (Test Driven Development). Time to look back at 35 years of coding and when tests help, and when there is something better. And especially, what these better things are.
In this part, we look at how to make manual testing easier and why it matters.
I wrote code without tests that ran in production without defects, and I wrote buggy code with TDD (Test Driven Development). Time to look back at 35 years of coding and when tests help, and when there is something better. And especially, what these better things are.
In this post, we look at what we can do to recover well even if a defect finds its way into production.
I wrote code without tests that ran in production without defects, and I wrote buggy code with TDD (Test Driven Development). Time to look back at 35 years of coding and when tests help, and when there is something better. And especially, what these better things are. In this part: What would you do if you weren’t allowed to write automated tests? Take a moment and think about what you would do to still deliver quality software if you weren’t allowed to write automated tests. I...
I wrote code without tests that ran in production without defects, and I wrote buggy code with TDD (Test Driven Development). Time to look back at 35 years of coding and when tests help, and when there is something better. And especially, what these better things are.
We use event sourcing in many sub-systems of our application to store data. We serialize the data of the events as JSON and store the JSON in the database. To ensure that we don’t change the structure of these event data and by this introduce backward compatibility issues, we use Verify to snapshot test the event data.
Unquote is a great library for writing test assertions in F#. In our acceptance tests, we frequently check data structures for equality. When these data structures get bigger, reading test failure messages gets harder. That’s why I implemented an F# data structure differ around Unquote that lets me quickly see the differences.
In the previous post, I explained the inner workings of the communication listener and how it uses NUnitLite and a custom code to cache test names. In this post I’ll show how the NUnitTestAssemblyRunner is used to run individual tests when the client calls the Run method with individual test names. Without further ado The Run method executes the actual test run on a dedicated worker thread. With the setting of SynchronousEvents set to true introduced in the previous blog post, all event...
In the previous post in my series on integration tests in Service Fabric I walked my readers through the AbstractTestRunner whose responsibility it is to discover tests in combination with the communication listener and exposes all the discovered tests to the client to be able to run individual tests over Service Fabric Remoting. In this post, I will introduce the communication listener which contains the actual test runner and discovery process which uses NUnit. Service Fabric SDK provides an...
In the last post in my series on integration tests in Service Fabric I showed how it is possible to use the C# API of the Service Fabric SDK to deploy the test applications dynamically to the cluster. The approach showed also used a ServiceProxy client that was able to interact with the server-side hosted inside the cluster over Service Fabric remoting. The service proxy is responsible for querying all tests that are hosted inside the test application and then instruct the service to run them...