This tutorial explains unit testing with JUnit 4.x and JUnit5. It explains the creation of JUnit tests. It also covers the usage of the Eclipse IDE for developing software tests. A software test is a piece of software, which executes another piece of software. It validates if that code results in. Test Case Design. Below are some best practices for designing Provar Test Cases. Reusable Tests. Wherever possible, Callable Test Cases should be used to maximize reuse. Always use input and return parameters to override data (try to avoid using variables where Scope = Test Folder or Test Run).
![Test Case With Multiple Asserts Test Case With Multiple Asserts](http://programmaticallyspeaking.com/images/qunit-multi-assert.png)
Ptmcomp 3-Mar-09 9:263-Mar-09 9:26I agree that one test should check exactly one case (that's why they're called 'test cases' ). It is ok to use multiple assertions. You can even ensure and document the preconditions with guard-assertions at the beginning of your test-method. You should however provide a clear and distinct message for every assertion to avoid an assertion-roulette (= xUnit Test Patterns). You can provide a custom assertion method to make the code easier to read.
I personally consider the method 'ExpectFundAllocations' to be too complex. It's more likely that there is a bug in that method than in the code under test. I even prefer the separate assertions in this case.
However the code doesn't document why the outcome has to be 75, 10 and 10. You should use named constants like 'EXPECTEDALLOCATIONFORWEIGHTING1'. I have a project that works with these objects that has over 300 tests for different scenarios. I get tired of typing and reading the below and I find what I have more readable.Assert.AreEqual(75, allocations'FUND1'.Quantity);Assert.AreEqual(15, allocations'FUND2'.Quantity);Assert.AreEqual(10, allocations'FUND3'.Quantity);What I have here is actually a simplification of the actual hierarchy. The real thing nests down more levels to include custodians and executing brokers, so when you get a null reference exception on allocations'FUND1'.CustodianAllocations'GS' it is hard to know where the problem is.
With the helper method I get a very clear description of what the problem is.I guess you could say the helper method is complicated, but with hundreds of tests using it, it is well tested.I imagine you could find some code in Nunit that is complicated too, but that's what abstraction is all about. If you can look at the test and understand what is going on and cut down on the noise needed just to make the compiler happy, I'm all for it.I also think a constant that is valid only within the method is going a bit far. This example I thought was pretty simple so it was obvious what those numbers were, but in real tests for situations like restrictions applying, etc. There is a comment by each fund as it is setup as to wha is going on. CoolDadTx 2-Mar-09 3:272-Mar-09 3:27People who make statements that multiple asserts are bad are trying to follow rules created based upon implementation details rather than following the original intent of the rule.
The original intent of the rule wasn't that multiple asserts are bad (that is strictly a manifestation of the rule) but that each test should test a single piece of functionality. The test itself might require that several asserts occur.Let's take an example where you are testing an intersect routine for two rectangles. To verify the intersection is correct you have to test at least two points. This would require two asserts but it tests one piece of functionality. Can anyone truly justify any reason beyond a manifestation of a rule that multiple asserts are bad in this case?
Don't even go down the path that you can technically combine the two checks into one assert because you're wrong. If you are checking more than one value then you are doing more than one assert irrelevant of how many times the word Assert appears in the code.
An assertion is, by definition, a single boolean evaluation. So the fact that you can combine two expressions into one still doesn't make it a single assertion.I was in testing for years and one thing that I can assure you of is that, while testing for one thing at a time is best for avoiding cascading failures, it becomes highly impractical when tests require lengthy setups or the tests are in the same equivalence class. The reason there is such a rule is that unit testing should find all possible errors in one pass through the code. If you have multiple tests in a single case and the first fails then you can't confirm or deny whether the second test would have succeeded.
However asserts are not themselves the test. They are strictly the implement in which you can confirm or deny the current state of the test.
So multiple asserts are not a bad thing provided they are all confirming that the same single piece of functionality is correct. If any one of the asserts fails then that functionality is broken. You don't care that the remaining asserts will also fail because they are just confirming what you already know.CLARIFICATION: This isn't a knock against the author.
This is a generalized comment for all the people who are going to tell the author that his article is evil for breaking the holy tenets and then providing 'better' ways that require a single Assert command (but still multiple assert checks). In such I case, I would walk your path, but with a little twist:I'd write my own custom assert function.That function will accept the list of 'FUNDX' strings, and a list of expected int results. It'd throw an exception when the assertion is not met, with a detailed report for the reason.This way you're still using one assert per test.
No one said the asserts can't be app-specific.What I'm suggesting is pretty much what you did. There are 2 differences:1. The name of the assert method. You called it ExpectFundAllocations. I'd call it AssertFuncAllocations.2. The parameters of the method better follow the convention of (expected, actual , everythingelse)I've written lots of custom assertion methods in my tests and it makes a lot of sense (to me).Last Visit: 4-Oct-19 10:48 Last Update: 4-Oct-19 10:481General News Suggestion Question Bug Answer Joke Praise Rant AdminUse Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.