search for: unit_tests

I get errors when running rake test_units: test_destroy(LocationTest): ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: Mysql::Error: #23000Cannot delete or update a pa rent row: a foreign key constraint fails (`overblijf_tst/groups`, CONSTRAINT `fk _groups_locations` FOREIGN KEY (`location_id`) REFERENCES `locations` (`id`)): D ELETE FROM locations Any pointers?? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

hi, I downloaded rails as well as unit tests from: http://svn.rubyonrails.org/rails/branches/1-2-stable/ bash-2.03$ cd rails-1.2.6/railties/ bash-2.03$ rake regular_test (in /u/liangl/ruby/JRUBY103/unit_test/rails-1.2.6/railties) /u/liangl/ruby/JRUBY103/bin/jruby -w -Ilib:test "/u/liangl/ruby/ JRUBY103/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake/ rake_test_loader.rb"

Is there a way to run he tests with cjust the gem installed? I wanted to run the tests on the gem and tried: $ jruby -S gem list RedCloth *** LOCAL GEMS *** RedCloth (4.1.1) $ jruby --version jruby 1.1.5 (ruby 1.8.6 patchlevel 114) (2008-11-14 rev 6586) [i386-java] [jruby.git (master)]$ jruby -S gem check -test RedCloth ERROR: While executing gem ... (OptionParser::InvalidOption)

...your tests. Comments welcome! [1] http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?rcov ------------ desc "Look for possibly missing tests in unit and functional directories" task :missing_tests models = Dir.glob("app/models/**/*.rb") controllers = Dir.glob("app/controllers/**/*.rb") unit_tests = Dir.glob("test/unit/**/*.rb") functional_tests = Dir.glob("test/functional/**/*.rb") models.each do|model| original_dir, suspected_test = File.split(model) suspected_test.sub!(''.rb'', '''') test_found = !unit_tests.select{|s| s =~ /#{sus...

Here is the setup: Windows XP, InstantRails, MySQL 14.7, Ruby 1.8.4, Rails 1.1.2 MODEL: class Office<ActiveRecord::Base has_many :users end class User<ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :office validates_presence_of :office_id validates_associated :office <....other stuff...> end UNIT_TEST test/unit/user_test.rb def test_associations u = User.new u.office_id =

...ing a 64-bit hash does seem like a good idea here. >> >> >>> >>>> Also, do you have any numbers on the performance of your initial >>>>> implementation? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I measured the link time for chromium's unit_tests (the largest single >>>> binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR checks and 6.61s with ODR checks. >>>> So about 30% overhead, but in absolute terms it doesn't seem too bad. So I >>>> think this may be acceptable for an initial implementation, but it >&gt...

...hashes might > be preferable. > Oh right, good point, using a 64-bit hash does seem like a good idea here. > >> Also, do you have any numbers on the performance of your initial >>> implementation? >>> >> >> I measured the link time for chromium's unit_tests (the largest single >> binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR checks and 6.61s with ODR checks. >> So about 30% overhead, but in absolute terms it doesn't seem too bad. So I >> think this may be acceptable for an initial implementation, but it >> certainly seems worth...

...gt; >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Also, do you have any numbers on the performance of your initial >>>>>>> implementation? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I measured the link time for chromium's unit_tests (the largest >>>>>> single binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR checks and 6.61s with ODR >>>>>> checks. So about 30% overhead, but in absolute terms it doesn't seem too >>>>>> bad. So I think this may be acceptable for an initial implem...

...; >>>>>>>> Also, do you have any numbers on the performance of your initial >>>>>>>>> implementation? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I measured the link time for chromium's unit_tests (the largest >>>>>>>> single binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR checks and 6.61s with ODR >>>>>>>> checks. So about 30% overhead, but in absolute terms it doesn't seem too >>>>>>>> bad. So I think this may be acceptab...

...t; Also, do you have any numbers on the performance of your initial >>>>>>>>>>> implementation? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I measured the link time for chromium's unit_tests (the largest >>>>>>>>>> single binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR checks and 6.61s with ODR >>>>>>>>>> checks. So about 30% overhead, but in absolute terms it doesn't seem too >>>>>>>>>> bad. So I th...

...on the performance of your >>>>>>>>>>>>> initial implementation? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I measured the link time for chromium's unit_tests (the largest >>>>>>>>>>>> single binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR checks and 6.61s with ODR >>>>>>>>>>>> checks. So about 30% overhead, but in absolute terms it doesn't seem too >>>>>>>>>&...

This is only lightly tested. In particularly I only tested that the non-secure-boot path still works. I didn't test it on RHEL 7.3 yet because I haven't got enough free disk space for these giant source *.ova files :-( Will try to give that a go later. Rich.

First version was posted here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2016-August/thread.html#00100 This is semantically the same as the first version. However I've split the patch up into two parts. In the first part, I factor out the UEFI paths so now they are created by the generator and written in the library and v2v/ directory directly, instead of the complex business of having a C

...on the performance of your >>>>>>>>>>>>> initial implementation? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I measured the link time for chromium's unit_tests (the largest >>>>>>>>>>>> single binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR checks and 6.61s with ODR >>>>>>>>>>>> checks. So about 30% overhead, but in absolute terms it doesn't seem too >>>>>>>>>&...

...>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial implementation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I measured the link time for chromium's unit_tests (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> largest single binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR checks and 6.61s >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with ODR checks. So about 30% overhead, but in absolute terms it doesn't >>>>>>>&g...

...dows drivers are installed. The following emails best explain how this works: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2015-October/msg00352.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2015-November/msg00065.html Currently the product variant (eg. client or server) is ignored. --- v2v/v2v_unit_tests.ml | 623 ++++++++------------------------------------------ v2v/windows.ml | 289 +++++++++++++---------- v2v/windows.mli | 2 +- 3 files changed, 265 insertions(+), 649 deletions(-) diff --git a/v2v/v2v_unit_tests.ml b/v2v/v2v_unit_tests.ml index 169eea9..5cc1f3e 100644 --- a/v2v/...

...all_linux_tools : Guestfs.guestfs -> Types.inspect -> unit +(** [inspect] + installs QEMU Guest Agent on Linux guest OS from the driver directory or + driver ISO. It is not fatal if we fail to install the agent. *) + (* The following function is only exported for unit tests. *) module UNIT_TESTS : sig val virtio_iso_path_matches_guest_os : string -> Types.inspect -> bool -- 2.19.0

I''m having a real problem that appears to be caused by something in the standard test_helper. I''ve written a script (below) that should find and load all the unit tests, and when invoked (ruby unitTestSuite), should run all the tests in the unit_test directory. This actually works well, in general. The problem I have is that if the standard "test_helper.rb" file

...>>>>>>>> initial implementation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I measured the link time for chromium's unit_tests (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largest single binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR checks and 6.61s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with ODR checks. So about 30% overhead, but in absolute terms it doesn't >>>&g...

...uest tools bits: 'host:%s' -> '%s'" + source target; + + g#copy_in source destdir; + Some target_name + ) + ) driver.Libosinfo.files + with Not_found -> [] + (* The following function is only exported for unit tests. *) module UNIT_TESTS = struct let virtio_iso_path_matches_guest_os = virtio_iso_path_matches_guest_os -- 2.24.1