Hi: I\'ve enjoyed playing around with Pex and Moles...now it\'s time to use it in earnest to cover an legacy app as much as possible.
I\'m playing with Pex and Moles and after running Pex found that nearly all the tests that Pex said failed were because NullReferenceExceptions were \"allowed\". Reading the Pex documentation, I came
when I create a PUT that calls a method of the class under test and attribute it with PexMethod, \"Run Pex\" will use this method and create automatic generated tests for it.
I\'m implementing unit testing in my Prism composite application and trying to implement Microsoft Pex (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/pex/) to speed up this task.
Here\'s a simple graph manipulation method which I have decorated with Code Contracts. The ensures claim won\'t prove but I can\'t see why!I believe it claims that after calling Remove(), either the
I\'m just getting started with Pex and running into an issue as described in the title.It seems that any parameterized tests generated by Pex or added by hand will create failing test cases for any in
Has anyone tried this? I like moq and i like what pex is doing, but haven\'t tried them together. 开发者_StackOverflowI\'d prefer to use moq over moles in most cases I think but am curious to see if
I recently got aboard the Pex & Moles bandwagon in order to test som开发者_运维技巧e logic with many elements that are static, non-virtual, sealed, etc.Recently, I\'ve begun to see behavior I can\
So i\'m he开发者_高级运维re playing with PEX, it seems like a great idea. However I am having a few problems, such as I have no way to test an equals method using parameter unit tests.
I have downloaded June bits of Pex and June bits of SlimDX SDK.Installed them on my RTM VS2010 Premium.
加载中,请稍侯......