Error Handling Test Cases
Contents |
resources Windows Server 2012 resources Programs MSDN subscriptions Overview Benefits Administrators Students Microsoft Imagine Microsoft Student Partners ISV Startups TechRewards Events Community Magazine Forums Blogs Channel 9 Documentation APIs and reference Dev centers Retired content Samples We’re sorry. exception handling in junit test cases The content you requested has been removed. You’ll be auto redirected in 1
Configuring Jira To Handle Test Cases
second. Programmer's Guide (All Editions) Part 2: What Can You Do With Visual Basic? Debugging Your Code and Handling Errors Debugging error handling testing in software testing Your Code and Handling Errors Testing Error Handling by Generating Errors Testing Error Handling by Generating Errors Testing Error Handling by Generating Errors How to Handle Errors Designing an Error Handler Error Handling Hierarchy
Error Handling Testing Definition
Testing Error Handling by Generating Errors Inline Error Handling Centralized Error Handling Turning Off Error Handling Error Handling with ActiveX Components Approaches to Debugging Avoiding Bugs Design Time, Run Time, and Break Mode Using the Debugging Windows Using Break Mode Running Selected Portions of Your Application Monitoring the Call Stack Testing Data and Procedures with the Immediate Window Special Debugging Considerations Tips for Debugging TOC Collapse the table of error handling techniques content Expand the table of content This documentation is archived and is not being maintained. This documentation is archived and is not being maintained. Visual Basic Concepts Visual Studio 6.0 Testing Error Handling by Generating Errors Simulating errors is useful when you are testing your applications, or when you want to treat a particular condition as being equivalent to a Visual Basic run-time error. For example, you might be writing a module that uses an object defined in an external application, and want errors returned from the object to be handled as actual Visual Basic errors by the rest of your application. In order to test for all possible errors, you may need to generate some of the errors in your code. You can generate an error in your code with the Raise method: object.Raise argumentlist The object argument is usually Err, Visual Basic's globally defined error object. The argumentlist argument is a list of named arguments that can be passed with the method. The VerifyFile procedure in the Errors.vbp sample application uses the following code to regenerate the current error in an error handler: Err.Raise Number:=intErrNum In this case, intErrNum is a variable that contains the error number which triggered the error handler
can deal with problems as they occur, but automated systems must pre program error-handling. In many instances the completeness of error handling affects the usability of the application. Error-handling testing
Error Handling Best Practices
determines the ability of the application system to properly process incorrect transactions.What are
Stubs And Drivers
its Objectives ?Errors encompass all unexpected conditions. In some systems, approximately 50 percent of the programming effort will be manual support testing devoted to handling error conditions. Specific objectives of error-handling testing include: Determine that all reasonably expected error conditions are recognizable by the application system. Determine that the accountability for processing errors https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa733601(v=vs.60).aspx has been assigned and that the procedures provide a high probability that the error will be properly corrected. Determine that reasonable control is maintained over errors during the correction process.How to Use Error Handling Testing ?It requires a group of knowledgeable people to anticipate what can go wrong with the application system. The other forms of testing involve verifying that the application system conforms http://testingcorner.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-is-error-handling-testing.html to requirements. Error-handling testing uses exactly the opposite concept.A successful method for developing test error conditions is to assemble, for a half-day or a day, people knowledgeable in information technology, the user area, and auditing or error tracking.These individuals are asked to brainstorm what might go wrong with the application.The totality of their thinking must then be organized by application function so that a logical set of test transactions can be created. Without this type of synergistic interaction on errors, it is difficult to develop a realistic body of problems prior to production.Error-handling testing should test the introduction of the error, the processing of the error, the control condition, and the reentry of the condition properly corrected. This requires error handling testing to be an iterative process in which errors are first introduced into the system,then corrected, then reentered into another iteration of the system to satisfy the complete error-handling cycle.What are Error-Handling Test Examples ? Produce a representative set of transactions containing errors and enter them into the system to determine whether the application can identify the problems. Through iterative testing, enter errors that will result i
realize that the number of possible test cases may rival the number of particles in the universe. Then we move on to a much more interesting question: "Of all the possible things we could test, what http://www.cs.pomona.edu/classes/cs181f/supp/testing.html is the smallest subset that will yield the greatest improvement in confidence?" This question can http://www.monperrus.net/martin/test-case-exception-handling be broken down into two (only slightly) simpler questions: Where is our confidence currently low? Which test cases will significantly improve that confidence? It is important that these two questions be well understood, because: Our confidence function varies widely over our code, and there is little value to be gained by additional testing of code whose correctness has already been well established. error handling Most (of the possible) test cases are redundant, and two well chosen test cases can easily deliver more confidence than a million poorly chosen test cases. This paper is an introduction to the problem of choosing the right test cases. 1.1 Test Cases, and Test Suites A Test Case is a script, program, or other mechanism that exercises a software component to ascertain that a specific correctness assertion is true. In general, it creates a specified initial error handling test state, invokes the tested component in a specified way, observes its behavior, and checks to ensure that the behavior was correct. Different assertions (or variations on a single assertion) are likely to be tested by different test cases. Test Cases are usually organized into Test Suites. A Test Suite is a collection of related Test Cases that is likely to be run as a whole. They are usually grouped together because, taken as a whole, they testify to the correctness of a particular component (or a particular aspect of its functionality). Different suites might exercise different components or different types of functionality. It is also common for all of the test-cases in a test suite to be written for and execute under a single test execution framework. These are discussed in another note on Testing Harnesses. 1.2 Types of Test Cases Test cases (and suites of test cases) can be characterized on the basis of the types of questions they try to answer. They often fall into a few broad categories: functional validation tests are generally intended to ascertain whether or not a component complies with its functional specifications. This term is also often used to describe (white box) test cases that exercise functionality that emerges from the design (rather than the specifications). error handling tests drive a program with incorrect inputs, introduce (real or simulated) errors into messages an
code for which the test suite richly specifies exception handling (it specifies conditions in which exceptions are thrown and scenarios in which exceptions are caught). Beyond Passing and Failing: Three New Types of Test Cases The classical way of analyzing the execution of test suites is to separate passing “green test cases” and failing “red test cases” (those colors refers to the graphical display of Junit, where passing tests are green and failing tests are red). This distinction does not consider the specification of exception handling. Beyond green and red test cases, our results indicate that one can characterize the test cases in three categories: the pink, blue and white test cases. Those three new types of test cases are a partition of passing test cases. Pink Test Cases: Specification of Nominal Usage The “pink test cases” are those test cases where no exceptions at all are thrown or caught. The pink test cases specify the nominal usage of the software under test, i.e. the functioning of the system according to plan under standard input and environment. Note that a pink test case can still execute a try-block (but never a catch block by definition). Blue Test Cases: Specification of State Incorrectness Detection // pattern #1 with annotation (JUnit4) @Expected(LawOfPhysicsException.class) void testSlowDown() { new Car().setSpeed(400000).slowdown()); } // pattern #2 with try/catch // enables one to expect several exceptions void testDivisionByZero() { try { division(5,0); fail(); // if no exception is encountered } catch (DivisionByZeroException e) { } } Conceptually, there is an envelope that defines all possible correct states of an application. We call it the “state correctness envelope". This envelope is the boundary between correct and incorrect runtime states. Specifying the “state correctness envelope” can be achieved by writing test cases that simulate incorrect states, and then assert the presence in the test suite of exceptions of the expected type. The “blue test cases” are those test cases which assert the presence of exception under incorrect input (such as for instance “division(15,0)”). The blue test cases sets up incorrect state and then verify that an exception is thrown. This is illustrated in the listing, where two test cases that expect exceptions using two different testing patterns in Java (with an annotation of the JUnit testing framework; the other one with a