Win Timer Tester 1.1 Download
Cre Wallace
I am currently writing a simple, timer-based mini app in C# that performs an action n times every k seconds.
I am trying to adopt a test-driven development style, so my goal is to unit-test all parts of the app.
The problem, as I see it, is that there is a big risk that the tests will take uncomfortably long to execute since they must wait so and so long for the desired actions to happen.
Especially if one wants realistic data (seconds), instead of using the minimal time resolution allowed by the framework (1 ms?).
I am using a mock object for the action, to register the number of times the action was called, and so that the action takes practically no time.
I think what I would do in this case is test the code that actually executes when the timer ticks, rather than the entire sequence. What you really need to decide is whether it is worthwhile for you to test the actual behaviour of the application (for example, if what happens after every tick changes drastically from one tick to another), or whether it is sufficient (that is to say, the action is the same every time) to just test your logic.
Since the timer's behaviour is guaranteed never to change, it's either going to work properly (ie, you've configured it right) or not; it seems to be to be wasted effort to include that in your test if you don't actually need to.
I agree with Danny insofar as it probably makes sense from a unit-testing perspective to simply forget about the timer mechanism and just verify that the action itself works as expected. I would also say that I disagree in that it's wasted effort to include the configuration of the timer in an automated test suite of some kind. There are a lot of edge cases when it comes to working with timing applications and it's very easy to create a false sense of security by only testing the things that are easy to test.
I would recommend having a suite of tests that runs the timer as well as the real action. This suite will probably take a while to run and would likely not be something you would run all the time on your local machine. But setting these types of things up on a nightly automated build can really help root out bugs before they become too hard to find and fix.
So in short my answer to your question is don't worry about writing a few tests that do take a long time to run. Unit test what you can and make that test suite run fast and often but make sure to supplement that with integration tests that run less frequently but cover more of the application and its configuration.
I have to do unit testing on a timer driver for a microcontroller written in C. Now, I heard that a unit test on a function should not depend on the outcome of another function. My problem is, how can we test a function that is supposed to stop a timer in these conditions ? Don't we need to start the timer, heck, we even need to initialize it !
I would like to know at which level we need to consider our unit test ; is it at the level of one function (in that case, we get the problem above), or is it at the level of the driver itself (in that case, we can use multiple functions of the driver in one unit test) ?
You can test each function independently to check that it adheres to its interface and handles out-of-bound values of parameters (if that is a requirement; the converse is that the requirement is with the caller not to call it out-of-bounds).
Then you can unit test the whole unit, in one way from the higher level routines: can it be called for intialization and set-up (wand here out-of-bounds conditions must be handled) and can any call-backs be called and are they called properly.
Regarding this, when I used execute(job()); it made the process wait at only the message send event. It marked the UserTask complete. So I need to run a more specific method to only trigger the timer task in that case?
I have a student who said that he was taking a test and the timer ended before his time was actually up.
Has this happened before? Any reason why this could occur? Any solutions or remedies are greatly appreciated. Thanks for the help.
Here's our students full explanation:
During my test today I had 40 minutes to complete it. We were to work on Notability and upload our files at the end and I made it a habit to periodically check the timer on the canvas test to make sure I was using my time wisely. When I checked the timer it informed me that I had 15 minutes until the test ended so I finished up my last problem and attempted to submit in 5 minutes later. However, when I went to upload my answers I was informed that I was out of time despite being informed I had 15 minutes left.
For example if a quiz is due today 2-19-21 at 10 am, and students are allowed 60 minutes to complete the exam. A student who begins that quiz today 2-19-21 at 9:20 am will not get the full 60 minutes but the availability of the quiz will close and submit the quiz at 10 am as stated in the quiz settings. So this student got 40 minutes rather than the full 60 to complete.
Testing Timer is revolutionizing how students prepare for and take standardized tests like the ACT and SAT with unique timers featuring designs that help students pace themeselves, save time and score better.
Fosmon Timer: This timer is designed for use with Koster moisture meters and allows you to set a specific time for the meter to turn on or off. It features a simple and easy-to-use digital display, with multiple buttons for setting the time and selecting the desired on/off function.
The Fosmon Timer is a device that allows you to set a specific time for your Koster Moisture Meter to turn on or off. It is designed to be used in conjunction with Koster moisture meters, and it makes it easy to schedule moisture testing at specific times.
The timer can be set to turn the Koster moisture meter on or off at a specific time, which allows you to schedule moisture testing for the most convenient time for you. The timer also has an automatic shut-off feature that will turn off the moisture meter when the test is complete, which helps to conserve energy and prolong the life of the meter.
One thing to note is that I can manually override the timers in the Timeout GenServer. That was needed to reinitiate them after a reboot (e.g. deployment). I am sure that comes to my advantage in regards to testing but I still have no idea how to best structure the test.
Instead of sleep/assert in the test monitor the supervisor of the unit and be notified when it stops. When the supervisor stoped everything should also be gone if properly linked, but you could also check that afterwards.
That is a good idea. In general, in can just check the root DynamicSupervisor for all its children to check if the Supervisor specific to the unit is gone. That would be step 5 of my provided example.
So, I should Monitor the unit Supervisor and use assert_receive instead of Process.sleep(), right? Is assert_receive blocking the process as well? If so, there is not a huge difference to sleep/assert and it exposes a bit more of the underlaying mechanics (since I assert for the Supervisor to shutdown instead of asking the system for the list of running units).
My biggest issue with testing timer jobs was getting the job to start so that I could debug it. It seems like I when I reset the timer service whenever I deployed new code and when the service restarted, even though I had my job to run every minute, sometimes it would take up to an hour for it to "catch up" and get around to running my timer job.
I think the best way is to make your timer job business logic code seperate from spjobdefinition and build unit tests for it. That way you do most of your testing using unit tests and when you are happy that it is working correctly, build the spjobdefinition that just calls your business logic code. That way you have less testing in which you have to depend on the timer service.
Another tip for testing is to encapsulate the logic in its own class. Then you can test (and unit test) the code first in for example a console application. Then you wont have to wait for timer job to execute etc.
As both Anders and Steve have pointed out, write the main processing of your timer job in a separate Class Library. For debugging "wrap" a Console App around it, and when you're happy wrap it in a timer job. If at a later point you want to debug, you use your Console App again - F5 and there you go.
I am trying to write a unit test (junit4) to test a boundary timer will take me to the next expected task following the time reached. I have used the ProcessEngineConfig to set the process engine clock forward so that timer should fire. However, the timer does not seem to fire. I assume that the job has not fired when I test to see if next task has been reached. So is there support for testing timers.
Ok thanks, did you disable the async executor in your process engine configuration? Because otherwise that async executor will try to execute the job after calling the moveTimerToExecutableJob method as well as your manual call to executeJob.
As we want to test our processes like in production environment, changing the config is not the best approach as the asyncExecutor will be needed. Furthermore, not every timer should be triggered manually. Sometimes timers should be triggered just by running into the defined due date.
Yes I understand. Moving the clock can be used to trick the async executor to not pick up the job yet, which is fine for a unit test. Another solution would be to indeed only call the moveTimerToExecutableJob method and then do a thread sleep for 5 seconds or so. Then the async executor should have fetched the job and executed it as well.
b1e95dc632