Factory Test 1.5

[Ernest Babin]

title\":\"Water Test Factory Repair - SVCH2O\",\"slug\":\"water-test-factory-repair-svch2otestdis\",\"sku\":\"SVCH2O\",\"gender\":\"\",\"shortDescription\":\"Purchasing this will get you a water test and leak repair of a Dry Top, Dry Bib\\\/Pant or Suit at our Arcata, CA factory. Just add this item to your cart, checkout, get your order confirmation number, write your order confirmation number on the outside of your shipping box, and ship to:\\n\\n**Kokatat, Inc. \\nAttn. Repair Dept. \\n5350 Ericson Way \\nArcata, CA 95521**\",\"descriptionHeader\":null,\"description\":\"Purchasing this will get you a water test and leak repair of a Suit, Dry Top, or Dry Bib\\\/Pant at our Arcata, CA factory.\\n\\nCompleting your repair service is easy! Just add this item to your cart, along with all other factory services your garment needs, checkout, get your order confirmation number, write your order confirmation number on the outside of your shipping box, and ship to:\\n\\n**Kokatat, Inc. \\nAttn. Repair Dept. \\n5350 Ericson Way \\nArcata, CA 95521**\\n\\nYou are responsible for shipping your repair item in. Kokatat does not provide a shipping label. We recommend using a shipping service that allows for parcel tracking and insurance. The shipping charge on your repair order is for return shipping after the repair is complete.\\n\\nRepairs take approximately 4 weeks at the factory plus shipping time. Please ship your repair to Kokatat, Inc. within two business days of receiving your order confirmation number. The confirmation number will expire if we do not receive it at our Arcata, CA factory within 10 business days of its creation.\\n\\nBefore shipping us your garment, please carefully remove any temporary patches on holes you would like Kokatat to patch over. Kokatat will not remove non-factory patches if it risks damaging the garment.\\n\\nHealth code 29CFR 1910.10130 requires that all garments returned for repairs must be laundered. Please wash your garment before sending to Kokatat for repairs. There will be a $25 charge for unwashed items. When using a front loading washing machine, use a small amount of liquid detergent, cold wash setting and hang to dry. For washing machines with an agitator; use gentle cycle, a minimal amount of liquid laundry detergent, double rinse and hang to dry.\\n\\n**Note:** We cannot repair, evaluate or retrofit other companies' product.\",\"featureCallout\":null,\"featureGrid\":[],\"productSpecs\":null,\"productCareCopy\":null,\"productCarePdf\":[],\"productCareVideo\":null,\"sizeCharts\":[],\"measuringInstructions\":[],\"seoTitle\":\"\",\"seoMetaDescription\":\"\",\"relatedProductv2\":[\"SVCWAREVAL\",\"SVCGTXSOC\",\"SVCGSKWRI\",\"SVCGSKNEK\"]"

Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) is a process within the manufacturing and quality assurance phase of industrial equipment or systems. It involves a series of tests and inspections conducted by the manufacturer or supplier to ensure that the product meets the specified requirements, design criteria, and functionality before it is delivered to the customer.

A Factory Acceptance Test is a test that runs on the equipment or components before they are delivered to their intended destination. While FATs can use simulations to demonstrate how the equipment will function in its future operating environment, it may be difficult to mimic the actual operating conditions.

A Site Acceptance Test (SAT) can be conducted after the FAT has taken place and the system has been delivered and installed. This is the only way to determine whether a piece of new equipment will function as needed.

By defining the scope of the FAT, we ensure that the equipment provided is acceptable and credible. This plan is shared with the customer from the beginning to make sure it aligns with their expectations and requirements.

Objective: The final step is the actual testing phase, where the equipment or system is subjected to various tests and inspections to verify its compliance with specified requirements.

By following these three steps, the Factory Acceptance Test Protocol aims to systematically plan, document, and execute a comprehensive testing process to verify the quality and functionality of industrial equipment or systems before they are delivered to the customer.

I have been pushing myself to learn more and more Unit Testing techniques as of late and ran into something I just can't figure out- namely, how to even get started. I am trying to unit test a factory with a very, very simple single method. I have simplified it using example names for you helpful folks.

Right now, I have stuff set up to to do a createInstance(); but nothing seems to make any sense to me in how to fall into this. The added variable and interfaces are making me hella confused here. It seems simple to test and is a very, very short class- but not being exposed to this (Java isn't even my first language) is kind of a hard wall for me to get over).

Any help on how to set up either a standard JUnit or Mockito (doesn't matter really) on how to set all this up? Also the fact that's protected is making me even more clueless since proper standard is to have Unit Tests in another package.

The logic in this method is simply creating a handler instance base on the key. So your test should aim to see if correct type of handler is created according to your key. Therefore the tests should be something like:

For problem 2 (restricted access to protected method), you usually have 2 choices:We normally have test sits in same package as the system under test (SUT), so you should be able to invoke the protected method.

You may also choose to create a Test-Specific Subclass (TSS) which expose a method which directly delegate to the protected method in SUT (or override to loosen the visibility of the method), and have your test performed against the TSS. Of course, you should make sure that your SUT can be extended. It may looks something like this

The economics and realities of outsourcing testing in Asia have changed. Thanks to changes in labour rates, currency values, and the ease of doing business, it is now cheaper and easier to test mission-critical applications in Canada than in many parts of India or China.

We employ full-time, vetted and Canadian-educated testers who easily interface with your organization. They are fully trained on multiple applications, platforms and business competencies such as project management.

I have created a Test Data Factory helper class to create Test Data for testing my apex code like suggested in the documentation here: -us.200.0.apexcode.meta/apexcode/apex_testing_utility_classes.htm

you cannot mark it with the testMethod keyword or @isTest attribute because you get the error "Test methods must have no arguments". Keep in mind, the TestDataFactory class that holds all these methods is decorated with the @isTest attribute as well.

The problem is, my TestDataFactory class is quite large and has many methods, and any of the methods that aren't marked as test methods are being counted as uncovered towards my code coverage (the developer console shows uncovered lines). The methods that are marked as testmethods are being counted as covered.

Also, some people have mentioned it might be an issue with the developer console and maybe it isn't actually counting it, but it is counting it because at first I didn't have any of the methods in the TestDataFactory class marked as testmethod and my code coverage was 65%; then I marked the methods that had no parameters with testmethod and code coverage on the org increased to 70%.

This is most likely caused by initially creating/saving your test factory class without the @isTest prefix. If you follow these instructions you can remove the incorrect data. Then when you rerun tests it should not reappear.

I have developed some classes with similar behavior, they all implement the same interface. I implemented a factory that creates the appropriate object and returns the interface. I am writing a unit test for the factory. All you get back is an interface to the object.What is the best way to test that the factory has worked correctly?

Number 2. in the answer, would be done like the other answer? If so I will mark the other answer accepted as well and reword my question to adress both a factory where an interface is returned and you have no clue what type of concrete class implemented the interface, and the case where you do know what concrete class was used.

If you test whether or not the returned objects are instances of specific concrete classes, you aren't unit testing. You are integration testing. While integration testing is important, it is not the same thing.

Furthermore, you only want to test what could be observed from an object instance, i.e. the public interface. Otherwise, you tie yourself to a specific set of implementation details. This would require you to change your tests when those details change.

Unit testing on Factories is really uninteresting, because you are not interested in the behavior of the returned objects of queries. That behavior is (hopefully) tested elsewhere, presumable while unit testing that object itself. You are only really interested in whether or not the returned object has the correct type, which is guaranteed if your program compiles.

Factories are responsible for instantiating objects, so they should not depend on other factories to do this for them. They might depend on a Builder, but even so, we are not supposed to test the Builder's correctness, only whether or not the Builder receives the message.

This means that all you have to test on Factories is whether or not they send the messages to the objects on which they depend. If you use Dependency Injection, this is almost trivial. Just mock the dependencies in your unit tests, and verify that they receive the messages.

@cem-catikkas I think it would be more correct to compare the getClass().getName() values. In the case that MyInterfaceImpl1 class is subclassed your test could be broken, as the subclass is instanceof MyInterfaceImpl1. I would rewrite as follow:

3a8082e126