[Kmymoney-devel] Improving the test suite for MyMoneyFile

[victor]

Hi,

I have tried to become familiar with QSignalSpy. For instance, to comply with "After adding a price 'valueChanged()' should be emitted.", I have implemented this:




	
	
	
	



 
qRegisterMetaType<MyMoneyAccount>("MyMoneyAccount");


  QSignalSpy spy(m,
SIGNAL(valueChanged(MyMoneyAccount))); 



  m->addPrice(price);


  ft.commit(); 



  QCOMPARE(spy.count(), 1);



However, I do not fully understand what this mechanism contributes in this case as far as the test file already checks that situation just after adding a price:
  
  QVERIFY(m_balanceChanged.count() == 0);
  QVERIFY(m_valueChanged.count() == 1);
  QVERIFY(m_valueChanged.count("A000002") == 1);

Thus, I think that what I need is a scenario where a change in the "count" of some of those signals arise after inserting the fault/s that I commented. This is not happening at the moment with the current mymoneytestfile.cpp. 

Regards.

 

> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:18:23 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Kmymoney-devel] Improving the test suite for MyMoneyFile
> From: onet.cristian at gmail.com
> To: pedretti_86 at hotmail.com
> CC: kmymoney-devel at kde.org
> 
> To verify signal emission in a test case use QSignalSpy [1] (it's
> pretty well documented).
> 
> I'm on the run now but I'll follow up with a specific example and
> ideas about the balance cache later.
> 
> Regards,
> Cristian
> 
> [1] http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/QSignalSpy.html
> 
> 2015-02-17 19:24 GMT+02:00 victor <pedretti_86 at hotmail.com>:
> > Thanks for your answer Cristian. I understand what you mean, but I have no
> > idea about how to check that those signals are emitted since I have never
> > worked with this mechanism. Could you please show me a specific example?
> >
> > Your answer refers to m_valueChangedSet and m_balanceChangedSet. Any ideas
> > about the faults involving "m_balanceCache"?
> >
> >> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:23:42 +0200
> >> Subject: Re: [Kmymoney-devel] Improving the test suite for MyMoneyFile
> >> From: onet.cristian at gmail.com
> >> To: pedretti_86 at hotmail.com
> >> CC: kmymoney-devel at kde.org
> >
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Since those two members are used to implement the emit of the
> >> 'balanceChanged()' and 'valueChanged()' signals after committing
> >> changes you could write a test case that asserts that those signals
> >> are emitted properly.
> >>
> >> For example:
> >> After adding a transaction 'balanceChanged()' should be emitted.
> >> After adding a price 'valueChanged()' should be emitted.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Cristian
> >>
> >> 2015-02-17 16:13 GMT+02:00 victor <pedretti_86 at hotmail.com>:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I am trying to improve some of the test files of KMyMoney for my
> >> > research
> >> > studies. This is a really complex task when you are not involved in
> >> > programming this application, so I need your help to achieve it.
> >> >
> >> > All the same, I'm only focusing on some specific parts. What I'm doing
> >> > is to
> >> > introduce several concrete faults into the code and then observe if the
> >> > fault is detected by the test suite (this would be the expected of an
> >> > adequate test suite, but we all now that this is quite difficult
> >> > sometimes).
> >> > In this sense, I have been doing this in "mymoneyfile.cpp" and testing
> >> > it
> >> > with its corresponding file test "mymoneyfiletest.cpp". The faults
> >> > introduced are faults which are common when programming because we
> >> > sometimes
> >> > mix the name of variables of the same type, or do not call the
> >> > appropriate
> >> > method because of "copy and paste",...
> >> >
> >> > Here I show two of these faults that the test suite is not able to
> >> > detect
> >> > (the result is the same in the original program and with the inserted
> >> > fault):
> >> >
> >> > 1) The first is in the method "void
> >> > MyMoneyFile::commitTransaction(void)",
> >> > where I change:
> >> >
> >> > d->m_balanceChangedSet.remove((*it).id());
> >> >
> >> > by:
> >> >
> >> > d->m_valueChangedSet.remove((*it).id());
> >> >
> >> > Exactly the same happens in the method "void
> >> > MyMoneyFile::rollbackTransaction(void)" if, for instance, I change
> >> > "d->m_valueChangedSet.clear();" by "d->m_balanceChangedSet.clear();".
> >> > These
> >> > changes seem to be meaningful changes, but they are not detected by the
> >> > test
> >> > suite at the moment.
> >> >
> >> > 2) The other situation that I want to report is in method "void
> >> > notify(void)" belonging to "MyMoneyFile::Private". If I change,
> >> >
> >> > m_balanceCache.clear(i.first, i.second);
> >> >
> >> > by:
> >> >
> >> > m_balanceCache.clear(i.first);
> >> >
> >> > or:
> >> >
> >> > m_balanceCache.clear();
> >> >
> >> > How could I detect that I are not calling the method "clear" in a
> >> > correct
> >> > way?
> >> >
> >> > I am aware that this is quite specific and may be difficult to create
> >> > test
> >> > cases for these situations, but I think that this is a very good chance
> >> > to
> >> > improve the test suite of MyMoneyFile (a very important module in the
> >> > application).
> >> >
> >> > Does somebody know how to reveal the aforementioned faults modifying
> >> > existing test cases or designing a new one?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks in advance.
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > KMyMoney-devel mailing list
> >> > KMyMoney-devel at kde.org
> >> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmymoney-devel
> >> >
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kmymoney-devel/attachments/20150220/d249e7e7/attachment.html>