From my (very little) experience with WPF, DataBinding is where the testing gets hard. Of course, you don't want to test that databinding works, since it's part of WPF, but there's always the risk that you not set it up correctly. That's a piece I don't really know how to test except by looking at the GUI.
Charlie
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Alan Baljeu
<alanbaljeu@...> wrote:
?
Well yes, I consider MVVM a given, and Caliburn.Micro looks like a good option. ?Now for testing a view I think I should want a fake ViewModel that just gives the view fixed data in order to see how well this data or that data are presented. ?But I'm not at all sure about this concept.
(At the moment I'm just drawing stuff in WPF just for gauging
looks. ?Not even a hint of logic is going anywhere. ?At some point I'll have to refactor and then introduce databinding etc.)
?
Alan Baljeu
On Monday, November 4, 2013 4:44:27 PM, David V¨ªlchez <dvilchez@...> wrote:
?
What's about MVVM and test the view model?
I would look for Caliburn.Micro
?
The general rule we have is to test the model and the controls that dictate the changes to the UI, but the UI itself can't be tested with unit tests. ? Alternatively, you can try to take screen shots and try to do jpg comparisons (but I don't recommend it)
brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
and the number 47
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Alan Baljeu
<alanbaljeu@...> wrote:
?
I'm kind of new to WPF and trying to TDD an application that uses it. ?I'm a little frustrated that Microsoft's default program architecture still isn't TDD friendly. ?It creates an application project and adds a window and an app level resource dictionary, none of which can be tested because a test system requires a DLL it can load. ?But if I create a new DLL, it loses connection to the base resources because that's in the exe and not available in testing.
So the architecture seems wrong, and I don't know what's a more ideal way to proceed. ?Or, is there something I'm missing about testing UI code.
?
Alan Baljeu
