dotnet-ci-pipelines
Stryker.NET
| dotnet-ci-pipelines | Stryker.NET | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14 | |
| 20 | 1,715 | |
| - | 0.9% | |
| 0.0 | 9.3 | |
| over 1 year ago | about 12 hours ago | |
| C# | C# | |
| MIT License | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
dotnet-ci-pipelines
-
dotnet-ci-pipelines
[ ] GitHub Actions
Stryker.NET
-
Stryker.NET alternatives - Testura.Mutation, visualmutator, fettle, and Faultify
5 projects | 9 Jun 2023
-
Do you guys mock everything in your Unit Tests?
Bogus - For creating fake data Verify - Snapshot testing for .NET MELT - For testing ILogger usage Stryker - Mutation Testing for .NET TestContainers - run docker programmatically in integration tests
-
Scope of unit testing (karma/Jas) Boss wants unreasonable testing?
This is called mutation testing btw.
-
Don't target 100% coverage
Let's try it on our small example using Stryker.
- PhD'ers, what are you working on? What CS topics excite you?
-
Killing mutants to improve your tests
There are tools that do this automatically, stryker[2] is one of them. When you run stryker, it will create many mutant versions of your production code, and run your tests for each mutant (that's how mutations are called in stryker's' documentation) version of the code. If your tests fail then the mutant is killed. If your tests passed, the mutant survived. Let's have a look at the the result of runnning stryker against reffects-store's code:
-
Not sure if popular opinion: Greenfield projects should have 100% test coverage.
Mutation testing is pretty solid. Better than code coverage for sure. Using Stryker personally.
-
Seriously what are they and why does everyone hate them?
A mutation testing tool (like Stryker) runs your unit tests to verify they all pass then makes a small change (mutation) to your code and reruns the tests. At least one test should fail because the modified code should behave differently.
-
Relesed v1.0.0 of my pet javasscript project yesterday after hitting 100% coverage- a gesture detection library
I haven't tried it yet, but last time I researched it, this is the library that looked most promising: https://stryker-mutator.io/
-
Mutation Testing in NodeJS
Website: https://stryker-mutator.io/
What are some alternatives?
DocFX - Static site generator for .NET API documentation.
xUnit - xUnit.net is a free, open source, community-focused unit testing tool for .NET.
EventSourcing.NetCore - Examples and Tutorials of Event Sourcing in .NET
sharpfuzz - AFL-based fuzz testing for .NET
gitlab-ci-example-dotnetcore
Moq - Repo for managing Moq 4.x [Moved to: https://github.com/moq/moq]
Entity Framework - EF Core is a modern object-database mapper for .NET. It supports LINQ queries, change tracking, updates, and schema migrations.
MSTest - MSTest framework and adapter
practical-aspnetcore - Practical samples of ASP.NET Core 8.0, 7.0, 6.0, 5.0, 3.1, 2.2, and 2.1,projects you can use. Readme contains explanations on all projects.
Bogus - :card_index: A simple fake data generator for C#, F#, and VB.NET. Based on and ported from the famed faker.js.
Coravel - Near-zero config .NET library that makes advanced application features like Task Scheduling, Caching, Queuing, Event Broadcasting, and more a breeze!
should - Should Assertion Library