Stryker.NET
SpecFlow
Our great sponsors
Stryker.NET | SpecFlow | |
---|---|---|
14 | 2 | |
1,707 | 2,203 | |
1.5% | 0.5% | |
9.4 | 0.0 | |
6 days ago | 25 days ago | |
C# | C# | |
Apache License 2.0 | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
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.
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/
SpecFlow
-
I need a place to post programming questions
You can also try posting an issue to the SpecFlow GitHub repo. That sometimes gets me an answer. And when all else fails, I just bite the bullet and post to Stack Overflow.
-
Specflow on Docker
Or here... https://github.com/SpecFlowOSS/SpecFlow/blob/master/Dockerfile
What are some alternatives?
xUnit - xUnit.net is a free, open source, community-focused unit testing tool for .NET.
BDDfy - BDDfy is the simplest BDD framework EVER!
sharpfuzz - AFL-based fuzz testing for .NET
Fluent Assertions - A very extensive set of extension methods that allow you to more naturally specify the expected outcome of a TDD or BDD-style unit tests. Targets .NET Framework 4.7, as well as .NET Core 2.1, .NET Core 3.0, .NET 6, .NET Standard 2.0 and 2.1. Supports the unit test frameworks MSTest2, NUnit3, XUnit2, MSpec, and NSpec3.
Moq - Repo for managing Moq 4.x [Moved to: https://github.com/moq/moq]
xBehave.net - ✖ An xUnit.net extension for describing each step in a test with natural language.
MSTest - MSTest framework and adapter
Xunit.Gherkin.Quick - BDD in .NET Core - using Xunit and Gherkin (compatible with both .NET Core and .NET)
Bogus - :card_index: A simple fake data generator for C#, F#, and VB.NET. Based on and ported from the famed faker.js.
LightBDD - BDD framework allowing to create easy to read and maintain tests.
should - Should Assertion Library
Machine.Specifications - Machine.Specifications is a Context/Specification framework for .NET that removes language noise and simplifies tests.