blocks|key|295906|text|我宁愿在一个[TestClass]中有两个不同的[TestMethod]，每个[TestClass]只测试一个实现:这样，失败的测试将始终正确地指出哪个实现出错了。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|295907|entityMap^0|6|B|O|C|13|B|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@$9|I|A|J|B|C]|$9|K|A|L|B|C]|$9|M|A|N|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|O|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|G|$]]

I'd rather have two different <code>[TestMethod]</code> in one <code>[TestClass]</code> each testing only one implementation: this way a failing test will always correctly point you which implementation went wrong.

blocks|key|2418899|text|如果使用的是NUnit，则可以传递在属性http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=testCase&r=2.5.6中声明的变量|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|2418900|如果你使用类似这样的东西：|2418901|[TestCase(1)]
[TestCase(2)]
public+void+Test(int+algorithm)
{
//..dostuff
}|code-block|syntax|javascript|2418902|如果将为1运行一次，为2运行一次，也使用相同的设置/拆卸:)|2418903|在MSTest中没有等同的东西，但是你可以在这里解释一下：Does+MSTest+have+an+equivalent+to+NUnit's+TestCase?|2418904|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=testCase&r=2.5.6|1|https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1010685/does-mstest-have-an-equivalent-to-nunits-testcase^0|K|1D|0|0|0|0|0|T|1F|1|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|Y|8|@]|9|@$A|Z|B|10|1|11]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|12|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|H|7|13|8|@]|9|@]|C|$I|J]]|$1|K|3|L|5|6|7|14|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|M|3|N|5|6|7|15|8|@]|9|@$A|16|B|17|1|18]]|C|$]]|$1|O|3|-4|5|6|7|19|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|P|$Q|$5|R|S|T|C|$U|V]]|W|$5|R|S|T|C|$U|X]]]]

If you are using NUnit you can pass through a variable declared in an attribute
<a href="http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=testCase&amp;r=2.5.6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=testCase&amp;r=2.5.6</a>

if you use something like:

<pre><code>[TestCase(1)]
[TestCase(2)]
public void Test(int algorithm)
{
//..dostuff
}
</code></pre>

if will run once for 1, once for 2, uses the same setup/teardown too :)

There isn't an equivalent in MSTest however you can fudge it somewhat as explained here:
<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1010685/does-mstest-have-an-equivalent-to-nunits-testcase">Does MSTest have an equivalent to NUnit&#39;s TestCase?</a>

blocks|key|2418933|text|您已经用NUnit标记了您的问题，但您询问的是MSTest。您所询问的内容可以通过NUnit中的参数化测试夹具来实现。我对MSTest还不够熟悉，无法在那里推荐一种等效的方法，快速搜索一下就会发现MSTest可能没有这个特性。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|2418934|在NUnit中，您可以通过将多个[TestFixture(...)]属性应用于具有不同参数的fixture类来参数化测试夹具。这些参数将被传递给fixture构造函数。|2418935|由于可以传递的参数类型有限制，您可能需要在指定算法时传递一个字符串，然后在构造函数中将提供搜索算法的委托或对象分配给测试中使用的成员字段。|2418936|例如：|2418937|using+System;
using+System.Collections.Generic;
using+NUnit.Framework;

namespace+MyTests
{
++++public+static+class+SearchAlgorithms
++++{
++++++++public+static+int+DefaultSearch(int+target,+IList<int>+data)
++++++++{
++++++++++++return+data.IndexOf(target);
++++++++}

++++++++public+static+int+BrokenSearch(int+target,+IList<int>+data)
++++++++{
++++++++++++return+789;
++++++++}
++++}

++++[TestFixture("forward")]
++++[TestFixture("broken")]
++++public+class+SearchTests
++++{
++++++++private+Func<int,+IList<int>,+int>+searchMethod;

++++++++public+SearchTests(string+algorithmName)
++++++++{
++++++++++++if+(algorithmName+==+"forward")
++++++++++++{
++++++++++++++++this.searchMethod+=+SearchAlgorithms.DefaultSearch;
++++++++++++++++return;
++++++++++++}

++++++++++++if+(algorithmName+==+"broken")
++++++++++++{
++++++++++++++++this.searchMethod+=+SearchAlgorithms.BrokenSearch;
++++++++++++}
++++++++}

++++++++[Test]
++++++++public+void+SearchFindsCorrectIndex()
++++++++{
++++++++++++Assert.AreEqual(
++++++++++++++++1,+this.searchMethod(2,+new+List<int>+{+1,+2,+3+}));
++++++++}

++++++++[Test]
++++++++public+void+SearchReturnsMinusOneWhenTargetNotPresent()
++++++++{
++++++++++++Assert.AreEqual(
++++++++++++++++-1,+this.searchMethod(4,+new+List<int>+{+1,+2,+3+}));
++++++++}
++++}
}|code-block|syntax|javascript|2418938|entityMap^0|4|5|N|6|0|G|I|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|S|8|@$9|T|A|U|B|C]|$9|V|A|W|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|X|8|@$9|Y|A|Z|B|C]]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|10|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|J|3|K|5|6|7|11|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|L|3|M|5|N|7|12|8|@]|D|@]|E|$O|P]]|$1|Q|3|-4|5|6|7|13|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|R|$]]

You've tagged your question with <code>NUnit</code>, but you ask about <code>MSTest</code>. What you are asking about can be achieved with parameterized test fixtures in NUnit. I am not familiar enough with MSTest to suggest an equivalent approach there, and a quick search indicates that MSTest may not have this feature.

In NUnit you parameterize the test fixture by applying multiple <code>[TestFixture(...)]</code> attributes to the fixture class with different parameters. These parameters will be passed to the fixture constructor.

Since there are limits on the types of parameter that can be passed, you'll probably need to pass a string in specifying the algorithm, then in the constructor assign the delegate or object that provides the search algorithm to a member field which is used in the tests.

For example:

<pre><code>using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using NUnit.Framework;

namespace MyTests
{
 public static class SearchAlgorithms
 {
 public static int DefaultSearch(int target, IList&lt;int&gt; data)
 {
 return data.IndexOf(target);
 }

 public static int BrokenSearch(int target, IList&lt;int&gt; data)
 {
 return 789;
 }
 }

 [TestFixture("forward")]
 [TestFixture("broken")]
 public class SearchTests
 {
 private Func&lt;int, IList&lt;int&gt;, int&gt; searchMethod;

 public SearchTests(string algorithmName)
 {
 if (algorithmName == "forward")
 {
 this.searchMethod = SearchAlgorithms.DefaultSearch;
 return;
 }

 if (algorithmName == "broken")
 {
 this.searchMethod = SearchAlgorithms.BrokenSearch;
 }
 }

 [Test]
 public void SearchFindsCorrectIndex()
 {
 Assert.AreEqual(
 1, this.searchMethod(2, new List&lt;int&gt; { 1, 2, 3 }));
 }

 [Test]
 public void SearchReturnsMinusOneWhenTargetNotPresent()
 {
 Assert.AreEqual(
 -1, this.searchMethod(4, new List&lt;int&gt; { 1, 2, 3 }));
 }
 }
}
</code></pre>

blocks|key|974044|text|使用abstract+test+class|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|974045|[TestClass]
public+abstract+class+SearchTests
{
++++private+ISearcher+_searcherUnderTest;

++++[TestSetup]
++++public+void+Setup()
++++{
++++++++_searcherUnderTest+=+CreateSearcher();
++++}

++++protected+abstract+ISearcher+CreateSearcher();

++++[TestMethod]
++++public+void+Test1(){/*do+stuff+to+_searcherUnderTest*/+}

++++//+more+tests...

++++[TestClass]
++++public+class+CoolSearcherTests+:+SearcherTests
++++{
+++++++++protected+override+ISearcher+CreateSearcher()
+++++++++{
+++++++++++++return+new+CoolSearcher();
+++++++++}
++++}

++++[TestClass]
++++public+class+LameSearcherTests+:+SearcherTests
++++{
+++++++++protected+override+ISearcher+CreateSearcher()
+++++++++{
+++++++++++++return+new+LameSearcher();
+++++++++}
++++}
}|code-block|syntax|javascript|974046|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbstractTestCases^0|2|J|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@$A|R|B|S|1|T]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|F|7|U|8|@]|9|@]|C|$G|H]]|$1|I|3|-4|5|6|7|V|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|J|$K|$5|L|M|N|C|$O|P]]]]

Use an <a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbstractTestCases">abstract test class</a>:

<pre><code>[TestClass]
public abstract class SearchTests
{
 private ISearcher _searcherUnderTest;

 [TestSetup]
 public void Setup()
 {
 _searcherUnderTest = CreateSearcher();
 }

 protected abstract ISearcher CreateSearcher();

 [TestMethod]
 public void Test1(){/*do stuff to _searcherUnderTest*/ }

 // more tests...

 [TestClass]
 public class CoolSearcherTests : SearcherTests
 {
 protected override ISearcher CreateSearcher()
 {
 return new CoolSearcher();
 }
 }

 [TestClass]
 public class LameSearcherTests : SearcherTests
 {
 protected override ISearcher CreateSearcher()
 {
 return new LameSearcher();
 }
 }
}
</code></pre>

blocks|key|5771934|text|我不能说我对这种方法非常满意，但以下是我最终要做的事情。然后我去寻找一种更好的方法，发现了这个问题。这种方法满足以下条件:+1)我使用的是MS+Test，2)我只写了一次测试逻辑，3)我能分辨出哪个实现失败了(双击测试将把我带到正确的测试类)。这种方法使用一个基类来包含所有实际的测试逻辑，然后为每个实现(我有3个)使用一个派生类来设置基接口上的特定实现并覆盖基测试方法。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|5771935|[TestClass]
public+abstract+class+SearchTestBase
{
++++protected+ISearcher+Searcher+{+get;+set;+}

++++[TestMethod]
++++public+virtual+void+Find_Results_Correct()
++++{
++++++++//+Arrange+(code+here)
++++++++//+Act+(single+line+here)
++++++++var+actual+=+Searcher.Results(input);
++++++++//+Assert
++++}
}

(different+file...)
[TestClass]
public+class+FastSearcherTest+:+SearcherTestBase
{
++++[TestInitialize]
++++public+void+TestInitialize()
++++{
++++++++Searcher+=+new+FastSearcher();
++++}

++++[TestMethod]
++++public+override+void+Find_Results_Correct()
++++{
++++++++base.Find_Results_Correct();
++++}
}

(different+file...)
[TestClass]
public+class+ThoroughSearcherTest+:+SearcherTestBase
{
++++[TestInitialize]
++++public+void+TestInitialize()
++++{
++++++++Searcher+=+new+ThoroughSearcher();
++++}

++++[TestMethod]
++++public+override+void+Find_Results_Correct()
++++{
++++++++base.Find_Results_Correct();
++++}
}|code-block|syntax|javascript|5771936|因此，我不喜欢这种方法的原因是，每次我想要添加测试时，我都需要转到每个测试文件并覆盖新的测试方法。我喜欢的是你的3个要求。如果我需要更改测试，我只在一个地方更改逻辑。与使用两个测试调用单个方法的类似解决方案相比，我看到这种解决方案的优势在于，我不必重复代码来设置正确的实现。在这个解决方案中，只有一行代码调用base.TestName()，而不是两行代码，一行用于设置搜索器，另一行用于调用测试。Visual+Studio也使这方面的编写变得更快……我只需要输入"override“，然后就会得到一个选项列表。自动完成为我写下剩下的部分。|5771937|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|J|$]]

I can't say I'm extremely happy with this approach, but here's what I ended up doing. I then went to look for a better approach and found this question. This approach meets the criteria, 1) I'm using MS Test, 2) I write the test logic only 1 time, 3) I can tell which implementation failed (and double clicking on the test will take me to the right test class).
This approach uses a base class to contain all the actual test logic, and then a derived class for each implementation (I have 3) that sets the specific implementation on the base interface and overrides the base test methods.

<pre><code>[TestClass]
public abstract class SearchTestBase
{
 protected ISearcher Searcher { get; set; }

 [TestMethod]
 public virtual void Find_Results_Correct()
 {
 // Arrange (code here)
 // Act (single line here)
 var actual = Searcher.Results(input);
 // Assert
 }
}

(different file...)
[TestClass]
public class FastSearcherTest : SearcherTestBase
{
 [TestInitialize]
 public void TestInitialize()
 {
 Searcher = new FastSearcher();
 }

 [TestMethod]
 public override void Find_Results_Correct()
 {
 base.Find_Results_Correct();
 }
}

(different file...)
[TestClass]
public class ThoroughSearcherTest : SearcherTestBase
{
 [TestInitialize]
 public void TestInitialize()
 {
 Searcher = new ThoroughSearcher();
 }

 [TestMethod]
 public override void Find_Results_Correct()
 {
 base.Find_Results_Correct();
 }
}
</code></pre>

So what I don't like about this approach is that every time I want to add a test I need to go to each of the test files and override the new test method. What I do like are the 3 requirements you had. If I need to change a test, I change the logic in just one place.
The advantage I see to this solution over the similar one of having a single method called by two tests is that I don't have to repeat the code for setting up the right implementation. In this solution you have a single line that calls the base.TestName(), and not two lines, one to set the Searcher and another to call the test. The Visual Studio also makes writing this much faster... I just type, "override" and get a list of choices. Auto complete writes the rest for me.

blocks|key|2419198|text|基于我的测试的澄清。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2419199|只要抽象类和具体类在同一个程序集中，公认的答案(使用抽象类)就可以工作。|2419200|如果您希望将抽象类和具体类放在不同的程序集中，不幸的是，KarlZ提到的方法似乎是必要的。不知道为什么会这样。在这种情况下，TestExplorer不会显示TestMethod。|2419201|而且，可接受的答案使用了嵌套在抽象类中的具体类。这似乎不是必需的。|2419202|使用MSTestV2+(1.1.17)、VS2017进行测试。下面是使用的示例类。|2419203|Assembly+1
++++[TestClass]
++++public+abstract+class+SampleExternal
++++{
++++++++[TestMethod]
++++++++public+void+SampleTest01()
++++++++{
++++++++++++Assert.IsTrue(false,+this.GetType().Name);
++++++++}
++++}

Assembly+2
++++[TestClass]
++++public+abstract+class+Sample
++++{
++++++++[TestMethod]
++++++++public+void+SampleTest01()
++++++++{
++++++++++++Assert.IsTrue(false,+this.GetType().Name);
++++++++}

++++++++[TestClass]
++++++++public+class+SampleA+:+Sample
++++++++{
++++++++}
++++}

++++[TestClass]
++++public+class+SampleB+:+Sample
++++{
++++}

++++[TestClass]
++++public+class+SampleC+:+SampleExternal
++++{
++++}

++++[TestClass]
++++public+class+SampleD+:+SampleExternal
++++{
++++}|code-block|syntax|javascript|2419204|使用这些测试，SampleA和SampleB的测试将会执行(并且设计失败)，但是SampleC+&+SampleD不会。|2419205|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|T|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|U|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|V|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|W|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|J|3|K|5|L|7|X|8|@]|9|@]|A|$M|N]]|$1|O|3|P|5|6|7|Y|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|Q|3|-4|5|6|7|Z|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|R|$]]

Clarifications based on my testing.

The accepted answer (to use an abstract class) works as long as the abstract class and concrete classes are in the same assembly.

If you desire to have the abstract class and concrete classes in different assemblies, the approach mentioned by KarlZ, unfortunately seems to be necessary. Not sure why this is the case. In this scenario, the TestExplorer will not show TestMethod.

Also, the accepted answer uses concrete classes nested within the abstract class. This does not appear to be a requirement.

Test with MSTestV2 (1.1.17), VS2017. 
Here are sample classes used.

<pre><code>Assembly 1
 [TestClass]
 public abstract class SampleExternal
 {
 [TestMethod]
 public void SampleTest01()
 {
 Assert.IsTrue(false, this.GetType().Name);
 }
 }

Assembly 2
 [TestClass]
 public abstract class Sample
 {
 [TestMethod]
 public void SampleTest01()
 {
 Assert.IsTrue(false, this.GetType().Name);
 }

 [TestClass]
 public class SampleA : Sample
 {
 }
 }

 [TestClass]
 public class SampleB : Sample
 {
 }

 [TestClass]
 public class SampleC : SampleExternal
 {
 }

 [TestClass]
 public class SampleD : SampleExternal
 {
 }
</code></pre>

using these, the test for SampleA and SampleB will execute (and fail by design), but SampleC &amp; SampleD will not.

Let's say I have two implementations of a search algorithm that return the same result for the same input. They both implement the same interface.

How can I use a single <code>[TestClass]</code> for testing both implementations, rather then create two test files with eventually the same logic ?

Can I tell MSUnit to launch one of the tests twice with different constructor parameter? 
Perhaps I should (n)inject it somehow ?

same unit test for different implementations

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

假设我有两个搜索算法的实现，它们为相同的输入返回相同的结果。它们都实现相同的接口。我如何使用单个[TestClass]来测试两种实现，而不是创建两个最终具有相同逻辑的测试文件？我可以告诉MSUnit用不同的构造函数参数启动一个测试两次吗？也许我应该以某种方式注入它？

问不同实现的相同单元测试
EN

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问不同实现的相同单元测试EN