• looks interesting, but seems like a lot of overkill for what could be as simple as attach / detach of database files stored in source control. here's our formula:

    MDF / LDF files stored in Subversion, along with schema scripts, stored proc / function files, etc...

    revert svn working copy (in case of failure below)
    attach database
    build database - run schema/procs/etc...
    run tests
    detach database
    revert svn working copy

    I have setup-database and teardown-database targets in NAnt that perform the required functionality. (plus a wrapper reset-database target for devs to run locally when the codeline changes) Attach / detach are extremely fast operations, coupled with the svn revert - been very happy with the results.

  • If your database is SQL Server 2005
    you can do the same with two lines of TSQL

    -- Create the Snapshot
    ( NAME = , FILENAME = 'PathAndFileName ')

    -- and later restore the DB
    DATABASE_SNAPSHOT = 'SnapshotName;

    The nice thing about SQL 2005 snapshots is that the snapshot creation is instantaneous (SQL uses copy on write to fill the snapshot with data, so it just includes the diff. from the original database as you commit changes)


  • There are certainly other ways to accomplish this. What makes dataFresh stand out is speed and the minimal amount of disk IO required for the refresh task. We use standard features of sql to track what tables are being modified and our refresh command only refreshes those tables. dataFresh was built out of necessity -- we have over 3,000 unit tests. We used to use a strategy that dropped the entire database and reran the setup data script when ever a change was detected. This could take anywhere from 2 - 4 seconds. This time adds up quickly! On a typical database write test, dataFresh runs in less than a second. By integrating dataFresh alone we reduced our build time from two hours to just under one.

  • Ian:
    True - It's not realy a "unit test" if you do DB work in there. It's an Integration test if anything. The problem is you are using the unit test framework to accomplish it so the lines feels a bit blurry.
    I don't consider it a "smell" really. I think DB unoit testing (integration testing really) is essential for testing you data layer along with teh database because you need to make sure it works well with the database. Mocking the DB isn't realistic IMHO as it still leaves you with bugs you don't know about on the DB which you only find out in integration (unless you use something like SQL unit which is pretty hard to use right now).
    You can read the article I'm pointing to find out more about my view on this, or you can download the first chapter of my upcoming book "The art of unit testing" fomr here:
    http://the.artofunittesting.com which talks about what is the difference between unit and integration tests, among other things.


  • Roy:

    Great I think we are on the same page on integration tests. I think its just important to try and point out this difference as a lot of advice .NET developers in this area talks about how to talk to the DB, less how not to.

Comments have been disabled for this content.