Total: 22
.NET Framework
Test
2021
Project Request
ASP.NET MVC • C# • SQL Server
Idea of the project: if someone wants to order a project development, here you can send an application.
Test
2020
ProjectC
ASP.NET MVC • C# • JSON • jQuery
JSON data processing.
Test
2020
Vehicle Maintenance
ASP.NET MVC • VB.NET • JSON
Idea of the project: if someone wants to order a project development, here you can send an application.
Test
2019
Movie Navigator
ASP.NET MVC • VB.NET
Request information about movie from IMDB.
Test
2018
Customers Exchange
ASP.NET MVC • C# • SQL Server
Automated teller machine emulation.
Test
2016
ATM
ASP.NET MVC • C#
Automated teller machine emulation.
.NET Core
Pet project
2022
Mail Daemon
.NET 9 • Console • JSON
Utility to send mails with customizable settings.
Custom
Code
2024
Buns of code
.NET Framework • C# • JavaScript
Code snippets from my projects, ready to use; tiny tests; code examples.
PHP
Test
2024
Mediabox
PHP 8 • Laravel 11 • Vue.js • Composer • SQLite
Test project for media files management.
Test
2020
Loan Castle
PHP • MariaDB
Jums jāizstrādā kāda lielāk projekta prototips. Izstrādājot prototipu, paturiet prātā, ka projektam attīstoties, šo prototipu varētu vajadzēt pilnveidot.
Test
2020
Content Management
PHP • MySQL • AJAX
Создать простой сайт, где будет страница с формой для авторизации и страница для авторизованного пользователя.
Test
2019
Laravel
PHP • Laravel • Vue.js • Composer • SQLite
Izveidot aplikāciju, kura ik pēc noteikta intervāla (60 sekundes) veic ierakstu datubāzē izmantojot Laravel freimworka iebūvēto funkcionalitāti.
Test
2019
Phone Check
PHP • JavaScript • JSON • Docker
Implement application to detect country by phone number.
Frontend
Test
2021
Forex Wall
npm • React
For this exercise, what we need is a simple live wall for tracking currencies.
Business projects
Commercial
2008
Certification Center
.NET Framework 4.8 • ASP.NET Web Forms • C# • LINQ • SQL Server • ADO.NET • Dapper • JavaScript • jQuery • Git
Transport registration and certification services in Latvia, Customer Relationship Management.
Commercial
2000
Amerikas Auto
.NET Framework 4.8 • ASP.NET Web Forms • C# • LINQ • SQL Server • ADO.NET • Entity Framework • JavaScript • jQuery • Git
Car service and spare parts for all USA and European car models, Customer Relationship Management.
Pet projects
Pet project
2023
Geolocation Assistant
.NET 8 • ASP.NET Core • C# • Web API • JSON • Git
Website for determining geolocation by IP or geotagged photo.
Pet project
2008
Web Dynamics
.NET Framework 4.8 • ASP.NET Web Forms • C# • LINQ • Web API • JSON • SQL Server • Dapper • JavaScript • jQuery • SVG • Git
Software development blog. Articles, books, videos, content management.
Pet project
2000
Blackball
.NET Framework 4.8 • ASP.NET Web Forms • C# • LINQ • Web API • JSON • XML • SQL Server • Dapper • JavaScript • jQuery • SVG • Git
My entertainment portal created from scratch.
Good old times
Legacy
2000
DOS Clock
Turbo Pascal • Assembler
Digital clock.
Legacy
2000
BrainOut
Turbo Pascal • Assembler
Tank battle game.
Legacy
1999
Airport Administrator
Turbo Pascal
Курсовая работа в институте.
Legacy
1998
Atomizer
Turbo Pascal • Assembler
Atomizer, aka «Studio2D». Graphic raster editor. AGI is my own «Atomizer Generated Image» file format.
Laravel
2019 TestIzveidot aplikāciju, kura ik pēc noteikta intervāla (60 sekundes) veic ierakstu datubāzē izmantojot Laravel freimworka iebūvēto funkcionalitāti.
PHP
Laravel
Vue.js
Composer
SQLite
Source code
.. index::
single: Reference; Spies
Spies
=====
Spies are a type of test doubles, but they differ from stubs or mocks in that,
that the spies record any interaction between the spy and the System Under Test
(SUT), and allow us to make assertions against those interactions after the fact.
Creating a spy means we don't have to set up expectations for every method call
the double might receive during the test, some of which may not be relevant to
the current test. A spy allows us to make assertions about the calls we care
about for this test only, reducing the chances of over-specification and making
our tests more clear.
Spies also allow us to follow the more familiar Arrange-Act-Assert or
Given-When-Then style within our tests. With mocks, we have to follow a less
familiar style, something along the lines of Arrange-Expect-Act-Assert, where
we have to tell our mocks what to expect before we act on the sut, then assert
that those expectations where met:
.. code-block:: php
// arrange
$mock = \Mockery::mock('MyDependency');
$sut = new MyClass($mock);
// expect
$mock->shouldReceive('foo')
->once()
->with('bar');
// act
$sut->callFoo();
// assert
\Mockery::close();
Spies allow us to skip the expect part and move the assertion to after we have
acted on the SUT, usually making our tests more readable:
.. code-block:: php
// arrange
$spy = \Mockery::spy('MyDependency');
$sut = new MyClass($spy);
// act
$sut->callFoo();
// assert
$spy->shouldHaveReceived()
->foo()
->with('bar');
On the other hand, spies are far less restrictive than mocks, meaning tests are
usually less precise, as they let us get away with more. This is usually a
good thing, they should only be as precise as they need to be, but while spies
make our tests more intent-revealing, they do tend to reveal less about the
design of the SUT. If we're having to setup lots of expectations for a mock,
in lots of different tests, our tests are trying to tell us something - the SUT
is doing too much and probably should be refactored. We don't get this with
spies, they simply ignore the calls that aren't relevant to them.
Another downside to using spies is debugging. When a mock receives a call that
it wasn't expecting, it immediately throws an exception (failing fast), giving
us a nice stack trace or possibly even invoking our debugger. With spies, we're
simply asserting calls were made after the fact, so if the wrong calls were made,
we don't have quite the same just in time context we have with the mocks.
Finally, if we need to define a return value for our test double, we can't do
that with a spy, only with a mock object.
.. note::
This documentation page is an adaption of the blog post titled
`"Mockery Spies" <https://davedevelopment.co.uk/2014/10/09/mockery-spies.html>`_,
published by Dave Marshall on his blog. Dave is the original author of spies
in Mockery.
Spies Reference
---------------
To verify that a method was called on a spy, we use the ``shouldHaveReceived()``
method:
.. code-block:: php
$spy->shouldHaveReceived('foo');
To verify that a method was **not** called on a spy, we use the
``shouldNotHaveReceived()`` method:
.. code-block:: php
$spy->shouldNotHaveReceived('foo');
We can also do argument matching with spies:
.. code-block:: php
$spy->shouldHaveReceived('foo')
->with('bar');
Argument matching is also possible by passing in an array of arguments to
match:
.. code-block:: php
$spy->shouldHaveReceived('foo', ['bar']);
Although when verifying a method was not called, the argument matching can only
be done by supplying the array of arguments as the 2nd argument to the
``shouldNotHaveReceived()`` method:
.. code-block:: php
$spy->shouldNotHaveReceived('foo', ['bar']);
This is due to Mockery's internals.
Finally, when expecting calls that should have been received, we can also verify
the number of calls:
.. code-block:: php
$spy->shouldHaveReceived('foo')
->with('bar')
->twice();
Alternative shouldReceive syntax
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As of Mockery 1.0.0, we support calling methods as we would call any PHP method,
and not as string arguments to Mockery ``should*`` methods.
In cases of spies, this only applies to the ``shouldHaveReceived()`` method:
.. code-block:: php
$spy->shouldHaveReceived()
->foo('bar');
We can set expectation on number of calls as well:
.. code-block:: php
$spy->shouldHaveReceived()
->foo('bar')
->twice();
Unfortunately, due to limitations we can't support the same syntax for the
``shouldNotHaveReceived()`` method.