Ask a Question

These Are Some Useful Hacks To Optimize Your Car Running Expenses

![](https://miro.medium.com/max/720/1*4V6gfoQHu6ENHYk15auzXw.webp) In case you haven’t switched to electric vehicles, there is no doubt that you are unaware of the rising expenses of owning and operating a car. Whether it is the ever-increasing price of fuel or paying for insurance, a vehicle also needs some sort of maintenance or repairs, while you cannot ignore taxes and tolls either. This overwhelming list goes on. So what can you do to keep your vehicle running economically? There are a few adjustments you can make to improvise on a number of things to get the best out of your vehicle and reduce the running cost. Here, we are sharing a list of essential hacks you can apply to improve your car's performance while keeping expenses in check. **Keep your car’s tyres inflated as per the manufacturer's recommendation** ![](https://miro.medium.com/max/720/1*1q6hQEwE2pxUrJqIKB97oA.webp) Underinflated tyres yield resistance while rotating over the road. They tend to have more traction and generate more friction when they come into contact with the ground. In such a situation, the engine has to bear heavier loads to move the vehicle. Therefore, it takes more fuel to consume. Underinflated tyres may reduce the fuel efficiency by up to 10 to 20%. This is huge when it comes to fuel consumption over a longer period of time. Besides, under inflation is not good for a tyre’s health either. If a tyre runs too long in such a condition, it will wear down more rapidly than a tyre with normal pressure. Therefore, you should follow your car’s manufacturer recommendation for proper tire pressure or consult an adviser at Service My Car now. If you need any type of vauxhall service or repair, look no further than Service My Car. Service My Car also has free pick and delivery services as they will pickup your vauxhall car and service at their best [vauxhall service manchester](https://servicemycar.com/uk/vauxhall-service-manchester) center and deliver at to your doorstep. **Always try to maintain a steady speed** ![](https://miro.medium.com/max/720/1*t4IUb1NOv7o0YwKYdXeqfg.webp) Usually, many drivers may develop a misunderstanding about speed and fuel consumption. It revolves around the idea that a vehicle runs fast at high speeds while consuming less fuel. But, this is not correct at all, data suggests that a car consumes more fuel when it runs at 100 km/h or more as compared to 50 km/h. However, a speed lowers than 50 km/h is not a good either. Your engine would drop to a lower gear, thus using up more fuel. In conclusion, a steady 50–80 km/h on the highway is best to achieve optimal fuel economy. **Remain mindful while accelerating and avoid braking forcefully** ![](https://miro.medium.com/max/720/1*-cOFOlsZ0w26oG73ryP9_Q.webp) Cruising might be fun, but not for the engine, it takes a toll on engines when RPMs are high while hampering the fuel consumption. Though a car, especially in moving condition, needs some sort of RPMs, unnecessary revving is a bad habit that results in consuming more fuel than normal. Besides, applying brakes unnecessarily does not produce a better result when it comes to engine efficiency. Each time somebody applies the brakes to stop the car, it takes full strength for your vehicle to pick up. This takes more fuel to consume. Such events happen when your vehicle drives through the traffic lights or tailgates (follows closely behind another vehicle). This does not go well for the brakes either, and you might need brake pad replacement sooner than normal. While driving a vehicle with cruise control, it is better to utilize this technology because it assures a steady speed while driving on the highway. Besides, you can drive a car in a higher gear and not exceed the RPM limits. It is going to help you manage your vehicle’s engine for a long time. Otherwise, you would end up paying for car engine repair while facing hefty bills. You can approach Service My Car for any assistance related to car problems. **Never ignore car maintenance** ![](https://miro.medium.com/max/720/1*nkG447CeRktG6R3e_Z7gvQ.webp) A regular tune-up surely helps improve the performance of a car. There are a few components that need attention regularly so they can offer their best services. A spark plugs replacement solves the problem of improper ignition, an air filter replacement makes the breathing of a car proper so that it can receive a proper air/fuel mixture. It is the coolant level that should be intact to keep engine temperature in check. Though car maintenance requires spending some money, such an expense is well compensated when you will be able to avoid those hefty bills for major repairs. A car that has been well maintained is much less likely to accrue expensive repair costs or break down than one that hasn't been taken care of. Regular fundamental inspections are necessary and make a car to fight all the odds on the road. Besides, if a warning light appears on your dashboard or you hear something strange, this also proves to be helpful in maintaining your car for a long time while informing you about potential risk. Although it may be alluring to ignore a problem in the hopes that it will go away, doing so will cost you more money in the long run and could even result in a breakdown or accident. These above-mentioned advices always prove impactful when you actually take them into consideration. However, you may need a professional on whom you can rely. Service My Car offers a number of services for car maintenance and repair. However, you have to book a car service or order a car repair quote on our website or app.


Are there any examples of using SpecsFor with NUnit's RowTests? (Now called TestCase, I believe) I'd like to replace some SpecFlow (ewww) tests with SpecsFor, but they're making heavy use of the table inputs. The modern NUnit equivalent seems to be the TestCase attribute, but where would it go? It's normally used in place of the [Test] attribute, but the parameters really should be going to the When method. I could just ditch the When, use TestCase and be done with it, but I guess I'm looking for the "yup, that's how you do it" here.

How to upgrade SpecFor to use the Latest NUnit

Want to run tests in VSTS. No tests seems to be running.

Using ConfigureContainer to pass an IEnumerable<T> isn't playing nice

I'm trying to write a spec for a class that takes as its ctor parameter an IEnumerable<T> object. I'm overriding ConfigureContainer and specifying a List<T> of real objects however the sut isn't seeing those values. Any ideas?


I have a test I need to write that is for a static method on a static class. Since I don't need a SUT to be created, I don't really have anything to put between the angle brackets on the base class. I could just not inherit from SpecsFor at all, but then I have one mutant test that doesn't match the others in terms of style. I'd like to keep the pattern of overriding Given and When for consistency with my other tests. Is there an established or generally accepted pattern for this? I can inherit from SpecsFor<object> and it doesn't seem to complain, but can I count on this in the future?

Constructor will be called before calling Given()-method

Hello, I am using SpecsFor in Version 4.4.0. My application logic has a constructor and uses a Unity-Container like this: namespace SpecsFor_Unity { public class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { } public Program(object anyParameter, IUnityContainer unityContainer) { var foo = unityContainer.Resolve<IFoo>(); if (foo == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(foo)); } } public void DoSomething() { } } } My test class Looks like this: namespace SpecsFor_Unity_Test { public class UnitTest1 : SpecsFor<Program> { protected override void Given() { var unityContainer = new UnityContainer(); unityContainer.RegisterType<IFoo, Foo>(); var program = new Program(new object(), unityContainer); } protected override void When() { SUT.DoSomething(); } [Test] public void then_check_anything() { } } } The problem is: the ArgumentNullException will be thrown after resolving unity reference, because constructor is called before Given()-method. I expected that constructor of Program is called within Given()-method. What am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance! Kind regards, Stefan

Verification of list parameters

I'm trying to verify a call was made to a repository AddRange method. I can verify the method was called at all like this: ``` GetMockFor<IThingRepository>() .Verify(x => x.AddRange(It.IsAny<IEnumerable<Thing>>()), Times.Once); ``` I can verify that it was passed the expected two objects using some of Moq's partial matching like this: ``` GetMockFor<IThingRepository>() .Verify(x => x.AddRange(It.Is<IEnumerable<Thing>>(y => y.Count() == 2 && y.Any(z => z.ThingType == ThingType.Foo) && y.Any(z => z.ThingType == ThingType.Bar)))); ``` What I can't seem to do is get it to work using a more understandable partial matching syntax like this: ``` GetMockFor<IThingRepository>() .Verify(x => x.AddRange(Looks.Like(() => new[] { new Thing {ThingType = ThingType.Foo}, new Thing {ThingType = ThingType.Bar}, }))); ``` In every case, the code runs but the verify fails saying the method was never called. I looked through the documentation examples, and while they cover the partial matching functionality, they don't have an example of partial matching a collection of things like this. I know the partial matching can do hierarchies, but what about collections? I've even tried replacing the objects in the list with their own individual Looks.Likes: ``` GetMockFor<IThingRepository>() .Verify(x => x.AddRange( Looks.Like(() => new[] { Looks.Like(()=>new Thing {ThingType = ThingType.Foo}), Looks.Like(()=>new Thing {ThingType = ThingType.Bar}), }))); ``` Because of the way this particular code is written, the order of the elements being added is predictable, so I've eliminated that variable, although a partial match that could ignore ordering would be pretty awesome. What am I doing wrong here?

Installation - SpecsFor

Hi Matt: I've spent a frustrating couple of hours trying to install SpecsFor on a new test project in Visual Studion 2015. It first gave me the error that Moq or one of the dependencies was not the same one referenced in the assembly. I then ran the command Add-BindingRedirect in the package manager for the test project. Now I'm getting the message that SetUp : SpecsFor.WhenSpecificationException : An error occurred during the spec 'When' phase. -------------------------------------------------------------------- System.InvalidOperationException: No Entity Framework provider found for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient'. Make sure the provider is registered in the 'entityFramework' section of the application config file. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. I note that a couple of the dependencies seem to have new major versions which are not referenced by your package. I think for now I'll abandon SpecsFor and just install the latest versions of Moq, Nunit and Should... Regards, Roger

Problem with 2015/4.5

I see that there's a fork project that says it's for VS 2015 and .Net 4.6, but I'm on a project using 4.5, and I can't seem to get SpecsFor.MVC working. The regular version fails to install right, complaining that the browser drivers already exist. I can push past that by trying the install multiple times, but I still don't end up with a SpecsFor.Mvc reference in the project, even though the NuGet package seems to think it should be there. I tried the fork project, but didn't have any better luck there since it wants to reference a higher version of the System.Web.Mvc assembly. Is there anything else I should try?

Primitive dependencies

Moq has a way of specifying values for primitive dependencies. Is there any way to explain this to SpecsFor without completely taking over the SUT construction via InitializeClassUnderTest? In my case, I'm mocking out a repository that takes some paging and result limits at construction time. As such, I need to provide an integer to the constructor or face an error like "Int32 limit = Required primitive dependency is not explicitly defined"