Search Results

Search found 24383 results on 976 pages for 'configuration testing'.

Page 11/976 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

• Cheap server stress testing

  - by acrosman

  The IT department of the nonprofit organization I work for recently got a new virtual server running CentOS (with Apache and PHP 5), which is supposed to host our website. During the process of setting up the server I discovered that the slightest use of the new machine caused major performance problems (I couldn't extract tarballs without bringing it to a halt). After several weeks of casting about in the dark by tech support, it now appears to be working fine, but I'm still nervous about moving the main site there. I have no budget to work with (so no software or services that require money), although due to recent cut backs I have several older desktops that I could use if it helps. The site doesn't need to withstand massive amounts of traffic (it's a Drupal site just a few thousand visitors a day), but I would like to put it through a bit of it paces before moving the main site over. What are cheap tools that I can use to get a sense if the server can withstand even low levels of traffic? I'm not looking to test the site itself yet, just fundamental operation of the server.

  Read the article

• Separate Action from Assertion in Unit Tests

  - by DigitalMoss

  Setup Many years ago I took to a style of unit testing that I have come to like a lot. In short, it uses a base class to separate out the Arrangement, Action and Assertion of the test into separate method calls. You do this by defining method calls in [Setup]/[TestInitialize] that will be called before each test run. [Setup] public void Setup() { before_each(); //arrangement because(); //action } This base class usually includes the [TearDown] call as well for when you are using this setup for Integration tests. [TearDown] public void Cleanup() { after_each(); } This often breaks out into a structure where the test classes inherit from a series of Given classes that put together the setup (i.e. GivenFoo : GivenBar : WhenDoingBazz) with the Assertions being one line tests with a descriptive name of what they are covering [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } The Problem There are very few tests that wrap around a single action so you end up with lots of classes so recently I have taken to defining the action in a series of methods within the test class itself: [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { because_an_action_was_taken(); Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } private void because_an_action_was_taken() { //perform action here } This results in several "action" methods within the test class but allows grouping of similar tests (i.e. class == WhenTestingDifferentWaysToSetBuzz) The Question Does someone else have a better way of separating out the three 'A's of testing? Readability of tests is important to me so I would prefer that, when a test fails, that the very naming structure of the tests communicate what has failed. If someone can read the Inheritance structure of the tests and have a good idea why the test might be failing then I feel it adds a lot of value to the tests (i.e. GivenClient : GivenUser : WhenModifyingUserPermissions : ThenReadAccessShouldBeTrue). I am aware of Acceptance Testing but this is more on a Unit (or series of units) level with boundary layers mocked. EDIT : My question is asking if there is an event or other method for executing a block of code before individual tests (something that could be applied to specific sets of tests without it being applied to all tests within a class like [Setup] currently does. Barring the existence of this event, which I am fairly certain doesn't exist, is there another method for accomplishing the same thing? Using [Setup] for every case presents a problem either way you go. Something like [Action("Category")] (a setup method that applied to specific tests within the class) would be nice but I can't find any way of doing this.

  Read the article

• Should developers be involved in testing phases?

  - by LudoMC

  Hi, we are using a classical V-shaped development process. We then have requirements, architecture, design, implementation, integration tests, system tests and acceptance. Testers are preparing test cases during the first phases of the project. The issue is that, due to resources issues (*), test phases are too long and are often shortened due to time constraints (you know project managers... ;)). So my question is simple: should developers be involved in the tests phases and isn't it too 'dangerous'. I'm afraid it will give the project managers a false feeling of better quality as the work has been done but would the added man.days be of any value? I'm not really confident of developers doing tests (no offense here but we all know it's quite hard to break in a few clicks what you have made in severals days). Thanks for sharing your thoughts. (*) For obscure reasons, increasing the number of testers is not an option as of today. (Just upfront, it's not a duplicate of Should programmers help testers in designing tests? which talks about test preparation and not test execution, where we avoid the implication of developers)

  Read the article

• DRY, string, and unit testing

  - by Rodrigue

  I have a recurring question when writing unit tests for code that involves constant string values. Let's take an example of a method/function that does some processing and returns a string containing a pre-defined constant. In python, that would be something like: STRING_TEMPLATE = "/some/constant/string/with/%s/that/needs/interpolation/" def process(some_param): # We do some meaningful work that gives us a value result = _some_meaningful_action() return STRING_TEMPLATE % result If I want to unit test process, one of my tests will check the return value. This is where I wonder what the best solution is. In my unit test, I can: apply DRY and use the already defined constant repeat myself and rewrite the entire string def test_foo_should_return_correct_url(): string_result = process() # Applying DRY and using the already defined constant assert STRING_TEMPLATE % "1234" == string_result # Repeating myself, repeating myself assert "/some/constant/string/with/1234/that/needs/interpolation/" == url The advantage I see in the former is that my test will break if I put the wrong string value in my constant. The inconvenient is that I may be rewriting the same string over and over again across different unit tests.

  Read the article

• Testing my model for hybrid scheduling in Embedded Systems

  - by markusian

  I am working on a project for school, where I have to analyze the performances of a few fixed-priority servers algorithms (polling server, deferrable server, priority exchange) using a simulator in the case of hybrid scheduling, where we have both hard periodic tasks and soft aperiodic tasks. In my model I consider that: the hard tasks have a period equal to their deadline, with a known worst case execution time (wcet). The actual execution time could be smaller than the wcet. the soft tasks have a known wcet and random interarrival times. The actual execution time could be smaller than the wcet. In order to test those algorithms I need realistic case studies. For this reason I'm digging in the scientific literature but I am facing different problems: Sometimes I find a list of hard tasks with wcet, but it is not specified how the soft tasks parameters are found. Given the wcet of a task, how can I model its actual execution time? This means, what random distribution should I use considering the wcet? How can I model the random interarrival times of soft aperiodic tasks?

  Read the article

• Unit testing multiple conditions in an IF statement

  - by bwalk2895

  I have a chunk of code that looks something like this: function bool PassesBusinessRules() { bool meetsBusinessRules = false; if (PassesBusinessRule1 && PassesBusinessRule2 && PassesBusinessRule3) { meetsBusinessRules= true; } return meetsBusinessRules; } I believe there should be four unit tests for this particular function. Three to test each of the conditions in the if statement and ensure it returns false. And another test that makes sure the function returns true. Question: Should there actually be ten unit tests instead? Nine that checks each of the possible failure paths. IE: False False False False False True False True False And so on for each possible combination. I think that is overkill, but some of the other members on my team do not. The way I look at it is if BusinessRule1 fails then it should always return false, it doesn't matter if it was checked first or last.

  Read the article

• Should I pass an object into a constructor, or instantiate in class?

  - by Prisoner

  Consider these two examples: Passing an object to a constructor class ExampleA { private $config; public function __construct($config) { $this->config = $config; } } $config = new Config; $exampleA = new ExampleA($config); Instantiating a class class ExampleB { private $config; public function __construct() { $this->config = new Config; } } $exampleA = new ExampleA(); Which is the correct way to handle adding an object as a property? When should I use one over the other? Does unit testing affect what I should use?

  Read the article

• Web Form Testing [closed]

  - by Frank G.

  I created a application for a client that is along the lines of a ticket tracking system. I wanted to know if anyone know of software that could beta test the web forms. Well I am looking for something that could automatically populate/fill whatever forms are on the web page with generic data. The purpose of this is to just randomly populate data and see if I get any errors on the page when submitted plus to also see how validation for the form functions. Does anyone know of anything that could do this?

  Read the article

• Isolating test data in acceptance tests

  - by Matt Phillips

  I'm looking for guidance on how to keep my acceptance tests isolated. Right now the issue I'm having with being able to run the tests in parallel is the database records that are manipulated in the tests. I've written helpers that take care of doing inserts and deletes before tests are executed, to make sure the state is correct. But now I can't run them in parallel against the same database without uniquely generating the test data fields for each test. For example. Testing creating a row i'll delete everything where column A = foo and column B = bar Then I'll navigate through the UI in the test and create a record with column A = foo and column B = bar. Testing that a duplicate row is not allowed to be created. I'll insert a row with column A = foo and column B = bar and then use the UI to try and do the exact same thing. This will display an error message in the UI as expected. These tests work perfectly when ran separately and serially. But I can't run them at the same time for fear that one will create or delete a record the other is expecting. Any tips on how to structure them better so they can be run in parallel?

  Read the article

• Who should write the test plan?

  - by Cheng Kiang

  Hi, I am in the in-house development team of my company, and we develop our company's web sites according to the requirements of the marketing team. Before releasing the site to them for acceptance testing, we were requested to give them a test plan to follow. However, the development team feels that since the requirements came from the requestors, they would have the best knowledge of what to test, what to lookout for, how things should behave etc and a test plan is thus not required. We are always in an argument over this, and developers find it a waste of time to write down things like:- Click on button A. Key in XYZ in the form field and click button B. You should see behaviour C. which we have to repeat for each requirement/feature requested. This is basically rephrasing what's already in the requirements document. We are moving towards using an Agile approach for managing our projects and this is also requested at the end of each iteration. Unit and integration testing aside, who should be the one to come up with the end user acceptance test plan? Should it be the reqestors or the developers? Many thanks in advance. Regards CK

  Read the article

• Automated Acceptance tests under specific contraints

  - by HH_

  This is a follow up to my previous question, which was a bit general, so I'll be asking for a more precise situation. I want to automate acceptance testing on a web application. Briefly, this application allows the user to create contracts for subscribers with the two constraints: You cannot create more than one contract for a subscriber. Once a contract is created, it cannot be deleted (from the UI) Let's say TestCreate is a test case with tests for the normal creation of a contract. The constraints have introduced complexities to the testing process, mainly dependencies between test cases and test executions. Before we run TestCreate we need to make sure that the application is in a suitable state (the subscriber has no contract) If we run TestCreate twice, the second run will fail since the state of the application will have changed. So we need to revert back to the initial state (i.e. delete the contract), which is impossible to do from the UI. More generally, after each test case we should guarantee that the state is reverted back. And since, in this case, it is impossible to do it from the UI, how do you handle this? Possible solution: I thought about doing a backup of the database in the state that I desire, and after each test case, run a script which deletes the db and restores the backup. However, I find that to be too heavy to do for each single test case. In addition, what if some information are stored in files? or in multiple or unaccessible databases? My question: In this situation, what would an experienced tester do to write automated and maintanable tests. Thank you. More info: I'm trying to integrate tests into a BDD framework, which I find to be a neat solution for test documentation and communication, but it does not solve this particular problem (it even makes it harder)

  Read the article

• Writing Acceptance test cases

  - by HH_

  We are integrating a testing process in our SCRUM process. My new role is to write acceptance tests of our web applications in order to automate them later. I have read a lot about how tests cases should be written, but none gave me practical advices to write test cases for complex web applications, and instead they threw conflicting principles that I found hard to apply: Test cases should be short: Take the example of a CMS. Short test cases are easy to maintain and to identify the inputs and outputs. But what if I want to test a long series of operations (eg. adding a document, sending a notification to another user, the other user replies, the document changes state, the user gets a notice). It rather seems to me that test cases should represent complete scenarios. But I can see how this will produce overtly complex test documents. Tests should identify inputs and outputs:: What if I have a long form with many interacting fields, with different behaviors. Do I write one test for everything, or one for each? Test cases should be independent: But how can I apply that if testing the upload operation requires that the connect operation is successful? And how does it apply to writing test cases? Should I write a test for each operation, but each test declares its dependencies, or should I rewrite the whole scenario for each test? Test cases should be lightly-documented: This principles is specific to Agile projects. So do you have any advice on how to implement this principle? Although I thought that writing acceptance test cases was going to be simple, I found myself overwhelmed by every decision I had to make (FYI: I am a developer and not a professional tester). So my main question is: What steps or advices do you have in order to write maintainable acceptance test cases for complex applications. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Should we test all our methods?

  - by Zenzen

  So today I had a talk with my teammate about unit testing. The whole thing started when he asked me "hey, where are the tests for that class, I see only one?". The whole class was a manager (or a service if you prefer to call it like that) and almost all the methods were simply delegating stuff to a DAO so it was similar to: SomeClass getSomething(parameters) { return myDao.findSomethingBySomething(parameters); } A kind of boilerplate with no logic (or at least I do not consider such simple delegation as logic) but a useful boilerplate in most cases (layer separation etc.). And we had a rather lengthy discussion whether or not I should unit test it (I think that it is worth mentioning that I did fully unit test the DAO). His main arguments being that it was not TDD (obviously) and that someone might want to see the test to check what this method does (I do not know how it could be more obvious) or that in the future someone might want to change the implementation and add new (or more like "any") logic to it (in which case I guess someone should simply test that logic). This made me think, though. Should we strive for the highest test coverage %? Or is it simply an art for art's sake then? I simply do not see any reason behind testing things like: getters and setters (unless they actually have some logic in them) "boilerplate" code Obviously a test for such a method (with mocks) would take me less than a minute but I guess that is still time wasted and a millisecond longer for every CI. Are there any rational/not "flammable" reasons to why one should test every single (or as many as he can) line of code?

  Read the article

• Resurrecting a 5,000 line test plan that is a decade old

  - by ale

  I am currently building a test plan for the system I am working on. The plan is 5,000 lines long and about 10 years old. The structure is like this: 1. test title precondition: some W needs to be set up, X needs to be completed action: do some Y postcondition: message saying Z is displayed 2. ... What is this type of testing called ? Is it useful ? It isn't automated.. the tests would have to be handed to some unlucky person to run through and then the results would have to be given to development. It doesn't seem efficient. Is it worth modernising this method of testing (removing tests for removed features, updating tests where different postconditions happen, ...) or would a whole different approach be more appropriate ? We plan to start unit tests but the software requires so much work to actually get 'units' to test - there are no units at present ! Thank you.

  Read the article

• Understanding how software testing works and what to test.

  - by RHaguiuda

  Intro: I've seen lots of topics here on SO about software testing and other terms I don't understand. Problem: As a beginner developer I, unfortunately, have no idea how software testing works, not even how to test a simple function. This is a shame, but thats the truth. I also hope this question can help others beginners developers too. Question: Can you help me to understand this subject a little bit more? Maybe some questions to start would help: When I develop a function, how should I test it? For example: when working with a sum function, should I test every input value possible or just some limits? How about testing functions with strings as parameters? In a big program, do I have to test every single piece of code of it? When you guys program do you test every code written? How automated test works and how can I try one? How tools for automated testing works and what they do? I`ve heard about unit testing. Can I have a brief explanation on this? What is a testing framework? If possible please post some code with examples to clarify the ideas. Any help on this topic is very welcome! Thanks.

  Read the article

• When you should and should not use the 'new' keyword?

  - by skizeey

  I watched a Google Tech Talk presentation on Unit Testing, given by Misko Hevery, and he said to avoid using the new keyword in business logic code. I wrote a program, and I did end up using the new keyword here and there, but they were mostly for instantiating objects that hold data (ie, they didn't have any functions or methods). I'm wondering, did I do something wrong when I used the new keyword for my program. And where can we break that 'rule'?

  Read the article

• Where can I find WebSphere configuration files?

  - by Nicholas Key

  Hi there, I would like to know where are the WebSphere configuration details saved? Specifically, configuration details that are shown in the Administrative Console (from the web) or from the console using wsadmin. Some of the examples would be: Java and Process Management: Class loader, Process definition, Process execution Container Settings: Session management, SIP Container Settings, Web Container Settings, Portlet Container Settings Are there XML files that persist these configuration details? Nicholas

  Read the article

• Checking the configuration of two systems to determine changes

  - by None

  We are standing up a replicant data center at work and need to ensure that the new data center is configured (nearly) identically to the original. The new data center will be differently addressed and named than the original and will have differing user accounts, but all the COTS, patches, and configurations should be the same. We would normally ghost the original servers and install those images onto the new machines, however, we have a few problematic pieces of COTS that require we install them outside of an image due to how they capture the setup of the network during their installation and maintain it within their configuration information (in some cases storing it in various databases). We have tried multiple times and this piece of COTS cannot be captured within a ghost image unless the destination machine will have an identical network setup (all the same IPs, hostnames, user accounts, etc across the entire network) as the original. In truth, it is the setup of these special COTS that I want to audit the most because they are difficult to install and configure in the first place. In light of the fact that we can’t simply ghost, I’m trying to find a reasonable manner to audit the new data center and check to see if it is setup like the original (some sort of system wide configuration audit or integrity check). I’m considering using something like Tripwire for Servers to capture the configuration on the source machines and then run an audit on the destination machines. I understand that it will still show some differences due to the minor config changes, but I’m hoping that it will eliminate the majority of the work. Here are some of the constraints I’m working under: Data center is comprised of multiple Windows and Linux machines of differing versions (about 20 total) I absolutely cannot ghost or snap any other type of image of these machines … at least not in their final configuration I want to audit the final configuration to ensure all of the COTS, patches, configurations, etc are installed and setup properly (as compared to the original data center) I would rather not install any additional tools on these machines … I’d much rather run it from a standalone machine or off a DVD Price of tools is important but not an impossible burden, however, getting a solution soon is important (I can’t take the time to roll my own tools to do this) For the COTS that stores the network information, I don’t know all of the places it stores the network information … so it would be unlikely I could find a way in the near future to adjust its setup after the installation has occurred Anyone have any thoughts or alternate approaches? Can anyone recommend tools that would be usable for system wide configuration audits?

  Read the article

• Apache configuration file visualization/testing

  - by Matt Holgate

  Is there a tool available (or a debug mode built into Apache) that will allow me to interactively test and explain an Apache configuration for a given request? In particular, I'd like to be able to see which directives will apply when requesting a specific URL. For example, the output for the URL http://myserver.com/foo/bar/bar.html might look something like: Allow from 192.168.0.3 <-- From <Location /foo/bar> in myserver.com vhost Require valid user <-- From <Directory /var/www/foo> in global configuration Satisfy any <-- From <File bar.html> in global configuration [Background: why do I want this? The apache merging rules for configuration directives are quite complex to get right. It would be great to have a tool which allows you to check that your rules are doing exactly what you want, and would be a good learning tool]. If there isn't such a tool, is there a debug option in Apache that will log such information for each incoming request?

  Read the article

• Install Oracle Configuration Manager's Standalone Collector

  - by Get Proactive Customer Adoption Team

  Untitled Document The Why and the How If you have heard of Oracle Configuration Manager (OCM), but haven’t installed it, I’m guessing this is for one of two reasons. Either you don’t know how it helps you or you don’t know how to install it. I’ll address both of those reasons today. First, let’s take a quick look at how My Oracle Support and the Oracle Configuration Manager work together to gain a good understanding of what their differences and roles are before we tackle the install.   Oracle Configuration Manger is the tool that actually performs the data collection task. You deploy this lightweight piece of software into your system to collect configuration information about the system and OCM uploads that data to Oracle’s customer configuration repository. Oracle Support Engineers then have the configuration data available when you file a service request. You can also view the data through My Oracle Support. The real value is that the data Oracle Configuration Manager collects can help you avoid problems and get your Service Requests solved more quickly. When you view the information in My Oracle Support’s user interface to OCM, it may help you avoid situations that create problems. The proactive tools included in Oracle Configuration Manager help you avoid issues before they occur. You also save time because you didn’t need to open a service request. For example, you can use this capability when you need to compare your system configuration at two points in time, or monitor the system health. If you make the configuration data available to Oracle Support Engineers, when you need to open a Service Request the data helps them diagnose and resolve your critical system issues more quickly, which means you get answers more quickly too. Quick Installation Process Overview Before we dive into the step-by-step details, let me provide a quick overview. For some of you, this will be all you need. Log in to My Oracle Support and download the data collector from Collector tab. If you don’t see the Collector tab, click the More tab gain access. On the Collector tab, you will find a drop-down list showing which platforms are available. You can also see more ways to the Collector can help you if you click through the carousel of benefits. After you download the software for your platform, use FTP to move that file (.zip) from your PC to the server that hosts the Oracle software. Once you have that file on the server, locate the $ORACLE_HOME directory, and unzip the file within that directory. You can then use the command line tool to start the installation process. The installation process requires the My Oracle Support credential (Support Identifier, username, and password) Proxy specification (Host IP Address, Port number, username and password) Installation Step-by-Step Download the collector zip file from My Oracle Support and place it into your $Oracle_Home Unzip the zip file you downloaded from My Oracle Support – this will create a directory named CCR with several subdirectories Using the command line go to “$ORACLE_HOME/CCR/bin” and run the following command “setupCCR” Provide your My Oracle Support credential: login, password, and Support Identifier The installer will start deploying the collector application You have installed the Collector Post Installation Now that you have installed successfully, the scheduler is ready to collect configuration information for the software available in your Oracle Home. By default, the first collection will take place the day after the installation. If you want to run an instrumentation script to start the configuration collection of your Oracle Database server, E-Business Suite, or Enterprise Manager, you will find more details on that in the Installation and Administration Guide for My Oracle Support Configuration Manager. Related documents available on My Oracle Support Oracle Configuration Manager Installation and Administration Guide [ID 728989.5] Oracle Configuration Manager Prerequisites [ID 728473.5] Oracle Configuration Manager Network Connectivity Test [ID 728970.5] Oracle Configuration Manager Collection Overview [ID 728985.5] Oracle Configuration Manager Security Overview [ID 728982.5] Oracle Software Configuration Manager: Disconnected Mode Collection [ID 453412.1]

  Read the article

• Handling Configuration Changes in Windows Azure Applications

  - by Your DisplayName here!

  While finalizing StarterSTS 1.5, I had a closer look at lifetime and configuration management in Windows Azure. (this is no new information – just some bits and pieces compiled at one single place – plus a bit of reality check) When dealing with lifetime management (and especially configuration changes), there are two mechanisms in Windows Azure – a RoleEntryPoint derived class and a couple of events on the RoleEnvironment class. You can find good documentation about RoleEntryPoint here. The RoleEnvironment class features two events that deal with configuration changes – Changing and Changed. Whenever a configuration change gets pushed out by the fabric controller (either changes in the settings section or the instance count of a role) the Changing event gets fired. The event handler receives an instance of the RoleEnvironmentChangingEventArgs type. This contains a collection of type RoleEnvironmentChange. This in turn is a base class for two other classes that detail the two types of possible configuration changes I mentioned above: RoleEnvironmentConfigurationSettingsChange (configuration settings) and RoleEnvironmentTopologyChange (instance count). The two respective classes contain information about which configuration setting and which role has been changed. Furthermore the Changing event can trigger a role recycle (aka reboot) by setting EventArgs.Cancel to true. So your typical job in the Changing event handler is to figure if your application can handle these configuration changes at runtime, or if you rather want a clean restart. Prior to the SDK 1.3 VS Templates – the following code was generated to reboot if any configuration settings have changed: private void RoleEnvironmentChanging(object sender, RoleEnvironmentChangingEventArgs e) {     // If a configuration setting is changing     if (e.Changes.Any(change => change is RoleEnvironmentConfigurationSettingChange))     {         // Set e.Cancel to true to restart this role instance         e.Cancel = true;     } } This is a little drastic as a default since most applications will work just fine with changed configuration – maybe that’s the reason this code has gone away in the 1.3 SDK templates (more). The Changed event gets fired after the configuration changes have been applied. Again the changes will get passed in just like in the Changing event. But from this point on RoleEnvironment.GetConfigurationSettingValue() will return the new values. You can still decide to recycle if some change was so drastic that you need a restart. You can use RoleEnvironment.RequestRecycle() for that (more). As a rule of thumb: When you always use GetConfigurationSettingValue to read from configuration (and there is no bigger state involved) – you typically don’t need to recycle. In the case of StarterSTS, I had to abstract away the physical configuration system and read the actual configuration (either from web.config or the Azure service configuration) at startup. I then cache the configuration settings in memory. This means I indeed need to take action when configuration changes – so in my case I simply clear the cache, and the new config values get read on the next access to my internal configuration object. No downtime – nice! Gotcha A very natural place to hook up the RoleEnvironment lifetime events is the RoleEntryPoint derived class. But with the move to the full IIS model in 1.3 – the RoleEntryPoint methods get executed in a different AppDomain (even in a different process) – see here.. You might no be able to call into your application code to e.g. clear a cache. Keep that in mind! In this case you need to handle these events from e.g. global.asax.

  Read the article

• Using a service registry that doesn’t suck part I: UDDI is dead

  - by gsusx

  This is the first of a series of posts on which I am hoping to detail some of the most common SOA governance scenarios in the real world, their challenges and the approach we’ve taken to address them in SO-Aware. This series does not intend to be a marketing pitch about SO-Aware. Instead, I would like to use this to foment an honest dialog between SOA governance technologists. For the starting post I decided to focus on the aspect that was once considered the keystone of SOA governance: service discovery...(read more)

  Read the article

• Tellago && Tellago Studios 2010

  - by gsusx

  With 2011 around the corner we, at Tellago and Tellago Studios , we have been spending a lot of times evaluating our successes and failures (yes those too ;)) of 2010 and delineating some of our goals and strategies for 2011. When I look at 2010 here are some of the things that quickly jump off the page: Growing Tellago by 300% Launching a brand new company: Tellago Studios Expanding our customer base Establishing our business intelligence practice http://tellago.com/what-we-say/events/business-intelligence...(read more)

  Read the article

• Survey: how do you unit test your T-SQL?

  - by Alexander Kuznetsov

  How do you unit test your T-SQL? Which libraries/tools do you use? What percentage of your code is covered by unit tests and how do you measure it? Do you think the time and effort which you invested in your unit testing harness has paid off or not? Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!...(read more)

  Read the article

• Junit: splitting integration test and Unit tests.

  - by jeff porter

  Hello all, I've inherited a load of Junit test, but these tests (apart from most not working) are a mixture of actual unit test and integration tests (requiring external systems, db etc). So I'm trying to think of a way to actually separate them out, so that I can run the unit test nice and quickly and the integration tests after that. The options are.. 1: Split them into separate directories. 2: Move to Junit4 and annotate the classes to separate them. 3: Use a file naming convention to tell what a class is , i.e. AdapterATest and AdapterAIntergrationTest. 3 has the issue that Eclipse has the option to "Run all tests in the selected project/package or folder". So it would make it very hard to just run the integration tests. 2: runs the risk that developers might start writing integration tests in unit test classes and it just gets messy. 1: Seems like the neatest solution, but my gut says there must be a better solution out there. So that is my question, how do you lot break apart integration tests and proper unit tests?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >