Search Results

Search found 97532 results on 3902 pages for 'user acceptance testing'.

Page 113/3902 | < Previous Page | 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120  | Next Page >

• Windows Service with a Logon user set

  - by David.Chu.ca

  I have a service running in a box with Windows XP and a box of Server (2008). The service is configured as autmactic mode with a logon user/pwd set. The log on user is a local user. The service requires this user setting in order to run. The issue I have right now is that the box intermittently reboot itself. I am going to investigate what is causing the reboot (hardware or application). Regardless the reason, what I need is that the service should be able to recover itself into running state after the reboot. I think the configuration should be able achieve this goal since the user/pwd having been set and its mode being automatic. Do I need to log in as that user to bring the service back? (sometimes the reboot happens in the midnight) I am not sure if there is any difference between Windows XP and Windows Server (2008). The only thing I realize is that when there is a unexpected reboot, the Windows Server will prompt a dialog to explain the previous reboot. Will this prevent any automatic service running or the service will run only the reason has been set?

  Read the article

• Authenticated User Impersonation in Classic ASP under IIS7

  - by user52663

  I've recently moved one of our servers from Server 2003 and IIS6 to Server 2008 R2 and IIS7 (technically IIS7.5 I suppose). In doing so I am transitioning a small account management tool written in classic ASP and have run into a problem with user impersonation. Extensive searching hasn't been much help so far. Under IIS6, the site was configured to impersonate the logged-in user. Thus, if a domain admin logged in, he was able to run commands to create user directories, adjust permissions, etc. Using Procmon you can see the processes executing as that user. This worked fine. However, with the same code under IIS7, I am unable to get this behavior. I have enabled Basic Authentication, disabled Anonymous Auth, enabled impersonation and have changed the app pool to classic instead of integrated pipelining. Everything seems to be configured correctly, however, all the processes launched by the classic ASP site continue to run as the default AppPool identity and not the logged-in user. If it matters, programs are being launched with code such as: set Wsh = Server.CreateObject("WScript.Shell") Wsh.Run("cmd.exe /C mkdir D:\users\foo") Monitoring via Procmon shows cmd.exe being run as either "Classic .NET AppPool" or "DefaultAppPool" depending on the pipeline mode. Any suggestions on how to get the classic ASP site to impersonate and execute as the authenticated user would be great. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Proper way to let user enter password for a bash script using only the GUI (with the terminal hidden)

  - by MountainX

  I have made a bash script that uses kdialog exclusively for interacting with the user. It is launched from a ".desktop" file so the user never sees the terminal. It looks 100% like a GUI app (even though it is just a bash script). It runs in KDE only (Kubuntu 12.04). My only problem is handling password input securely and conveniently. I can't find a satisfactory solution. The script was designed to be run as a normal user and to prompt for the password when a sudo command is first needed. In this way, most commands, those not requiring sudo rights, are run as the normal user. What happens (when the script is run from the terminal) is that the user is prompted for their password once and the default sudo timeout allows the script to finish, including any additional sudo commands, without prompting the user again. This is how I want it to work when run behind the GUI too. The main problem is that using kdesudo to launch my script, which is the standard GUI way, means that the entire script is executed by the root user. So file ownerships get assigned to the root user, I can't rely upon ~/ in paths, and many other things are less than ideal. Running the entire script as the root user is just a very unsatisfactory solution and I think it is a bad practice. I appreciate any ideas for letting a user enter the sudo password just once via GUI while not running the whole script as root. Thanks.

  Read the article

• The use of Test-Driven Development in Non-Greenfield Projects?

  - by JHarley1

  So here is a question for you, having read some great answers to questions such as "Test-Driven Development - Convince Me". So my question is: "Can Test-Driven Development be used effectively on non-Greenfield projects?" To specify: I would really like to know if people have had experience in using TDD in projects where there was already non-TDD elements present? And the problems that they then faced.

  Read the article

• TDD vs. Productivity

  - by Nairou

  In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

  Read the article

• How does TDD address interaction between objects?

  - by Gigi

  TDD proponents claim that it results in better design and decoupled objects. I can understand that writing tests first enforces the use of things like dependency injection, resulting in loosely coupled objects. However, TDD is based on unit tests - which test individual methods and not the integration between objects. And yet, TDD expects design to evolve from the tests themselves. So how can TDD possibly result in a better design at the integration (i.e. inter-object) level when the granularity it addresses is finer than that (individual methods)?

  Read the article

• How to test the render speed of my solution in a web browser?

  - by Cuartico

  Ok, I need to test the speed of my solution in a web browser, but I have some problems, there are 2 versions of the web solution, the original one that is on server A and the "fixed" version that is on server B. I have VS2010 Ultimate, so I can make a web and load test on solution B, but I can't load the A solution on my IDE. I was trying to use fiddle2 and jmeter, but they only gave me the times of the request and response of the browsers with the server, I also want the time it takes to the browser to render the whole page. Maybe I'm misusing some of this tools... I don't know if this could be usefull but: Solution A is on VB 6.0 Solution B is on VB.Net Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Colleague unwilling to use unit tests "as it's more to code"

  - by m.edmondson

  A colleague is unwilling to use unit tests and instead opting for a quick test, pass it to the users, and if all is well it is published live. Needless to say some bugs do get through. I mentioned we should think about using unit tests - but she was all against it once it was realised more code would have to be written. This leaves me in the position of modifying something and not being sure the output is the same, especially as her code is spaghetti and I try to refactor it when I get a chance. So whats the best way forward for me?

  Read the article

• How can I unit test a class which requires a web service call?

  - by Chris Cooper

  I'm trying to test a class which calls some Hadoop web services. The code is pretty much of the form: method() { ...use Jersey client to create WebResource... ...make request... ...do something with response... } e.g. there is a create directory method, a create folder method etc. Given that the code is dealing with an external web service that I don't have control over, how can I unit test this? I could try and mock the web service client/responses but that breaks the guideline I've seen a lot recently: "Don't mock objects you don't own". I could set up a dummy web service implementation - would that still constitute a "unit test" or would it then be an integration test? Is it just not possible to unit test at this low a level - how would a TDD practitioner go about this?

  Read the article

• Grant a user permissions on www-data owned /var/www

  - by George Pearce

  I have a simple web server setup for some websites, with a layout something like: site1: /var/www/site1/public_html/ site2: /var/www/site2/public_html/ I have previously used the root user to manage files, and then given them back to www-data when I was done (WordPress sites, needed for WP Uploads to work). This probably isn't the best way. I'm trying to find a way to create another user (lets call it user1) that has permission to edit files in site1, but not site2, and doesn't stop the files being 'owned' by www-data. Is there any way for me to do this?

  Read the article

• Is it OK to have multiple asserts in a single unit test?

  - by Restuta

  I think that there are some cases when multiple assertions are needed (e.g. Guard Assertion), but in general I try to avoid this. What is your opinion? Please provide a real word examples when multiple asserts are really needed. Thanks! Edit In the comment to this great post Roy Osherove pointed to the OAPT project that is designed to run each assert in a single test. This is written on projects home page: Proper unit tests should fail for exactly one reason, that’s why you should be using one assert per unit test. And also Roy wrote in comments: My guideline is usually that you test one logical CONCEPT per test. you can have multiple asserts on the same object. they will usually be the same concept being tested.

  Read the article

• Test case as a function or test case as a class

  - by GodMan

  I am having a design problem in test automation:- Requirements - Need to test different servers (using unix console and not GUI) through automation framework. Tests which I'm going to run - Unit, System, Integration Question: While designing a test case, I am thinking that a Test Case should be a part of a test suite (test suite is a class), just as we have in Python's pyunit framework. But, should we keep test cases as functions for a scalable automation framework or should be keep test cases as separate classes(each having their own setup, run and teardown methods) ? From automation perspective, Is the idea of having a test case as a class more scalable, maintainable or as a function?

  Read the article

• Is there an established or defined best practice for source control branching between development and production builds?

  - by Matthew Patrick Cashatt

  Thanks for looking. I struggled in how to phrase my question, so let me give an example in hopes of making more clear what I am after: I currently work on a dev team responsible for maintaining and adding features to a web application. We have a development server and we use source control (TFS). Each day everyone checks in their code and when the code (running on the dev server) passes our QA/QC program, it goes to production. Recently, however, we had a bug in production which required an immediate production fix. The problem was that several of us developers had code checked in that was not ready for production so we had to either quickly complete and QA the code, or roll back everything, undo pending changes, etc. In other words, it was a mess. This made me wonder: Is there an established design pattern that prevents this type of scenario. It seems like there must be some "textbook" answer to this, but I am unsure what that would be. Perhaps a development branch of the code and a "release-ready" or production branch of the code?

  Read the article

• How to TDD test that objects are being added to a collection if the collection is private?

  - by Joshua Harris

  Assume that I planned to write a class that worked something like this: public class GameCharacter { private Collection<CharacterEffect> _collection; public void Add(CharacterEffect e) { ... } public void Remove(CharacterEffect e) { ... } public void Contains(CharacterEffect e) { ... } } When added an effect does something to the character and is then added to the _collection. When it is removed the effect reverts the change to the character and is removed from the _collection. It's easy to test if the effect was applied to the character, but how do I test that the effect was added to _collection? What test could I write to start constructing this class. I could write a test where Contains would return true for a certain effect being in _collection, but I can't arrange a case where that function would return true because I haven't implemented the Add method that is needed to place things in _collection. Ok, so since Contains is dependent on having Add working, then why don't I try to create Add first. Well for my first test I need to try and figure out if the effect was added to the _collection. How would I do that? The only way to see if an effect is in _collection is with the Contains function. The only way that I could think to test this would be to use a FakeCollection that Mocks the Add, Remove, and Contains of a real collection, but I don't want _collection being affected by outside sources. I don't want to add a setEffects(Collection effects) function, because I do not want the class to have that functionality. The one thing that I am thinking could work is this: public class GameCharacter<C extends Collection> { private Collection<CharacterEffect> _collection; public GameCharacter() { _collection = new C<CharacterEffect>(); } } But, that is just silly making me declare what some private data structures type is on every declaration of the character. Is there a way for me to test this without breaking TDD principles while still allowing me to keep my collection private?

  Read the article

• Is it useful to unit test methods where the only logic is guards?

  - by Vaccano

  Say I have a method like this: public void OrderNewWidget(Widget widget) { if ((widget.PartNumber > 0) && (widget.PartAvailable)) { WigdetOrderingService.OrderNewWidgetAsync(widget.PartNumber); } } I have several such methods in my code (the front half to an async Web Service call). I am debating if it is useful to get them covered with unit tests. Yes there is logic here, but it is only guard logic. (Meaning I make sure I have the stuff I need before I allow the web service call to happen.) Part of me says "sure you can unit test them, but it is not worth the time" (I am on a project that is already behind schedule). But the other side of me says, if you don't unit test them, and someone changes the Guards, then there could be problems. But the first part of me says back, if someone changes the guards, then you are just making more work for them (because now they have to change the guards and the unit tests for the guards). For example, if my service assumes responsibility to check for Widget availability then I may not want that guard any more. If it is under unit test, I have to change two places now. I see pros and cons in both ways. So I thought I would ask what others have done.

  Read the article

• Advantages of Hudson and Sonar over manual process or homegrown scripts.

  - by Tom G

  My coworker and I recently got into a debate over a proposed plan at our workplace. We've more or less finished transitioning our Java codebase into one managed and built with Maven. Now, I'd like for us to integrate with Hudson and Sonar or something similar. My reasons for this are that it'll provide a 'zero-click' build step to provide testers with new experimental builds, that it will let us deploy applications to a server more easily, that tools such as Sonar will provide us with well-needed metrics on code coverage, Javadoc, package dependencies and the like. He thinks that the overhead of getting up to speed with two new frameworks is unacceptable, and that we should simply double down on documentation and create our own scripts for deployment. Since we plan on some aggressive rewrites to pay down the technical debt previous developers incurred (gratuitous use of Java's Serializable interface as a file storage mechanism that has predictably bit us in the ass) he argues that we can document as we go, and that we'll end up changing a large swath of code in the process anyways. I contend that having accurate metrics that Sonar (or fill in your favorite similar tool) provide gives us a good place to start for any refactoring efforts, not to mention general maintenance -- after all, knowing which classes are the most poorly documented, even if it's just a starting point, is better than seat-of-the-pants guessing. Am I wrong, and trying to introduce more overhead than we really need? Some more background: an alumni of our company is working at a Navy research lab now and suggested these two tools in particular as one they've had great success with using. My coworker and I have also had our share of friendly disagreements before -- he's more of the "CLI for all, compiles Gentoo in his spare time and uses Git" and I'm more of a "Give me an intuitive GUI, plays with XNA and is fine with SVN" type, so there's definitely some element of culture clash here.

  Read the article

• Customer Webcast: Alcatel-Lucent Creates a Modern User Experience

  - by [email protected]

  Today, customer satisfaction is critical to a company's long-term success. With customers searching the internet to find new solutions and offerings, it's more important than ever to deliver a modern and engaging user experience that's both interactive and community-based. Join us on June 30th for this exclusive LIVE Webcast with Saeed Hosseiniyar, CIO of Alcatel-Lucent's Enterprise Products Group, and Andy MacMillan, Vice President of Product Management for Oracle's Enterprise 2.0 Solutions. You'll learn how a modern customer service portal with integrated Web 2.0 and social media features can: Improve customer satisfaction by delivering rich, personalized and interactive content Speed product development by facilitating participation and feedback from customers through online communities Improve ROI with a unified platform that delivers content to employees, partners and customers You'll walk away with concrete strategies, best practices and real-world insights on how to transform your company's brand with a next-generation customer service and support site. Register today for this complimentary live Webcast!

  Read the article

• TDD vs. Productivity

  - by Nairou

  In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

  Read the article

• Is there any way to test how will the site perform under load

  - by Pankaj Upadhyay

  I have made an Asp.net MVC website and hosted it on a shared hosting provider. Since my website surrounds a very generic idea, it might have number of concurrent users sometime in future. So, I was thinking of a way to test my website for on-load performance. Like how will the site perform when 100 or 1000 users are online at the same time and surfing the website. This will also make me understand whether my LINQ queries are well written or not.

  Read the article

• Are there any books dedicated to writing test code? [on hold]

  - by joshin4colours

  There are many programming books dedicated to useful programming and engineering topics, like working with legacy code or particular languages. The best of these books become "standard" or "canonical" references for professional programmers. Are there any books like this (or that could be like this) for writing test code? I don't mean books about Test-Driven Development, nor do I mean books about writing good (clean) code in general. I'm looking for books that discuss test code specifically (unit-level, integration-level, UI-level, design patterns, code structures and organization, etc.)

  Read the article

• What is the correct way to handle debug output in Java?

  - by Federico Zancan

  As my current Java projects grow bigger and bigger, I feel a likewise growing need to insert debug output in several points of my code. To enable or disable this feature appropriately, depending on the opening or closure of the test sessions, I usually put a private static final boolean DEBUG = false at the beginning of the classes my tests are inspecting, and trivially use it this way (for example): public MyClass { private static final boolean DEBUG = false; ... some code ... public void myMethod(String s) { if (DEBUG) { System.out.println(s); } } } and the like. But that doesn't bliss me out, because of course it works but there could be too many classes in which to set DEBUG to true, if you are not staring at just a couple of them. Conversely, I (like - I think - many others) wouldn't love to put the whole application in debug mode, as the amount of text being output could be overwhelming. So, is there a correct way to architecturally handle such situation or the most correct way is to use the DEBUG class member?

  Read the article

• Do you write common pre-conditions for a large number of unit test cases ?

  - by Vinoth Kumar

  I have heard/read writing common pre-conditions for a large number of test cases is a bad thing, since this dependency may cause large number of test cases to fail if something changes . What are your thoughts on it ? If this is so , then what exactly is the purpose of setUp() method in Junit that runs before each test case ? If the same code inside setUp() runs before each test case , why cant it run only once before running all the test cases together ?

  Read the article

• How do I inject test objects when the real objects are created dynamically?

  - by JW01

  I want to make a class testable using dependency injection. But the class creates multiple objects at runtime, and passes different values to their constructor. Here's a simplified example: public abstract class Validator { private ErrorList errors; public abstract void validate(); public void addError(String text) { errors.add( new ValidationError(text)); } public int getNumErrors() { return errors.count() } } public class AgeValidator extends Validator { public void validate() { addError("first name invalid"); addError("last name invalid"); } } (There are many other subclasses of Validator.) What's the best way to change this, so I can inject a fake object instead of ValidationError? I can create an AbstractValidationErrorFactory, and inject the factory instead. This would work, but it seems like I'll end up creating tons of little factories and factory interfaces, for every dependency of this sort. Is there a better way?

  Read the article

• Vancouver .NET User Group

  - by pluginbaby

  While in Vancouver for my Silverlight training in early May, I will give a free Silverlight presentation at the local .NET User Group, .netBC. When: May 5, 2010, 6:30 PM Where: Building SW3 room 1750, BCIT Burnaby Campus, 3700 Willingdon Ave, Burnaby, BC, V5G 3H2 What: Silverlight 4 Business Applications “In this session a live demo will be built to show the new features of Silverlight 4 that helps you create business-oriented applications easier than ever. Importing/exporting data, printing, drag drop target, data visualization, context menu, WCF RIA Services and design-time enhancements in Visual Studio 2010.” Read all the details here: http://www.netbc.ca/DNCal/EventDetail.aspx?date=2010/05/05 See you there!   Thanks Telerik for helping this event to happen!   Technorati Tags: Silverlight,Silverlight Training

  Read the article

• bug: deviation from requirements vs deviation from expectations

  - by user970696

  I am not clear on this one. No matter the terminology, in the end the software fault/bug causes (according to a lot of sources): Deviation from requirements Devation from expectations But if the expectations are not in requirements, then stakeholder could see a bug everywhere as he expected it to be like this or that..So how can I really know? I did read that specification can miss things and then of course its expected but not specified (by mistake).

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120  | Next Page >