Search Results

Search found 6839 results on 274 pages for 'functional tests'.

Page 12/274 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • Run Your Tests With Any NUnit Version

    - by Alois Kraus
    I always thought that the NUnit test runners and the test assemblies need to reference the same NUnit.Framework version. I wanted to be able to run my test assemblies with the newest GUI runner (currently 2.5.3). Ok so all I need to do is to reference both NUnit versions the newest one and the official for the current project. There is a nice article form Kent Bogart online how to reference the same assembly multiple times with different versions. The magic works by referencing one NUnit assembly with an alias which does prefix all types inside it. Then I could decorate my tests with the TestFixture and Test attribute from both NUnit versions and everything worked fine except that this was ugly. After playing a little bit around to make it simpler I found that I did not need to reference both NUnit.Framework assemblies. The test runners do not require the TestFixture and Test attribute in their specific version. That is really neat since the test runners are instructed by attributes what to do in a declarative way there is really no need to tie the runners to a specific version. At its core NUnit has this little method hidden to find matching TestFixtures and Tests   public bool CanBuildFrom(Type type) {     if (!(!type.IsAbstract || type.IsSealed))     {         return false;     }     return (((Reflect.HasAttribute(type,           "NUnit.Framework.TestFixtureAttribute", true) ||               Reflect.HasMethodWithAttribute(type, "NUnit.Framework.TestAttribute"       , true)) ||               Reflect.HasMethodWithAttribute(type, "NUnit.Framework.TestCaseAttribute"   , true)) ||               Reflect.HasMethodWithAttribute(type, "NUnit.Framework.TheoryAttribute"     , true)); } That is versioning and backwards compatibility at its best. I tell NUnit what to do by decorating my tests classes with NUnit Attributes and the runner executes my intent without the need to bind me to a specific version. The contract between NUnit versions is actually a bit more complex (think of AssertExceptions) but this is also handled nicely by using not the concrete type but simply to check for the catched exception type by string. What can we learn from this? Versioning can be easy if the contract is small and the users of your library use it in a declarative way (Attributes). Everything beyond it will force you to reference several versions of the same assembly with all its consequences. Type equality is lost between versions so none of your casts will work. That means that you cannot simply use IBigInterface in two versions. You will need a wrapper to call the correct versioned one. To get out of this mess you can use one (and only one) version agnostic driver to encapsulate your business logic from the concrete versions. This is of course more work but as NUnit shows it can be easy. Simplicity is therefore not a nice thing to have but also requirement number one if you intend to make things more complex in version two and want to support any version (older and newer). Any interaction model above easy will not be maintainable. There are different approached to versioning. Below are my own personal observations how versioning works within the  .NET Framwork and NUnit.   Versioning Models 1. Bug Fixing and New Isolated Features When you only need to fix bugs there is no need to break anything. This is especially true when you have a big API surface. Microsoft did this with the .NET Framework 3.0 which did leave the CLR as is but delivered new assemblies for the features WPF, WCF and Windows Workflow Foundations. Their basic model was that the .NET 2.0 assemblies were declared as red assemblies which must not change (well mostly but each change was carefully reviewed to minimize the risk of breaking changes as much as possible) whereas the new green assemblies of .NET 3,3.5 did not have such obligations since they did implement new unrelated features which did not have any impact on the red assemblies. This is versioning strategy aimed at maximum compatibility and the delivery of new unrelated features. If you have a big API surface you should strive hard to do the same or you will break your customers code with every release. 2. New Breaking Features There are times when really new things need to be added to an existing product. The .NET Framework 4.0 did change the CLR in many ways which caused subtle different behavior although the API´s remained largely unchanged. Sometimes it is possible to simply recompile an application to make it work (e.g. changed method signature void Func() –> bool Func()) but behavioral changes need much more thought and cannot be automated. To minimize the impact .NET 2.0,3.0,3.5 applications will not automatically use the .NET 4.0 runtime when installed but they will keep using the “old” one. What is interesting is that a side by side execution model of both CLR versions (2 and 4) within one process is possible. Key to success was total isolation. You will have 2 GCs, 2 JIT compilers, 2 finalizer threads within one process. The two .NET runtimes cannot talk  (except via the usual IPC mechanisms) to each other. Both runtimes share nothing and run independently within the same process. This enables Explorer plugins written for the CLR 2.0 to work even when a CLR 4 plugin is already running inside the Explorer process. The price for isolation is an increased memory footprint because everything is loaded and running two times.   3. New Non Breaking Features It really depends where you break things. NUnit has evolved and many different Assert, Expect… methods have been added. These changes are all localized in the NUnit.Framework assembly which can be easily extended. As long as the test execution contract (TestFixture, Test, AssertException) remains stable it is possible to write test executors which can run tests written for NUnit 10 because the execution contract has not changed. It is possible to write software which executes other components in a version independent way but this is only feasible if the interaction model is relatively simple.   Versioning software is hard and it looks like it will remain hard since you suddenly work in a severely constrained environment when you try to innovate and to keep everything backwards compatible at the same time. These are contradicting goals and do not play well together. The easiest way out of this is to carefully watch what your customers are doing with your software. Minimizing the impact is much easier when you do not need to guess how many people will be broken when this or that is removed.

    Read the article

  • How can I decide what to test manually, and what to trust to automated tests?

    - by bhazzard
    We have a ton of developers and only a few QA folks. The developers have been getting more involved in qa throughout the development process by writing automated tests, but our QA practices are mostly manual. What I'd love is if our development practices were BDD and TDD and we grew a robust test suite. The question is: While building such a testing suite, how can we decide what we can trust to the tests, and what we should continue testing manually?

    Read the article

  • Rescue overdue offshore projects and convince management to use automated tests

    - by oazabir
    I have published two articles on codeproject recently. One is a story where an offshore project was two months overdue, my friend who runs it was paying the team from his own pocket and he was drowning in ever increasing number of change requests and how we brainstormed together to come out of that situation. Tips and Tricks to rescue overdue projects Next one is about convincing management to go for automated test and give developers extra time per sprint, at the cost of reduced productivity for couple of sprints. It’s hard to negotiate this with even dev leads, let alone managers. Whenever you tell them - there’s going to be less features/bug fixes delivered for next 3 or 4 sprints because we want to automate the tests and reduce manual QA effort; everyone gets furious and kicks you out of the meeting. Especially in a startup where every sprint is jam packed with new features and priority bug fixes to satisfy various stakeholders, including the VCs, it’s very hard to communicate the benefits of automated tests across the board. Let me tell you of a story of one of my startups where I had the pleasure to argue on this and came out victorious. How to convince developers and management to use automated test instead of manual test If you like these, please vote for me!

    Read the article

  • Does "Value Restriction" mean that there is no higher order functional programming?

    - by Sadache
    Does "Value Restriction" mean that there is no higher order functional programming? I have a problem that each time I try to do a bit of HOP I get caught by a VR error. Example: let simple (s:string)= fun rq->1 let oops= simple "" type 'a SimpleType= F of (int ->'a-> 'a) let get a = F(fun req -> id) let oops2= get "" and I would like to know whether it is a problem of a prticular implementation of VR or it is a general problem that has no solution in a mutable type-infered language that doesn't include mutation in the type system.

    Read the article

  • Does "Value Restriction" practically mean that there is no higher order functional programming?

    - by Sadache
    Does "Value Restriction" practically mean that there is no higher order functional programming? I have a problem that each time I try to do a bit of HOP I get caught by a VR error. Example: let simple (s:string)= fun rq->1 let oops= simple "" type 'a SimpleType= F of (int ->'a-> 'a) let get a = F(fun req -> id) let oops2= get "" and I would like to know whether it is a problem of a prticular implementation of VR or it is a general problem that has no solution in a mutable type-infered language that doesn't include mutation in the type system.

    Read the article

  • How to understand the functional programming code for converting IP string to a number?

    - by zfz
    In a python discusion, I saw a way to convert IP string to a integer in functional progamming way. Here is the Link . The function is implemented in a single line. def ipnumber(ip): return reduce(lambda sum, chunk: sum <<8 | chunk, map(int, ip.split("."))) However, I have few ideas of funcional programming. Could anybody explain the function in detail? I've some knowledg of "map" and "reduce". But I don't konw what "|" and "chunk" mean here? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • smartctl not actually running self tests?

    - by canzar
    I want to run the smartctl self tests to check the health of the drives in my RAID array (PERC 5/i). The array is on sda and comprises six drives. I can check the status using sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -a And I see that SMART is available and enabled on all the drives. I have tried to run self tests using sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -t short and sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -t long I have also tried it on all of the drives 0-5. No matter what I try, when I run: sudo smartctl /dev/sda -d megaraid,0 -l selftest I always get the same result, which seems to always report that I have never run a self test. /dev/sda [megaraid_disk_00] [SAT]: Device open changed type from 'megaraid' to 'sat' ===START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 No self-tests have been logged. [To run self-tests, use: smartctl -t] From what I read, I should have no problem running the short and long self tests on the array while it is mounted. Does anyone else have experience running these tests on a PERC 5/i raid array who could lend some insight into what is causing the problem? (smartmontools release 5.40 dated 2009-12-09 at 21:00:32 UTC)

    Read the article

  • Why is an anemic domain model considered bad in C#/OOP, but very important in F#/FP?

    - by Danny Tuppeny
    In a blog post on F# for fun and profit, it says: In a functional design, it is very important to separate behavior from data. The data types are simple and "dumb". And then separately, you have a number of functions that act on those data types. This is the exact opposite of an object-oriented design, where behavior and data are meant to be combined. After all, that's exactly what a class is. In a truly object-oriented design in fact, you should have nothing but behavior -- the data is private and can only be accessed via methods. In fact, in OOD, not having enough behavior around a data type is considered a Bad Thing, and even has a name: the "anemic domain model". Given that in C# we seem to keep borrowing from F#, and trying to write more functional-style code; how come we're not borrowing the idea of separating data/behavior, and even consider it bad? Is it simply that the definition doesn't with with OOP, or is there a concrete reason that it's bad in C# that for some reason doesn't apply in F# (and in fact, is reversed)? (Note: I'm specifically interested in the differences in C#/F# that could change the opinion of what is good/bad, rather than individuals that may disagree with either opinion in the blog post).

    Read the article

  • Can higher-order functions in FP be interpreted as some kind of dependency injection?

    - by Giorgio
    According to this article, in object-oriented programming / design dependency injection involves a dependent consumer, a declaration of a component's dependencies, defined as interface contracts, an injector that creates instances of classes that implement a given dependency interface on request. Let us now consider a higher-order function in a functional programming language, e.g. the Haskell function filter :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a] from Data.List. This function transforms a list into another list and, in order to perform its job, it uses (consumes) an external predicate function that must be provided by its caller, e.g. the expression filter (\x -> (mod x 2) == 0) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] selects all even numbers from the input list. But isn't this construction very similar to the pattern illustrated above, where the filter function is the dependent consumer, the signature (a -> Bool) of the function argument is the interface contract, the expression that uses the higher-order is the injector that, in this particular case, injects the implementation (\x -> (mod x 2) == 0) of the contract. More in general, can one relate higher-order functions and their usage pattern in functional programming to the dependency injection pattern in object-oriented languages? Or in the inverse direction, can dependency injection be compared to using some kind of higher-order function?

    Read the article

  • How to set RAILS_ENV variable when running Rails tests?

    - by Jason
    In both my environment.rb and test_helper.rb files I have: ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = "development" I have one functional test written, however when I run it, the script tries to connect to my database using the "test" configuration settings which are in the database.ymal file & won't connect the the database. How can I run my tests using the "development" environment settings?

    Read the article

  • Want to add a functional language to my toolchest. Haskell or Erlang?

    - by sean.johnson
    I've been an OO/procedural guy my whole career except in school where I did a lot of logic programming (Prolog). I work on an amazing variety of projects (freelancer) and so I don't want the tools I know and understand to hold me back from using the right tool for the job. I've decided I should know a functional programming language. I've narrowed the field to Haskell and Erlang. What are the pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, and major trade offs of Haskell and Erlang? How do I decide in a rational way, which is the better path? This is a big time investment, so I'd like to chose wisely. Is there a good case to be made for something else entirely? F#, Scala Ocaml? (BTW, I'm normally a Ruby/C/Obj.C guy, so I'm not terribly impressed or dependent on the JVM as a runtime. It's completely neutral to me. It's a fine runtime, I don't hold it for or against a language. I don't use Microsoft products though, so a .NET runtime would be a negative.)

    Read the article

  • Does using functional languages help against computing values repeatedly?

    - by sharptooth
    Consider a function f(x,y): f(x,0) = x*x; f(0,y) = y*(y + 1); f(x,y) = f(x,y-1) + f(x-1,y); If one tries to implement that recursively in some language like C++ he will encounter a problem. Suppose the function is first called with x = x0 and y = y0. Then for any pair (x,y) where 0 <= x < x0 and 0 <= y < y0 the intermediate values will be computed multiple times - recursive calls will form a huge tree in which multiple leaves will in fact contain the same pairs (x,y). For pairs (x,y) where x and y are both close to 0 values will be computed numerous times. For instance, I tested a similar function implemented in C++ - for x=20 and y=20 its computation takes about 4 hours (yes, four Earth hours!). Obviously the implementation can be rewritten in such way that repeated computation doesn't occur - either iteratively or with a cache table. The question is: will functional languages perform any better and avoid repeated computations when implementing a function like above recursively?

    Read the article

  • Do unit tests sometimes break encapsulation?

    - by user1288851
    I very often hear the following: "If you want to test private methods, you'd better put that in another class and expose it." While sometimes that's the case and we have a hiding concept inside our class, other times you end up with classes that have the same attributes (or, worst, every attribute of one class become a argument on a method in the other class) and exposes functionality that is, in fact, implementation detail. Specially on TDD, when you refactor a class with public methods out of a previous tested class, that class is now part of your interface, but has no tests to it (since you refactored it, and is a implementation detail). Now, I may be not finding an obvious better answer, but if my answer is the "correct", that means that sometimes writting unit tests can break encapsulation, and divide the same responsibility into different classes. A simple example would be testing a setter method when a getter is not actually needed for anything in the real code. Please when aswering don't provide simple answers to specific cases I may have written. Rather, try to explain more of the generic case and theoretical approach. And this is neither language specific. Thanks in advance. EDIT: The answer given by Matthew Flynn was really insightful, but didn't quite answer the question. Altough he made the fair point that you either don't test private methods or extract them because they really are other concern and responsibility (or at least that was what I could understand from his answer), I think there are situations where unit testing private methods is useful. My primary example is when you have a class that has one responsibility but the output (or input) that it gives (takes) is just to complex. For example, a hashing function. There's no good way to break a hashing function apart and mantain cohesion and encapsulation. However, testing a hashing function can be really tough, since you would need to calculate by hand (you can't use code calculation to test code calculation!) the hashing, and test multiple cases where the hash changes. In that way (and this may be a question worth of its own topic) I think private method testing is the best way to handle it. Now, I'm not sure if I should ask another question, or ask it here, but are there any better way to test such complex output (input)? OBS: Please, if you think I should ask another question on that topic, leave a comment. :)

    Read the article

  • Writing the tests for FluentPath

    - by Latest Microsoft Blogs
    Writing the tests for FluentPath is a challenge. The library is a wrapper around a legacy API (System.IO) that wasn’t designed to be easily testable. If it were more testable, the sensible testing methodology would be to tell System.IO to act against Read More......(read more)

    Read the article

  • New OBI 11g on-line Sales & Pre-sales Partner Assessment Tests

    - by Mike.Hallett(at)Oracle-BI&EPM
    Our OBI partners can now update their specialisation certification to the latest product version 11g for OBI: until recently, the accreditation had examined skills for OBI 10g.   New OPN on-line Sales & Pre-sales Assessment Tests Available Oracle Business Intelligence Foundation Suite 11g Sales Specialist   Oracle Business Intelligence Foundation Suite 11g PreSales Specialist   Oracle Business Intelligence Foundation Suite 11g Support Specialist

    Read the article

  • New OBI 11G Online Sales & Pre-Sales Partner Assessment Tests

    - by Cinzia Mascanzoni
    OBI partners can now update their specialization certification to the latest product version 11g for OBI: until recently, the accreditation had examined skills for OBI 10g. New OPN on-line Sales & Pre-sales Assessment Tests Available Oracle Business Intelligence Foundation Suite 11g Sales Specialist Oracle Business Intelligence Foundation Suite 11g PreSales Specialist Oracle Business Intelligence Foundation Suite 11g Support Specialist Read more on Specialization

    Read the article

  • Converting NUnit tests to MSUnit.

    - by TATWORTH
    I created the MSTest project by creating a new class library project and copying the test classes to it. I then followed the instructions in the following posts.http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/vststest/thread/eeb42224-bc1f-476d-98b4-93d0daf44aadhttp://dangerz.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/converting-nunit-to-mstest.htmlHowever I did not need to add the GUID fix as I used ReSharper to run both sets of tests.

    Read the article

  • Should selenium tests be written in imperative style?

    - by Amogh Talpallikar
    Is an automation tester supposed to know concepts of OOPS and design patterns to write Tests in a way where changes & code re-use are possible? For example, I pick up Java to write cucumber step definitions that instruct a selenium webdriver. Should I be using a lot of inheritance, interfaces, delegation etc. to make life easier or would that be overly complicated for something that should just line by line instructions?

    Read the article

  • Introducing a (new) test method to a team

    - by Jon List
    A couple of months ago i was hired in a new job. (I'm fresh out of my Masters in software engineering) The company mainly consists of ERP consultants, but I was hired in their fairly small web department (6 developers), our main task is ERP/ecom integration (ERP-integrated web shops). The department is growing, and recently my manager asked me to start thinking about introducing tests to the team, i love a challenge, but frankly I'm a bit scared (I'm the least experience member of the team). Currently the method of testing is clicking around in the web shop and asking the customer if the products are there, if they look okay, and if orders are posted correctly to the ERP. We are getting a lot of support cases on previous projects, where a customer or a customer's customer have run into errors, which - i suppose - is why my manager wants more structured testing. Off the top of my head, I though of some (obvious?) improvements, like looking at the requirement specification, having an issue tracker, enabling team members to register their time on a "tests"-line on the budget, and to circulate tasks amongst members of the team. But as i see it we have three main challenges: general website testing. (javascript, C#, ASP.NET and CMS integration tests) (live) ERP integration testing (customers rarely want to pay for test environments). adopting a method in the team I like the responsibility, but I am afraid that I'm in a little bit over my head. I expect that my manager expects me to set up some kind of workshop for the team where I present some techniques and ideas and where we(the team) can find some solutions together. What I learned in school was mostly unit testing and program verification, not so much testing across multiple systems and applications. What I'm looking for here, is references/advice/pointers/anecdotes; anything that might help me to get smarter and to improve the current method of my team. Thanks!! (TL;DR: read the bold parts)

    Read the article

  • Embedded Web Server Vs External Web Server

    - by Jetti
    So I've thought of creating a web application in either Lisp or another functional language and was thinking of embedding the web server into the application (have my application handle the HTTP requests). I don't see any issues with that, however, I'm new to creating web applications (and in the grand scheme of things, programming as well). Is there any drawbacks to handling HTTP requests within your program instead of using a web server? Are there any benefits?

    Read the article

  • How to become a better programmer in 2011?

    - by Anish Patel
    Not strictly a Stack Overflow thing, but I thought I'd get it out there and ask the question. What are you as a programmer going to do to improve in 2011? The things I am planning to do are as follows: Learn Functional Programming Write 100 blog posts Take a bunch of Microsoft exams (70-433, 70-511, 70-513, 70-515, 70-516, 70-518, 70-519) Contribute to an open source project Lets hope the motivation lasts all year!

    Read the article

  • How is dependency inversion related to higher order functions?

    - by Gulshan
    Today I've just seen this article which described the relevance of SOLID principle in F# development- F# and Design principles – SOLID And while addressing the last one - "Dependency inversion principle", the author said: From a functional point of view, these containers and injection concepts can be solved with a simple higher order function, or hole-in-the-middle type pattern which are built right into the language. But he didn't explain it further. So, my question is, how is the dependency inversion related to higher order functions?

    Read the article

  • Ideas for pet concurrent applications [closed]

    - by DJoyce
    As part of research I am doing into functional concurrent programming, I am looking to develop a prototype business application (or otherwise), that requires and supports parallelism. So I will first develop this application in java 7, followed by scala and then clojure while demonstrating the concurrent support in each language. However, I am a little short on suitable ideas and therefore i'm hoping I can get some good, interesting ideas on this thread. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is functional intellisense and code browsing more beneficial than the use of dependency injection containers

    - by Gavin Howden
    This question is really based on PHP, but could be valid for other dynamically typed, interpreted languages and specifically the methods of generating code insight and object browsing in development environments. We use PHPStorm, and find intellisense invaluable, but it is provided by some limited static analysis and parsing of doc comments. Obviously this does not lend well to obtaining dependencies through a container, as the IDE has no idea of the type returned, so the developer loses out on a plethora of (in the case of our framework anyway) rich documentation provided through the doc comments. So we start to see stuff like this: $widget = $dic->YieldInstance('WidgetA', $arg1, $arg2, $arg3, $arg4...)); /** * @var $widget WidgetA */ So that code insight works. In effect the comments are tightly bound, but worse they come out of sync when code is modified but not the comments: $widget = $dic->YieldInstance('WidgetB', $arg1, $arg2, $arg3, $arg4...)); /** * @var $widget WidgetA */ Obviously the comment could be improved by referencing a Widget interface, but then we might as well use a factory and avoid the requirement for the extra typing hints in the comments, and dic complexity / boiler plating. Which is more important to the average developer, code insight / intellisense or 'nirvana' decouplement?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >