Search Results

Search found 31207 results on 1249 pages for 'atg best practice in industries'.

Page 120/1249 | < Previous Page | 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127  | Next Page >

  • How can I effectively test a scripting engine?

    - by ChaosPandion
    I have been working on an ECMAScript implementation and I am currently working on polishing up the project. As a part of this, I have been writing tests like the following: [TestMethod] public void ArrayReduceTest() { var engine = new Engine(); var request = new ExecScriptRequest(@" var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; a.reduce(function(p, c, i, o) { return p + c; }); "); var response = (ExecScriptResponse)engine.PostWithReply(request); Assert.AreEqual((double)response.Data, 15D); } The problem is that there are so many points of failure in this test and similar tests that it almost doesn't seem worth it. It almost seems like my effort would be better spent reducing coupling between modules. To write a true unit test I would have to assume something like this: [TestMethod] public void CommentTest() { const string toParse = "/*First Line\r\nSecond Line*/"; var analyzer = new LexicalAnalyzer(toParse); { Assert.IsInstanceOfType(analyzer.Next(), typeof(MultiLineComment)); Assert.AreEqual(analyzer.Current.Value, "First Line\r\nSecond Line"); } } Doing this would require me to write thousands of tests which once again does not seem worth it.

    Read the article

  • Large svn external

    - by MPelletier
    I have a project which uses a large library residing in its own repository. Using: Tortoise-SVN, the server is running an enterprise edition of VisualSVN The project itself has the "standard" structure: trunk tags branches In each branch, tag, and trunk is the library, set as an external (svn:external property). If I get the entire tree, I get the library several times, which is just getting too ridiculously repetitive. Is there a recommended structure for this? Or perhaps a way not to get all externals (because other externals are much smaller, easier to manipulate)?

    Read the article

  • Java Builder pattern with Generic type bounds

    - by I82Much
    Hi all, I'm attempting to create a class with many parameters, using a Builder pattern rather than telescoping constructors. I'm doing this in the way described by Joshua Bloch's Effective Java, having private constructor on the enclosing class, and a public static Builder class. The Builder class ensures the object is in a consistent state before calling build(), at which point it delegates the construction of the enclosing object to the private constructor. Thus public class Foo { // Many variables private Foo(Builder b) { // Use all of b's variables to initialize self } public static final class Builder { public Builder(/* required variables */) { } public Builder var1(Var var) { // set it return this; } public Foo build() { return new Foo(this); } } } I then want to add type bounds to some of the variables, and thus need to parametrize the class definition. I want the bounds of the Foo class to be the same as that of the Builder class. public class Foo<Q extends Quantity> { private final Unit<Q> units; // Many variables private Foo(Builder<Q> b) { // Use all of b's variables to initialize self } public static final class Builder<Q extends Quantity> { private Unit<Q> units; public Builder(/* required variables */) { } public Builder units(Unit<Q> units) { this.units = units; return this; } public Foo build() { return new Foo<Q>(this); } } } This compiles fine, but the compiler is allowing me to do things I feel should be compiler errors. E.g. public static final Foo.Builder<Acceleration> x_Body_AccelField = new Foo.Builder<Acceleration>() .units(SI.METER) .build(); Here the units argument is not Unit<Acceleration> but Unit<Length>, but it is still accepted by the compiler. What am I doing wrong here? I want to ensure at compile time that the unit types match up correctly.

    Read the article

  • Why use Python interactive mode?

    - by mvid
    When I first started reading about Python, all of the tutorials have you use Python's Interactive Mode. It is difficult to save, write long programs, or edit your existing lines (for me at least). It seems like a far more difficult way of writing Python code than opening up a code.py file and running the interpreter on that file. python code.py I am coming from a Java background, so I have ingrained expectations of writing and compiling files for programs. I also know that a feature would not be so prominent in Python documentation if it were not somehow useful. So what am I missing?

    Read the article

  • POJO's versus Cursors in Android

    - by Kilnr
    I usually tend to define the model layer of my apps using POJO's, such as Article, Comment, etc. I was about to implement an AlphabetIndexer in the adapter of one of my ListViews. Right now this adapter accepts a Collection of Articles, which I normally get from my wrapper around an SQLiteDatabase. The signature of the AlphabetIndexer constructer is as follows: public AlphabetIndexer (Cursor cursor, int sortedColumnIndex, CharSequence alphabet) Since this doesn't accept a Collection or something similar, just a Cursor, it got me wondering: maybe I shouldn't be creating objects for my model, and just use the Cursors returned from the database? So the question is, I guess: what should I do, represent data with Collections of POJO's, or just work with Cursors throughout my app? Any input?

    Read the article

  • trouble accessing non-static functions from static functions in AS3

    - by Dogmatixed
    I have a class containing, among other things, a drop down menu. With the aim of saving space, and since the contents of the menu will never change, I've made a static DataProvider for the whole class that populates each instances menu. I was hoping to populate the list with actual functions like so: tmpArr.push({label:"Details...", funct:openDetailsMenu, args:""}); and then assign tmpArr to the DataProvider. Because the DataProvider is static the function that contains that code also needs to be static, but the functions in the array are non-static. At first it didn't seem like a problem, because when the user clicks on a menu item the drop down menu can call a non-static "executeFunction(funct, args)" on its parent. However, when I try to compile, the static function setting up the DataProvider it can't find the non-static functions being passed. If the compiler would just trust me the code would work fine! The simple solution is to just pass strings and use a switch statement to call functions based on that, but that's big, ugly, inelegant, and difficult to maintain, especially if something inherits from this class. The simpler solution is to just make the DataProvider non-static, but I'm wondering if anyone else has a good way of dealing with this? Making the static function able to see its non-static brethren? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Dynamic State Machine in Ruby? Do State Machines Have to be Classes?

    - by viatropos
    Question is, are state machines always defined statically (on classes)? Or is there a way for me to have it so each instance of the class with has it's own set of states? I'm checking out Stonepath for implementing a Task Engine. I don't really see the distinction between "states" and "tasks" in there, so I'm thinking I could just map a Task directly to a state. This would allow me to be able to define task-lists (or workflows) dynamically, without having to do things like: aasm_event :evaluate do transitions :to => :in_evaluation, :from => :pending end aasm_event :accept do transitions :to => :accepted, :from => :pending end aasm_event :reject do transitions :to => :rejected, :from => :pending end Instead, a WorkItem (the main workflow/task manager model), would just have many tasks. Then the tasks would work like states, so I could do something like this: aasm_initial_state :initial tasks.each do |task| aasm_state task.name.to_sym end previous_state = nil tasks.each do |tasks| aasm_event task.name.to_sym do transitions :to => "#{task.name}_phase".to_sym, :from => previous_state ? "#{task.name}_phase" : "initial" end previous_state = state end However, I can't do that with the aasm gem because those methods (aasm_state and aasm_event) are class methods, so every instance of the class with that state machine has the same states. I want it so a "WorkItem" or "TaskList" dynmically creates a sequence of states and transitions based on the tasks it has. This would allow me to dynamically define workflows and just have states map to tasks. Are state machines ever used like this?

    Read the article

  • Invoice Discount: Negative line items vs Internal properties

    - by FreshCode
    Should discount on invoice items and entire invoices be negative line items or separate properties of an invoice? In a similar question, Should I incorporate list of fees/discounts into an order class or have them be itemlines, the asker focuses more on orders than invoices (which is a slightly different business entity). Discount is proposed to be separate from order items since it is not equivalent to a fee or product and may have different reporting requirements. Hence, discount should not simply be a negative line item. Previously I have successfully used negative line items to clearly indicate and calculate discount, but this feels inflexible and inaccurate from a business perspective. Now I am opting to add discount to each line item, along with an invoice-wide discount. Is this the right way to do it? Should each item have its own discount amount and percentage? Domain Model Code Sample This is what my domain model, which maps to an SQL repository, looks like: public class Invoice { public int ID { get; set; } public Guid JobID { get; set; } public string InvoiceNumber { get; set; } public Guid UserId { get; set; } // user who created it public DateTime Date { get; set; } public decimal DiscountPercent { get; set; } // all lines discount %? public decimal DiscountAmount { get; set; } // all lines discount $? public LazyList<InvoiceLine> InvoiceLines { get; set; } public LazyList<Payment> Payments { get; set; } // for payments received public boolean IsVoided { get; set; } // Invoices are immutable. // To change: void -> new invoice. public decimal Total { get { return (1.0M - DiscountPercent) * InvoiceLines.Sum(i => i.LineTotal) - DiscountAmount; } } } public class InvoiceLine { public int ID { get; set; } public int InvoiceID { get; set; } public string Title { get; set; } public decimal Quantity { get; set; } public decimal LineItemPrice { get; set; } public decimal DiscountPercent { get; set; } // line discount %? public decimal DiscountAmount { get; set; } // line discount amount? public decimal LineTotal { get { return (1.0M - DiscountPercent) * (this.Quantity * (this.LineItemPrice)) - DiscountAmount; } } }

    Read the article

  • Are endless loops in bad form?

    - by rlbond
    So I have some C++ code for back-tracking nodes in a BFS algorithm. It looks a little like this: typedef std::map<int> MapType; bool IsValuePresent(const MapType& myMap, int beginVal, int searchVal) { int current_val = beginVal; while (true) { if (current_val == searchVal) return true; MapType::iterator it = myMap.find(current_val); assert(current_val != myMap.end()); if (current_val == it->second) // end of the line return false; current_val = it->second; } } However, the while (true) seems... suspicious to me. I know this code works, and logically I know it should work. However, I can't shake the feeling that there should be some condition in the while, but really the only possible one is to use a bool variable just to say if it's done. Should I stop worrying? Or is this really bad form. EDIT: Thanks to all for noticing that there is a way to get around this. However, I would still like to know if there are other valid cases.

    Read the article

  • How to secure Add child record functionality in MVC on Parent's view?

    - by RSolberg
    I'm trying to avoid some potential security issues as I expose some a new set of functionality into the real world. This is basically functionality that will allow for a new comment to be added via a partialview on the "Parent" page. My comment needs to know a couple of things, first what record is the comment for and secondly who is making the comment. I really don't like using a hidden field to store the ID for the Parent record in the add comment form as that can be easily changed with some DOM mods. How should I handle this? PARENT <% Html.RenderPartial("AddComment", Model.Comments); %> CHILD <%@ Control Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewUserControl<CommentsViewModel>" %> <% using (Html.BeginForm("AddComment", "Requests")) {%> <fieldset> <legend>New Comment</legend> <%= Html.HiddenFor(p => p.RequestID) %> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(p => p.Text) %> &nbsp; <input type="submit" value="Add" /> </fieldset> <% } %> CONTROLLER [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public void AddComment(CommentsViewModel commentsModel) { var user = GetCurrentUser(); commentsModel.CreatedByID = user.UserID; RequestsService.AddComment(commentsModel); }

    Read the article

  • How much abstraction is too much?

    - by Daniel Bingham
    In an Object Oriented Program: How much abstraction is too much? How much is just right? I have always been a nuts and bolts kind of guy. I understood the concept behind high levels of encapsulation and abstraction, but always felt instinctively that adding too much would just confuse the program. I always tried to shoot for an amount of abstraction that left no empty classes or layers. And where in doubt, instead of adding a new layer to the hierarchy, I would try and fit something into the existing layers. However, recently I've been encountering more highly abstracted systems. Systems where everything that could require a representation later in the hierarchy gets one up front. This leads to a lot of empty layers, which at first seems like bad design. However, on second thought I've come to realize that leaving those empty layers gives you more places to hook into in the future with out much refactoring. It leaves you greater ability to add new functionality on top of the old with out doing nearly as much work to adjust the old. The two risks of this seem to be that you could get the layers you need wrong. In this case one would wind up still needing to do substantial refactoring to extend the code and would still have a ton of never used layers. But depending on how much time you spend coming up with the initial abstractions, the chance of screwing it up, and the time that could be saved later if you get it right - it may still be worth it to try. The other risk I can think of is the risk of over doing it and never needing all the extra layers. But is that really so bad? Are extra class layers really so expensive that it is much of a loss if they are never used? The biggest expense and loss here would be time that is lost up front coming up with the layers. But much of that time still might be saved later when one can work with the abstracted code rather than more low level code. So when is it too much? At what point do the empty layers and extra "might need" abstractions become overkill? How little is too little? Where's the sweet spot? Are there any dependable rules of thumb you've found in the course of your career that help you judge the amount of abstraction needed?

    Read the article

  • C# using namespace directive in nested namespaces

    - by MoSlo
    Right, I've usually used 'using' directives as follows using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace AwesomeLib { //awesome award winning class declarations making use of Linq } i've recently seen examples of such as using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace AwesomeLib { //awesome award winning class declarations making use of Linq namespace DataLibrary { using System.Data; //Data access layers and whatnot } } Granted, i understand that i can put USING inside of my namespace declaration. Such a thing makes sense to me if your namespaces are in the same root (they organized). System; namespace 1 {} namespace 2 { System.data; } But what of nested namespaces? Personally, I would leave all USING declarations at the top where you can find them easily. Instead, it looks like they're being spread all over the source file. Is there benefit to the USING directives being used this way in nested namespaces? Such as memory management or the JIT compiler?

    Read the article

  • Web scraping etiquette

    - by Ash
    I'm considering writing a simple web scraping application to extract information from a website that does not seem to specifically prohibit this. I've checked for other alternatives (eg RSS, web service) to get this information, but there are none available at this stage. Despite this I've also developed/maintained a few websites myself and so I realize that if web scraping is done naively/greedily it can slow things down for other users and generally become a nuisance. So, what etiquette is involved in terms of: Number of requests per second/minute/hour. HTTP User Agent content. HTTP Referer content. HTTP Cache settings. Buffer size for larger files/resources. Legalities and licensing issues. Good tools or design approaches to use. Robots.txt, is this relevant for web scraping or just crawlers/spiders? Compression such as GZip in requests. Update Found this relevant question on Meta: Etiquette of Screen Scaping StackOverflow. Jeff Atwood's answer has some helpful recommendations. Other related StackOverflow questions: Options for html scraping Legalities of screen scraping

    Read the article

  • What is the recommended coding style for PowerShell?

    - by stej
    Is there any recommended coding style how to write PowerShell scripts? It's not about how to structure the code (how many functions, if to use module, ...). It's about 'how to write the code so that it is readable'. In programming languages there are some recommended coding styles (what to indent, how to indent - spaces/tabs, where to make new line, where to put braces,...), but I haven't seen any suggestion for PowerShell. What I'm interested particularly in: How to write parameters function New-XYZItem ( [string] $ItemName , [scriptblock] $definition ) { ... (I see that it's more like 'V1' syntax) or function New-PSClass { param([string] $ClassName ,[scriptblock] $definition )... or (why to add empty attribute?) function New-PSClass { param([Parameter()][string] $ClassName ,[Parameter()][scriptblock] $definition )... or (other formatting I saw maybe in Jaykul's code) function New-PSClass { param( [Parameter()] [string] $ClassName , [Parameter()] [scriptblock] $definition )... or ..? How to write complex pipeline Get-SomeData -param1 abc -param2 xyz | % { $temp1 = $_ 1..100 | % { Process-somehow $temp1 $_ } } | % { Process-Again $_ } | Sort-Object -desc or (name of cmdlet on new line) Get-SomeData -param1 abc -param2 xyz | % { $temp1 = $_ 1..100 | % { Process-somehow $temp1 $_ } } | % { Process-Again $_ } | Sort-Object -desc | and what if there are -begin -process -end params? how to make it the most readable? Get-SomeData -param1 abc -param2 xyz | % -begin { init } -process { Process-somehow2 ... } -end { Process-somehow3 ... } | % -begin { } .... or Get-SomeData -param1 abc -param2 xyz | % ` -begin { init } ` -process { Process-somehow2 ... } ` -end { Process-somehow3 ... } | % -begin { } .... the indentitation is important here and what element is put on new line as well. I have covered only questions that come on my mind very frequently. There are some others, but I'd like to keep this SO question 'short'. Any other suggestions are welcome.

    Read the article

  • Why are floating point values so prolific?

    - by Kibbee
    So, title says it all. Why are floating point values so prolific in computer programming. Due to problems like rounding errors, and not being able to even accurately represent numbers such as 0.1, I really can't see how they got as far as they did. I understand that the computation is faster with floating point numbers, however, I can think of only a few cases that they actually the right data type would be using. If you sat back and think about every time you used a floating point value, how many times did you say, well, some error would be ok, as long as the result was a few microseconds faster. It really makes me think because Jeff was talking about NP completeness, and how heuristics give an answer that is kind of right. And well, computers shouldn't do that. They should give you the answer that is correct. Yet we see floating point values used in many applications where they are completely not valid. What really bugs me, isn't that floating point exists, but that in many languages, there isn't even a viable alternative, non-floating point, decimal value. A lot of programmers when doing financial applications have to fall back to storing the number of cents in an integer field. Which brings with it all kinds of other problems. Why do floats continue to be so prolific, even though they can't represent the real answer, and we expect computers to be accurate? [EDIT] Just to clarify, I was talking about Base 2 floating points, and not base 10 floating points. .Net offers the Decimal data type, which is a base 10 floating point value which offers a much better representation of the numbers we deal with on a daily basis in most computer programs. I find it hard to believe that even modern languages like Java don't support base 10 floating point values, unless you want to move into the realm of things like BigDecimal, which isn't really the right answer either in a lot of situations.

    Read the article

  • Java enums vs constants for Strings

    - by Marcus
    I've switched from using constants for Strings: public static final String OPTION_1 = "OPTION_1"; ... to enums: public enum Options { OPTION_1; } With constants, you'd just refer to the constant: String s = TheClass.OPTION_1 But with Enums, you have to specify toString(): String s = Options.OPTION_1.toString(); I don't like that you have to use the toString() statement, and also, in some cases you can forget to include it which can lead to unintended results.. ie: Object o = map.get(Options.OPTION_1); //This won't work as intended if the Map key is a String Is there a better way to use enums for String constants?

    Read the article

  • How to "DRY up" C# attributes in Models and ViewModels?

    - by DanM
    This question was inspired by my struggles with ASP.NET MVC, but I think it applies to other situations as well. Let's say I have an ORM-generated Model and two ViewModels (one for a "details" view and one for an "edit" view): Model public class FooModel // ORM generated { public int Id { get; set; } public string FirstName { get; set; } public string LastName { get; set; } public string EmailAddress { get; set; } public int Age { get; set; } public int CategoryId { get; set; } } Display ViewModel public class FooDisplayViewModel // use for "details" view { [DisplayName("ID Number")] public int Id { get; set; } [DisplayName("First Name")] public string FirstName { get; set; } [DisplayName("Last Name")] public string LastName { get; set; } [DisplayName("Email Address")] [DataType("EmailAddress")] public string EmailAddress { get; set; } public int Age { get; set; } [DisplayName("Category")] public string CategoryName { get; set; } } Edit ViewModel public class FooEditViewModel // use for "edit" view { [DisplayName("First Name")] // not DRY public string FirstName { get; set; } [DisplayName("Last Name")] // not DRY public string LastName { get; set; } [DisplayName("Email Address")] // not DRY [DataType("EmailAddress")] // not DRY public string EmailAddress { get; set; } public int Age { get; set; } [DisplayName("Category")] // not DRY public SelectList Categories { get; set; } } Note that the attributes on the ViewModels are not DRY--a lot of information is repeated. Now imagine this scenario multiplied by 10 or 100, and you can see that it can quickly become quite tedious and error prone to ensure consistency across ViewModels (and therefore across Views). How can I "DRY up" this code? Before you answer, "Just put all the attributes on FooModel," I've tried that, but it didn't work because I need to keep my ViewModels "flat". In other words, I can't just compose each ViewModel with a Model--I need my ViewModel to have only the properties (and attributes) that should be consumed by the View, and the View can't burrow into sub-properties to get at the values. Update LukLed's answer suggests using inheritance. This definitely reduces the amount of non-DRY code, but it doesn't eliminate it. Note that, in my example above, the DisplayName attribute for the Category property would need to be written twice because the data type of the property is different between the display and edit ViewModels. This isn't going to be a big deal on a small scale, but as the size and complexity of a project scales up (imagine a lot more properties, more attributes per property, more views per model), there is still the potentially for "repeating yourself" a fair amount. Perhaps I'm taking DRY too far here, but I'd still rather have all my "friendly names", data types, validation rules, etc. typed out only once.

    Read the article

  • Custom Event - invokation list implementation considerations

    - by M.A. Hanin
    I'm looking for some pointers on implementing Custom Events in VB.NET (Visual Studio 2008, .NET 3.5). I know that "regular" (non-custom) Events are actually Delegates, so I was thinking of using Delegates when implementing a Custom Event. On the other hand, Andrew Troelsen's "Pro VB 2008 and the .NET 3.5 Platform" book uses Collection types in all his Custom Events examples, and Microsoft's sample codes match that line of thought. So my question is: what considerations should I have when choosing one design over the other? What are the pros and cons for each design? Which of these resembles the inner-implementation of "regular" events? Below is a sample code demonstrating the two designs. Public Class SomeClass Private _SomeEventListeners As EventHandler Public Custom Event SomeEvent As EventHandler AddHandler(ByVal value As EventHandler) _SomeEventListeners = [Delegate].Combine(_SomeEventListeners, value) End AddHandler RemoveHandler(ByVal value As EventHandler) _SomeEventListeners = [Delegate].Remove(_SomeEventListeners, value) End RemoveHandler RaiseEvent(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) _SomeEventListeners.Invoke(sender, e) End RaiseEvent End Event Private _OtherEventListeners As New List(Of EventHandler) Public Custom Event OtherEvent As EventHandler AddHandler(ByVal value As EventHandler) _OtherEventListeners.Add(value) End AddHandler RemoveHandler(ByVal value As EventHandler) _OtherEventListeners.Remove(value) End RemoveHandler RaiseEvent(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) For Each handler In _OtherEventListeners handler(sender, e) Next End RaiseEvent End Event End Class

    Read the article

  • Utility method - Pass a File or String?

    - by James P.
    Here's an example of a utility method: public static Long getFileSize(String fileString) { File file = new File(fileString); if (file == null || !file.isFile()) return null; return file.length(); } Is it a good practise to pass a String rather than a File to a method like this? In general what reasoning should be applied when making utility methods of this style?

    Read the article

  • Why shouldn't I always use nullable types in C#.

    - by Matthew Vines
    I've been searching for some good guidance on this since the concept was introduced in .net 2.0. Why would I ever want to use non-nullable data types in c#? (A better question is why wouldn't I choose nullable types by default, and only use non-nullable types when that explicitly makes sense.) Is there a 'significant' performance hit to choosing a nullable data type over its non-nullable peer? I much prefer to check my values against null instead of Guid.empty, string.empty, DateTime.MinValue,<= 0, etc, and to work with nullable types in general. And the only reason I don't choose nullable types more often is the itchy feeling in the back of my head that makes me feel like it's more than backwards compatibility that forces that extra '?' character to explicitly allow a null value. Is there anybody out there that always (most always) chooses nullable types rather than non-nullable types? Thanks for your time,

    Read the article

  • Proper way to dispose of Quartz.NET?

    - by Seth Spearman
    I am using Quartz.NET in an application. What is the proper way to dispose of Quartz.NET. Right now I am just doing if (_quartzScheduler != null) { _quartzScheduler = null; } Is that enough or should I implement a dispose or something in the jobType class? Seth

    Read the article

  • Taking "do the simplest thing that could possible work" too far in TDD: testing for a file-name kno

    - by Support - multilanguage SO
    For TDD you have to Create a test that fail Do the simplest thing that could possible work to pass the test Add more variants of the test and repeat Refactor when a pattern emerge With this approach you're supposing to cover all the cases ( that comes to my mind at least) but I'm wonder if am I being too strict here and if it is possible to "think ahead" some scenarios instead of simple discover them. For instance, I'm processing a file and if it doesn't conform to a certain format I am to throw an InvalidFormatException So my first test was: @Test void testFormat(){ // empty doesn't do anything nor throw anything processor.validate("empty.txt"); try { processor.validate("invalid.txt"); assert false: "Should have thrown InvalidFormatException"; } catch( InvalidFormatException ife ) { assert "Invalid format".equals( ife.getMessage() ); } } I run it and it fails because it doesn't throw an exception. So the next thing that comes to my mind is: "Do the simplest thing that could possible work", so I : public void validate( String fileName ) throws InvalidFormatException { if(fileName.equals("invalid.txt") { throw new InvalidFormatException("Invalid format"); } } Doh!! ( although the real code is a bit more complicated, I found my self doing something like this several times ) I know that I have to eventually add another file name and other test that would make this approach impractical and that would force me to refactor to something that makes sense ( which if I understood correctly is the point of TDD, to discover the patterns the usage unveils ) but: Q: am I taking too literal the "Do the simplest thing..." stuff?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127  | Next Page >