Search Results

Search found 10206 results on 409 pages for 'tooling and testing'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 133/409 | < Previous Page | 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140  | Next Page >

  • URL good practice for category sub category?

    - by Seting
    I have developed a application and I need to work for SEO-friendly URL. I have following URL structure: http://localhost:3000/posts/product/testing-with-slug-url-2 and http://localhost:3000/posts/product/testing-with-slug-url-2-4-23 Is this a good practice? If not how can I rewrite it? Ok Ill explain about my applicaiton. My application is based on shopping. if a customer searched for mobiles. it will redirect to url like this http://mydomain.com/cat/mobile-3 3 in the url indicates my database id it is used for further searching After the user reached the mobile page he may need to filter for some brand eg. nokia so my url look lik http://mydomain.com/subcat/nokia-3-2 The integer at the end refers to 3 category id and 2 the brand id My doubt is whether the integer at the end of the url will affect seo ranking.

    Read the article

  • What programming language and framework has best support for agile web development?

    - by Jonas
    If I would like to quickly set up a modern website, what programming language + framework has best support for this? E.g. short and easy to understand code for a beginner and a framework with support for modern features. Disregard my current knowledge, I'm more interested in the capacity of web programming languages and frameworks. Some requirements: RESTful URIs: http://example.com/category/id/page-title similar to the urls here on Programmers. ORM. A framework that has good database support and provide ORM or maybe a NoSQL-database. Good support for RESTful WebServices. Good support for testing and unit testing, to make sure the site is working as planned. Preferably a site that is ready to scale with an increasing number of users.

    Read the article

  • Two Sun Certification Exams To Retire August 1, 2010

    - by Paul Sorensen
    Effective August 1, 2010, Exam CX-310-400 ("Sun Certified Integrator for Identity Manager 7.1"), currently part of the "Sun Certified Integrator for Identity Manager 7.1" certification track, will be retired. We will also retire Exam CX-310-502 ("Sun Certified Java CAPS Integrator"), currently within the "Sun Certified Java CAPS Integrator" certification track. Both exams will remain available for registration and testing at Prometric Testing Centers through July 31, 2010.CREDENTIAL VALIDITYPlease note that that these credentials remain valid indefinitely for those holding the certifications. These retirements therefore have no effect on those who complete the certification requirements before August 1, 2010.QUICK LINKSRetiring Exams:Exam CX-310-400 "Sun Certified Integrator for Identity Manager 7.1"Exam CX-310-502 "Sun Certified Java CAPS Integrator" Certification Tracks:Sun Certified Integrator for Identity Manager 7.1Sun Certified Java CAPS IntegratorLearn more: Oracle Certification Retirements

    Read the article

  • Two free SQL Server events I'll be presenting at in UK. Come and say hi!

    - by Mladen Prajdic
    SQLBits: April 7th - April 9th 2011 in Brighton, UK Free community event on Saturday (April 9th) with a paid conference day on Friday (April 8th) and a Pre Conference day full of day long seminars (April 7th). It'll be a huge event with over 800 attendees and over 20 MVPs. I'll be presenting on Saturday April 9th.     SQL in the City: July 15th 2011 in London, UK One day of free SQL Server training sponsored by Redgate. Other MVP's that'll be presenting there are Steve Jones (website|twitter), Brad McGehee (blog|twitter) and Grant Fritchey (blog|twitter)   At both conferences I'll be presenting about database testing. In the sessions I'll cover a few things from my book The Red Gate Guide to SQL Server Team based Development like what do we need for testing, how to go about it, what are some of the obstacles we have to overcome, etc… If you're around there come and say Hi!

    Read the article

  • Any suggested approaches to track bugs/defects?

    - by deostroll
    What is the best way to track defect sources in tfs? We have various teams for a project like the vulnerability team, the customer, pre-sales, etc. We give a build and these teams independently test it. They do not have access to our tfs system. So they usually send in their defects via email. It will usually be send in an excel format. Our testing team takes these up and logs them into tfs. Sometimes they modify the original defect description (in excel) and add the expected/actual results. Sometimes they miss to cite the source. I am talking about managing the various sources as such. Is there a way we can add these sources into tfs, and actually link this particular source with the defects, with individual comments associated with them (saying where in the source we can find the actual material for the defect). Edit: I don't know if there is a way to manage various sources. Consider this: the vulnerability assessment team has come out with defects/suggestions. They captured it into an excel and passed that on to the testing team (in my case). The testing team takes the responsibility of elaborating the defect and logging it in tfs. Now say that the excel has come with 20 defect items. This is my source. (It answers the question where did this defect come from). So ultimately when I am looking at a bug I know from where it came from - I'll ultimately be looking at the email sent from the VA team which has the excel or the excel file itself sent by the VA team. It may be one of the 20 items in that excel. How should the tester link to this source just once? On the contrary, it does not make sense for the tester to attach the same excel 20 times (i.e. attach the same excel for the 20 defects while logging it into tfs) right? I hope you get my point.

    Read the article

  • ArchBeat Link-o-Rama for 2012-08-31

    - by Bob Rhubart
    SOA Suite 11g Asynchronous Testing with soapUI | Greg Mally Greg Mally walks you through testing asynchronous web services with the free edition of soapUI. The Role of Oracle VM Server for SPARC in a Virtualization Strategy | Matthias Pfutzner Matthias Pfutzner's overview of hardware and software virtualization basics, and the role that Oracle VM Server for SPARC plays in a virtualization strategy. Cloud Computing: Oracle RDS on AWS - Connecting with DB tools | Tom Laszewski Cloud expert and author Tom Laszewski shares brief comments about the tools he used to connect two Oracle RDS instances in AWS. Keystore Wallet File – cwallet.sso – Zum Teufel! | Christian Screen "One of the items that trips up a FMW implementation, if only for mere minutes, is the cwallet.sso file," says Oracle ACE Christian Screen. In this short post he offers information to help you avoid landing on your face. Thought for the Day "With good program architecture debugging is a breeze, because bugs will be where they should be." — David May Source: SoftwareQuotes.com

    Read the article

  • 2011 - ALMs for your development team and the people they work with.

    - by David V. Corbin
    Welcome to 2011, it is already shaping up to be a very exciting year. The title of the post is not about charitable giving, although that is also a great topic. Application Lifecycle Management and the Systems that support the environment is, and 2011 will be a year where I expect many teams to invest heavily in this area. For those not familiar with ALM, it can be simplified down to "A comprehensive view of all of the iteas, requirements, activities and artifacts that impact an application over the course of its lifecycle, from concept until decommissioning". Obviously, this encompases a large number of different areas even for relatively small and medium sized projects. In recent years, many teams have adapted methodoligies which address individual aspects of this; but the majority of this adoption has resulted in "islands of improvement" rather than the desired comprehensive outcome...Until now! Last year Microsoft released Team Foundation Server 2010 along with Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate Edition, and with these two in combination the situation has drastically changed. At last there is a single environment that is capable of handling all aspects of ALM, and is also capable of dealing with migration and integration with existing systems to make the transition to a single solution much easier. Thse possibilities (and practicalities) are nothing short of amazing, Architecture thru Testing integration? YES. Being able to correlate specific requirement items (and their history) to actual code (and code history)? YES. Identification of which tests will be potentially impacted by a given code change? YES. Resiliant Automated Testing of User Interfaces? YES. Automatic Deployment Management? YES. Integraton Level testing as part of (designated) Builds? YES. I could easily double or triple the above list, but these items should be enough to get you thinking about the "pain points" your team and organization currently face and the fact that there IS a way to relieve the pain. Over the course of the year, I am hoping to bring together some of the "best of breed" information, along with hosting (and participating in) discussions with various experts in the field. There are already a number of groups (including many on LinkedIn) that have an ALM focus, and I encourage everyone out to check them out. I will be posting a list of the ones I find most helpful in the not too distant future. As I said at the beginning, 2011 is shaping up to be a very interesting (and productive) year. Why wait to start investigating and adopting ALM? ps: For those interested in becoming an "Alms Giver" in the charitable sense, I highly recommend checking out GiveCamp. A group of developers, designers and others get together to create a solution for a charity in just under 48 hours. I will be attending the GiveCamp in New York City on Jan 14-16, more information is available at nycgivecamp.org/

    Read the article

  • What label of tests are BizUnit tests?

    - by charlie.mott
    BizUnit is defined as a "Framework for Automated Testing of Distributed Systems.  However, I've never seen a catchy label to describe what sort of tests we create using this framework. They are not really “Unit Tests” that's for sure. "Integration Tests" might be a good definition, but I want a label that clearly separates it from the manual "System Integration Testing" phase of a project where real instances of the integrated systems are used. Among some colleagues, we brainstormed some suggestions: Automated Integration Tests Stubbed Integration Tests Sandbox Integration Tests Localised Integration Tests All give a good view of the sorts of tests that are being done. I think "Stubbed Integration Tests" is most catchy and descriptive. So I will use that until someone comes up with a better idea.

    Read the article

  • Is there a better approach in migrating SIT SVN to UAT SVN?

    - by huahsin68
    In web development, given a same piece of source code, and being deploy to SIT (system integration testing) SVN/WAS and UAT (user acceptance testing) SVN/WAS. Please take note that I am using Jenkins to build everything. I have already ensured the transition from SIT SVN to UAT SVN are sync by doing manual diff on the 2 directory. Usually I will ensure the SIT WAS is working fine then only deploy to UAT WAS. But now there is a problem show up in UAT WAS and it is working fine in SIT WAS. I am suspecting there is a migration fault happened between SIT SVN to UAT SVN. In such a given scenario, is there a better approach to handle this problem?

    Read the article

  • CAMeditor v1.9 &ndash; thoughts and reflections

    - by david.webber(at)oracle.com
    We recently published the latest iteration of the CAMeditor tool on Sourceforge.net including more enhancements to the NIEM capabilities. This release represented an incremental improvement over the prior version with mostly bug fixes and patches. We’re now working on the full v2.0 release which will feature substantial improvements and new features in practically all areas.  Most importantly we are improving the dictionary handling and providing the ability to visually design new exchange schema directly from dictionary sets of components. In addition we are doing some interim release work on 1.9.x with patches and enhancements particularly to support running on Ubuntu and non-Windows platforms. And we are also providing an Ant script based deployment for the CAMV validation engine so you can do unit testing of batches of templates and XML instance samples using command line scripts. More updates will be forthcoming as we make early release versions available for testing purposes.

    Read the article

  • Code Behaviour via Unit Tests

    - by Dewald Galjaard
    Normal 0 false false false EN-ZA X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Some four months ago my car started acting up. Symptoms included a sputtering as my car’s computer switched between gears intermittently. Imagine building up speed, then when you reach 80km/h the car magically and mysteriously decide to switch back to third or even second gear. Clearly it was confused! I managed to track down a technician, an expert in his field to help me out. As he fitted his handheld computer to some hidden port under the dash, he started to explain “These cars are quite intelligent, you know. When they sense something is wrong they run in a restrictive program which probably account for how you managed to drive here in the first place...”  I was surprised and thought this was certainly going to be an interesting test drive. The car ran smoothly down the first couple of stretches as the technician ran through routine checks. Then he said “Ok, all looking good. We need to start testing aspects of the gearbox. Inside the gearbox there are a couple of sensors. One of them is a speed sensor which talks to the computer, which in turn will decide which gear to switch to. The restrictive program avoid these sensors altogether and allow the computer to obtain its input from other [non-affected] sources”. Then, as soon as he forced the speed sensor to come back online the symptoms and ill behaviour re-emerged... What an incredible analogy for getting into a discussion on unit testing software? Besides I should probably put my ill fortune to some good use, right? This example provide a lot of insight into how and why we should conduct unit tests when writing code. More importantly, it captures what is easily and unfortunately often the most overlooked goal of writing unit tests by those new to the art and those who oppose it alike - The goal of writing unit tests is to test the behaviour of our code under predefined conditions. Although it is very possible to test the intrinsic workings of each and every component in your code, writing several tests for each method in practise will soon prove to be an exhausting and ultimately fruitless exercise given the certain and ever changing nature of business requirements. Consequently it is true and quite possible whilst conducting proper unit tests, to call any single method several times as you examine and contemplate different scenarios. Let’s write some code to demonstrate what I mean. In my example I make use of the Moq framework and NUnit to create my tests. Truly you can use whatever you’re comfortable with. First we’ll create an ISpeedSensor interface. This is to represent the speed sensor located in the gearbox.  Then we’ll create a Gearbox class which we’ll pass to a constructor when we instantiate an object of type Computer. All three are described below.   ISpeedSensor.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {     public interface ISpeedSensor     {         int ReportCurrentSpeed();     } }   Gearbox.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {      public class Gearbox     {         private ISpeedSensor _speedSensor;           public Gearbox( ISpeedSensor gearboxSpeedSensor )         {             _speedSensor = gearboxSpeedSensor;         }         /// <summary>         /// This method obtain it's reading from the speed sensor.         /// </summary>         /// <returns></returns>         public int ReportCurrentSpeed()         {             return _speedSensor.ReportCurrentSpeed();         }     } } Computer.cs namespace AutomaticVehicle {     public class Computer     {         private Gearbox _gearbox;         public Computer( Gearbox gearbox )         {                     }          public int GetCurrentSpeed()         {             return _gearbox.ReportCurrentSpeed( );         }     } } Since this post is about Unit testing, that is exactly what we’ll create next. Create a second project in your solution. I called mine AutomaticVehicleTests and I immediately referenced the respective nunit, moq and AutomaticVehicle dll’s. We’re going to write a test to examine what happens inside the Computer class. ComputerTests.cs namespace AutomaticVehicleTests {     [TestFixture]     public class ComputerTests     {         [Test]         public void Computer_Gearbox_SpeedSensor_DoesThrow()         {             // Mock ISpeedSensor in gearbox             Mock< ISpeedSensor > speedSensor = new Mock< ISpeedSensor >( );             speedSensor.Setup( n => n.ReportCurrentSpeed() ).Throws<Exception>();             Gearbox gearbox = new Gearbox( speedSensor.Object );               // Create Computer instance to test it's behaviour  towards an exception in gearbox             Computer carComputer = new Computer( gearbox );             // For simplicity let’s assume for now the car only travels at 60 km/h.             Assert.AreEqual( 60, carComputer.GetCurrentSpeed( ) );          }     } }   What is happening in this test? We have created a mocked object using the ISpeedsensor interface which we've passed to our Gearbox object. Notice that I created the mocked object using an interface, not the implementation. I’ll talk more about this in future posts but in short I do this to accentuate the fact that I'm not not really concerned with how SpeedSensor work internally at this particular point in time. Next I’ve gone ahead and created a scenario where I’ve declared the speed sensor in Gearbox to be faulty by forcing it to throw an exception should we ask Gearbox to report on its current speed. Sneaky, sneaky. This test is a simulation of how things may behave in the real world. Inevitability things break, whether it’s caused by mechanical failure, some logical error on your part or a fellow developer which didn’t consult the documentation (or the lack thereof ) - whether you’re calling a speed sensor, making a call to a database, calling a web service or just trying to write a file to disk. It’s a scenario I’ve created and this test is about how the code within the Computer instance will behave towards any such error as I’ve depicted. Now, if you’ve followed closely in my final assert method you would have noticed I did something quite unexpected. I might be getting ahead of myself now but I’m testing to see if the value returned is equal to what I expect it to be under perfect conditions – I’m not testing to see if an error has been thrown! Why is that? Well, in short this is TDD. Test Driven Development is about first writing your test to define the result we want, then to go back and change the implementation within your class to obtain the desired output (I need to make sure I can drive back to the repair shop. Remember? ) So let’s go ahead and run our test as is. It’s fails miserably... Good! Let’s go back to our Computer class and make a small change to the GetCurrentSpeed method.   Computer.cs public int GetCurrentSpeed() {   try   {     return _gearbox.ReportCurrentSpeed( );   }   catch   {     RunRestrictiveProgram( );   } }     This is a simple solution, I know, but it does provide a way to allow for different behaviour. You’re more than welcome to provide an implementation for RunRestrictiveProgram should you feel the need to. It's not within the scope of this post or related to the point I'm trying to make. What is important is to notice how the focus has shifted in our approach from how things can break - to how things behave when broken.   Happy coding!

    Read the article

  • What's the best version control/QA workflow for a legacy system?

    - by John Cromartie
    I am struggling to find a good balance with our development and testing process. We use Git right now, and I am convinced that ReinH's Git Workflow For Agile Teams is not just great for capital-A Agile, but for pretty much any team on DVCS. That's what I've tried to implement but it's just not catching. We have a large legacy system with a complex environment, hundreds of outstanding and undiscovered defects, and no real good way to set up a test environment with realistic data. It's also hard to release updates without disrupting users. Most of all, it's hard to do thorough QA with this process... and we need thorough testing with this legacy system. I feel like we can't really pull off anything as slick as the Git workflow outlined in the link. What's the way to do it?

    Read the article

  • What are the downsides of leaving automation tags in production code?

    - by joshin4colours
    I've been setting up debug tags for automated testing of a GWT-based web application. This involves turning on custom debug id tags/attributes for elements in the source of the app. It's a non-trivial task, particularly for larger, more complex web applications. Recently there's been some discussion of whether enabling such debug ids is a good idea to do across the board. Currently the debug ids are only turned on in development and testing servers, not in production. There have been points raised that enabling debug ids does cause performance to take a hit, and that debug ids in production may lead to security issues. What are benefits of doing this? Are there any significant risks for turning on debug tags in production code?

    Read the article

  • SO-Aware @ TechReady (Microsoft Event)

    - by SURESH GIRIRAJAN
    A session on SO-Aware is presented at Microsoft TechReady event this week check here for more details : http://tellagostudios.com/blog/so-aware-highlighted-microsoft-techready Check here for more details on SO-Aware and how to leverage within your enterprise if you’re using BizTalk Server, WCF Services and services build on Azure. It provides lot of capability such as: o    Centralized service repository o    Centralized configuration management o    Service testing o    Monitoring o    Transparent integration with technologies such as Visual Studio, BizTalk Server, Windows Server & Azure AppFabric among many others o    SO-Aware Test Workbench provides developers with a visually rich environment to model and control the execution of load and functional tests in a SOA infrastructure. This tool includes the first native WCF load testing engine allowing developers to transparently load test applications built on Microsoft's service oriented technologies such as WCF, BizTalk Server or the Windows Server or Azure AppFabric.

    Read the article

  • /etc/postfix/transport missing; what should it look like?

    - by Thufir
    I'm following the mailman guide but couldn't locate /etc/postfix/ so created it as follows: root@dur:~# root@dur:~# cat /etc/postfix/transport dur.bounceme.net mailman: root@dur:~# root@dur:~# telnet localhost 25 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. 220 dur.bounceme.net ESMTP Postfix (Ubuntu) ehlo fqdn_test 250-dur.bounceme.net 250-PIPELINING 250-SIZE 10240000 250-VRFY 250-ETRN 250-STARTTLS 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES 250-8BITMIME 250 DSN mail from:[email protected] 250 2.1.0 Ok rcpt to:thufir@localhost 451 4.3.0 <thufir@localhost>: Temporary lookup failure rcpt to:[email protected] 451 4.3.0 <[email protected]>: Temporary lookup failure quit 221 2.0.0 Bye Connection closed by foreign host. root@dur:~# root@dur:~# postconf -n alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases, hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/aliases append_dot_mydomain = no biff = no broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes config_directory = /etc/postfix default_transport = smtp home_mailbox = Maildir/ inet_interfaces = loopback-only mailbox_command = /usr/lib/dovecot/deliver -c /etc/dovecot/conf.d/01-mail-stack-delivery.conf -m "${EXTENSION}" mailbox_size_limit = 0 mailman_destination_recipient_limit = 1 mydestination = dur, dur.bounceme.net, localhost.bounceme.net, localhost myhostname = dur.bounceme.net mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 [::ffff:127.0.0.0]/104 [::1]/128 readme_directory = no recipient_delimiter = + relay_domains = lists.dur.bounceme.net relay_transport = relay relayhost = smtp_tls_session_cache_database = btree:${data_directory}/smtp_scache smtp_use_tls = yes smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP $mail_name (Ubuntu) smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_unknown_recipient_domain, reject_unauth_pipelining, permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated, reject_unauth_destination smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes smtpd_sasl_authenticated_header = yes smtpd_sasl_local_domain = $myhostname smtpd_sasl_path = private/dovecot-auth smtpd_sasl_security_options = noanonymous smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot smtpd_tls_auth_only = yes smtpd_tls_cert_file = /etc/ssl/certs/ssl-mail.pem smtpd_tls_key_file = /etc/ssl/private/ssl-mail.key smtpd_tls_mandatory_ciphers = medium smtpd_tls_mandatory_protocols = SSLv3, TLSv1 smtpd_tls_received_header = yes smtpd_tls_session_cache_database = btree:${data_directory}/smtpd_scache smtpd_use_tls = yes tls_random_source = dev:/dev/urandom transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport root@dur:~# root@dur:~# tail /var/log/mail.log Aug 28 02:05:15 dur postfix/smtpd[20326]: connect from localhost[127.0.0.1] Aug 28 02:06:10 dur postfix/smtpd[20326]: warning: hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/aliases is unavailable. open database /var/lib/mailman/data/aliases.db: No such file or directory Aug 28 02:06:10 dur postfix/smtpd[20326]: warning: hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/aliases lookup error for "thufir@localhost" Aug 28 02:06:10 dur postfix/smtpd[20326]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from localhost[127.0.0.1]: 451 4.3.0 <thufir@localhost>: Temporary lookup failure; from=<[email protected]> to=<thufir@localhost> proto=ESMTP helo=<fqdn_test> Aug 28 02:06:23 dur postfix/smtpd[20326]: warning: hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/aliases is unavailable. open database /var/lib/mailman/data/aliases.db: No such file or directory Aug 28 02:06:23 dur postfix/smtpd[20326]: warning: hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/aliases lookup error for "[email protected]" Aug 28 02:06:23 dur postfix/smtpd[20326]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from localhost[127.0.0.1]: 451 4.3.0 <[email protected]>: Temporary lookup failure; from=<[email protected]> to=<[email protected]> proto=ESMTP helo=<fqdn_test> Aug 28 02:06:28 dur postfix/smtpd[20326]: disconnect from localhost[127.0.0.1] Aug 28 02:06:49 dur dovecot: pop3-login: Login: user=<thufir>, method=PLAIN, rip=127.0.0.1, lip=127.0.0.1, mpid=20338, TLS Aug 28 02:06:49 dur dovecot: pop3(thufir): Disconnected: Logged out top=0/0, retr=0/0, del=0/0, size=0 root@dur:~# The manual page is here.

    Read the article

  • Constructive criticism for my bounce rate being so high [closed]

    - by Daniel
    The bounce rate on my website's product pages is 80%, which is terrible. Could you offer any opinions on whether you consider the user experience to be bad, and how I could possibly improve it? Other pages, such as the home and category pages, have acceptable bounce rates, but the vast majority of my traffic lands on the product pages. I already tried removing some Google ads for a couple of days, but this didn't seem to help at all. I'm working on doing A/B testing at the moment. (It's tricky, as the site is based on a CMS - I custom coded the [Joomla] component, so hopefully I can get this testing working.)

    Read the article

  • How to convince my boss to improve code quality?

    - by Vimvq1987
    The place I'm working for is a service provider. We have a lot of services, which are written to deal with deadline, so their code are really terrible: No coding convention, everyone codes in his own style No unit testing (which is really bad) No refactoring (which is truly worse) No automation build/deployment etc and these code are used again and again, so bad code continue to spread all over my department. I really want to set up a standard quality for our code, by requiring everyone to follow "rules": every line of code which does not follow convention will be rejected, and every function of code which does not pass unit testing will not be committed,...But I don't know how to convince my boss to allow me to do this. I'm relatively new comer, so inspiring people from my works is really hard, and I think it's easier if my boss support me to this. Thank you very much for your advices

    Read the article

  • SQLIO Writes

    - by Grant Fritchey
    SQLIO is a fantastic utility for testing the abilities of the disks in your system. It has a very unfortunate name though, since it's not really a SQL Server testing utility at all. It really is a disk utility. They ought to call it DiskIO because they'd get more people using I think. Anyway, branding is not the point of this blog post. Writes are the point of this blog post. SQLIO works by slamming your disk. It performs as mean reads as it can or it performs as many writes as it can depending on how you've configured your tests. There are much smarter people than me who will get into all the various types of tests you should run. I'd suggest reading a bit of what Jonathan Kehayias (blog|twitter) has to say or wade into Denny Cherry's (blog|twitter) work. They're going to do a better job than I can describing all the benefits and mechanisms around using this excellent piece of software. My concerns are very focused. I needed to set up a series of tests to see how well our product SQL Storage Compress worked. I wanted to know the effects it would have on a system, the disk for sure, but also memory and CPU. How to stress the system? SQLIO of course. But when I set it up and ran it, following the documentation that comes with it, I was seeing better than 99% compression on the files. Don't get me wrong. Our product is magnificent, wonderful, all things great and beautiful, gets you coffee in the morning and is made mostly from bacon. But 99% compression. No, it's not that good. So what's up? Well, it's the configuration. The default mechanism is to load up a file, something large that will overwhelm your disk cache. You're instructed to load the file with a character 0x0. I never got a computer science degree. I went to film school. Because of this, I didn't memorize ASCII tables so when I saw this, I thought it was zero's or something. Nope. It's NULL. That's right, you're making a very large file, but you're filling it with NULL values. That's actually ok when all you're testing is the disk sub-system. But, when you want to test a compression and decompression, that can be an issue. I got around this fairly quickly. Instead of generating a file filled with NULL values, I just copied a database file for my tests. And to test it with SQL Storage Compress, I used a database file that had already been run through compression (about 40% compression on that file if you're interested). Now the reads were taken care of. I am seeing very realistic performance from decompressing the information for reads through SQLIO. But what about writes? Well, the issue is, what does SQLIO write? I don't have access to the code. But I do have access to the results. I did two different tests, just to be sure of what I was seeing. First test, use the .DAT file as described in the documentation. I opened the .DAT file after I was done with SQLIO, using WordPad. Guess what? It's a giant file full of air. SQLIO writes NULL values. What does that do to compression? I did the test again on a copy of an uncompressed database file. Then I ran the original and the SQLIO modified copy through ZIP to see what happened. I got better than 99% compression out of the SQLIO modified file (original file of 624,896kb went to 275,871kb compressed, after SQLIO it went to 608kb compressed). So, what does SQLIO write? It writes air. If you're trying to test it with compression or maybe some other type of file storage mechanism like dedupe, you need to know this because your tests really won't be valid. Should I find some other mechanism for testing? Yeah, if all I'm interested in is establishing performance to my own satisfaction, yes. But, I want to be able to compare my results with other people's results and we all need to be using the same tool in order for that to happen. SQLIO is the common mechanism that most people I know use to establish disk performance behavior. It'd be better if we could get SQLIO to do writes in some other fashion. Oh, and before I go, I get to brag a bit. Measuring IOPS, SQL Storage Compress outperforms my disk alone by about 30%.

    Read the article

  • JPRT: A Build & Test System

    - by kto
    DRAFT A while back I did a little blogging on a system called JPRT, the hardware used and a summary on my java.net weblog. This is an update on the JPRT system. JPRT ("JDK Putback Reliablity Testing", but ignore what the letters stand for, I change what they mean every day, just to annoy people :\^) is a build and test system for the JDK, or any source base that has been configured for JPRT. As I mentioned in the above blog, JPRT is a major modification to a system called PRT that the HotSpot VM development team has been using for many years, very successfully I might add. Keeping the source base always buildable and reliable is the first step in the 12 steps of dealing with your product quality... or was the 12 steps from Alcoholics Anonymous... oh well, anyway, it's the first of many steps. ;\^) Internally when we make changes to any part of the JDK, there are certain procedures we are required to perform prior to any putback or commit of the changes. The procedures often vary from team to team, depending on many factors, such as whether native code is changed, or if the change could impact other areas of the JDK. But a common requirement is a verification that the source base with the changes (and merged with the very latest source base) will build on many of not all 8 platforms, and a full 'from scratch' build, not an incremental build, which can hide full build problems. The testing needed varies, depending on what has been changed. Anyone that was worked on a project where multiple engineers or groups are submitting changes to a shared source base knows how disruptive a 'bad commit' can be on everyone. How many times have you heard: "So And So made a bunch of changes and now I can't build!". But multiply the number of platforms by 8, and make all the platforms old and antiquated OS versions with bizarre system setup requirements and you have a pretty complicated situation (see http://download.java.net/jdk6/docs/build/README-builds.html). We don't tolerate bad commits, but our enforcement is somewhat lacking, usually it's an 'after the fact' correction. Luckily the Source Code Management system we use (another antique called TeamWare) allows for a tree of repositories and 'bad commits' are usually isolated to a small team. Punishment to date has been pretty drastic, the Queen of Hearts in 'Alice in Wonderland' said 'Off With Their Heads', well trust me, you don't want to be the engineer doing a 'bad commit' to the JDK. With JPRT, hopefully this will become a thing of the past, not that we have had many 'bad commits' to the master source base, in general the teams doing the integrations know how important their jobs are and they rarely make 'bad commits'. So for these JDK integrators, maybe what JPRT does is keep them from chewing their finger nails at night. ;\^) Over the years each of the teams have accumulated sets of machines they use for building, or they use some of the shared machines available to all of us. But the hunt for build machines is just part of the job, or has been. And although the issues with consistency of the build machines hasn't been a horrible problem, often you never know if the Solaris build machine you are using has all the right patches, or if the Linux machine has the right service pack, or if the Windows machine has it's latest updates. Hopefully the JPRT system can solve this problem. When we ship the binary JDK bits, it is SO very important that the build machines are correct, and we know how difficult it is to get them setup. Sure, if you need to debug a JDK problem that only shows up on Windows XP or Solaris 9, you'll still need to hunt down a machine, but not as a regular everyday occurance. I'm a big fan of a regular nightly build and test system, constantly verifying that a source base builds and tests out. There are many examples of automated build/tests, some that trigger on any change to the source base, some that just run every night. Some provide a protection gateway to the 'golden' source base which only gets changes that the nightly process has verified are good. The JPRT (and PRT) system is meant to guard the source base before anything is sent to it, guarding all source bases from the evil developer, well maybe 'evil' isn't the right word, I haven't met many 'evil' developers, more like 'error prone' developers. ;\^) Humm, come to think about it, I may be one from time to time. :\^{ But the point is that by spreading the build up over a set of machines, and getting the turnaround down to under an hour, it becomes realistic to completely build on all platforms and test it, on every putback. We have the technology, we can build and rebuild and rebuild, and it will be better than it was before, ha ha... Anybody remember the Six Million Dollar Man? Man, I gotta get out more often.. Anyway, now the nightly build and test can become a 'fetch the latest JPRT build bits' and start extensive testing (the testing not done by JPRT, or the platforms not tested by JPRT). Is it Open Source? No, not yet. Would you like to be? Let me know. Or is it more important that you have the ability to use such a system for JDK changes? So enough blabbering on about this JPRT system, tell me what you think. And let me know if you want to hear more about it or not. Stay tuned for the next episode, same Bloody Bat time, same Bloody Bat channel. ;\^) -kto

    Read the article

  • Deploying a very simple application

    - by vanna
    I have a very simple working console application written in C++ linked with a light static library. It is just for testing purposes. Now that the coding part is done, I would like to know the process of actually deploying the program. I wrote a very basic CMakeLists.txt that create makefiles or VS projects to build the sources. I also have a program that calls the static library in order to make some google tests. To me, the distribution of this application goes like this : to developpers : the src directory with the CMakeLists.txt file (multi-platform distribution) with a README.txt and an INSTALL.txt to users : the executable and a README.txt git repo : everything mentionned above plus the sources for testing and the gtest external lib A this point : considering the complexity of my application, am I doing it right ? Is there any reference that would formalize this deployment process so I can get better and go further ? Say I would like to add dynamic libraries that can be updated, external libraries like boost : how should I package this to deploy it in a professionnal way ?

    Read the article

  • Private Cloud: Putting some method behind the madness

    - by Sudip Datta
    Finally, I decided to join the blogging community. And what could be a better time to start than the week after OpenWorld 2012. 50K+ attendees, demonstrations, speaker sessions and a whole lot of buzz on Oracle Cloud..It was raining clouds in this year's Openworld. I am not here to write about Oracle's cloud strategy in general, but on Enterprise Manager's cloud management capabilities. This year's Openworld was the first after we announced the 12c Cloud Control and we were happy to share the stage with quite a few early adopters. Stay tuned for videos from our customers and partners, I will post them as they get published. I met a number of platform administrators in Oracle-DBAs, Middleware Admins, SOA Admins...The cloud has affected them all, at least to the point where it beckoned more than just curiosity..Most IT infrastructure are already heavily virtualized (on VMWare and on others including Oracle VM), and some would claim they are already on “cloud” (at least their Sysadmins told them so). But none of them were confident of the benefits because their pain points continued to grow.. Isn't cloud supposed to ease those? Instead, they were chasing hundreds of databases running on hundreds of VMs, often with as much certainty propounded by Heisenberg. What happened to the age-old IT discipline around administration, compliance, configuration management? VMs are great for what they are. I personally think they have opened the doors to new approaches in which an application stack gets provisioned and updated. In fact, Enterprise Manager 12c is possibly the only tool out there that can provision full-fledged application as VM Assemblies. In this year's Openworld, customers talked on how they provisioned RAC and Siebel assemblies, which as the techies out there know, are not trivial (hearing provisioning time for Siebel down from weeks to hours was gratifying indeed). However, I do have an issue with a "one-size fits all" approach to cloud. In a week's span, I met several personas: Project owners requiring an EC2 like VM instance for their projects Admins needing the same for Sparc-Solaris. DBAs requiring dedicated databases for new projects APEX Developers needing just a ready-to-consume schema as a service Java Developers looking for a runtime platform QA engineers needing a fast clone of their production environment If you drill down further, you will end up peeling more layers of the details. For example, the requirements for Load testing and Functional testing are very different. For Load testing the test environment should ideally be the same as the production. You shouldn't run production on Exadata and load test on a VM; they will just not be good representations of one another. For Functional testing it does not possibly matter. DBAs seem to be at the worst affected of the lot. It seems they have been asked to choose between agile provisioning and  faster runtime performance. And in some cases, it is really a Hobson's choice, because their infrastructure provider made no distinction between the OLTP application and the Virtual desktop! Sad indeed. When one looks at the portfolio of services that we already offer (vanilla IaaS, VM Assembly based PaaS, DBaaS) or have announced (Java PaaS, Instant Cloning, Schema-aaS), one can possibly think that we are trying to be the "renaissance man" ! Well I would have possibly digested that had it not been for the various personas that I described above. Getting the use cases right is very important for an application such as cloud management. We iterate and iterate over these over and over again and re-validate them in CABs (Customer Advisory Boards). We consider over the major aspects of tenancy: service placement, resource isolation (can a tenant execute an expensive SQL and run away with all the resources), quota and security. We, in Engineering, keep reminding ourselves that we are dealing with enterprise clouds. We owe it to our customer base ! In the coming posts, I will drill down more into each of the services. In the meanwhile, here are some collateral and  demos for starters with EM 12c. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oem/cloud-mgmt/index.html Sudip Datta The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Oracle. Stay Connected: Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Linkedin | Newsletter --

    Read the article

  • Authorship-verified website not included in "Author Stats" of Google Webmaster Tools?

    - by Yosi Mor
    In Google Webmaster Tools, is it normal for a website for which the Structured Data Testing Tool shows that "Authorship is working for this webpage" -- to not be listed in the "Author Stats" section (under "Labs")? I already understand that successful verification using the Structured Data Testing Tool does not guarantee that Google will actually display authorship in the SERPs, and that Google decides this at its own discretion. However, shouldn't such successful verification at least guarantee that the website is included in the "Author Stats" section (which purportedly covers "pages for which you are the verified author")? I would have assumed that, if Google is not yet displaying authorship for that site, it would show both its Impressions and Clicks as being "<10". Are my assumptions incorrect?

    Read the article

  • Using Definition of Done to Drive Agile Maturity

    - by Dylan Smith
    I’ve been an Agile Coach at a lot of different clients over the years, and I want to share an approach I use to help them adopt and mature over time. It’s important to realize that “Agile” is not a black/white yes/no thing. Teams can be varying degrees of agile. I think of this as their agile maturity level. When I coach teams I want them to start out being a little agile, and get more agile as they mature. The approach I teach them is to use the definition of done as a technique to continuously improve their agile maturity over time. We’re probably all familiar with the concept of “Done Done” that represents what *actually* being done a feature means. Not just when a developer says he’s done right after he writes that last line of code that makes the feature kind-of work. Done Done means the coding is done, it’s been tested, installers and deployment packages have been created, user manuals have been updated, architecture docs have been updated, etc. To enable teams to internalize the concept of “Done Done”, they usually get together and come up with their Definition of Done (DoD) that defines all the activities that need to be completed before a feature is considered Done Done. The Done Done technique typically is applied only to features (aka User Stories). What I do is extend this to apply to several concepts such as User Stories, Sprints, Releases (and sometimes Check-Ins). During project kick-off I’ll usually sit down with the team and go through an exercise of creating DoD’s for each of these concepts (Stories/Sprints/Releases). We’ll usually start by just brainstorming a bunch of activities that could end up in these various DoD’s. Here’s some examples: Code Reviews StyleCop FxCop User Manuals Updated Architecture Docs Updated Tested by QA Tested by UAT Installers Created Support Knowledge Base Updated Deployment Instructions (for Ops) written Automated Unit Tests Run Automated Integration Tests Run Then we start by arranging these activities into the place they occur today (e.g. Do you do UAT testing only once per release? every sprint? every feature?). If the team was previously Waterfall most of these activities probably end up in the Release DoD. An extremely mature agile team would probably have most of these activities in the DoD for the User Stories (because an extremely mature agile team will probably do continuous deployment and release every story). So what we need to do as a team, is work to move these activities from their current home (Release DoD) down into the Sprint DoD and eventually into the User Story DoD (and maybe into the lower-level Check-In DoD if we decide to use that). We don’t have to move them all down to User Story immediately, but as a team we figure out what we think we’re capable of moving down to the Sprint cycle, and Story cycle immediately, and that becomes our starting DoD’s. Over time the team makes an effort to continue moving activities down from Release->Sprint->Story as they become more agile and more mature. I try to encourage them to envision a world in which they deploy to production as each User Story is completed. They would need to be updating User Manuals, creating installers, doing UAT testing (typical Release cycle activities) on every single User Story. They may never actually reach that point, but they should envision that, and strive to keep driving the activities down closer to the User Story cycle s they mature. This is a great technique to give a team an easy-to-follow roadmap to mature their agile practices over time. Sure there’s other aspects to maturity outside of this, but it’s a great technique, that’s easy to visualize, to drive agility into the team. Just keep moving those activities (aka “gates”) down the board from Release->Sprint->Story. I’ll try to give an example of what a recent client of mine had for their DoD’s (this is from memory, so probably not 100% accurate): Release Create/Update deployment Instructions For Ops Instructional Videos Updated Run manual regression test suite UAT Testing In this case that meant deploying to an environment shared across the enterprise that mirrored production and asking other business groups to test their own apps to ensure we didn’t break anything outside our system Sprint Deploy to UAT Environment But not necessarily actually request UAT testing occur User Guides updated Sprint Features Video Created In this case we decided to create a video each sprint showing off the progress (video version of Sprint Demo) User Story Manual Test scripts developed and run Tested by BA Deployed in shared QA environment Using automated deployment process Peer Code Review Code Check-In Compiled (warning-free) Passes StyleCop Passes FxCop Create installer packages Run Automated Tests Run Automated Integration Tests PS – One of my clients had a great question when we went through this activity. They said that if a Sprint is by definition done when the end-date rolls around (time-boxed), isn’t a DoD on a sprint meaningless – it’s done on the end-date regardless of whether those other activities are complete or not? My answer is that while that statement is true – the sprint is done regardless when the end date rolls around – if the DoD activities haven’t been completed I would consider the Sprint a failure (similar to not completing what was committed/planned – failure may be too strong a word but you get the idea). In the Retrospective that will become an agenda item to discuss and understand why we weren’t able to complete the activities we agreed would need to be completed each Sprint.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140  | Next Page >