Search Results

Search found 11953 results on 479 pages for 'functional testing'.

Page 14/479 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • Regression testing for firewall changes

    - by James C
    We have a number of firewalls in place around our organisation and in some cases packets can pass through four levels of firewall limiting the flow TCP traffic. A concept that I'm used to from software testing is regression testing, allowing you to run a test suite against a changed application to verify that the new changes haven't affected any old features. Does anyone have any experience or an offer any solutions to being able to perform the same type of thing with firewall changes and network testing? The problem becomes a lot more complicated because you'd ideally want to be originating (and testing receipt) of packets across many machines.

    Read the article

  • Verfication vs validation again, does testing belong to verification? If so, which?

    - by user970696
    I have asked before and created a lot of controversy so I tried to collect some data and ask similar question again. E.g. V&V where all testing is only validation: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-5-2005-68117.asp According to ISO 12207, testing is done in validation: •Prepare Test Requirements,Cases and Specifications •Conduct the Tests In verification, it mentiones. The code implements proper event sequence, consistent interfaces, correct data and control flow, completeness, appropriate allocation timing and sizing budgets, and error definition, isolation, and recovery. and The software components and units of each software item have been completely and correctly integrated into the software item Not sure how to verify without testing but it is not there as a technique. From IEEE: Verification: The process of evaluating software to determine whether the products of a given development phase satisfy the conditions imposed at the start of that phase. [IEEE-STD-610]. Validation: The process of evaluating software during or at the end of the development process to determine whether it satisfies specified requirements. [IEEE-STD-610] At the end of development phase? That would mean UAT.. So the question is, what testing (unit, integration, system, uat) will be considered verification or validation? I do not understand why some say dynamic verification is testing, while others that only validation. An example: I am testing an application. System requirements say there are two fields with max. lenght of 64 characters and Save button. Use case say: User will fill in first and last name and save. When checking the fields and Save button presence, I would say its verification. When I follow the use case, its validation. So its both together, done on the system as a whole.

    Read the article

  • How to verify the code that could take a substantial time to compile? [on hold]

    - by user18404
    As a follow up to my prev question: What is the best aproach for coding in a slow compilation environment To recap: I am stuck with a large software system with which a TDD ideology of "test often" does not work. And to make it even worse the features like pre-compiled headers/multi-threaded compilation/incremental linking, etc is not available to me - hence I think that the best way out would be to add the extensive logging into the system and to start "coding in large chunks", which I understand as code for a two-three hours first (as opposed to 15-20 mins in TDD) - thoroughly eyeball the code for a 15 minutes and only after all that do the compilation and run the tests. As I have been doing TDD for a quite a while, my code eyeballing / code verification skills got rusty (you don't really need this that much if you can quickly verify what you've done in 5 seconds by running a test or two) - so I am after a recommendations on how to learn these source code verification/error spotting skills again. I know I was able to do that easily some 5-10 years ago when I din't have much support from the compiler/unit testing tools I had until recently, thus there should be a way to get back to the basics.

    Read the article

  • How can I test linkable/executable files that require re-hosting or retargeting?

    - by hagubear
    Due to data protection, I cannot discuss fine details of the work itself so apologies PROBLEM CASE Sometimes my software projects require merging/integration with third party (customer or other suppliers) software. these software are often in linkable executables or object code (requires that my source code is retargeted and linked with it). When I get the executables or object code, I cannot validate its operation fully without integrating it with my system. My initial idea is that executables are not meant to be unit tested, they are meant to be linkable with other system, but what is the guarantee that post-linkage and integration behaviour will be okay? There is also no sufficient documentation available (from the customer) to indicate how to go about integrating the executables or object files. I know this is philosophical question, but apparently not enough research could be found at this moment to conclude to a solution. I was hoping that people could help me go to the right direction by suggesting approaches. To start, I have found out that Avionics OEM software is often rehosted and retargeted by third parties e.g. simulator makers. I wonder how they test them. Surely, the source code will not be supplied due to IPR rgulations. UPDATE I have received reasonable and very useful suggestions regarding this area. My current struggle has shifted into testing 3rd party OBJECT code that needs to be linked with my own source code (retargeted) on my host machine. How can I even test object code? Surely, I need to link them first to even think about doing anything. Is it the post-link behaviour that needs to be determined and scripted (using perl,Tcl, etc.) so that inputs and outputs could be verified? No clue!! :( thanks,

    Read the article

  • Big datastructures in functional programming

    - by Denis Gorodetskiy
    I'm newbie in Functional Programming. I have a huge neural network with thousands of neurons and every connection between neurons has its weight. I have to update these weights very often, several thousand times per learning session. Is FP still applicable here? I mean in fp we can't modify variables and only able to return new variables not changing previous values. Does this mean I have to recreate whole network on every weight update?

    Read the article

  • Discovering a functional algorithm from a mutable one

    - by Garrett Rowe
    This isn't necessarily a Scala question, it's a design question that has to do with avoiding mutable state, functional thinking and that sort. It just happens that I'm using Scala. Given this set of requirements: Input comes from an essentially infinite stream of random numbers between 1 and 10 Final output is either SUCCEED or FAIL There can be multiple objects 'listening' to the stream at any particular time, and they can begin listening at different times so they all may have a different concept of the 'first' number; therefore listeners to the stream need to be decoupled from the stream itself. Pseudocode: if (first number == 1) SUCCEED else if (first number >= 9) FAIL else { first = first number rest = rest of stream for each (n in rest) { if (n == 1) FAIL else if (n == first) SUCCEED else continue } } Here is a possible mutable implementation: sealed trait Result case object Fail extends Result case object Succeed extends Result case object NoResult extends Result class StreamListener { private var target: Option[Int] = None def evaluate(n: Int): Result = target match { case None => if (n == 1) Succeed else if (n >= 9) Fail else { target = Some(n) NoResult } case Some(t) => if (n == t) Succeed else if (n == 1) Fail else NoResult } } This will work but smells to me. StreamListener.evaluate is not referentially transparent. And the use of the NoResult token just doesn't feel right. It does have the advantage though of being clear and easy to use/code. Besides there has to be a functional solution to this right? I've come up with 2 other possible options: Having evaluate return a (possibly new) StreamListener, but this means I would have to make Result a subtype of StreamListener which doesn't feel right. Letting evaluate take a Stream[Int] as a parameter and letting the StreamListener be in charge of consuming as much of the Stream as it needs to determine failure or success. The problem I see with this approach is that the class that registers the listeners should query each listener after each number is generated and take appropriate action immediately upon failure or success. With this approach, I don't see how that could happen since each listener is forcing evaluation of the Stream until it completes evaluation. There is no concept here of a single number generation. Is there any standard scala/fp idiom I'm overlooking here?

    Read the article

  • Rails functional testing without migrations

    - by Brian D.
    The name pretty much says it all. Does anyone know how to accomplish functional testing when you are not using migrations in Rails? I'd be open to any advice or third party libraries (if there are any). I thought of creating my own plugin to address this but it seems like a pretty big task and would rather not do this unless necessary. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Learning functional/clojure programming - practical excersises?

    - by Konrad Garus
    I'm learning functional programming with Clojure. What practical excersises can you recommend? Online repositories with solutions would be perfect. One idea I can think of is going through all the popular algorithms on sorting, trees, graphs etc. and implementing them in Clojure myself. While it could work, it may be pretty steep and I'm likely to do it inefficiently (compared to someone who knows what she's doing).

    Read the article

  • Functional programming approach for Java's input/output streams

    - by Elazar Leibovich
    I'm using Java's DataInputStream with scala to parse some simple binary file (which is very bad exprerience due to the lack of unsigned types, even in scala, but that's a different story). However I find myself forced to use mutable data structure, since Java's streams are inherently state preserving entities. What's a good design to wrap Java's streams with nice functional data structure?

    Read the article

  • functional dependencies vs type families

    - by mhwombat
    I'm developing a framework for running experiments with artificial life, and I'm trying to use type families instead of functional dependencies. Type families seems to be the preferred approach among Haskellers, but I've run into a situation where functional dependencies seem like a better fit. Am I missing a trick? Here's the design using type families. (This code compiles OK.) {-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, FlexibleContexts #-} import Control.Monad.State (StateT) class Agent a where agentId :: a -> String liveALittle :: Universe u => a -> StateT u IO a -- plus other functions class Universe u where type MyAgent u :: * withAgent :: (MyAgent u -> StateT u IO (MyAgent u)) -> String -> StateT u IO () -- plus other functions data SimpleUniverse = SimpleUniverse { mainDir :: FilePath -- plus other fields } defaultWithAgent :: (MyAgent u -> StateT u IO (MyAgent u)) -> String -> StateT u IO () defaultWithAgent = undefined -- stub -- plus default implementations for other functions -- -- In order to use my framework, the user will need to create a typeclass -- that implements the Agent class... -- data Bug = Bug String deriving (Show, Eq) instance Agent Bug where agentId (Bug s) = s liveALittle bug = return bug -- stub -- -- .. and they'll also need to make SimpleUniverse an instance of Universe -- for their agent type. -- instance Universe SimpleUniverse where type MyAgent SimpleUniverse = Bug withAgent = defaultWithAgent -- boilerplate -- plus similar boilerplate for other functions Is there a way to avoid forcing my users to write those last two lines of boilerplate? Compare with the version using fundeps, below, which seems to make things simpler for my users. (The use of UndecideableInstances may be a red flag.) (This code also compiles OK.) {-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, FunctionalDependencies, FlexibleInstances, UndecidableInstances #-} import Control.Monad.State (StateT) class Agent a where agentId :: a -> String liveALittle :: Universe u a => a -> StateT u IO a -- plus other functions class Universe u a | u -> a where withAgent :: Agent a => (a -> StateT u IO a) -> String -> StateT u IO () -- plus other functions data SimpleUniverse = SimpleUniverse { mainDir :: FilePath -- plus other fields } instance Universe SimpleUniverse a where withAgent = undefined -- stub -- plus implementations for other functions -- -- In order to use my framework, the user will need to create a typeclass -- that implements the Agent class... -- data Bug = Bug String deriving (Show, Eq) instance Agent Bug where agentId (Bug s) = s liveALittle bug = return bug -- stub -- -- And now my users only have to write stuff like... -- u :: SimpleUniverse u = SimpleUniverse "mydir"

    Read the article

  • White-box testing in Javascript - how to deal with privacy?

    - by Max Shawabkeh
    I'm writing unit tests for a module in a small Javascript application. In order to keep the interface clean, some of the implementation details are closed over by an anonymous function (the usual JS pattern for privacy). However, while testing I need to access/mock/verify the private parts. Most of the tests I've written previously have been in Python, where there are no real private variables (members, identifiers, whatever you want to call them). One simply suggests privacy via a leading underscore for the users, and freely ignores it while testing the code. In statically typed OO languages I suppose one could make private members accessible to tests by converting them to be protected and subclassing the object to be tested. In Javascript, the latter doesn't apply, while the former seems like bad practice. I could always wall back to black box testing and simply check the final results. It's the simplest and cleanest approach, but unfortunately not really detailed enough for my needs. So, is there a standard way of keeping variables private while still retaining some backdoors for testing in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • Should "closed as duplicate" software programming be extreme or functional? [migrated]

    - by Web Developer
    I'm a web developer loving this site for it's potential, and it's Coffee look . I was reading a great question, that is this: click here and noticed 8 moderators tagged it as DUPLICATED! The question was closed! Obviously it isn't and I'm going to explain why if needed but it can be seen: the question is unique, is the case/story of a young who have SPECIFIC experience with C++ , VB and Assembler and asking, knowing this specifications an answer (It is not a general question like "hey I'm young can I do the programmer??") Let me know your opinion! do you think this question should or should not be closed? And let's think about also the people not only the "data" and "cases covered" ... do you think this is important too? or is better to keep a place where people doesn't count?

    Read the article

  • functional-style datatypes in Python

    - by Danny Roberts
    For anyone who's spent some time with sml, ocaml, haskell, etc. when you go back to using C, Python, Java, etc. you start to notice things you never knew were missing. I'm doing some stuff in Python and I realized what I really want is a functional-style datatype like (for example) datatype phoneme = Vowel of string | Consonant of voice * place * manner datatype voice = Voiced | Voiceless datatype place = Labial | Dental | Retroflex | Palatal | Velar | Glottal datatype manner = Stop | Affricate | Fricative | Nasal | Lateral type syllable = phoneme list Does anyone have a particular way that they like to simulate this in Python?

    Read the article

  • Seeking Functional Programming Lexicon

    - by Randall Schulz
    Hi, Knowing the argot of a field helps me a lot, especially since it allows me to converse intelligently with those who know a lot more than I, so I would like to find a good lexicon of Functional Programming terms. E.g., I repeatedly encounter these: Functor, Arrow, Category, Kleisli, Monad, Monoid, a veritable zoo of Morphisms, etc. I also notice many of these appear with prefixes such as "covariant", "co-", "endo-" etc. Of these, I can say I actually understand Monoid and Covariant and sort of get Monad, but the rest are still gibberish to me. (Note that I don't mean this list as exhaustive and I'm not looking to have these defined or described for me here, I'm looking for learning resources.) Can someone point me towards an FP lexicon? It need not be on-line, as long as it's possible to find it (and it's not a rare volume for which I'd have to pay many tens of dollars).

    Read the article

  • Ruby on Rails testing: How can I test or at the very least see a form_for's error_messages_for?

    - by williamjones
    I'm working on creating a tests, and I can't figure out why the creation of a model from a form_for is failing in the test but works in real browsers. Is there a straightforward way for me to see what the problems are in the model creation? Even better would be, is there a straightforward way for me to test the error outputs that I access via error_messages_for? In that case, I'd like to also add in tests that make sure that malformed forms are outputting the correct errors.

    Read the article

  • Setting up functional Tests in Flex

    - by Dan Monego
    I'm setting up a functional test suite for an application that loads an external configuration file. Right now, I'm using flexunit's addAsync function to load it and then again to test if the contents point to services that exist and can be accessed. The trouble with this is that having this kind of two (or more) stage method means that I'm running all of my tests in the context of one test with dozens of asserts, which seems like a kind of degenerate way to use the framework, and makes bugs harder to find. Is there a way to have something like an asynchronous setup? Is there another testing framework that handles this better?

    Read the article

  • Functional languages targeting the LLVM

    - by Matthew
    Are there any languages that target the LLVM that: Are statically typed Use type inference Are functional (i.e. lambda expressions, closures, list primitives, list comprehensions, etc.) Have first class object-oriented features (inheritance, polymorphism, mixins, etc.) Have a sophisticated type system (generics, covariance and contravariance, etc.) Scala is all of these, but only targets the JVM. F# (and to some extent C#) is most if not all of these, but only targets .NET. What similar language targets the LLVM?

    Read the article

  • How does functional programming work?

    - by Headcrab
    I'm used to imperative/OO programming (know C, C++, Python, PHP, etc.). I wanted to get into functional programming but there are some things unclear to me. Take for example the languages F# and Haskell: How do you implement loops? By recursion? Eew. What about conditions? How can you get by without variables? I mean.. What do we have RAM for.. storing variables, right?

    Read the article

  • Functional languages & support for memoization

    - by Joel
    Do any of the current crop of popular functional languages have good support for memoization & if I was to pick one on the strength of its memoisation which would you recommend & why? Update: I'm looking to optimise a directed graph (where nodes could be functions or data). When a node in the graph is updated I would like the values of other nodes to be recalculated only if they depend the node that changed. Update2: require free or open-source language/runtime.

    Read the article

  • Scala, make my loop more functional

    - by Pengin
    I'm trying to reduce the extent to which I write Scala (2.8) like Java. Here's a simplification of a problem I came across. Can you suggest improvements on my solutions that are "more functional"? Transform the map val inputMap = mutable.LinkedHashMap(1->'a',2->'a',3->'b',4->'z',5->'c') by discarding any entries with value 'z' and indexing the characters as they are encountered First try var outputMap = new mutable.HashMap[Char,Int]() var counter = 0 for(kvp <- inputMap){ val character = kvp._2 if(character !='z' && !outputMap.contains(character)){ outputMap += (character -> counter) counter += 1 } } Second try (not much better, but uses an immutable map and a 'foreach') var outputMap = new immutable.HashMap[Char,Int]() var counter = 0 inputMap.foreach{ case(number,character) => { if(character !='z' && !outputMap.contains(character)){ outputMap2 += (character -> counter) counter += 1 } } }

    Read the article

  • Purely functional equivalent of weakhashmap?

    - by Jon Harrop
    Weak hash tables like Java's weak hash map use weak references to track the collection of unreachable keys by the garbage collector and remove bindings with that key from the collection. Weak hash tables are typically used to implement indirections from one vertex or edge in a graph to another because they allow the garbage collector to collect unreachable portions of the graph. Is there a purely functional equivalent of this data structure? If not, how might one be created? This seems like an interesting challenge. The internal implementation cannot be pure because it must collect (i.e. mutate) the data structure in order to remove unreachable parts but I believe it could present a pure interface to the user, who could never observe the impurities because they only affect portions of the data structure that the user can, by definition, no longer reach.

    Read the article

  • Functional equivalent of if (p(f(a), f(b)) a else b

    - by oxbow_lakes
    I'm guessing that there must be a better functional way of expressing the following: def foo(i: Any) : Int if (foo(a) < foo(b)) a else b So in this example f == foo and p == _ < _. There's bound to be some masterful cleverness in scalaz for this! I can see that using BooleanW I can write: p(f(a), f(b)).option(a).getOrElse(b) But I was sure that I would be able to write some code which only referred to a and b once. If this exists it must be on some combination of Function1W and something else but scalaz is a bit of a mystery to me! EDIT: I guess what I'm asking here is not "how do I write this?" but "What is the correct name and signature for such a function and does it have anything to do with FP stuff I do not yet understand like Kleisli, Comonad etc?"

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >