Search Results

Search found 8185 results on 328 pages for 'technical tests'.

Page 14/328 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • Problem with SQLite related nUnit-tests after upgrade to VS2010 and Re#5

    - by stiank81
    After converting to Visual Studio 2010 with ReSharper5 some of my unit tests started failing. More specifically this applies to all unit tests that use NHibernate with SQLite. The problem seem to be related to SQLite somehow. The unit tests that does not involve NHibernate and SQLite are still running fine. The exception is as follows: NHibernate.HibernateException : Could not create the driver from NHibernate.Driver.SQLite20Driver, NHibernate, Version=2.1.2.4000, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=aa95f207798dfdb4. ----> System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException : Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. ----> NHibernate.HibernateException : The IDbCommand and IDbConnection implementation in the assembly System.Data.SQLite could not be found. Ensure that the assembly System.Data.SQLite is located in the application directory or in the Global Assembly Cache. If the assembly is in the GAC, use <qualifyAssembly/> element in the application configuration file to specify the full name of the assembly. TearDown : System.NullReferenceException : Object reference not set to an instance of an object. The exception is the NullReferenceException on TearDown when cleaning up NHibernate objects that wasn't successfully created, but the problem seem to be related to SQLite somehow. I run my unit tests through ReSharper, but I get the same exception when running them directly through the NUnit.exe application. However, running them through the x86 variant (NUnit-x86.exe) all tests run fine. Can it be related to some mixing of 64bit and 32bit dlls? It still runs fine through VS2008 + ReSharper4.5. Note that the target framework of my projects still is .NET3.5. Anyone seen this problem before?

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2010 failed tests throw exceptions

    - by Dave Hanson
    In VisualStudio2010 Ultimate RC I cannot figure out how to suppress {"CollectionAssert.AreEqual failed. (Element at index 0 do not match.)"} from Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.AssertFailedException If i Ctrl+Alt+E I get the exception dialog; however that exception doesn't seem to be in there to be suppressed. Does anyone else have any experience with this? I don't remember having to suppress these Assert fails in studio 2008 when running unit tests. My tests would fail and I could just click on the TestResults to see which tests failed instead of fighting through these dialogs. For now I guess I'll just run my tests through the command window.

    Read the article

  • Reducing the pain writing integration and system tests

    - by mdma
    I would like to make integration tests and system tests for my applications but producing good integration and system tests have often needed so much effort that I have not bothered. The few times I tried, I wrote custom, application-specific test harnesses, which felt like re-inventing the wheel each time. I wonder if this is the wrong approach. Is there a "standard" approach to integration and full system testing? EDIT: To clarify, it's automated tests, for desktop and web applications. Ideally a complete test suite that exercises the full functionality of the application.

    Read the article

  • TeamCity run Nunit tests in Parallel

    - by Bob Sinclar
    So I was thinking that there must be a better way to run NUnit tests for a .net project via teamcity. Currently the build of the project takes about 10 minutes , and the testing step takes 30ish minutes. I was thinking about splitting up the Nunit tests into 3 groups, assigning them each to a different agent. And then make sure they have a build dependency on the initial build before they start. This was the best way i thought of doing it, Is there a different way I should also consider? On a side note Is it possible to combine all the Nunit tests at the end to get one report from the tests being build on 3 different machines? I dont think this is possible unless someone thought of a clever hack.

    Read the article

  • Run django tests from a browser

    - by phoebebright
    I'd like to provide a browser page to help non-techies run the various tests I've created using the standard django test framework. The ideal would be for a way to display all the tests found for an application with tick boxes against each one, so the user could choose to run all tests or just a selection. Output would be displayed in a window/frame for review. Anyone know of such a thing?

    Read the article

  • Debugging maven junit tests with filtered resources?

    - by hstoerr
    We are using filtered testResources in JUnit-tests that are usually executed by the maven surefire plugin. That is, the pom contains a section <build> <testResources> <testResource> <directory>src/test/resources</directory> <filtering>true</filtering> </testResource> </testResources> ... How can I run such JUnit-tests in the debugger? If I execute the tests in eclipse the tests fail since the test resources are not filtered. If the filtered test resources would be written somewhere into the target directory, I could just use this as an additional source path - but this is not the case. If I try to run the maven build in eclipse with Debug As / maven test , the build does not stop in the breakpoints. Any other ideas?

    Read the article

  • ReSharper no longer runs unit tests

    - by Ed Woodcock
    Hey folks I'm trying to write some unit tests for an app I work on at work (In the vague hope that others might follow suit), and I was originally running these tests using NUnit and the ReSharper plugin. However, ReSharper will no longer run tests for me for some reason: It simply crosses them out with a red strikeout. There's no error code I'm afraid, and there's no mention of such behaviour on the JetBrains site. Has anyone else experienced similar benhaviour? Cheers, Ed

    Read the article

  • Dynamically create PHPUnit tests from data-file

    - by DeletedAccount
    I have a data file with input and expected outputs. An example could be: input: output: 2 3 3 5 4 Exception 5 8 ... ... Currently I have a custom solution to read from the data file and perform a test for each {input,output} pair. I would like to convert this into a PHPUnit based solution and I would like to have one test per input using the test name forXassertY. So the first three tests would be called for2assert3(), for3assert5() and for4assertException(). I do not want to convert my existing data to tests if it's possible to create the test methods dynamically and keep the data file as the basis of these tests. I want to convert it to PHPUnit as I want to add some other tests later on and also process and view the output using Hudson. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Having Latest Tests Results info in the notified email with Hudson

    - by Roberto
    I have a project with a lot of tests failing, so it would be great for me to receive by email the number of failed tests compare from the latest build. What i need is just the info that appears in the project's page by the test results link: Latest Test Result (10 failures / -2) Is this possible? I've already tried the email-ext plugin, but it is not telling me that info (I can have the list of failing tests with output etc., but I really just need that info above). Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Team City + Gallio runs tests, but results are not shown

    - by Twindagger
    We recently updated to Visual Studio 2010, and as part of our upgrade we started using Gallio 3.2 prerelease builds. Everything runs fine in Visual Studio (through resharper) but I'm having problems with TeamCity integration. The tests seem to run during TeamCity builds just fine (our build takes long enough to run all our tests), but the tests are not showing up in TeamCity's test area. Here is the test target from our NANT build file (this hasn't changed in our upgrade at all). Is there a trick to getting the tests to show up in TeamCity or is this something that's broken in the latest builds of Gallio? <target name="runTests"> <gallio result-property="exitCode" failonerror="false"> <runner-extension value="TeamCityExtension,Gallio.TeamCityIntegration" /> <assemblies> <include name="..\Source\Tests\${testProject}\bin\Debug\${testProject}.dll" /> </assemblies> </gallio> </target>

    Read the article

  • Auto Re-Running of Tests that fail

    - by Tangopop
    I have a set of Selenium/MbUnit Tests that work fine, but tend to take a while to run (over 4 hours) A problem i am finding is that about 1 in 20 test seems to timeout when running. I have confirmed the Selenium GRID is working and the Selenium RC's are all fine, it just seems to be a qwerk of the system. What is really annoying though is that if i run these tests again they will usually pass. What i want to know is if there is a way for me to auto rerun the tests (probably in the code) if a perticular type of exception is caught... I have attempted to put a few lines of code in the catch statement but i know this is a very hacky way of re running the tests. Here is the code: catch (AssertionException e) { if (e.Message() == "TimeOut") //Something similar to this { this.Test(); } else { verificationErrors.AppendLine(browserList[i] + " :: " + e.Message); } } Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • How can I change ruby log level in unit tests based on context

    - by Stuart
    I'm new to ruby so forgive me if this is simple or I get some terminology wrong. I've got a bunch of unit tests (actually they're integration tests for another project, but they use ruby test/unit) and they all include from a module that sets up an instance variable for the log object. When I run the individual tests I'd like log.level to be debug, but when I run a suite I'd like log.level to be error. Is it possible to do this with the approach I'm taking, or does the code need to be restructured? Here's a small example of what I have so far. The logging module: #!/usr/bin/env ruby require 'logger' module MyLog def setup @log = Logger.new(STDOUT) @log.level = Logger::DEBUG end end A test: #!/usr/bin/env ruby require 'test/unit' require 'mylog' class Test1 < Test::Unit::TestCase include MyLog def test_something @log.info("About to test something") # Test goes here @log.info("Done testing something") end end A test suite made up of all the tests in its directory: #!/usr/bin/env ruby Dir.foreach(".") do |path| if /it-.*\.rb/.match(File.basename(path)) require path end end

    Read the article

  • Unit tests logged (or run) multiple times

    - by HeavyWave
    I have this simple test: protected readonly ILog logger = LogManager.GetLogger(MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().ReflectedType); private static int count = 0; [Test] public void TestConfiguredSuccessfully() { logger.Debug("in test method" + count++); } log4net is set up like this: [TestFixtureSetUp] public void SetUp() { log4net.Config.BasicConfigurator.Configure(); } The problem is, that if I run this test in nUnit once, I get the output (as expected): 1742 [TestRunnerThread] DEBUG Tests.TestSomthing (null) - in test method0 But if I press RUN in nUnit.exe again (or more) I get the following: 1742 [TestRunnerThread] DEBUG Tests.TestSomthing (null) - in test method1 1742 [TestRunnerThread] DEBUG Tests.TestSomthing (null) - in test method1 And so on (if I run it 5 times, I'll get 5 repeating lines). Now, if I run the same test alone from reSharper the output is fine and does not repeat. However, if I run this test along side 2 other tests in the same class, the output is repeated three times. I am totally confused. What the hell is going on here?

    Read the article

  • Unit Tests Architecture Question

    - by Tom Tresansky
    So I've started to layout unit tests for the following bit of code: public interface MyInterface { void MyInterfaceMethod1(); void MyInterfaceMethod2(); } public class MyImplementation1 implements MyInterface { void MyInterfaceMethod1() { // do something } void MyInterfaceMethod2() { // do something else } void SubRoutineP() { // other functionality specific to this implementation } } public class MyImplementation2 implements MyInterface { void MyInterfaceMethod1() { // do a 3rd thing } void MyInterfaceMethod2() { // do something completely different } void SubRoutineQ() { // other functionality specific to this implementation } } with several implementations and the expectation of more to come. My initial thought was to save myself time re-writing unit tests with something like this: public abstract class MyInterfaceTester { protected MyInterface m_object; @Setup public void setUp() { m_object = getTestedImplementation(); } public abstract MyInterface getTestedImplementation(); @Test public void testMyInterfaceMethod1() { // use m_object to run tests } @Test public void testMyInterfaceMethod2() { // use m_object to run tests } } which I could then subclass easily to test the implementation specific additional methods like so: public class MyImplementation1Tester extends MyInterfaceTester { public MyInterface getTestedImplementation() { return new MyImplementation1(); } @Test public void testSubRoutineP() { // use m_object to run tests } } and likewise for implmentation 2 onwards. So my question really is: is there any reason not to do this? JUnit seems to like it just fine, and it serves my needs, but I haven't really seen anything like it in any of the unit testing books and examples I've been reading. Is there some best practice I'm unwittingly violating? Am I setting myself up for heartache down the road? Is there simply a much better way out there I haven't considered? Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • CodeStock 2012 Review: Eric Landes( @ericlandes ) - Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.

    Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.Speaker: Eric LandesTwitter: @ericlandesBlog: http://ericlandes.com/ This was one of the first sessions I attended during CodeStock 2012. Eric’s talk focused mostly on unit testing, and that the lack of proper unit testing can be compared to stealing from an employer. His point was that if you’re not doing proper unit testing then all of the time wasted on fixing issues that could have been detected with unit tests is like stealing money from employer. He makes the assumption that that time spent on fixing these issues could have been better spent developing new features that drive the business. To a point I can agree with Eric’s argument regarding unit testing and stealing from a company’s perspective. I can see how he relates resources being shifted from new development to bug fixes as stealing based on the fact that the resources used to fix bugs are directly taken from other projects. He also states that Boring/Redundant and Build/Test tasks should be automated because it reduces the changes of errors and frees up developer to do what they do best, DEVELOP! When he refers to testing, he breaks testing down in to four distinct types. Unit Test Acceptance Test (This also includes Integration Tests) Performance Test UI Test With this he also recommends that developers should not go buck wild striving for 100% code coverage because some test my not provide a great return on investment. In his experience he recommends that 70% test coverage was a very acceptable rate.

    Read the article

  • CodeStock 2012 Review: Eric Landes( @ericlandes ) - Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.

    Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.Speaker: Eric LandesTwitter: @ericlandesBlog: http://ericlandes.com/ This was one of the first sessions I attended during CodeStock 2012. Eric’s talk focused mostly on unit testing, and that the lack of proper unit testing can be compared to stealing from an employer. His point was that if you’re not doing proper unit testing then all of the time wasted on fixing issues that could have been detected with unit tests is like stealing money from employer. He makes the assumption that that time spent on fixing these issues could have been better spent developing new features that drive the business. To a point I can agree with Eric’s argument regarding unit testing and stealing from a company’s perspective. I can see how he relates resources being shifted from new development to bug fixes as stealing based on the fact that the resources used to fix bugs are directly taken from other projects. He also states that Boring/Redundant and Build/Test tasks should be automated because it reduces the changes of errors and frees up developer to do what they do best, DEVELOP! When he refers to testing, he breaks testing down in to four distinct types. Unit Test Acceptance Test (This also includes Integration Tests) Performance Test UI Test With this he also recommends that developers should not go buck wild striving for 100% code coverage because some test my not provide a great return on investment. In his experience he recommends that 70% test coverage was a very acceptable rate.

    Read the article

  • Tests for hard drive health

    - by Samik R
    I have a 5-year old hard drive (bought new at the time), but it was sitting in my closet for 5 years, unused. I have just started using it, and seems to be getting a whirring sound (rather distinct from the other noises like fans etc.). I ran a few diagnostics tests, like Seagate's SeaTools, and the SMART test, and a few generic tests and all passed. Should I be concerned? Is there any other test that I should run? It's an internal IDE WD 5400RPM drive. Being used for a desktop, which is itself pretty high-end (AMD Phenom II X6 1100T, AMD Radeon GPU etc.), but would be used rather occasionally to begin with (avg. 1-2 hrs. per day). Thanks for any pointers.

    Read the article

  • Recommendations for technical (programming) podcasts or audio books?

    - by David Pfeffer
    I'd like to do some professional development during my commute, but I find that reading programming texts on the bus and train cause nausia because of how much I have to focus on them. I'd like to find some good technical programming audio books, either free or for purchase/download and some good technical podcasts. What are the best programming audio books or podcasts out there, and where can they be found?

    Read the article

  • Regression testing with Selenium GRID

    - by Ben Adderson
    A lot of software teams out there are tasked with supporting and maintaining systems that have grown organically over time, and the web team here at Red Gate is no exception. We're about to embark on our first significant refactoring endeavour for some time, and as such its clearly paramount that the code be tested thoroughly for regressions. Unfortunately we currently find ourselves with a codebase that isn't very testable - the three layers (database, business logic and UI) are currently tightly coupled. This leaves us with the unfortunate problem that, in order to confidently refactor the code, we need unit tests. But in order to write unit tests, we need to refactor the code :S To try and ease the initial pain of decoupling these layers, I've been looking into the idea of using UI automation to provide a sort of system-level regression test suite. The idea being that these tests can help us identify regressions whilst we work towards a more testable codebase, at which point the more traditional combination of unit and integration tests can take over. Ending up with a strong battery of UI tests is also a nice bonus :) Following on from my previous posts (here, here and here) I knew I wanted to use Selenium. I also figured that this would be a good excuse to put my xUnit [Browser] attribute to good use. Pretty quickly, I had a raft of tests that looked like the following (this particular example uses Reflector Pro). In a nut shell the test traverses our shopping cart and, for a particular combination of number of users and months of support, checks that the price calculations all come up with the correct values. [BrowserTheory] [Browser(Browsers.Firefox3_6, "http://www.red-gate.com")] public void Purchase1UserLicenceNoSupport(SeleniumProvider seleniumProvider) {     //Arrange     _browser = seleniumProvider.GetBrowser();     _browser.Open("http://www.red-gate.com/dynamic/shoppingCart/ProductOption.aspx?Product=ReflectorPro");                  //Act     _browser = ShoppingCartHelpers.TraverseShoppingCart(_browser, 1, 0, ".NET Reflector Pro");     //Assert     var priceResult = PriceHelpers.GetNewPurchasePrice(db, "ReflectorPro", 1, 0, Currencies.Euros);         Assert.Equal(priceResult.Price, _browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl01_Price"));     Assert.Equal(priceResult.Tax, _browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Tax"));     Assert.Equal(priceResult.Total, _browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Total")); } These tests are pretty concise, with much of the common code in the TraverseShoppingCart() and GetNewPurchasePrice() methods. The (inevitable) problem arose when it came to execute these tests en masse. Selenium is a very slick tool, but it can't mask the fact that UI automation is very slow. To give you an idea, the set of cases that covers all of our products, for all combinations of users and support, came to 372 tests (for now only considering purchases in dollars). In the world of automated integration tests, that's a very manageable number. For unit tests, it's a trifle. However for UI automation, those 372 tests were taking just over two hours to run. Two hours may not sound like a lot, but those cases only cover one of the three currencies we deal with, and only one of the many different ways our systems can be asked to calculate a price. It was already pretty clear at this point that in order for this approach to be viable, I was going to have to find a way to speed things up. Up to this point I had been using Selenium Remote Control to automate Firefox, as this was the approach I had used previously and it had worked well. Fortunately,  the guys at SeleniumHQ also maintain a tool for executing multiple Selenium RC tests in parallel: Selenium Grid. Selenium Grid uses a central 'hub' to handle allocation of Selenium tests to individual RCs. The Remote Controls simply register themselves with the hub when they start, and then wait to be assigned work. The (for me) really clever part is that, as far as the client driver library is concerned, the grid hub looks exactly the same as a vanilla remote control. To create a new browser session against Selenium RC, the following C# code suffices: new DefaultSelenium("localhost", 4444, "*firefox", "http://www.red-gate.com"); This assumes that the RC is running on the local machine, and is listening on port 4444 (the default). Assuming the hub is running on your local machine, then to create a browser session in Selenium Grid, via the hub rather than directly against the control, the code is exactly the same! Behind the scenes, the hub will take this request and hand it off to one of the registered RCs that provides the "*firefox" execution environment. It will then pass all communications back and forth between the test runner and the remote control transparently. This makes running existing RC tests on a Selenium Grid a piece of cake, as the developers intended. For a more detailed description of exactly how Selenium Grid works, see this page. Once I had a test environment capable of running multiple tests in parallel, I needed a test runner capable of doing the same. Unfortunately, this does not currently exist for xUnit (boo!). MbUnit on the other hand, has the concept of concurrent execution baked right into the framework. So after swapping out my assembly references, and fixing up the resulting mismatches in assertions, my example test now looks like this: [Test] public void Purchase1UserLicenceNoSupport() {    //Arrange    ISelenium browser = BrowserHelpers.GetBrowser();    var db = DbHelpers.GetWebsiteDBDataContext();    browser.Start();    browser.Open("http://www.red-gate.com/dynamic/shoppingCart/ProductOption.aspx?Product=ReflectorPro");                 //Act     browser = ShoppingCartHelpers.TraverseShoppingCart(browser, 1, 0, ".NET Reflector Pro");    var priceResult = PriceHelpers.GetNewPurchasePrice(db, "ReflectorPro", 1, 0, Currencies.Euros);    //Assert     Assert.AreEqual(priceResult.Price, browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl01_Price"));     Assert.AreEqual(priceResult.Tax, browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Tax"));     Assert.AreEqual(priceResult.Total, browser.GetText("ctl00_content_InvoiceShoppingItemRepeater_ctl02_Total")); } This is pretty much the same as the xUnit version. The exceptions are that the attributes have changed,  the //Arrange phase now has to handle setting up the ISelenium object, as the attribute that previously did this has gone away, and the test now sets up its own database connection. Previously I was using a shared database connection, but this approach becomes more complicated when tests are being executed concurrently. To avoid complexity each test has its own connection, which it is responsible for closing. For the sake of readability, I snipped out the code that closes the browser session and the db connection at the end of the test. With all that done, there was only one more step required before the tests would execute concurrently. It is necessary to tell the test runner which tests are eligible to run in parallel, via the [Parallelizable] attribute. This can be done at the test, fixture or assembly level. Since I wanted to run all tests concurrently, I marked mine at the assembly level in the AssemblyInfo.cs using the following: [assembly: DegreeOfParallelism(3)] [assembly: Parallelizable(TestScope.All)] The second attribute marks all tests in the assembly as [Parallelizable], whilst the first tells the test runner how many concurrent threads to use when executing the tests. I set mine to three since I was using 3 RCs in separate VMs. With everything now in place, I fired up the Icarus* test runner that comes with MbUnit. Executing my 372 tests three at a time instead of one at a time reduced the running time from 2 hours 10 minutes, to 55 minutes, that's an improvement of about 58%! I'd like to have seen an improvement of 66%, but I can understand that either inefficiencies in the hub code, my test environment or the test runner code (or some combination of all three most likely) contributes to a slightly diminished improvement. That said, I'd love to hear about any experience you have in upping this efficiency. Ultimately though, it was a saving that was most definitely worth having. It makes regression testing via UI automation a far more plausible prospect. The other obvious point to make is that this approach scales far better than executing tests serially. So if ever we need to improve performance, we just register additional RC's with the hub, and up the DegreeOfParallelism. *This was just my personal preference for a GUI runner. The MbUnit/Gallio installer also provides a command line runner, a TestDriven.net runner, and a Resharper 4.5 runner. For now at least, Resharper 5 isn't supported.

    Read the article

  • Malware - Technical anlaysis

    - by nullptr
    Note: Please do not mod down or close. Im not a stupid PC user asking to fix my pc problem. I am intrigued and am having a deep technical look at whats going on. I have come across a Windows XP machine that is sending unwanted p2p traffic. I have done a 'netstat -b' command and explorer.exe is sending out the traffic. When I kill this process the traffic stops and obviously Windows Explorer dies. Here is the header of the stream from the Wireshark dump (x.x.x.x) is the machines IP. GNUTELLA CONNECT/0.6 Listen-IP: x.x.x.x:8059 Remote-IP: 76.164.224.103 User-Agent: LimeWire/5.3.6 X-Requeries: false X-Ultrapeer: True X-Degree: 32 X-Query-Routing: 0.1 X-Ultrapeer-Query-Routing: 0.1 X-Max-TTL: 3 X-Dynamic-Querying: 0.1 X-Locale-Pref: en GGEP: 0.5 Bye-Packet: 0.1 GNUTELLA/0.6 200 OK Pong-Caching: 0.1 X-Ultrapeer-Needed: false Accept-Encoding: deflate X-Requeries: false X-Locale-Pref: en X-Guess: 0.1 X-Max-TTL: 3 Vendor-Message: 0.2 X-Ultrapeer-Query-Routing: 0.1 X-Query-Routing: 0.1 Listen-IP: 76.164.224.103:15649 X-Ext-Probes: 0.1 Remote-IP: x.x.x.x GGEP: 0.5 X-Dynamic-Querying: 0.1 X-Degree: 32 User-Agent: LimeWire/4.18.7 X-Ultrapeer: True X-Try-Ultrapeers: 121.54.32.36:3279,173.19.233.80:3714,65.182.97.15:5807,115.147.231.81:9751,72.134.30.181:15810,71.59.97.180:24295,74.76.84.250:25497,96.234.62.221:32344,69.44.246.38:42254,98.199.75.23:51230 GNUTELLA/0.6 200 OK So it seems that the malware has hooked into explorer.exe and hidden its self quite well as a Norton Scan doesn't pick anything up. I have looked in Windows firewall and it shouldn't be letting this traffic through. I have had a look into the messages explorer.exe is sending in Spy++ and the only related ones I can see are socket connections etc... My question is what can I do to look into this deeper? What does malware achieve by sending p2p traffic? I know to fix the problem the easiest way is to reinstall Windows but I want to get to the bottom of it first, just out of interest. Edit: Had a look at Deoendency Walker and Process Explorer. Both great tools. Here is a image of the TCP connections for explorer.exe in Process Explorer http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3563/61930284.gif

    Read the article

  • Editing service for blogger with terrible English grammar

    - by Josh Moore
    I would like to write a technical blog. However, the biggest things holding me back is my poor spelling, punctuation, and grammar (I have all these problems even though I am a native English speaker). I am thinking about using a professional editing/proofreading service to fix my blog posts before I post them. However, given the content will be technical in nature (some articles will get into details of programming) and I would like to write them in markdown, I am not sure if the general online services will be a good fit. Can you recommend a editor (or company) that you like that can provide this service?

    Read the article

  • Cloud Integration White Paper - Now Available

    - by Bruce Tierney
    Interested in expanding your existing application infrastructure to integrate with cloud applications?  Download the new Oracle White Paper "Cloud Integration - A Comprehensive Solution" to learn not just about connectivity but the other key aspects of successful cloud integration. The paper includes three technical examples of cloud integration with Oracle Fusion Applications, Saleforce, and Workday and follows with the importance of taking a comprehensive approach to also include service aggregation, service virtualization, cloud security considerations and the benefit of maintaining a unified approach to monitoring and management despite an increasingly distributed hybrid infrastructure. To keep the integration architecture from being defined "accidentally" as new business units subscribe to additional cloud vendors outside the participation of IT, a discussion on the "Accidental SOA Cloud Architecture" is included: As shown in the table of contents below, the white paper provides a combination of high-level awareness about key considerations as well as a technical deep dive of the steps needed for cloud integration connectivity: Hope you find the White Paper valuable.  Please download from the following link

    Read the article

  • Unit Tests as a learning tool - a good idea?

    - by Ekkehard.Horner
    I'm interested in ways and means for learning (a) programming language(s) efficiently. I believe that using Unit Test concepts and infrastructure early in that process is a good thing, even better than starting with "Hello world". Why: To write a decent program even for a toy/restricted problem in a new language, you'll have to master many heterogenous concepts (control flow & variables & IO ...), you are tempted to glance over details just to get your program 'to work'. Putting (your understanding of) the facts about the new language in assertions with good descriptions (=success messages) enforces thinking thru/clearness/precision. Grouping topics and adding assertions to such groups is much easier than incorporation features from the 2. chapter of your "Learning X" book to your chapter 1 program. Why not: 'Real' Unit Tests are meant to output "1234 tests ok; 1 failure: saveWorld() chokes on negative input"; 'didactic' Unit Tests should output relevant facts about the new language like perl6 10-string.t # ### p5chop ... ok 13 - p5chop( "cbä" ) returns "ä" ok 14 - after that, victim is changed to "cb" # ### (p6) chop ... ok 27 - (p6) chop( "cbä" ) returns chopped copy: "cb" ok 18 - after that, victim is unchanged: "cbä" # ### chomp ... So (mis?)using Unit Tests may be counterproductive - practicing actions while learning you wouldn't use professionally. How: Writing 'didactic' Unit Tests in languages with lightweight testing systems (Perl 5/6) is easy; (mis?)using more elaborate systems (JUnit, CppUnit) may be not worth the effort or not suitable for a person just starting with a new language. So Is using Unit Tests as a learning tool a bad idea? Can the Unit Test tool(s) of your favourite language(s) used didactically? Should implementation details (eventually) be discussed here or over at stackoverflow.com?

    Read the article

  • Do you write unit tests for all the time in TDD?

    - by mcaaltuntas
    I have been designing and developing code with TDD style for a long time. What disturbs me about TDD is writing tests for code that does not contain any business logic or interesting behaviour. I know TDD is a design activity more than testing but sometimes I feel it's useless to write tests in these scenarios. For example I have a simple scenario like "When user clicks check button, it should check file's validity". For this scenario I usually start writing tests for presenter/controller class like the one below. @Test public void when_user_clicks_check_it_should_check_selected_file_validity(){ MediaService service =mock(MediaService); View view =mock(View); when(view.getSelectedFile).thenReturns("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); MediaController controller =new MediaController(service,view); controller.check(); verify(service).check("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); } As you can see there is no design decision or interesting code to verify behaviour. I am testing values from view passed to MediaService. I usually write but don't like these kind of tests. What do yo do about these situations ? Do you write tests for all the time ? UPDATE : I have changed the test name and code after complaints. Some users said that you should write tests for the trivial cases like this so in the future someone might add interesting behaviour. But what about “Code for today, design for tomorrow.” ? If someone, including myself, adds more interesting code in the future the test can be created for it then. Why should I do it now for the trivial cases ?

    Read the article

  • Request bursting from web application Load Tests

    - by MaseBase
    I'm migrating our web and database hosting to a new environment on all new machines. I've recently performed a Load Test using WAPT to generate load from multiple distributed clients. The server has plenty of room to handle the traffic load, but I'm seeing an odd pattern of incoming traffic during the load tests. Here is the gist of our setup: Firewall server running MS Forefront TMG 2010 on Win 2k8 server Request routing done by IIS Application Request Routing on firewall machine Web server is a Hyper-V VM on the Database server (which is the host OS) These machines are hefty with dual-CPU's with six cores (12 total procs) Web server running IIS 7.5 Web applications built in ASP.NET 2.0, with 1 ISAPI filter (Url Rewrite) in front What I'm seeing during the load tests is that the requests all come through in bursts. Even though I have 7 different distributed clients sending traffic loads, the requests come through about 300-500 requests at a time. The performance monitor shows nearly all of the counters moving through this pattern, where a burst of requests comes in the req/sec jumps to 70, the queued requests jumps to 500, the current requests jumps up, the CPU jumps up, everything. Then once it's handled that group of requests, it has a lull for nearly 10 seconds where nearly nothing is happening. 0-5 req/sec, 0 queued requests, minimal CPU usage. Then after 10 seconds of inactivity, another burst comes through, spiking all of the counters once again. What I can't figure out is why the requests are coming through in bursts when I know that the load being generated is not sent that way, especially considering the various load-generating clients sending traffic all in different intervals with random think time's between each request. Is there something in the layers between Hyper-V or perhaps in the hardware which might cause this coalesce of requests together? Here is what i'm looking at, the highlighted metric is Requests/sec, but the others critical counter go with it: Requests Queued (which I'd obviously like to keep as close to 0 as possible). Any ideas on this?

    Read the article

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