Search Results

Search found 24353 results on 975 pages for 'test coverage'.

Page 14/975 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • Catch Up on Your Reading

    - by [email protected]
    AutoVue 20.0 was a major release which included many new features and enhancements. We eagerly shared the news with members of the media, who in turn wrote about AutoVue enterprise visualization in various online articles. Here is a summary of the articles featuring AutoVue 20.0. Happy reading! Oracle Unveils AutoVue 20.0 Desktop Engineering; April 5, 2010 Oracle Upgrades Document Visualization Tool Managing Automation; April 5, 2010 Oracle's AutoVue 20.0 Enhances Visual Document Collaboration CMS Wire; April 6, 2010 Oracle Turns Attention to Project and Document Management Channel Insider; April 7, 2010 Oracle Unveils AutoVue 20.0 Database Trends and Applications; April 7, 2010

    Read the article

  • Why can't I get 100% code coverage on a method that calls a constructor of a generic type?

    - by Martin Watts
    Today I came across a wierd issue in a Visual Studio 2008 Code Coverage Analysis. Consider the following method:  private IController GetController<T>(IContext context) where T : IController, new() {     IController controller = new T();     controller.ListeningContext = context;     controller.Plugin = this;     return controller; } This method is called in a unit test as follows (MenuController has an empty constructor): controller = plugin.GetController<MenuController>(null);  After calling this method from a Unit Test, the following code coverage report is generated: As you can see, Code Coverage is only 85%. Looking up the code results in the following: Apparently, the call to the constructor of the generic type is considered only partly covered. WHY? Google didn't help. And MSDN didn't help at all, of course. Anybody who does know?

    Read the article

  • Reflection in unit tests for checking code coverage

    - by Gary
    Here's the scenario. I have VO (Value Objects) or DTO objects that are just containers for data. When I take those and split them apart for saving into a DB that (for lots of reasons) doesn't map to the VO's elegantly, I want to test to see if each field is successfully being created in the database and successfully read back in to rebuild the VO. Is there a way I can test that my tests cover every field in the VO? I had an idea about using reflection to iterate through the fields of the VO's as part of the solution, but maybe you guys have solved the problem before? I want this test to fail when I add fields in the VO, and don't remember to add checks for it in my tests.

    Read the article

  • SpaceX’s Falcon 9 Launch Success And Reusable Rockets Test Partially Successful

    - by Gopinath
    Elon Musk’s SpaceX is closing on the dream of developing reusable rockets and likely in an year or two space launch rockets will be reusable just like flights, ships and cars. Today SpaceX launched an upgraded Falcon 9 rocket in to space to deliver satellites as well as to test their reusable rocket launching technology. All on board satellites were released on to the orbit and the first stage of rocket partially succeeded in returning back to Earth. This is a huge leap in space technology.   Couple of years ago reusable rockets were considered as impossible. NASA, Russian Space Agency, China, India or for that matter any other space agency never even attempted to build reusable rockets. But SpaceX’s revolutionary technology partially succeeded in doing the impossible! Elon Musk founded SpaceX with the goal of building reusable rockets and transporting humans to & from other planets like Mars. He says If one can figure out how to effectively reuse rockets just like airplanes, the cost of access to space will be reduced by as much as a factor of a hundred.  A fully reusable vehicle has never been done before. That really is the fundamental breakthrough needed to revolutionize access to space. Normally the first stage of a rocket falls back to Earth after burning out and is destroyed. But today SpaceX reignited first stage rocket after its separation and attempted to descend smoothly on to ocean’s surface. Though it did not fully succeed, the test was partially successful and SpaceX was able to recovers portions of first stage. Rocket booster relit twice (supersonic retro & landing), but spun up due to aero torque, so fuel centrifuged & we flamed out — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 29, 2013 With the partial success of recovering first stage, SpaceX gathered huge amount of information and experience it can use to improve Falcon 9 and build a fully reusable rocket. In post launch press conference Musk said if things go "super well", could refly a Falcon 9 1st stage by the end of next year. Falcon 9 Launch Video Next reusable first tests delayed by at least two launches SpaceX has a busy schedule for next several months with more than 50 missions scheduled using the new Falcon 9 rocket. Ten of those missions are to fly cargo to the International Space Shuttle for NASA.  SpaceX announced that they will not attempt to recover the first stage of Falcon 9 in next two missions. The next test will be conducted on  the fourth mission of Falcon 9 which is planned to carry cargo to Internation Space Station sometime next year. This will give time required for SpaceX to analyze the information gathered from today’s mission and improve first stage reentry systems. More reading Here are few interesting sources to read more about today’s SpaceX launch SpaceX post mission press conference details and discussion on Reddit Giant Leaps for Space Firms Orbital, SpaceX Hacker News community discussion on SpaceX launch SpaceX Launches Next-Generation Private Falcon 9 Rocket on Big Test Flight

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio Service Pack 1 - Test first!

    - by CraigG
    It appears that our run of fairly benign VS SP’s is over… I've now installed the VS 2010 SP1 in a few simple test environments (x64) and all of them are having issues. Add-in failures, failed package loading, missing SQL Intellisense, XAML designer failure, etc. Make sure you test this Service Pack thoroughly before you release it to your production environment. Microsoft Connect is the official repository for issues with Service Pack 1.

    Read the article

  • TestRail 1.0 Test Management Software released

    Gurock Software just released its new test management solution TestRail. TestRail is a web-based test case management software that helps software development teams and QA departments to efficiently manage, track and organize software testing efforts.

    Read the article

  • Test your internet connection - Emtel Mobile Internet

    After yesterday's report on Emtel Fixed Broadband (I'm still wondering where the 'fixed' part is), I did the same tests on Emtel Mobile Internet. For this I'm using the Huawei E169G HSDPA USB stick, connected to the same machine. Actually, this is my fail-safe internet connection and the system automatically switches between them if a problem, let's say timeout, etc. has been detected on the main line. For better comparison I used exactly the same servers on Speedtest.net. The results Following are the results of Rose Hill (hosted by Emtel) and respectively Frankfurt, Germany (hosted by Vodafone DE): Speedtest.net result of 31.05.2013 between Flic en Flac and Rose Hill, Mauritius (Emtel - Mobile Internet) Speedtest.net result of 31.05.2013 between Flic en Flac and Frankfurt, Germany (Emtel - Mobile Internet) As you might easily see, there is a big difference in speed between national and international connections. More interestingly are the results related to the download and upload ratio. I'm not sure whether connections over Emtel Mobile Internet are asymmetric or symmetric like the Fixed Broadband. Might be interesting to find out. The first test result actually might give us a clue that the connection could be asymmetric with a ratio of 3:1 but again I'm not sure. I'll find out and post an update on this. It depends on network coverage Later today I was on tour with my tablet, a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (model GT-P7500) running on Android 4.0.4 (Ice Cream Sandwich), and did some more tests using the Speedtest.net app. The results are actually as expected and in areas with better network coverage you will get better results after all. At least, as long as you stay inside the national networks. For anything abroad, it doesn't really matter. But see for yourselves: Speedtest.net result of 31.05.2013 between Cascavelle and servers in Rose Hill, Mauritius (Emtel - Mobile Internet), Port Louis, Mauritius and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia It's rather shocking and frustrating to see how the speed on international destinations goes down. And the full capability of the tablet's integrated modem (HSDPA: 21 Mbps; HSUPA: 5.76 Mbps) isn't used, too. I guess, this demands more tests in other areas of the island, like Ebene, Pailles or Port Louis. I'll keep you updated... The question remains: Alternatives? After the publication of the test results on Fixed Broadband I had some exchange with others on Facebook. Sadly, it seems that there are really no alternatives to what Emtel is offering at the moment. There are the various internet packages by Mauritius Telecom feat. Orange, like ADSL, MyT and Mobile Internet, and there is Bharat Telecom with their Bees offer which is currently limited to Ebene and parts of Quatre Bornes.

    Read the article

  • Test-driven Database Development – Why Bother?

    Test-Driven Development is a practice that can bring many benefits, including better design, and less-buggy code, but is it relevant to database development, where the process of development tends to me much more interactive, and the culture more test-oriented? Greg reviews the support for TDD for Databases, and suggests that it is worth giving it a try for the range of advantages it can bring to team-working.

    Read the article

  • Week in Geek: Microsoft Security Essentials Loses its Certification after Failing AV Test

    - by Asian Angel
    Our first edition of WIG for December is filled with news link coverage on topics such as the Windows XP countdown clock has dropped to less than 500 days, software pirates have released a tool to crack Windows 8 apps, an online service is offering bank robbers for hire, and more. HTG Explains: Does Your Android Phone Need an Antivirus? How To Use USB Drives With the Nexus 7 and Other Android Devices Why Does 64-Bit Windows Need a Separate “Program Files (x86)” Folder?

    Read the article

  • Enterprise cloud put to the test

    <b>Network World:</b> "In this first-of-its-kind test, we invited cloud vendors to provide us with 20 CPUs that would be used for five instances of Windows 2008 Server and five instances of Red Hat Enterprise Linux &#8211; two CPUs per instance. We also asked for a 40GB internal or SAN/iSCSI disk connection, and 1Mbps of bandwidth from our test site to the cloud provider."

    Read the article

  • Google Webmaster Tools robots test not working

    - by tracy_snap
    Within Webmaster Tools I have supplied my test content: User-agent: * Disallow:/admin/ Disallow: /tag/ When I specify the URL to test against, for example: http://www.site.com/tag/ It gives me this result: "Allowed: Detected as a directory; specific files may have different restrictions" As far as I know I have set this up correctly, shouldn't Google be saying that the /tag/ directory is "disallowed"?

    Read the article

  • Upcoming Fedora Test Days: preupgrade and Xfce!

    <b>Tuxmachines:</b> "So this week we round out the Fedora 13 Test Day schedule, which has seen us run the gauntlet from NFS, through color management and SSSD, scale the heights of Graphics Test Week, and will see us come to a triumphant finish..."

    Read the article

  • fast 3d point -> cuboid volume intersection test

    - by user1130477
    Im trying to test whether a point lies within a 3d volume defined by 8 points. I know I can use the plane equation to check that the signed distance is always -1 for all 6 sides, but does anyone know of a faster way or could point me to some code? Thanks EDIT: I should add that ideally the test would produce 3 linear interpolation parameters which would lie in the range 0..1 to indicate that the point is within the volume for each axis (since I will have to calculate these later if the point is found to be in the volume)

    Read the article

  • Coded UI Test Method failed inconsistently

    - by Sunitha M
    The following exception failing my UI automation test. Message: Test method CodedUITestMethod1 throw exception: The playback failed to find the control with the given search properties. Additional Details: TechnologyName: 'UIA' ControlType: 'MenuItem' Name: 'MyViewModel' ---> system.runtime.interopservices.comexception error hresult e_fail has been returned from a call to a COM component please any one give me a solution for these type of exceptions.

    Read the article

  • TestRail 1.3 Test Management Software released

    Gurock Software just announced version 1.3 of its test management software TestRail. TestRail is a web-based test case management software that helps software development teams and QA departments to efficiently manage, track and organize their software testing efforts.

    Read the article

  • Load Test Manifesto

    - by jchang
    Load testing used to be a standard part of the software development, but not anymore. Now people express a preference for assessing performance on the production system. There is a lack of confidence that a load test reflects what will actually happen in production. In essence, it has become accepted that the value of load testing is not worth the cost and time, and perhaps whether there is any value at all. The main problem is the load test plan criteria – excessive focus on perceived importance...(read more)

    Read the article

  • C++ Templates: implicit conversion, no matching function for call to ctor

    - by noname
    template<class T> class test { public: test() { } test(T& e) { } }; int main() { test<double> d(4.3); return 0; } Compiled using g++ 4.4.1 with the following errors: g++ test.cpp -Wall -o test.exe test.cpp: In function 'int main()': test.cpp:18: error: no matching function for call to 'test<double>::test(double) ' test.cpp:9: note: candidates are: test<T>::test(T&) [with T = double] test.cpp:5: note: test<T>::test() [with T = double] test.cpp:3: note: test<double>::test(const test<double>&) make: *** [test.exe] Error 1 However, this works: double a=1.1; test<double> d(a); Why is this happing? Is it possible that g++ cannot implicitly convert literal expression 1.1 to double? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • smartctl short test doesn't seem to complete

    - by Cédric COPY
    I am working on project which involve automated HDD testing through smartctl. The station is working fine on most product, but I have two specific products that fail the smartctl test. Those two product are both WD product (WD2500BUDT series) Smartctl behaviour is quite strange, in fact the test is launched without any problem, i wait about 2min (test length), and when i check the smartctl, i have got no result at all. It's like I hadn't launched any test (no fail, no success in smartctl result). No error return on command, nothing in syslog, .. As i said before, the test is working for other product, thousands products worked well with this test. The main smartctl command used are : smarctl -t shortest /dev/sdX #Launch test smartctl -l selftest /dev/sdX #Look at test result I have tried to use: smartctl -s on /dev/sdX or smartctl -o on /dev/sdX But doesn't change anything. The system is using Debian 6.0, smartctl v5.40 (rev 3124) x86_64, HDD are plug through SATA to PCI controller. I have 4 HDD connected at a time. Well if anyone has some hints to give with this problem, because I have no idea how can i fix this. Thanks in advance. PS: Not sure if it was a serverfault topic, sorry if i was wrong!

    Read the article

  • Auto Mocking using JustMock

    - by mehfuzh
    Auto mocking containers are designed to reduce the friction of keeping unit test beds in sync with the code being tested as systems are updated and evolve over time. This is one sentence how you define auto mocking. Of course this is a more or less formal. In a more informal way auto mocking containers are nothing but a tool to keep your tests synced so that you don’t have to go back and change tests every time you add a new dependency to your SUT or System Under Test. In Q3 2012 JustMock is shipped with built in auto mocking container. This will help developers to have all the existing fun they are having with JustMock plus they can now mock object with dependencies in a more elegant way and without needing to do the homework of managing the graph. If you are not familiar with auto mocking then I won't go ahead and educate you rather ask you to do so from contents that is already made available out there from community as this is way beyond the scope of this post. Moving forward, getting started with Justmock auto mocking is pretty simple. First, I have to reference Telerik.JustMock.Container.DLL from the installation folder along with Telerik.JustMock.DLL (of course) that it uses internally and next I will write my tests with mocking container. It's that simple! In this post first I will mock the target with dependencies using current method and going forward do the same with auto mocking container. In short the sample is all about a report builder that will go through all the existing reports, send email and log any exception in that process. This is somewhat my  report builder class looks like: Reporter class depends on the following interfaces: IReporBuilder: used to  create and get the available reports IReportSender: used to send the reports ILogger: used to log any exception. Now, if I just write the test without using an auto mocking container it might end up something like this: Now, it looks fine. However, the only issue is that I am creating the mock of each dependency that is sort of a grunt work and if you have ever changing list of dependencies then it becomes really hard to keep the tests in sync. The typical example is your ASP.NET MVC controller where the number of service dependencies grows along with the project. The same test if written with auto mocking container would look like: Here few things to observe: I didn't created mock for each dependencies There is no extra step creating the Reporter class and sending in the dependencies Since ILogger is not required for the purpose of this test therefore I can be completely ignorant of it. How cool is that ? Auto mocking in JustMock is just released and we also want to extend it even further using profiler that will let me resolve not just interfaces but concrete classes as well. But that of course starts the debate of code smell vs. working with legacy code. Feel free to send in your expert opinion in that regard using one of telerik’s official channels. Hope that helps

    Read the article

  • How to get code coverage when testing Silverlight

    - by Anonymous
    I'm looking for code coverage solution which works with silverligt. It must also work with msbuild because we run all the other unit tests automatically in the build server. Integration with Visual Studio and/or resharper is a plus and I have nothing against easy setup or a pointer to a tutorial. I don't usually modify the build files and unfortunately I don't have time to learn msbuild at the moment.

    Read the article

  • C++ code coverage tool

    - by prattipam
    I am looking for c++ code coverage tool which fares well in mutli server setup and on both windows and linux without licensing issues(if non free). I have done some research and found 2 free tools: Covtool and gcov. Any disadvantages on these or any other suggestions?

    Read the article

  • sonar code coverage issue

    - by user1490244
    Hi I am running sonar for my impl class, i have written junit for all the methods of impl class but when i ran the sonar the code coverage is just 11% and all the file is in red color. stating that the code is not covered. I really dont understand inspite of writing all the test methods for all the impl methods why is it showing such a less percentage. Any help or tips or guidelines will be greatly appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Custom validation works in development but not in unit test

    - by Geolev
    I want to validate that at least one of two columns have a value in my model. I found somewhere on the web that I could create a custom validator as follows: # Check for the presence of one or another field: # :validates_presence_of_at_least_one_field :last_name, :company_name - would require either last_name or company_name to be filled in # also works with arrays # :validates_presence_of_at_least_one_field :email, [:name, :address, :city, :state] - would require email or a mailing type address module ActiveRecord module Validations module ClassMethods def validates_presence_of_at_least_one_field(*attr_names) msg = attr_names.collect {|a| a.is_a?(Array) ? " ( #{a.join(", ")} ) " : a.to_s}.join(", ") + "can't all be blank. At least one field must be filled in." configuration = { :on => :save, :message => msg } configuration.update(attr_names.extract_options!) send(validation_method(configuration[:on]), configuration) do |record| found = false attr_names.each do |a| a = [a] unless a.is_a?(Array) found = true a.each do |attr| value = record.respond_to?(attr.to_s) ? record.send(attr.to_s) : record[attr.to_s] found = !value.blank? end break if found end record.errors.add_to_base(configuration[:message]) unless found end end end end end I put this in a file called lib/acs_validator.rb in my project and added "require 'acs_validator'" to my environment.rb. This does exactly what I want. It works perfectly when I manually test it in the development environment but when I write a unit test it breaks my test environment. This is my unit test: require 'test_helper' class CustomerTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase # Replace this with your real tests. test "the truth" do assert true end test "customer not valid" do puts "customer not valid" customer = Customer.new assert !customer.valid? assert customer.errors.invalid?(:subdomain) assert_equal "Company Name and Last Name can't both be blank.", customer.errors.on(:contact_lname) end end This is my model: class Customer < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :subdomain validates_presence_of_at_least_one_field :customer_company_name, :contact_lname, :message => "Company Name and Last Name can't both be blank." has_one :service_plan end When I run the unit test, I get the following error: DEPRECATION WARNING: Rake tasks in vendor/plugins/admin_data/tasks, vendor/plugins/admin_data/tasks, and vendor/plugins/admin_data/tasks are deprecated. Use lib/tasks instead. (called from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/tasks/rails.rb:10) Couldn't drop acs_test : #<ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: PGError: ERROR: database "acs_test" is being accessed by other users DETAIL: There are 1 other session(s) using the database. : DROP DATABASE IF EXISTS "acs_test"> acs_test already exists NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "customers_id_seq" for serial column "customers.id" NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "customers_pkey" for table "customers" NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "service_plans_id_seq" for serial column "service_plans.id" NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "service_plans_pkey" for table "service_plans" /usr/bin/ruby1.8 -I"lib:test" "/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/unit/customer_test.rb" "test/unit/service_plan_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/dashboard_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/customers_helper_test.rb" "test/unit/helpers/service_plans_helper_test.rb" /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.3.8/lib/active_record/base.rb:1994:in `method_missing_without_paginate': undefined method `validates_presence_of_at_least_one_field' for #<Class:0xb7076bd0> (NoMethodError) from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/will_paginate-2.3.12/lib/will_paginate/finder.rb:170:in `method_missing' from /home/george/projects/advancedcomfortcs/app/models/customer.rb:3 from /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `gem_original_require' from /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `require' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.8/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:158:in `require' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.8/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:265:in `require_or_load' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.8/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:224:in `depend_on' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.8/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:136:in `require_dependency' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:414:in `load_application_classes' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:413:in `each' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:413:in `load_application_classes' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:411:in `each' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:411:in `load_application_classes' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:197:in `process' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:113:in `send' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-2.3.8/lib/initializer.rb:113:in `run' from /home/george/projects/advancedcomfortcs/config/environment.rb:9 from ./test/test_helper.rb:2:in `require' from ./test/test_helper.rb:2 from ./test/unit/customer_test.rb:1:in `require' from ./test/unit/customer_test.rb:1 from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb:5:in `load' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb:5 from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb:5:in `each' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb:5 rake aborted! Command failed with status (1): [/usr/bin/ruby1.8 -I"lib:test" "/usr/lib/ru...] (See full trace by running task with --trace) It seems to have stepped on will_paginate somehow. Does anyone have any suggestions? Is there another way to do the validation I'm attempting to do? Thanks, George

    Read the article

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