Search Results

Search found 37074 results on 1483 pages for 'define method'.

Page 15/1483 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • Collection RemoveAll Extension Method

    - by João Angelo
    I had previously posted a RemoveAll extension method for the Dictionary<K,V> class, now it’s time to have one for the Collection<T> class. The signature is the same as in the corresponding method already available in List<T> and the implementation relies on the RemoveAt method to perform the actual removal of each element. Finally, here’s the code: public static class CollectionExtensions { /// <summary> /// Removes from the target collection all elements that match the specified predicate. /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="T">The type of elements in the target collection.</typeparam> /// <param name="collection">The target collection.</param> /// <param name="match">The predicate used to match elements.</param> /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"> /// The target collection is a null reference. /// <br />-or-<br /> /// The match predicate is a null reference. /// </exception> /// <returns>Returns the number of elements removed.</returns> public static int RemoveAll<T>(this Collection<T> collection, Predicate<T> match) { if (collection == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("collection"); if (match == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("match"); int count = 0; for (int i = collection.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { if (match(collection[i])) { collection.RemoveAt(i); count++; } } return count; } }

    Read the article

  • Introducing a (new) test method to a team

    - by Jon List
    A couple of months ago i was hired in a new job. (I'm fresh out of my Masters in software engineering) The company mainly consists of ERP consultants, but I was hired in their fairly small web department (6 developers), our main task is ERP/ecom integration (ERP-integrated web shops). The department is growing, and recently my manager asked me to start thinking about introducing tests to the team, i love a challenge, but frankly I'm a bit scared (I'm the least experience member of the team). Currently the method of testing is clicking around in the web shop and asking the customer if the products are there, if they look okay, and if orders are posted correctly to the ERP. We are getting a lot of support cases on previous projects, where a customer or a customer's customer have run into errors, which - i suppose - is why my manager wants more structured testing. Off the top of my head, I though of some (obvious?) improvements, like looking at the requirement specification, having an issue tracker, enabling team members to register their time on a "tests"-line on the budget, and to circulate tasks amongst members of the team. But as i see it we have three main challenges: general website testing. (javascript, C#, ASP.NET and CMS integration tests) (live) ERP integration testing (customers rarely want to pay for test environments). adopting a method in the team I like the responsibility, but I am afraid that I'm in a little bit over my head. I expect that my manager expects me to set up some kind of workshop for the team where I present some techniques and ideas and where we(the team) can find some solutions together. What I learned in school was mostly unit testing and program verification, not so much testing across multiple systems and applications. What I'm looking for here, is references/advice/pointers/anecdotes; anything that might help me to get smarter and to improve the current method of my team. Thanks!! (TL;DR: read the bold parts)

    Read the article

  • Oracle Unified Method 5 Essentials Exam (Beta)

    - by user535886
    Oracle Unified Method 5 Essentials (1Z1-568) exam The Oracle Unified Method Certified Implementation Specialist Certification identifies professionals who are skilled in Oracle’s all inclusive methodology. The certification covers the core features the Oracle Unified Method suite, including but not limited to, Focus Areas, Use Cases, and Requirements Gathering. The certification proves a baseline of the consultant’s knowledge and allows the implementation team to work as a cohesive team from day 1. Up-to-date training and field experience are highly recommended. Target Audience: implementation consultants. We are offering to Oracle Partners & Employees beta exam vouchers to earn Oracle Implementation Specialist credential. Exam appointments will be open soon for scheduling at authorized Pearson Vue testing centers. Due to the high demand we process the requests on a first-come, first-served basis. If you would like to request a voucher, please send an e-mail to [email protected] with the following information for each participant: first and last name; business email address, company name, and exam name. 

    Read the article

  • Is this method of writing Unit Tests correct?

    - by aspdotnetuser
    I have created a small C# project to help me learn how to write good unit tests. I know that one important rule of unit testing is to test the smallest 'unit' of code possible so that if it fails you know exactly what part of the code needs to fixed. I need help with the following before I continue to implement more unit tests for the project: If I have a Car class, for example, that creates a new Car object which has various attributes that are calculated when its' constructor method is called, would the two following tests be considered as overkill? Should there be one test that tests all calculated attributes of the Car object instead? [Test] public void CarEngineCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.GreaterOrEqual(car.Engine, 1); } [Test] public void CarNameCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.IsNotNull(car.Name); } Should I have the above two test methods to test these things or should I have one test method that asserts the Car object has first been created and then test these things in the same test method?

    Read the article

  • Override methods should call base method?

    - by Trevor Pilley
    I'm just running NDepend against some code that I have written and one of the warnings is Overrides of Method() should call base.Method(). The places this occurs are where I have a base class which has virtual properties and methods with default behaviour but which can be overridden by a class which inherits from the base class and doesn't call the overridden method. For example, in the base class I have a property defined like this: protected virtual char CloseQuote { get { return '"'; } } And then in an inheriting class which uses a different close quote: protected override char CloseQuote { get { return ']'; } } Not all classes which inherit from the base class use different quote characters hence my initial design. The alternatives I thought of were have get/set properties in the base class with the defaults set in the constructor: protected BaseClass() { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; set; } public InheritingClass() { this.CloseQuote = ']'; } Or make the base class require the values as constructor args: protected BaseClass(char closeQuote, ...) { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; private set; } public InheritingClass() base (closeQuote: ']', ...) { } Should I use virtual in a scenario where the base implementation may be replaced instead of extended or should I opt for one of the alternatives I thought of? If so, which would be preferable and why?

    Read the article

  • c program output

    - by sandy101
    HELLO , I am trying some program and confused with the output of the program #include #define a(x) (x*x) int main() { int i=3,j; j=a(i+1); printf("%d",j); return 0 ; } i want to know why the program is not giving the output 16(as instead to that i an getting the output 7 for the above program )

    Read the article

  • how to make my method running on the template of google-app-engine..

    - by zjm1126
    the model is : class someModel(db.Model): name = db.StringProperty() def name_is_sss(self): return self.name=='sss' the view is : a=someModel() a.name='sss' path = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), os.path.join('templates', 'blog/a.html')) self.response.out.write(template.render(path, {'a':a})) and the html is : {{ a.name_is_sss }} the page shows : True so i want to make it more useful, and like this: the model: class someModel(db.Model): name = db.StringProperty() def name_is_x(self,x): return self.name==x the html is : {% a.name_is_x 'www'%} or {{ a.name_is_x 'www'}} but the error is : TemplateSyntaxError: Invalid block tag: 'a.name_is_x' or TemplateSyntaxError: Could not parse the remainder: 'www' so how to make my method running thanks

    Read the article

  • Java: what is the class for the isBinary-method?

    - by HH
    I am accustomed to java.io.* and java.util.* but not to the tree: com.starbase.util Class FileUtils java.lang.Object | +--com.starbase.util.FileUtils Source. So which class should I import to use the isBinary-method? Do I do "import java.lang.Object;" or "import java.lang.Object.com.starbase.util.FileUtils;"?

    Read the article

  • Checking type sizes in C with macros.

    - by Seisatsu
    I'm writing a program that needs to have unsigned types with definite sizes. I need a uint8, uint16, uint32, and uint64, and I need them defined in types.h, in a way that they will always be defined correctly regardless of platform. My question is, how can I check the sizes of different types on each platform using preprocessor macros, so that I can define my custom types correctly in the types.h header?

    Read the article

  • Java: If I overwrite the .equals method, can I still test for reference equality with ==?

    - by shots fired
    I have the following situation: I need to sort trees based by height, so I made the Tree's comparable using the height attribute. However, I was also told to overwrite the equals and hashCode methods to avoid unpredictable behaviour. Still, sometimes I may want to compare the references of the roots or something along those lines using ==. Is that still possible or does the == comparison call the equals method?

    Read the article

  • C to C++ Conversion [closed]

    - by Annalyne
    Can someone convert this code to C++, pretty please? :( #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <time.h> #define WEAPON_ROPE 10 #define WEAPON_REVOLVER 20 #define WEAPON_LEADPIPE 30 #define WEAPON_CANDLESTICK 40 #define WEAPON_KNIFE 50 #define WEAPON_WRENCH 60 #define PEOPLE_MRGREEN 100 #define PEOPLE_MSSCARLET 200 #define PEOPLE_CONLMUSTARD 300 #define PEOPLE_PROFPLUM 400 #define PEOPLE_MISPEACOCK 500 #define PEOPLE_MISWHITE 600 #define PLACE_KITCHEN 1 #define PLACE_HALL 2 #define PLACE_POOLROOM 3 #define PLACE_STUDY 4 #define PLACE_LOUNG 5 #define PLACE_LIBRARY 6 #define PLACE_CONSERVATORY 7 #define PLACE_DINING 8 #define PLACE_BILLIARDS 9 int main() { int die = 0; int players[6][9] = {{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}}; int allCards[] = {WEAPON_ROPE, WEAPON_REVOLVER, WEAPON_LEADPIPE, WEAPON_CANDLESTICK, WEAPON_CANDLESTICK, WEAPON_KNIFE, WEAPON_WRENCH, PEOPLE_MRGREEN, PEOPLE_MSSCARLET, PEOPLE_CONLMUSTARD, PEOPLE_CONLMUSTARD, PEOPLE_PROFPLUM, PEOPLE_MISPEACOCK, PEOPLE_MISWHITE, PLACE_KITCHEN, PLACE_HALL, PLACE_POOLROOM, PLACE_STUDY, PLACE_LOUNG, PLACE_LIBRARY, PLACE_CONSERVATORY, PLACE_DINING, PLACE_BILLIARDS}; int deckSize = 23; // number of cards in allCards array int count; for (count = 0; count < deckSize; ++count) { printf(", %d", allCards[count]); } // End for // These three array's are so you can put a card back, if need be... int weaponCards[] = {WEAPON_ROPE, WEAPON_REVOLVER, WEAPON_LEADPIPE, WEAPON_CANDLESTICK, WEAPON_CANDLESTICK, WEAPON_KNIFE, WEAPON_WRENCH}; int weaponDeckSize = 7; int peopleCards[] = {PEOPLE_MRGREEN, PEOPLE_MSSCARLET, PEOPLE_CONLMUSTARD, PEOPLE_CONLMUSTARD, PEOPLE_PROFPLUM, PEOPLE_MISPEACOCK, PEOPLE_MISWHITE}; int peopleDeckSize = 7; int placeCards[] = {PLACE_KITCHEN, PLACE_HALL, PLACE_POOLROOM, PLACE_STUDY, PLACE_LOUNG, PLACE_LIBRARY, PLACE_CONSERVATORY, PLACE_DINING, PLACE_BILLIARDS}; int placeDeckSize = 9; srand(clock()); // seed rand() using clock() which gives // the current tick your processor is at... int killer[3]; // no need to initialize yet. killer[0-2] will initialize int deckShuffle = rand() % weaponDeckSize; // picks one number out of the deck killer[0] = weaponCards[deckShuffle]; allCards[deckShuffle] = 0; // Card drawn. No longer exists in deck deckShuffle = rand() % peopleDeckSize; // picks another random card out of the deck killer[1] = peopleCards[deckShuffle]; allCards[deckShuffle + weaponDeckSize] = 0; // Card drawn. No longer exists in deck deckShuffle = rand() % placeDeckSize; // randomly picks the last card needed killer[2] = placeCards[deckShuffle]; allCards[deckShuffle + weaponDeckSize + peopleDeckSize] = 0; // Card drawn. No longer exists in deck int numberOfCards = 0; printf("CLUE\n"); printf("written by John Schintone\n"); printf("Origonal game delvoped by Hasbro\n"); int numberOfPlayers = 0; while ((numberOfPlayers < 3) || (numberOfPlayers > 6)) { printf("How many players are Going to play :\n"); printf("[number] > "); scanf("%d",&numberOfPlayers); // A very fast if statement which only uses integers/char's switch(numberOfPlayers) { case 6: { numberOfCards = 3; } break; case 5: { numberOfCards = 4; } break; case 4: { numberOfCards = 5; } break; case 3: { numberOfCards = 6; } break; default: { printf("You must enter a number between 3 and 6...\n"); } // End default } // End switch } // End while int index1, index2; // Note: ++index1; is faster than index1++; and will almost always // produce better code (index1++ happens after this statement line. // ++index1 increments index1 before this statement line) for (index1 = 0; index1 < numberOfPlayers; ++index1) { printf("Player %d", index1); for (index2 = 0; index2 < numberOfCards; ++index2) { // Remember that allCards[deckShuffle] == 0 because we removed that // card ages ago... works out well, just don't forget you did that : ) while (allCards[deckShuffle] == 0) { deckShuffle = rand() % deckSize; } // End while players[index1][index2] = allCards[deckShuffle]; allCards[deckShuffle] = 0; // Card removed for after loop... printf(", %d", players[index1][index2]); switch(players[index1][index2]) { case WEAPON_ROPE: { } break; // Add more... case PEOPLE_MRGREEN: { } break; // Add more... case PLACE_KITCHEN: { } break; // Add more... default: { printf("Program has caught player %d cheating...", index1); } // End default } // End switch } // End for printf("\n"); } // End for printf("The killer is %d, with the %d, and in the %d \n\n", killer[0], killer[1], killer[2]); printf("Type h for this help... \n"); printf("Type e to escape... \n"); printf("Type r to roll the die... \n"); char command = '\0'; // \0 represents zero, or the null character while (command != 'e') { printf("[one character] > "); scanf("%c", &command); if (command == 'r') { die = rand() % 6 + 1; printf("Your number is: %d \n", die); } // end while if (command == 'h') { printf("Type h for this help... \n"); printf("Type e to escape... \n"); printf("Type r to roll the die... \n"); } // End if printf("\n"); } // End while return(0); // Success. Program worked ok } // End main() Function

    Read the article

  • is a factory pattern to prevent multuple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquly define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the oens that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methdos, so these objects all act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approch which accepts a Builder object and construct the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquly defines the type of object (this is node A nto node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows it's state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overiding of serlization methods to make it work (ensure when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in it's place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know rather an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to it's own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state taht is different then my memory; to tell my memory when it's own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despit their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect I'm posting).

    Read the article

  • Is there a factory pattern to prevent multiple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquely define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the others that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methods, so all these objects act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approach which accepts a Builder object and constructs the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquely defines the type of object (this is node A to node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows its state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overriding of serialization methods to make it work (ensure that when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in its place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know whether an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to its own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state that is different than my memory; to tell my memory when its own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despite their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect that I'm posting).

    Read the article

  • .NET Lambda Pass Method Parameter

    - by RM
    Hi All, I hope i'm missing something obvious, but I'm having some troubles defining a method that takes a parameter of a method to fetch the method information for the passed method. I do NOT want actually execute the method. I want to be able to do: busObject.SetResolverMethod<ISomeInterface>(x=>x.GetNameById); Where GetNameById is a method defined on the interface ISomeInterface. In this case, an example of the method being passed in's signature would be: MyVarA GetNameById(int id){ .... } In the above example, the SetResolverMethod's body should be able to return / store the string "GetNameById". There is no standard signature the method being passed in will conform to (except that it will always return an object of some kind). Currently I'm setting the method as a string (i.e. "GetNameById"), but I want it to be compile time checked, hence this question.

    Read the article

  • How do I Moq It.IsAny for an array in the setup of a method?

    - by Graham
    I'm brand new to Moq (using v 4) and am struggling a little with the documentation. What I'm trying to do is to Moq a method that takes a byte array and returns an object. Something like: decoderMock.Setup(d => d.Decode(????).Returns(() => tagMock.Object); The ???? is where the byte[] should be, but I can't work out how to make it so that I don't care what's in the byte array, just return the mocked object I've already set up. Moq.It.IsAny expects a generic. Any help please?

    Read the article

  • Define a method that is a closure in Ruby

    - by J. Pablo Fernández
    I'm re-defining a method in an object in ruby and I need the new method to be a closure. For example: def mess_it_up(o) x = "blah blah" def o.to_s puts x # Wrong! x doesn't exists here, a method is not a closure end end Now if I define a Proc, it is a closure: def mess_it_up(o) x = "blah blah" xp = Proc.new {|| puts x # This works end # but how do I set it to o.to_s. def o.to_s xp.call # same problem as before end end Any ideas how to do it? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Automatically decorating every instance method in a class

    - by max
    I want to apply the same decorator to every method in a given class, other than those that start and end with __. It seems to me it should be doable using a class decorator. Are there any pitfalls to be aware of? Ideally, I'd also like to be able to: disable this mechanism for some methods by marking them with a special decorator enable this mechanism for subclasses as well enable this mechanism even for methods that are added to this class in runtime [Note: I'm using Python 3.2, so I'm fine if this relies on features added recently.] Here's my attempt: _methods_to_skip = {} def apply(decorator): def apply_decorator(cls): for method_name, method in get_all_instance_methods(cls): if (cls, method) in _methods_to_skip: continue if method_name[:2] == `__` and method_name[-2:] == `__`: continue cls.method_name = decorator(method) return apply_decorator def dont_decorate(method): _methods_to_skip.add((get_class_from_method(method), method)) return method Here are things I have problems with: how to implement get_all_instance_methods function not sure if my cls.method_name = decorator(method) line is correct how to do the same to any methods added to a class in runtime how to apply this to subclasses how to implement get_class_from_method

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >