Search Results

Search found 6839 results on 274 pages for 'functional tests'.

Page 15/274 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

• ASP.NET MVC 2 RTM Unit Tests not compiling

  - by nmarun

  I found something weird this time when it came to ASP.NET MVC 2 release. A very handful of people ‘made noise’ about the release.. at least on the asp.net blog site, usually there’s a big ‘WOOHAA… <something> is released’, kind of a thing. Hmm… but here’s the reason I’m writing this post. I’m not sure how many of you read the release notes before downloading the version.. I did, I did, I did. Now there’s a ‘Known issues’ section in the document and I’m quoting the text as is from this section: Unit test project does not contain reference to ASP.NET MVC 2 project: If the Solution Explorer window is hidden in Visual Studio, when you create a new ASP.NET MVC 2 Web application project and you select the option Yes, create a unit test project in the Create Unit Test Project dialog box, the unit test project is created but does not have a reference to the associated ASP.NET MVC 2 project. When you build the solution, Visual Studio will display compilation errors and the unit tests will not run. There are two workarounds. The first workaround is to make sure that the Solution Explorer is displayed when you create a new ASP.NET MVC 2 Web application project. If you prefer to keep Solution Explorer hidden, the second workaround is to manually add a project reference from the unit test project to the ASP.NET MVC 2 project. This definitely looks like a bug to me and see below for a visual: At the top right corner you’ll see that the Solution Explorer is set to auto hide and there’s no reference for the TestMvc2 project and that is the reason we get compilation errors without even writing a single line of code. So thanks to <VeryBigFont>ME</VeryBigFont> and <VerySmallFont>Microsoft</VerySmallFont>) , we’ve shown the world how to resolve a major issue and to live in Peace with the rest of humanity!

  Read the article

• TFS 2010 RC does not run Visual Studio 2008 MSTest unit tests

  - by Bernard Vander Beken

  Steps: Run the build including unit tests. Expected result: the unit tests are executed and succeed. Actual result: the unit tests are built by the build, but this is the result: 1 test run(s) completed - 0% average pass rate (0% total pass rate) 0/4 test(s) passed, 0 failed, 4 inconclusive, View Test Results Other Errors and Warnings 1 error(s), 0 warning(s) TF270015: 'MSTest.exe' returned an unexpected exit code. Expected '0'; actual '1'. All the tests are enumerated (four), but the result for each test is "Not Executed". Context: Team Foundation Server 2010 release candidate A build definition that runs projects using the Visual Studio 2008 project format and .NET 3.5 SP1. The unit tests run on a development machine, within Visual Studio. The unit tests project references C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Common7\IDE\PublicAssemblies\Microsoft.VisualStudio.QualityTools.UnitTestFramework.dll Typical test class [TestClass] public class DemoTest { [TestMethod] public void DemoTestName() { } // etc }

  Read the article

• New NCover 3.4.2 makes all my MSTest unit tests fail

  - by Steven

  Yesterday, I decided to install the newest NCover version (3.4.2). However, when I ran it on my existing .ncover configuration file, the NCover output suddenly reported that all my MSTest tests failed. Of course those tests succeed when ran within Visual Studio. Because of this, NCover isn't able to determine any coverage. Somehow the old configuration doesn't seem to work with the new version. Does anyone have any idea what the problem could be or how to solve it? Btw. Here is my ncover configuration. Project settings: Path to application to profile: c:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Common7\IDE\MSTest.exe Arguments for the application to profile: /testcontainer:D:\dev\MyApp\MyApp.Services.Tests.Unit\bin\Debug\MyApp.Services.Tests.Unit.dll /testcontainer:D:\dev\MyApp\MyApp.WS.Tests.Unit\bin\Debug\MyApp.WS.Tests.Unit.dll Working folder: D:\dev\MyApp

  Read the article

• Prevent OCUnit tests from running when compilation fails

  - by mhenry1384

  I'm using Xcode 3.2.2 and the built in OCUnit test stuff. One problem I'm running into is that every time I do a build my unit tests are run, even if the build failed. Let's say I make a syntax error in one of my tests. The test fails to compile and the last successful compilation of the unit tests are run. The same thing happens if one of the dependent targets fail to build - the tests are still run. Which is obviously not what I want. How can I prevent the tests from running if the build fails? If this is not possible then I'd rather have the tests never run automatically, is that possible? Sorry if this is obvious, I'm an Xcode noob. Should I be using a better unit testing framework?

  Read the article

• Time/resource allocation on a Stylish vs. Functional user interface

  - by jasonk

  When developing applications how much focus/time do you place on an application’s style vs. functionality. Battleship gray apps drive me insane. On the other hand maximizing a business application’s "style" can tax time and financial resources. Applications need to be appealing to resell or meet basic customer expectations, but defining a healthy medium can be difficult. What would you say are reasonable "standards" for allocating develop time/resources should be dedicated to stylizing a business application?

  Read the article

• Intermittent NoClassDefFoundError error running Selenium JUnit tests

  - by Matt Sheppard

  For some time, I've been running a substantial set of JUnit / Selenium tests against a number of platforms on a nightly basis. Intermittently (about once in every 40 runs), all the tests for a given platform fail with a NoClassDefFoundError on the common superclass of all my tests as follows. java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: [common super class of all my selenium tests] at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors0(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredConstructors(Class.java:2389) at java.lang.Class.getConstructors(Class.java:1459) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:513) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:513) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:513) Re-invoking the tests will generally get the tests running normally, so it's clearly something dependent on some condition I am not considering. What might be causing this error to occur seemingly randomly?

  Read the article

• Tests that are 2-3 times bigger than the testable code

  - by HeavyWave

  Is it normal to have tests that are way bigger than the actual code being tested? For every line of code I am testing I usually have 2-3 lines in the unit test. Which ultimately leads to tons of time being spent just typing the tests in (mock, mock and mock more). Where are the time savings? Do you ever avoid tests for code that is along the lines of being trivial? Most of my methods are less than 10 lines long and testing each one of them takes a lot of time, to the point where, as you see, I start questioning writing most of the tests in the first place. I am not advocating not unit testing, I like it. Just want to see what factors people consider before writing tests. They come at a cost (in terms of time, hence money), so this cost must be evaluated somehow. How do you estimate the savings created by your unit tests, if ever?

  Read the article

• How to structure an application written in a functional language?

  - by fig-gnuton

  How is code commonly organized in FP applications? Along what lines do you separate files, modules, directories, etc.?

  Read the article

• How roughen (as opposed to flatten) a list in a functional style?

  - by iamsungod

  For instance, I have a list (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11), and want to roughen it by 3 elements (or another length) to get ((1 2 3) (4 5 6) (7 8 9) (10 11)). What pretty code could I use for this? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Is there any way to delete an HttpOnly cookie from C# Selenium tests?

  - by BenA

  I have a set of C# Selenium tests that need to delete a cookie that has the HttpOnly flag set. Unfortunately the DefaultSelenium.GetCookie() and DefaultSelenium.DeleteCookie() commands aren't able to access the cookie, because it has that HttpOnly flag set. I've confirmed this by removing the flag by hand, and checking that subsequent calls to either of those methods are then happily able to manipulate the cookie in question. Is there any other way to do this via the Selenium .NET client driver? All ideas welcome!

  Read the article

• Tests for JUnit. How ?

  - by Belun

  How is the JUnit Framework tested ? How are the tests for their framework code created, considering that JUnit as a testing framework itself. What technology are they using ? Their own testing framework ? A smaller more basic version of it ? Another framework ? Can any knower please provide some details ?

  Read the article

• Can someone clarify what this Joel On Software quote means?

  - by Bob

  I was reading Joel On Software today and ran across this quote: Without understanding functional programming, you can't invent MapReduce, the algorithm that makes Google so massively scalable. The terms Map and Reduce come from Lisp and functional programming. MapReduce is, in retrospect, obvious to anyone who remembers from their 6.001-equivalent programming class that purely functional programs have no side effects and are thus trivially parallelizable. What does he mean when he says functional programs have no side effects? And how does this make parallelizing trivial?

  Read the article

• What is the advantage of currying?

  - by Mad Scientist

  I just learned about currying, and while I think I understand the concept, I'm not seeing any big advantage in using it. As a trivial example I use a function that adds two values (written in ML). The version without currying would be fun add(x, y) = x + y and would be called as add(3, 5) while the curried version is fun add x y = x + y (* short for val add = fn x => fn y=> x + y *) and would be called as add 3 5 It seems to me to be just syntactic sugar that removes one set of parentheses from defining and calling the function. I've seen currying listed as one of the important features of a functional languages, and I'm a bit underwhelmed by it at the moment. The concept of creating a chain of functions that consume each a single parameter, instead of a function that takes a tuple seems rather complicated to use for a simple change of syntax. Is the slightly simpler syntax the only motivation for currying, or am I missing some other advantages that are not obvious in my very simple example? Is currying just syntactic sugar?

  Read the article

• Design for XML mapping scenarios between two different systems [on hold]

  - by deepak_prn

  Mapping XML fields between two systems is a mundane routine in integration scenarios. I am trying to make the design documents look better and provide clear understanding to the developers especially when we do not use XSLT or any other IDE such as jDeveloper or eclipse plugins. I want it to be a high level design but at the same time talk in developer's language. So that there is no requirements that slip under the crack. For example, one of the scenarios goes: the store cashier sells an item, the transaction data is sent to Data management system. Now, I am writing a functional design for the scenario which deals with mapping XML fields between our system and the data management system. Question : I was wondering if some one had to deal with mapping XML fields between two systems? (without XSLT being involved) and if you used a table to represent the fields mapping (example is below) or any other visualization tool which does not break the bank ? I am trying to find out if there is a better way to represent XML mapping in your design documents. The widely accepted and used method seems to be using a simple table such as in the picture to illustrate the mapping. I am wondering if there are alternate ways/ tools to represent such as in Altova:

  Read the article

• Test Data in a Distributed System

  - by Davin Tryon

  A question that has been vexing me lately has been about how to effectively test (end-to-end) features in a distributed system. Particuarly, how to effectively manage (through time) test data for feature testing. The system in question is a typical SOA setup. The composition is done in JavaScript when call to several REST APIs. Each service is built as an independent block. Each service has some kind of persistent storage (SQL Server in most cases). The main issue at the moment is how to approach test data when testing end-to-end features. Functional end-to-end testing occurs through the UI, and it is therefore necessary for test data to be set up before the test run (this could be manual or automated testing). As is typical in a distributed system, identifiers from one service are used as a link in another service. So, some level of synchronization needs to be present in the data to effectively test. What is the best way to manage and set up this data after a successful deployment to a test environment? For example, is it better to manage this test data inside each service? Or package it together with the testing suite? Does that testing suite exist as a separate project? I'm interested in design guidance about how to store and manage this test data as the application features evolve.

  Read the article

• Performance of concurrent software on multicore processors

  - by Giorgio

  Recently I have often read that, since the trend is to build processors with multiple cores, it will be increasingly important to have programming languages that support concurrent programming in order to better exploit the parallelism offered by these processors. In this respect, certain programming paradigms or models are considered well-suited for writing robust concurrent software: Functional programming languages, e.g. Haskell, Scala, etc. The actor model: Erlang, but also available for Scala / Java (Akka), C++ (Theron, Casablanca, ...), and other programming languages. My questions: What is the state of the art regarding the development of concurrent applications (e.g. using multi-threading) using the above languages / models? Is this area still being explored or are there well-established practices already? Will it be more complex to program applications with a higher level of concurrency, or is it just a matter of learning new paradigms and practices? How does the performance of highly concurrent software compare to the performance of more traditional software when executed on multiple core processors? For example, has anyone implemented a desktop application using C++ / Theron, or Java / Akka? Was there a boost in performance on a multiple core processor due to higher parallelism?

  Read the article

• Does immutability entirely eliminate the need for locks in multi-processor programming?

  - by GlenPeterson

  Part 1 Clearly Immutability minimizes the need for locks in multi-processor programming, but does it eliminate that need, or are there instances where immutability alone is not enough? It seems to me that you can only defer processing and encapsulate state so long before most programs have to actually DO something. If a program performs actions on multiple processors, something needs to collect and aggregate the results. All this involves multi-process communication before, after, and possibly during some transformations. The start and end state of the machines are different. Can this always be done with no locks just by throwing out each object and creating a new one instead of changing the original (a crude view of immutability)? What cases still require locking? I'm interested in both the theoretical/academic answer and the practical/real-world answer. I know a lot of functional programmers like to talk about "no side effect" but in the "real world" everything has a side effect. Every processor click takes time and electricity and machine resources away from other processes. So I understand that there may be more than one perspective to answer this question from. If immutability is safe, given certain bounds or assumptions, I want to know what the borders of the "safety zone" are exactly. Some examples of possible boundaries: I/O Exceptions/errors Interfaces with programs written in other languages Interfaces with other machines (physical, virtual, or theoretical) Special thanks to @JimmaHoffa for his comment which started this question! Part 2 Multi-processor programming is often used as an optimization technique - to make some code run faster. When is it faster to use locks vs. immutable objects? Given the limits set out in Amdahl's Law, when can you achieve better over-all performance (with or without the garbage collector taken into account) with immutable objects vs. locking mutable ones? Summary I'm combining these two questions into one to try to get at where the bounding box is for Immutability as a solution to threading problems.

  Read the article

• Breaking up classes and methods into smaller units

  - by micahhoover

  During code reviews a couple devs have recommended I break up my methods into smaller methods. Their justification was (1) increased readability and (2) the back trace that comes back from production showing the method name is more specific to the line of code that failed. There may have also been some colorful words about functional programming. Additionally I think I may have failed an interview a while back because I didn't give an acceptable answer about when to break things up. My inclination is that when I see a bunch of methods in a class or across a bunch of files, it isn't clear to me how they flow together, and how many times each one gets called. I don't really have a good feel for the linearity of it as quickly just by eye-balling it. The other thing is a lot of people seem to place a premium of organization over content (e.g. 'Look at how organized my sock drawer is!' Me: 'Overall, I think I can get to my socks faster if you count the time it took to organize them'). Our business requirements are not very stable. I'm afraid that if the classes/methods are very granular it will take longer to refactor to requirement changes. I'm not sure how much of a factor this should be. Anyway, computer science is part art / part science, but I'm not sure how much this applies to this issue.

  Read the article

• Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented by definition?

  - by tieTYT

  Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented, by definition? It seems more procedural or functional to me. My opinion is that it doesn't prevent you from implementing it in an OO language, but it would not be idiomatic to do so in a staunchly OO way. It seems like ECS separates data (E & C) from behavior (S). As evidence: The idea is to have no game methods embedded in the entity. And: The component consists of a minimal set of data needed for a specific purpose Systems are single purpose functions that take a set of entities which have a specific component I think this is not object oriented because a big part of being object oriented is combining your data and behavior together. As evidence: In contrast, the object-oriented approach encourages the programmer to place data where it is not directly accessible by the rest of the program. Instead, the data is accessed by calling specially written functions, commonly called methods, which are bundled in with the data. ECS, on the other hand, seems to be all about separating your data from your behavior.

  Read the article

• Using foldr to append two lists together (Haskell)

  - by Luke Murphy

  I have been given the following question as part of a college assignment. Due to the module being very short, we are using only a subset of Haskell, without any of the syntactic sugar or idiomatic shortcuts....I must write: append xs ys : The list formed by joining the lists xs and ys, in that order append (5:8:3:[]) (4:7:[]) => 5:8:3:4:7:[] I understand the concept of how foldr works, but I am only starting off in Functional programming. I managed to write the following working solution (hidden for the benefit of others in my class...) : However, I just can't for the life of me, explain what the hell is going on!? I wrote it by just fiddling around in the interpreter, for example, the following line : foldr (\x -> \y -> x:y) [] (2:3:4:[]) which returned [2:3:4] , which led me to try, foldr (\x -> \y -> x:y) (2:3:4:[]) (5:6:7:[]) which returned [5,6,7,2,3,4] so I worked it out from there. I came to the correct solution through guess work and a bit of luck... I am working from the following definition of foldr: foldr = \f -> \s -> \xs -> if null xs then s else f (head xs) (foldr f s (tail xs) ) Can someone baby step me through my correct solution? I can't seem to get it....I already have scoured the web, and also read a bunch of SE threads, such as How foldr works

  Read the article

• Should my WCF webservice return a 500 or 200 http code (soap fault / functional return message)

  - by Tim Mahy

  Hi all, after reading the SOAP specs, it states that a SOAP Fault should return a http 500 errorcode, so when a SoapException is thrown, WCF returns a 500 error code. Now, I'm looking for some best practices to when return a functional soap error message and when to return a SOAP Fault. What would you guys return when a functional error occurred while processing the message because of the input message contains some functional errors, a 500 SOAP Fault or a 200 Soap response containing some error message ?

  Read the article

• How should one import large amounts of data for FIT/Fitnesse tests?

  - by Lachlan

  We have a scheduling engine with large amounts of test data to test all the scenarios, so test automation is critical. We're currently hoping to use FIT/Fitnesse. However a single test has quite a large table of test data, so it doesn't fit very well into the mould of "two or three inputs, one or more outputs" that Fitnesse uses in its examples. Hopefully the other functionality of Fitnesse makes it worth using it. I hear that there is a way to initialize an application for a FIT test with an Excel spreadsheet - not the Spreadsheet to Fitness function, mind you - but I haven't been able to find it so far. Once the whole spreadsheet is loaded into the application, and the application does its thing, we plan to compare either a number of output rows, or perhaps just the last row, to see if the test passes. The application is currently pulling test data from a database for manual tests, but writing to a database, then initializing from it, is not preferred because of the performance impact. The application is written in C#.

  Read the article

• Writing good tests for Django applications

  - by Ludwik Trammer

  I've never written any tests in my life, but I'd like to start writing tests for my Django projects. I've read some articles about tests and decided to try to write some tests for an extremely simple Django app or a start. The app has two views (a list view, and a detail view) and a model with four fields: class News(models.Model): title = models.CharField(max_length=250) content = models.TextField() pub_date = models.DateTimeField(default=datetime.datetime.now) slug = models.SlugField(unique=True) I would like to show you my tests.py file and ask: Does it make sense? Am I even testing for the right things? Are there best practices I'm not following, and you could point me to? my tests.py (it contains 11 tests): # -*- coding: utf-8 -*- from django.test import TestCase from django.test.client import Client from django.core.urlresolvers import reverse import datetime from someproject.myapp.models import News class viewTest(TestCase): def setUp(self): self.test_title = u'Test title: bareksc' self.test_content = u'This is a content 156' self.test_slug = u'test-title-bareksc' self.test_pub_date = datetime.datetime.today() self.test_item = News.objects.create( title=self.test_title, content=self.test_content, slug=self.test_slug, pub_date=self.test_pub_date, ) client = Client() self.response_detail = client.get(self.test_item.get_absolute_url()) self.response_index = client.get(reverse('the-list-view')) def test_detail_status_code(self): """ HTTP status code for the detail view """ self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_detail.status_code, 200) def test_list_status_code(self): """ HTTP status code for the list view """ self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_index.status_code, 200) def test_list_numer_of_items(self): self.failUnlessEqual(len(self.response_index.context['object_list']), 1) def test_detail_title(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_detail.context['object'].title, self.test_title) def test_list_title(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_index.context['object_list'][0].title, self.test_title) def test_detail_content(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_detail.context['object'].content, self.test_content) def test_list_content(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_index.context['object_list'][0].content, self.test_content) def test_detail_slug(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_detail.context['object'].slug, self.test_slug) def test_list_slug(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_index.context['object_list'][0].slug, self.test_slug) def test_detail_template(self): self.assertContains(self.response_detail, self.test_title) self.assertContains(self.response_detail, self.test_content) def test_list_template(self): self.assertContains(self.response_index, self.test_title)

  Read the article

• design a model for a system of dependent variables

  - by dbaseman

  I'm dealing with a modeling system (financial) that has dozens of variables. Some of the variables are independent, and function as inputs to the system; most of them are calculated from other variables (independent and calculated) in the system. What I'm looking for is a clean, elegant way to: define the function of each dependent variable in the system trigger a re-calculation, whenever a variable changes, of the variables that depend on it A naive way to do this would be to write a single class that implements INotifyPropertyChanged, and uses a massive case statement that lists out all the variable names x1, x2, ... xn on which others depend, and, whenever a variable xi changes, triggers a recalculation of each of that variable's dependencies. I feel that this naive approach is flawed, and that there must be a cleaner way. I started down the path of defining a CalculationManager<TModel> class, which would be used (in a simple example) something like as follows: public class Model : INotifyPropertyChanged { private CalculationManager<Model> _calculationManager = new CalculationManager<Model>(); // each setter triggers a "PropertyChanged" event public double? Height { get; set; } public double? Weight { get; set; } public double? BMI { get; set; } public Model() { _calculationManager.DefineDependency<double?>( forProperty: model => model.BMI, usingCalculation: (height, weight) => weight / Math.Pow(height, 2), withInputs: model => model.Height, model.Weight); } // INotifyPropertyChanged implementation here } I won't reproduce CalculationManager<TModel> here, but the basic idea is that it sets up a dependency map, listens for PropertyChanged events, and updates dependent properties as needed. I still feel that I'm missing something major here, and that this isn't the right approach: the (mis)use of INotifyPropertyChanged seems to me like a code smell the withInputs parameter is defined as params Expression<Func<TModel, T>>[] args, which means that the argument list of usingCalculation is not checked at compile time the argument list (weight, height) is redundantly defined in both usingCalculation and withInputs I am sure that this kind of system of dependent variables must be common in computational mathematics, physics, finance, and other fields. Does someone know of an established set of ideas that deal with what I'm grasping at here? Would this be a suitable application for a functional language like F#? Edit More context: The model currently exists in an Excel spreadsheet, and is being migrated to a C# application. It is run on-demand, and the variables can be modified by the user from the application's UI. Its purpose is to retrieve variables that the business is interested in, given current inputs from the markets, and model parameters set by the business.

  Read the article

• Is return-type-(only)-polymorphism in Haskell a good thing?

  - by dainichi

  One thing that I've never quite come to terms with in Haskell is how you can have polymorphic constants and functions whose return type cannot be determined by their input type, like class Foo a where foo::Int -> a Some of the reasons that I do not like this: Referential transparency: "In Haskell, given the same input, a function will always return the same output", but is that really true? read "3" return 3 when used in an Int context, but throws an error when used in a, say, (Int,Int) context. Yes, you can argue that read is also taking a type parameter, but the implicitness of the type parameter makes it lose some of its beauty in my opinion. Monomorphism restriction: One of the most annoying things about Haskell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole reason for the MR is that computation that looks shared might not be because the type parameter is implicit. Type defaulting: Again one of the most annoying things about Haskell. Happens e.g. if you pass the result of functions polymorphic in their output to functions polymorphic in their input. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but this would not be necessary without functions whose return type cannot be determined by their input type (and polymorphic constants). So my question is (running the risk of being stamped as a "discussion quesion"): Would it be possible to create a Haskell-like language where the type checker disallows these kinds of definitions? If so, what would be the benefits/disadvantages of that restriction? I can see some immediate problems: If, say, 2 only had the type Integer, 2/3 wouldn't type check anymore with the current definition of /. But in this case, I think type classes with functional dependencies could come to the rescue (yes, I know that this is an extension). Furthermore, I think it is a lot more intuitive to have functions that can take different input types, than to have functions that are restricted in their input types, but we just pass polymorphic values to them. The typing of values like [] and Nothing seems to me like a tougher nut to crack. I haven't thought of a good way to handle them. I doubt I am the first person to have had thoughts like these. Does anybody have links to good discussions about this Haskell design decision and the pros/cons of it?

  Read the article

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