Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns and practices'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 158/348 | < Previous Page | 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165  | Next Page >

  • Multiple asserts in single test?

    - by Gern Blandston
    Let's say I want to write a function that validates an email address with a regex. I write a little test to check my function and write the actual function. Make it pass. However, I can come up with a bunch of different ways to test the same function ([email protected]; [email protected]; test.test.com, etc). Do I put all the incantations that I need to check in the same, single test with several ASSERTS or do I write a new test for every single thing I can think of? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Architecture of a single-page JavaScript web application?

    - by fig-gnuton
    How should a complex single-page JS web application be structured on the client-side? Specifically I'm curious about how to cleanly structure the application in terms of its model objects, UI components, any controllers, and objects handling server persistence. MVC seemed like a fit at first. But with UI components nested at various depths (each with their own way of acting on/reacting to model data, and each generating events which they themselves may or may not handle directly), it doesn't seem like MVC can be cleanly applied. (But please correct me if that's not the case.) -- (This question resulted in two suggestions of using ajax, which is obviously needed for anything other than the most trivial one-page app.)

    Read the article

  • What design pattern to use for one big method calling many private methods

    - by Jeune
    I have a class that has a big method that calls on a lot of private methods. I think I want to extract those private methods into their own classes for one because they contain business logic and I think they should be public so they can be unit tested. Here's a sample of the code: public void handleRow(Object arg0) { if (continueRunning){ hashData=(HashMap<String, Object>)arg0; Long stdReportId = null; Date effDate=null; if (stdReportIds!=null){ stdReportId = stdReportIds[index]; } if (effDates!=null){ effDate = effDates[index]; } initAndPutPriceBrackets(hashData, stdReportId, effDate); putBrand(hashData,stdReportId,formHandlerFor==0?true:useLiveForFirst); putMultiLangDescriptions(hashData,stdReportId); index++; if (stdReportIds!=null && stdReportIds[0].equals(stdReportIds[1])){ continueRunning=false; } if (formHandlerFor==REPORTS){ putBeginDate(hashData,effDate,custId); } //handle logic that is related to pricemaps. lstOfData.add(hashData); } } What design pattern should I apply to this problem?

    Read the article

  • Constructor Overload Problem in C++ Inherrentance

    - by metdos
    Here my code snippet: class Request { public: Request(void); ……….. } Request::Request(void) { qDebug()<<"Request: "<<"Hello World"; } class LoginRequest :public Request { public: LoginRequest(void); LoginRequest(QDomDocument); …………… } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(void) { qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World"; requestType=LOGIN; requestId=-1; } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(QDomDocument doc){ qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World with QDomDocument"; LoginRequest::LoginRequest(); xmlDoc_=doc; } When call constructor of Overrided LoginRequest LoginRequest *test=new LoginRequest(doc); I came up with this result: Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World with QDomDocument Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World Obviously both constructor of LoginRequest called REquest constructor. Is there any way to cape with this situation? I can construct another function that does the job I want to do and have both constructors call that function. But I wonder is there any solution?

    Read the article

  • How to test a site rigorously?

    - by Sarfraz
    Hello, I recently created a big portal site. It's time for putting it to test. How do you guys test a site rigorously? What are the ways and tools for that? Can we sort of mimic hundreds of virtual users visiting the site to see its load handling? The test should be for both security and speed Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Should I create subclass NSManagedObject or not?

    - by TP
    Hi, I have spent a few days learning and writing NSCoding and finally got it working. However, it took very long to archive and unarchive the (quite complex) object graph, which is unacceptable. After searching the internet for some time, I think the better way is to use core data. Do you recommend that 1) I should rewrite all my classes as subclasses of NSManagedObject or 2) should I create an instance variable of NSManagedObject in each of my class so that any changes to the class also updates its core data representation? Doing either way will need significant changes to the exiting classes and I think I have to update lots of unit test cases as well if it changes the way the classes are initialized. What do you recommend? I really don't want to head to the wrong approach again... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How does the verbosity of identifiers affect the performance of a programmer?

    - by DR
    I always wondered: Are there any hard facts which would indicate that either shorter or longer identifiers are better? Example: clrscr() opposed to ClearScreen() Short identifiers should be faster to read because there are fewer characters but longer identifiers often better resemble natural language and therefore also should be faster to read. Are there other aspects which suggest either a short or a verbose style? EDIT: Just to clarify: I didn't ask: "What would you do in this case?". I asked for reasons to prefer one over the other, i.e. this is not a poll question. Please, if you can, add some reason on why one would prefer one style over the other.

    Read the article

  • Inheritance in tables - structure problem

    - by Naor
    I have 3 types of users in my system. each type has different information I created the following tables: BaseUser(base_user_id, username, password, additional common data) base_user_id is PK and Identity UserType1(user_id, data related to type1 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id UserType2(user_id, data related to type2 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id UserType3(user_id, data related to type3 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id Now I have relation from each type of user to warehouses table. Users from type1 and type2 should have only warehouse_id and users from type3 should have warehouse_id and customer_id. I thought about this structure: WarehouseOfUser(base_user_id,warehouse_id) base_user_id is FK to base_user_id in BaseUser WarehouseOfTyp3User(base_user_id,warehouse_id, customer_id) base_user_id is FK to base_user_id in BaseUser The problem is that such structure allows 2 things I want to prevent: 1. add to WarehouseOfTyp3User data of user from type2 or type1. 2. add to WarehouseOfUser data of user from type3. what is the best structure for such case?

    Read the article

  • My first Lisp macro; is it leaky?

    - by Tom Martin
    I've been working through Practical Common Lisp and as an exercise decided to write a macro to determine if a number is a multiple of another number: (defmacro multp (value factor) `(= (rem ,value ,factor) 0)) so that : (multp 40 10) evaluates to true whilst (multp 40 13) does not The question is does this macro leak in some way? Also is this "good" Lisp? Is there already an existing function/macro that I could have used?

    Read the article

  • Does it ever make sense to make a fundamental (non-pointer) parameter const?

    - by Scott Smith
    I recently had an exchange with another C++ developer about the following use of const: void Foo(const int bar); He felt that using const in this way was good practice. I argued that it does nothing for the caller of the function (since a copy of the argument was going to be passed, there is no additional guarantee of safety with regard to overwrite). In addition, doing this prevents the implementer of Foo from modifying their private copy of the argument. So, it both mandates and advertises an implementation detail. Not the end of the world, but certainly not something to be recommended as good practice. I'm curious as to what others think on this issue. Edit: OK, I didn't realize that const-ness of the arguments didn't factor into the signature of the function. So, it is possible to mark the arguments as const in the implementation (.cpp), and not in the header (.h) - and the compiler is fine with that. That being the case, I guess the policy should be the same for making local variables const. One could make the argument that having different looking signatures in the header and source file would confuse others (as it would have confused me). While I try to follow the Principle of Least Astonishment with whatever I write, I guess it's reasonable to expect developers to recognize this as legal and useful.

    Read the article

  • small scale web site - global javascript file style/format/pattern - improving maintainability

    - by yaya3
    I frequently create (and inherit) small to medium websites where I have the following sort of code in a single file (normally named global.js or application.js or projectname.js). If functions get big, I normally put them in a seperate file, and call them at the bottom of the file below in the $(document).ready() section. If I have a few functions that are unique to certain pages, I normally have another switch statement for the body class inside the $(document).ready() section. How could I restructure this code to make it more maintainable? Note: I am less interested in the functions innards, more so the structure, and how different types of functions should be dealt with. I've also posted the code here - http://pastie.org/999932 in case it makes it any easier var ProjectNameEnvironment = {}; function someFunctionUniqueToTheHomepageNotWorthMakingConfigurable () { $('.foo').hide(); $('.bar').click(function(){ $('.foo').show(); }); } function functionThatIsWorthMakingConfigurable(config) { var foo = config.foo || 700; var bar = 200; return foo * bar; } function globallyRequiredJqueryPluginTrigger (tooltip_string) { var tooltipTrigger = $(tooltip_string); tooltipTrigger.tooltip({ showURL: false ... }); } function minorUtilityOneLiner (selector) { $(selector).find('li:even').not('li ul li').addClass('even'); } var Lightbox = {}; Lightbox.setup = function(){ $('li#foo a').attr('href','#alpha'); $('li#bar a').attr('href','#beta'); } Lightbox.init = function (config){ if (typeof $.fn.fancybox =='function') { Lightbox.setup(); var fade_in_speed = config.fade_in_speed || 1000; var frame_height = config.frame_height || 1700; $(config.selector).fancybox({ frameHeight : frame_height, callbackOnShow: function() { var content_to_load = config.content_to_load; ... }, callbackOnClose : function(){ $('body').height($('body').height()); } }); } else { if (ProjectNameEnvironment.debug) { alert('the fancybox plugin has not been loaded'); } } } // ---------- order of execution ----------- $(document).ready(function () { urls = urlConfig(); (function globalFunctions() { $('.tooltip-trigger').each(function(){ globallyRequiredJqueryPluginTrigger(this); }); minorUtilityOneLiner('ul.foo') Lightbox.init({ selector : 'a#a-lightbox-trigger-js', ... }); Lightbox.init({ selector : 'a#another-lightbox-trigger-js', ... }); })(); if ( $('body').attr('id') == 'home-page' ) { (function homeFunctions() { someFunctionUniqueToTheHomepageNotWorthMakingConfigurable (); })(); } });

    Read the article

  • I don't like Python functions that take two or more iterables. Is it a good idea?

    - by Xavier Ho
    This question came from looking at this question on Stackoverflow. def fringe8((px, py), (x1, y1, x2, y2)): Personally, it's been one of my pet peeves to see a function that takes two arguments with fixed-number iterables (like a tuple) or two or more dictionaries (Like in the Shotgun API). It's just hard to use, because of all the verbosity and double-bracketed enclosures. Wouldn't this be better: >>> class Point(object): ... def __init__(self, x, y): ... self.x = x ... self.y = y ... >>> class Rect(object): ... def __init__(self, x1, y1, x2, y2): ... self.x1 = x1 ... self.y1 = y1 ... self.x2 = x2 ... self.y2 = y2 ... >>> def fringe8(point, rect): ... # ... ... >>> >>> point = Point(2, 2) >>> rect = Rect(1, 1, 3, 3) >>> >>> fringe8(point, rect) Is there a situation where taking two or more iterable arguments is justified? Obviously the standard itertools Python library needs that, but I can't see it being pretty in maintainable, flexible code design.

    Read the article

  • C++ Matrix class hierachy

    - by bpw1621
    Should a matrix software library have a root class (e.g., MatrixBase) from which more specialized (or more constrained) matrix classes (e.g., SparseMatrix, UpperTriangluarMatrix, etc.) derive? If so, should the derived classes be derived publicly/protectively/privately? If not, should they be composed with a implementation class encapsulating common functionality and be otherwise unrelated? Something else? I was having a conversation about this with a software developer colleague (I am not per se) who mentioned that it is a common programming design mistake to derive a more restricted class from a more general one (e.g., he used the example of how it was not a good idea to derive a Circle class from an Ellipse class as similar to the matrix design issue) even when it is true that a SparseMatrix "IS A" MatrixBase. The interface presented by both the base and derived classes should be the same for basic operations; for specialized operations, a derived class would have additional functionality that might not be possible to implement for an arbitrary MatrixBase object. For example, we can compute the cholesky decomposition only for a PositiveDefiniteMatrix class object; however, multiplication by a scalar should work the same way for both the base and derived classes. Also, even if the underlying data storage implementation differs the operator()(int,int) should work as expected for any type of matrix class. I have started looking at a few open-source matrix libraries and it appears like this is kind of a mixed bag (or maybe I'm looking at a mixed bag of libraries). I am planning on helping out with a refactoring of a math library where this has been a point of contention and I'd like to have opinions (that is unless there really is an objective right answer to this question) as to what design philosophy would be best and what are the pros and cons to any reasonable approach.

    Read the article

  • Is this 2D array initialization a bad idea?

    - by Brendan Long
    I have something I need a 2D array for, but for better cache performance, I'd rather have it actually be a normal array. Here's the idea I had but I don't know if it's a terrible idea: const int XWIDTH = 10, YWIDTH = 10; int main(){ int * tempInts = new int[XWIDTH * YWIDTH]; int ** ints = new int*[XWIDTH]; for(int i=0; i<XWIDTH; i++){ ints[i] = &tempInts[i*YWIDTH]; } // do things with ints delete[] ints[0]; delete[] ints; return 0; } So the idea is that instead of newing a bunch of arrays (and having them placed in different places in memory), I just point to an array I made all at once. The reason for the delete[] (int*) ints; is because I'm actually doing this in a class and it would save [trivial amounts of] memory to not save the original pointer. Just wondering if there's any reasons this is a horrible idea. Or if there's an easier/better way. The goal is to be able to access the array as ints[x][y] rather than ints[x*YWIDTH+y].

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection & Singleton Design pattern

    - by SysAdmin
    How do we identify when to use dependency injection or singleton pattern. I have read in lot of websites where they say "Use Dependency injection over singleton pattern". But I am not sure if I totally agree with them. For my small or medium scale projects I definitely see the use of singleton pattern straightforward. For example Logger. I could use Logger.GetInstance().Log(...) But, instead of this, why do I need to inject every class I create, with the logger's instance?.

    Read the article

  • How should I architect JasperReports with a PHP front+backend system

    - by Itay Moav
    Our system is written completely in PHP. For various business reasons (which are a given) I need to build the reports of the system using JasperReports. What architecture should I use? Should I put the Jasper as a stand alone server (if possible) and let the php query against it, should I have it generate the reports with a cron, and then let the PHP scoop up the files and send them to the web client/browser...

    Read the article

  • Unit testing huge applications - Proven methodologies?

    - by NLV
    Hello members I've been working in windows forms applications and ASP.Net applications for the past 10 months. I've always wondered how to perform proper unit testing on the complete application in a robust manner covering all the scenarios. I've the following questions regarding them - What are the standard mechanisms in performing unit testing and writing test cases? Does the methodologies change based on the application nature such as Windows Forms, Web applications etc? What is the best approach to make sure we cover all the scenarios? Any popular books on this? Popular tools for performing unit testing?

    Read the article

  • How to apply Abstract Factory Pattern ???

    - by Amit
    I am new to Design Pattern and I have a scenario here... and not sure as how to implement the pattern ... We have multiple vendors Philips, Onida... Each vendor (philips, onida...) may have different type of product i.e. Plasma or Normal TV I want specific product of each vendor using Abstract Factory Pattern... Thanks in advance for any help... My implementation so far... public enum TvType { Samsung = 0,LG = 1,Philips = 2, Sony = 3 } public enum Product { Plasma = 0,NormalTV = 1 } concrete class of each vendor.... that returns each product and also the interface that contains ProductInfo i.e. if Vendor is ... then it must have this product....

    Read the article

  • Debugging a Browser Redirect Loop

    - by just_wes
    Hi all, I am using CakePHP with the Auth and ACL components. My page loads fine for non-registered users, but if I try to log in as a registered user I get an infinite redirect loop in the browser. I am sure that this is some sort of permissions problem, but the problem exists even for users who have permissions for everything. The only way to prevent this behavior is to allow '*' in my AppController's beforeFilter method. What is the best way to debug this sort of problem? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • DDD: Enum like entities

    - by Chris
    Hi all, I have the following DB model: **Person table** ID | Name | StateId ------------------------------ 1 Joe 1 2 Peter 1 3 John 2 **State table** ID | Desc ------------------------------ 1 Working 2 Vacation and domain model would be (simplified): public class Person { public int Id { get; } public string Name { get; set; } public State State { get; set; } } public class State { private int id; public string Name { get; set; } } The state might be used in the domain logic e.g.: if(person.State == State.Working) // some logic So from my understanding, the State acts like a value object which is used for domain logic checks. But it also needs to be present in the DB model to represent a clean ERM. So state might be extended to: public class State { private int id; public string Name { get; set; } public static State New {get {return new State([hardCodedIdHere?], [hardCodeNameHere?]);}} } But using this approach the name of the state would be hardcoded into the domain. Do you know what I mean? Is there a standard approach for such a thing? From my point of view what I am trying to do is using an object (which is persisted from the ERM design perspective) as a sort of value object within my domain. What do you think? Question update: Probably my question wasn't clear enough. What I need to know is, how I would use an entity (like the State example) that is stored in a database within my domain logic. To avoid things like: if(person.State.Id == State.Working.Id) // some logic or if(person.State.Id == WORKING_ID) // some logic

    Read the article

  • Representing xml through a single class

    - by Charles
    I am trying to abstract away the difficulties of configuring an application that we use. This application takes a xml configuration file and it can be a bit bothersome to manually edit this file, especially when we are trying to setup some automatic testing scenarios. I am finding that reading xml is nice, pretty easy, you get a network of element nodes that you can just go through and build your structures quite nicely. However I am slowly finding that the reverse is not quite so nice. I want to be able to build a xml configuration file through a single easy to use interface and because xml is composed of a system of nodes I am having a lot of struggle trying to maintain the 'easy' part. Does anyone know of any examples or samples that easily and intuitively build xml files without declaring a bunch of element type classes and expect the user to build the network themselves? For example if my desired xml output is like so <cook version="1.1"> <recipe name="chocolate chip cookie"> <ingredients> <ingredient name="flour" amount="2" units="cups"/> <ingredient name="eggs" amount="2" units="" /> <ingredient name="cooking chocolate" amount="5" units="cups" /> </ingredients> <directions> <direction name="step 1">Preheat oven</direction> <direction name="step 2">Mix flour, egg, and chocolate</direction> <direction name="step 2">bake</direction> </directions> </recipe> <recipe name="hot dog"> ... How would I go about designing a class to build that network of elements and make one easy to use interface for creating recipes? Right now I have a recipe object, an ingredient object, and a direction object. The user must make each one, set the attributes in the class and attach them to the root object which assembles the xml elements and outputs the formatted xml. Its not very pretty and I just know there has to be a better way. I am using python so bonus points for pythonic solutions

    Read the article

  • In ASP.NET MVC Should A Form Post To Itself Or Another Action?

    - by Sohnee
    Which of these two scenario's is best practice in ASP.NET MVC? 1 Post to self In the view you use using (Html.BeginForm) { ... } And in the controller you have [HttpGet] public ActionResult Edit(int id) [HttpPost] public ActionResult Edit(EditModel model) 2 Post from Edit to Save In the view you use using (Html.BeginForm("Save", "ControllerName")) { And in the controller you have [HttpGet] public ActionResult Edit(int id) [HttpPost] public ActionResult Save(EditModel model) Summary I can see the benefits of each of these, the former gives you a more restful style, with the same address being used in conjunction with the correct HTTP verb (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE and so on). The latter has a URL schema that makes each address very specific. Which is the correct way to do this?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165  | Next Page >