Search Results

Search found 19211 results on 769 pages for 'ui automated testing'.

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 16/769 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >

  • Jquery UI Datepicker not displaying

    - by scott
    UPDATE I have reverted back to Jquery 1.3.2 and everything is working, not sure what the problem is/was as I have not changed anything else apart of the jquery and ui library versions. UPDATE END I having an issue with the JQuery UI datepicker. The datepicker is being attached to a class and that part is working but the datepicker is not being displayed. Here is the datepicker code I am using and the inline style that is being generated when I click in the input box that has the class ".datepicker". $('.datepicker').datepicker({dateFormat:'dd/mm/yy'}); display:none; left:418px; position:absolute; top:296px; z-index:1; If I change the display:none to display:block the datepicker works fine except it dosen't close when I select a date. Jquery libraries in use: jQuery JavaScript Library v1.4.2 jQuery UI 1.8 jQuery UI Widget 1.8 jQuery UI Mouse 1.8 jQuery UI Position 1.8 jQuery UI Draggable 1.8 jQuery UI Droppable 1.8 jQuery UI Datepicker 1.8

    Read the article

  • White-box testing in Javascript - how to deal with privacy?

    - by Max Shawabkeh
    I'm writing unit tests for a module in a small Javascript application. In order to keep the interface clean, some of the implementation details are closed over by an anonymous function (the usual JS pattern for privacy). However, while testing I need to access/mock/verify the private parts. Most of the tests I've written previously have been in Python, where there are no real private variables (members, identifiers, whatever you want to call them). One simply suggests privacy via a leading underscore for the users, and freely ignores it while testing the code. In statically typed OO languages I suppose one could make private members accessible to tests by converting them to be protected and subclassing the object to be tested. In Javascript, the latter doesn't apply, while the former seems like bad practice. I could always wall back to black box testing and simply check the final results. It's the simplest and cleanest approach, but unfortunately not really detailed enough for my needs. So, is there a standard way of keeping variables private while still retaining some backdoors for testing in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • Pass variable by Post method from JQuery UI Autocomplete to PHP page

    - by Shahriar N Khondokar
    I have two JQuery UI autocomplete input fields. When an option is selected in the first one, the value of the selection will be used as condition for a database query that will send the source data for the second autocomplete field. My problem is how do I send the value of the first selection to the PHP page via Post method? The code so far is shown below (this code is from a tutorial which used the GET method; but I want to use Post): <script> $("input#divisions").autocomplete ({ //this is the first input source : [ { value: "81", label: "City1" }, { value: "82", label: "City2" }, { value: "83", label: "City3" } ], minLength : 0, select: function(event, ui) { $('#divisions').val(ui.item.label); return false; }, focus: function(event, ui){ $('#divisions').val(ui.item.label); return false; }, change: function(event, ui){ //the tutorial has this value sent by variables in the URL; I want the selection value sent by POST. How can I change this? c_t_v_choices = "c_t_v_choices.php?filter=" + ui.item.value; $("#c_t_v").autocomplete("option", "source", c_t_v_choices); } }).focus (function (event) { $(this).autocomplete ("search", ""); }); $("#c_t_v").autocomplete({ source: "", minLength: 2, select: function(event,ui){ //$('#city').val(ui.item.city); } }); </script> Can anyone please help? Dont hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.

    Read the article

  • MS DPM 2007: Testing the Recovery for a Production Domain

    - by NewToDPM
    Hi everybody! MS DPM 2007 is a new technology in my company, and so am I to the product. We have a classic Microsoft domain with two DCs, Exchange 2007 and a couple Web/MS SQL servers. I have deployed DPM one month ago on the domain, and after fixing the various issues I got with the replicas inconsistence and adapting the schedule and retention range to the server storage pool size, I can say the backup system is working correctly (no errors) as of today. However, there is one problem: we did not attempt to restore from the backups yet, which is a big no-no of course. I'm not sure about the way I should handle this, my main concern being Exchange and the System State of the DCs. From my understanding, DPM can only protect AND restore data on a server which is part of the same domain as the backup server. If I restore the System State (containing Active Directory) and the Exchange Storage Groups on a testing server, I am afraid it would completely disturb the domain functioning (for example, having two primary DCs on the domain). I am thinking about building a second DPM server on a testing separate domain which would mirror the replicas and then restore it on testing servers from this new domain. Is it the right way to handle the data recovery testing? How did you do on your domain when you first deployed DPM? I'd be grateful for any link/documentation or advice. Thank you in advance for your help! EDIT: Two options seem possible so far: i. Create another DC/Exchange server in the alternate location; ii. Create a separate domain in the alternate location and setup a trust between this domain and the production one. The option i is certainly the best but implies setting up a secondary Exchange server, with a dedicated public IP address so that if Exchange #1 dies, we can still send emails with Exchange #2. I don't know how complex this can be and would need to discuss it with my colleagues. The option ii would only fit the testing purposes. My only question regarding this is: if my production and DPM servers are part of domain A, and there is a trust between domains A and B, can I restore a domain A content to any domain B server?

    Read the article

  • Jquery autocomplete UI - No results on multiple fields

    - by pjammer
    Andrew's answer to my comment has sparked this question. According to his awesome answer in the link above, the code at the bottom of the question will only work for ONE widget. But it's killer nice code and makes sense... I guess I want the best of both worlds. Nice JS, (if that is possible) and to have the zero results show() just the element that we're using at the time. This code snippet is the main crux of my problem, as I see it: source: function (request, response) { jQuery.ajax({ url: "/autocomplete.json", data: { term: request.term }, success: function (data) { if (data.length == 0) { jQuery('span.guest_investor_email').show(); jQuery('span.investor_field_delete_button').show(); } response(data); } }); Currently: I have a button on my page that says "Add more Information" and each time you click it, a new instance of the autocomplete text field appears, complete with some hidden fields and a display:none; on guest_investor_email. If I use the autocomplete text field, say 3 times, and i have 3 autocomplete instances on the page and the third one finds 0 results: The code will show() all 3 instances of the guest_investor_email text field, instead of just this one that is blank. QUESTION: How do i get something like jQuery(this).siblings(('span.guest_investor_email').show(); to work? this is an Object and not an array of elements to select. If it isn't with this I don't mind, as long as I know how to get at it. Thanks. Full Code: jQuery(".auto_search_complete").live("click", function() { jQuery(this).autocomplete({ minLength: 3, source: function (request, response) { jQuery.ajax({ url: "/autocomplete.json", data: { term: request.term }, success: function (data) { if (data.length == 0) { jQuery('span.guest_investor_email').show(); jQuery('span.investor_field_delete_button').show(); } response(data); } }); }, focus: function(event, ui) { jQuery(this).val(ui.item.user ? ui.item.user.name : ui.item.pitch.name); return false; }, select: function(event, ui) { jQuery(this).val(ui.item.user ? ui.item.user.name : ui.item.pitch.name); jQuery(this).siblings('div.hidden_fields').children('.poly_id').val(ui.item.user ? ui.item.user.id : ui.item.pitch.id); jQuery(this).siblings('div.hidden_fields').children('.poly_type').val(ui.item.user ? "User" : "Pitch"); jQuery(this).siblings('span.guest_investor_email').hide(); jQuery(this).siblings('span.investor_field_delete_button').show(); jQuery(this).attr('readonly','readonly'); jQuery(this).attr('id', "investor-selected"); return false; } }).each(function() { jQuery(this).data( "autocomplete" )._renderItem = function( ul, item ) { return jQuery( "" ) .data( "item.autocomplete", item ) .append("" + (item.user ? item.user.name : item.pitch.name) + "" + (item.user ? item.user.investor_type : item.pitch.investor_type) + " - " + (item.user ? item.user.city : item.pitch.city) + "" ) .appendTo( ul ); }; }); });

    Read the article

  • Surely eAsy but I am not able ... JQUERY UI - WIDGET - HEADER

    - by alex
    I was making this simple trial, but can anyone tell me why the distance from the border of DIV to the H2 header is so much ? How can I reduce it ? I don't want space ... Prova WIDGET <link rel="stylesheet" href="jquery-ui-1.8.custom/css/smoothness/jquery-ui-1.8.custom.css" type="text/css"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="jquery-ui-1.8.custom/development-bundle/ui/jquery-ui-1.8.custom.css" type="text/css"> <script src="jquery-ui-1.8.custom/development-bundle/jquery-1.4.2.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script src="jquery-ui-1.8.custom/js/jquery-ui-1.8.custom.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> $(themify); function themify(){ $("div").addClass("ui-widget ui-widget-content ui-corner-all"); $("input").addClass("ui-button ui-button-text"); $(":header").addClass("ui-widget-header ui-corner-all"); //ui-widget } </script> <style>#test{display:none}</style> <script type="text/javascript"> function rendiVisibile(){ if(document.getElementById("test").style.display = "none"){ $("#test").css({"width":"200px","float":"right","text-align":"center"}); $("#test").show("slide",{},1000); } } </script> </head> <body> <h2>Tentativo widget con DIV</h2> <form action=""> <input type="button" value="Submit" id="pulsante" onclick="rendiVisibile()";><br/></br> <div id="test"> <h2>CIAO</h2> Un saluto </div> </form> </body>

    Read the article

  • jQuery block UI exceptions

    - by Chirantan
    I am using JQuery UI plugin blockUI to block UI for every ajax request. It works like a charm, however, I don't want to block the UI (Or at least not show the "Please wait" message) when I am making ajax calls to fetch autocomplete suggest items. How do I do that? I am using jquery autocomplete plugin for autocomplete functionality. Is there a way I can tell the block UI plug-in to not block UI for autocomplete?

    Read the article

  • Testing + production server and syncing MySQL data

    - by Matthew
    I have a web application running on LAMP with a testing server and a production server. Is there a standard practice for keeping the data on the testing server in sync with the production server? The data on the testing server gets out of date pretty quick and I feel like there must be an easier way than just dumping the production server and copying it onto the testing server every so often. It's not important that the data is in total sync, just that the testing server represents the production enviornment as accurately as possible.

    Read the article

  • Using a service registry that doesn’t suck part II: Dear registry, do you have to be a message broker?

    - by gsusx
    Continuing our series of posts about service registry patterns that suck, we decided to address one of the most common techniques that Service Oriented (SOA) governance tools use to enforce policies. Scenario Service registries and repositories serve typically as a mechanism for storing service policies that model behaviors such as security, trust, reliable messaging, SLAs, etc. This makes perfect sense given that SOA governance registries were conceived as a mechanism to store and manage the policies...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Agile SOA Governance: SO-Aware and Visual Studio Integration

    - by gsusx
    One of the major limitations of traditional SOA governance platforms is the lack of integration as part of the development process. Tools like HP-Systinet or SOA Software are designed to operate by models on which the architects dictate the governance procedures and policies and the rest of the team members follow along. Consequently, those procedures are frequently rejected by developers and testers given that they can’t incorporate it as part of their daily activities. Having SOA governance products...(read more)

    Read the article

  • We are hiring (take a minute to read this, is not another BS talk ;) )

    - by gsusx
    I really wanted to wait until our new website was out to blog about this but I hope you can put up with the ugly website for a few more days J. Tellago keeps growing and, after a quick break at the beginning of the year, we are back in hiring mode J. We are currently expanding our teams in the United States and Argentina and have various positions open in the following categories. .NET developers: If you are an exceptional .NET programmer with a passion for creating great software solutions working...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Tellago & Tellago Studios at Microsoft TechReady

    - by gsusx
    This week Microsoft is hosting the first edition of their annual TechReady conference. Even though TechReady is an internal conference, Microsoft invited us to present a not one but two sessions about some our recent work. We are particularly proud of the fact that one of those sessions is about our SO-Aware service registry. We see this as a recognition to the growing popularity of SO-Aware as the best Agile SOA governance solution in the Microsoft platform. Well, on Tuesday I had the opportunity...(read more)

    Read the article

  • SO-Aware sessions in Dallas and Houston

    - by gsusx
    Our WCF Registry: SO-Aware keeps being evangelized throughout the world. This week Tellago Studios' Dwight Goins will be speaking at Microsoft events in Dallas and Houston ( https://msevents.microsoft.com/cui/EventDetail.aspx?culture=en-US&EventID=1032469800&IO=ycqB%2bGJQr78fJBMJTye1oA%3d%3d ) about WCF management best practices using SO-Aware . If you are in the area and passionate about WCF you should definitely swing by and give Dwight a hard time ;)...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Do Repeat Yourself in Unit Tests

    - by João Angelo
    Don’t get me wrong I’m a big supporter of the DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) Principle except however when it comes to unit tests. Why? Well, in my opinion a unit test should be a self-contained group of actions with the intent to test a very specific piece of code and should not depend on externals shared with other unit tests. In a typical unit test we can divide its code in two major groups: Preparation of preconditions for the code under test; Invocation of the code under test. It’s in the first group that you are tempted to refactor common code in several unit tests into helper methods that can then be called in each one of them. Another way to not duplicate code is to use the built-in infrastructure of some unit test frameworks such as SetUp/TearDown methods that automatically run before and after each unit test. I must admit that in the past I was guilty of both charges but what at first seemed a good idea since I was removing code duplication turnout to offer no added value and even complicate the process when a given test fails. We love unit tests because of their rapid feedback when something goes wrong. However, this feedback requires most of the times reading the code for the failed test. Given this, what do you prefer? To read a single method or wander through several methods like SetUp/TearDown and private common methods. I say it again, do repeat yourself in unit tests. It may feel wrong at first but I bet you won’t regret it later.

    Read the article

  • Why some consider static analysis a testing and some do not?

    - by user970696
    Preparing myself also to ISTQB certification, I found they call static analysis actually as a static testing, while some engineering book distinct between static analysis and testing, which is the dynamic activity. I tent to think that static analysis is not a testing in the true sense as it does not test, it checks/verifies. But sure I would love to hear opinion of the true experts here. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Separating physics and game logic from UI code

    - by futlib
    I'm working on a simple block-based puzzle game. The game play consists pretty much of moving blocks around in the game area, so it's a trivial physics simulation. My implementation, however, is in my opinion far from ideal and I'm wondering if you can give me any pointers on how to do it better. I've split the code up into two areas: Game logic and UI, as I did with a lot of puzzle games: The game logic is responsible for the general rules of the game (e.g. the formal rule system in chess) The UI displays the game area and pieces (e.g. chess board and pieces) and is responsible for animations (e.g. animated movement of chess pieces) The game logic represents the game state as a logical grid, where each unit is one cell's width/height on the grid. So for a grid of width 6, you can move a block of width 2 four times until it collides with the boundary. The UI takes this grid, and draws it by converting logical sizes into pixel sizes (that is, multiplies it by a constant). However, since the game has hardly any game logic, my game logic layer [1] doesn't have much to do except collision detection. Here's how it works: Player starts to drag a piece UI asks game logic for the legal movement area of that piece and lets the player drag it within that area Player lets go of a piece UI snaps the piece to the grid (so that it is at a valid logical position) UI tells game logic the new logical position (via mutator methods, which I'd rather avoid) I'm not quite happy with that: I'm writing unit tests for my game logic layer, but not the UI, and it turned out all the tricky code is in the UI: Stopping the piece from colliding with others or the boundary and snapping it to the grid. I don't like the fact that the UI tells the game logic about the new state, I would rather have it call a movePieceLeft() method or something like that, as in my other games, but I didn't get far with that approach, because the game logic knows nothing about the dragging and snapping that's possible in the UI. I think the best thing to do would be to get rid of my game logic layer and implement a physics layer instead. I've got a few questions regarding that: Is such a physics layer common, or is it more typical to have the game logic layer do this? Would the snapping to grid and piece dragging code belong to the UI or the physics layer? Would such a physics layer typically work with pixel sizes or with some kind of logical unit, like my game logic layer? I've seen event-based collision detection in a game's code base once, that is, the player would just drag the piece, the UI would render that obediently and notify the physics system, and the physics system would call a onCollision() method on the piece once a collision is detected. What is more common? This approach or asking for the legal movement area first? [1] layer is probably not the right word for what I mean, but subsystem sounds overblown and class is misguiding, because each layer can consist of several classes.

    Read the article

  • Are there any formalized/mathematical theories of software testing?

    - by Erik Allik
    Googling "software testing theory" only seems to give theories in the soft sense of the word; I have not been able to find anything that would classify as a theory in the mathematical, information theoretical or some other scientific field's sense. What I'm looking for is something that formalizes what testing is, the notions used, what a test case is, the feasibility of testing something, the practicality of testing something, the extent to which something should be tested, formal definition/explanation of code coverage, etc. UPDATE: Also, I'm not sure, intuitively, about the connection between formal verification and what I asked, but there's clearly some sort of connection.

    Read the article

  • Wierd Results A/B Test in Google Website Optimizer

    - by Yisroel
    I set up a test in Google Website Optimizer that has a 3 variations - original (A), B, and C. In order to further validate the results of the test, I added a variation C that is exactly the same as the original. And thats where the results get weird. 6 days in to the test, the best performing variation is C. It outperforms the original by 18.4%! How is that possible? Do I now discount the results of this test entirely?

    Read the article

  • Is it correct to fix bugs without adding new features when releasing software for system testing?

    - by Pratik
    This question is to experienced testers or test leads. This is a scenario from a software project: Say the dev team have completed the first iteration of 10 features and released it to system testing. The test team has created test cases for these 10 features and estimated 5 days for testing. The dev team of course cannot sit idle for 5 days and they start creating 10 new features for next iteration. During this time the test team found defects and raised some bugs. The bugs are prioritised and some of them have to be fixed before next iteration. The catch is that they would not accept the new release with any new features or changes to existing features until all those bugs fixed. The test team says that's how can we guarantee a stable release for testing if we also introduce new features along with the bug fix. They also cannot do regression tests of all their test cases each iteration. Apparently this is proper testing process according to ISQTB. This means the dev team has to create a branch of code solely for bug fixing and another branch where they continue development. There is more merging overhead specially with refactoring and architectural changes. Can you agree if this is a common testing principle. Is the test team's concern valid. Have you encountered this in practice in your project.

    Read the article

  • How to unit test image processing code?

    - by rold2007
    I'm working in image processing (mainly OCR) and I wonder how I should integrate unit tests in my development. I'm already using unit tests for more "common" type of code but when dealing with image processing code I'm not sure how to deal with it. This kind of code always need some image data input/output and mocking this is not obvious. For now I'm mostly doing integration tests but they take a while to run and I would like some ideas on how to break down this kind of code into unit tests so that I can run them more quickly.

    Read the article

  • Is static universally "evil" for unit testing and if so why does resharper recommend it?

    - by Vaccano
    I have found that there are only 3 ways to unit test (mock/stub) dependencies that are static in C#.NET: Moles TypeMock JustMock Given that two of these are not free and one has not hit release 1.0, mocking static stuff is not too easy. Does that make static methods and such "evil" (in the unit testing sense)? And if so, why does resharper want me to make anything that can be static, static? (Assuming resharper is not also "evil".) Clarification: I am talking about the scenario when you want to unit test a method and that method calls a static method in a different unit/class. By most definitions of unit testing, if you just let the method under test call the static method in the other unit/class then you are not unit testing, you are integration testing. (Useful, but not a unit test.)

    Read the article

  • Wierd Results A/B Test in Google Website Optimizer

    - by Yisroel
    I set up a test in Google Website Optimizer that has a 3 variations - original (A), B, and C. In order to further validate the results of the test, I added a variation C that is exactly the same as the original. And thats where the results get weird. 6 days in to the test, the best performing variation is C. It outperforms the original by 18.4%! How is that possible? Do I now discount the results of this test entirely?

    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 | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >