source code control - Page 173

Google Code Jam Returns!

Given a list of cell phone towers, the cost or gain of upgrading each one, and the requirement that every upgraded tower can only have upgraded towers in...

C# Windows Aero Style Wizard Control

In this article we will see how to create our own Windows Aero themed form.

Code Project Technical Blog FAQ

This is an FAQ for the Technical Blogs. It can be modified by any Silver member.

Mock RequireJS define dependencies with config.map

Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2014/08/18/mock-requirejs-define-dependencies-with-config.map.aspxI had a module dependency, that I’m pulling down with RequireJS that I needed to use and write tests against. In this case, I don’t care about the actual implementation of the module (it’s simple enough that I’m just avoiding some AJAX calls). EDIT: make sure you look at the bottom example after the edit before using the config.map approach. I found that there is an easier way. I did not want to change the constructor of the consumer as I had a chain of changes that would have to be made and that would have been to invasive for this task. I found a question on StackOverflow with a short, but helpful answer from “Artem Oboturov”. We can use the config.map from RequireJs to achieve this. Here is some code: A module example (“usefulModule” in Common/Modules/usefulModule.js): define([], function() { "use strict"; var testMethod = function() { ... }; // add more functionality of the module return { testMethod; } }); A consumer of usefulModule example: define([ "Commmon/Modules/usefulModule" ], function(usefulModule) { "use strict"; var consumerModule = function(){ var self = this; // add functionality of the module } }); Using config.map in the html of the test runner page (and in your Karma config –> I’m still trying to figure this out): map: {'*': { // replace usefulModule with a mock 'Common/Modules/usefulModule': '/Tests/Specs/Common/usefulModuleMock.js' } } With the new mapping, Require will load usefulModuleMock.js from Tests/Specs/Common instead of the real implementation. Some of the answers on StackOverflow mentioned Squire.js, which looked interesting, but I wasn’t ready to introduce a new library at this time. That’s all you need to be able to mock a depency in RequireJS. However, there are many good cases when you should pass it in through the constructor instead of this approach. EDIT: After all that, here’s another, probably better way: The consumer class, updated: define([ "Commmon/Modules/usefulModule" ], function(UsefulModule) { "use strict"; var consumerModule = function(){ var self = this; self.usefulModule = new UsefulModule(); // add functionality of the module } }); Jasmine test: define([ "consumerModule", "/UnitTests/Specs/Common/Mocks/usefulModuleMock.js" ], function(consumerModule, UsefulModuleMock){ describe("when mocking out the module", function(){ it("should probably just override the property", function(){ var consumer = new consumerModule(); consumer.usefulModule = new UsefulModuleMock(); }); }); }); Thanks for letting me think out loud :-).

Search Results

Search found 113970 results on 4559 pages for 'source code control'.

Page 173/4559 | < Previous Page | 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 | Next Page >

- by Aligned

- by Chords

- by schnieds

- by John

- by Justin Garrison

- by Tim

- by Hugo Kornelis

- by Russ

- by isme

- by Bharanikumar

- by Mohit Deshpande

- by Lumirris

- by user299570

- by Tim Murphy

< Previous Page | 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 | Next Page >