Search Results

Search found 24382 results on 976 pages for 'tutor process procedure f'.

Page 173/976 | < Previous Page | 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180  | Next Page >

  • How to properly mix generics and inheritance to get the desired result?

    - by yamsha
    My question is not easy to explain using words, fortunately it's not too difficult to demonstrate. So, bear with me: public interface Command<R> { public R execute();//parameter R is the type of object that will be returned as the result of the execution of this command } public abstract class BasicCommand<R> { } public interface CommandProcessor<C extends Command<?>> { public <R> R process(C<R> command);//this is my question... it's illegal to do, but you understand the idea behind it, right? } //constrain BasicCommandProcessor to commands that subclass BasicCommand public class BasicCommandProcessor implements CommandProcessor<C extends BasicCommand<?>> { //here, only subclasses of BasicCommand should be allowed as arguments but these //BasicCommand object should be parameterized by R, like so: BasicCommand<R> //so the method signature should really be // public <R> R process(BasicCommand<R> command) //which would break the inheritance if the interface's method signature was instead: // public <R> R process(Command<R> command); //I really hope this fully illustrates my conundrum public <R> R process(C<R> command) { return command.execute(); } } public class CommandContext { public static void main(String... args) { BasicCommandProcessor bcp = new BasicCommandProcessor(); String textResult = bcp.execute(new BasicCommand<String>() { public String execute() { return "result"; } }); Long numericResult = bcp.execute(new BasicCommand<Long>() { public Long execute() { return 123L; } }); } } Basically, I want the generic "process" method to dictate the type of generic parameter of the Command object. The goal is to be able to restrict different implementations of CommandProcessor to certain classes that implement Command interface and at the same time to able to call the process method of any class that implements the CommandProcessor interface and have it return the object of type specified by the parametarized Command object. I'm not sure if my explanation is clear enough, so please let me know if further explanation is needed. I guess, the question is "Would this be possible to do, at all?" If the answer is "No" what would be the best work-around (I thought of a couple on my own, but I'd like some fresh ideas)

    Read the article

  • Python: Streaming Input with Subprocesses

    - by beary605
    Since input and raw_input() stop the program from running anymore, I want to use a subprocess to run this program... while True: print raw_input() and get its output. This is what I have as my reading program: import subprocess process = subprocess.Popen('python subinput.py', stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE) while True: output=process.stdout.read(12) if output=='' and process.poll()!=None: break if output!='': sys.stdout.write(output) sys.stdout.flush() When I run this, the subprocess exits almost as fast as it started. How can I fix this?

    Read the article

  • Tracing UNIX signal origins?

    - by jdizzle
    If I have a process that receives signals from other processes, is there a way for me to somehow tell which process (if any) sent a signal? strace lets me trace which signals a process has received, but doesn't allow me to trace who issued them.

    Read the article

  • NSArray : release its objects, but keep a pointer to it.

    - by Leo
    Hello, I declare an NSArray in my code then building the array from another array. I process my NSArray and when I'm finished, I would like to release the objects, but I'm reusing this pointer to NSAarray again later to do the same process (creating the array from another array, process then releasing).. So I need to keep the pointer. What should I do ? Here is roughly what I want to do, the buildArray is creating and returning an autoreleased NSArray : NSArray *myArray; for (int i = 0, i < 10, i++){ [myArray arrayWithArray:[self buildArray]]; // Here I process myArray [myArray = nil] // is my guess } I need to keep a pointer to my NSArray, in order to reuse later in the loop, but what is happening to the objects created with [self buildArray]? What is the best to do in order not to keep unused object and arrays ? Or maybe the best solution is simply to removeAllObject of the array..? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Is there a way in C# 4.0 to have a method take a delegate with the parameters baked in?

    - by Rob Packwood
    I have this code for reporting on a simple demo app I am writing: private static void ReportOnTimedProcess(Action process) { var stopwatch = new Stopwatch(); stopwatch.Start(); process(); stopwatch.Stop(); Console.WriteLine("Process took {0} seconds", stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds*1000); } I basically want to track the time of any process. I am trying to have this method take a delegate as a parameter that can have any number of varying parameters. Is there some way an Expression can do this?

    Read the article

  • Sending floating point values between processes with pipes in C

    - by Alex
    Is there a standard way of sending floating point values from a child process to a parent process in C. I have a some calculations where I want to fork a process, then have the child do some busy work, the parent do something else, and then the child send its values (which are doubles) back to the parent (presumably through a pipe). Clearly the parent could parse the stream, but I'm just wondering if there's a cleaner way?

    Read the article

  • Fork two processes and kill the second when the first is done

    - by User1
    The title says it all. I want to create a bash script that will launch two processes and kill the second process when the first is done. Here's an example: #fork first process producer& #fork second process consumer& #wait for producer to finish ... #kill the consumer ... I have a feeling this can get ugly but has a very simple solution. Please help me fill in the blanks.

    Read the article

  • Weird behavior of fork() and execvp() in C

    - by ron
    After some remarks from my previous post , I made the following modifications : int main() { char errorStr[BUFF3]; while (1) { int i , errorFile; char *line = malloc(BUFFER); char *origLine = line; fgets(line, 128, stdin); // get a line from stdin // get complete diagnostics on the given string lineData info = runDiagnostics(line); char command[20]; sscanf(line, "%20s ", command); line = strchr(line, ' '); // here I remove the command from the line , the command is stored in "commmand" above printf("The Command is: %s\n", command); int currentCount = 0; // number of elements in the line int *argumentsCount = &currentCount; // pointer to that // get the elements separated char** arguments = separateLineGetElements(line,argumentsCount); printf("\nOutput after separating the given line from the user\n"); for (i = 0; i < *argumentsCount; i++) { printf("Argument %i is: %s\n", i, arguments[i]); } // here we call a method that would execute the commands pid_t pid ; if (-1 == (pid = fork())) { sprintf(errorStr,"fork: %s\n",strerror(errno)); write(errorFile,errorStr,strlen(errorStr + 1)); perror("fork"); exit(1); } else if (pid == 0) // fork was successful { printf("\nIn son process\n"); // if (execvp(arguments[0],arguments) < 0) // for the moment I ignore this line if (execvp(command,arguments) < 0) // execute the command { perror("execvp"); printf("ERROR: execvp failed\n"); exit(1); } } else // parent { int status = 0; pid = wait(&status); printf("Process %d returned with status %d.", pid, status); } // print each element of the line for (i = 0; i < *argumentsCount; i++) { printf("Argument %i is: %s\n", i, arguments[i]); } // free all the elements from the memory for (i = 0; i < *argumentsCount; i++) { free(arguments[i]); } free(arguments); free(origLine); } return 0; } When I enter in the Console : ls out.txt I get : The Command is: ls execvp: No such file or directory In son process ERROR: execvp failed Process 4047 returned with status 256.Argument 0 is: > Argument 1 is: out.txt So I guess that the son process is active , but from some reason the execvp fails . Why ? Regards REMARK : The ls command is just an example . I need to make this works with any given command . EDIT 1 : User input : ls > qq.out Program output : The Command is: ls Output after separating the given line from the user Argument 0 is: > Argument 1 is: qq.out In son process >: cannot access qq.out: No such file or directory Process 4885 returned with status 512.Argument 0 is: > Argument 1 is: qq.out

    Read the article

  • start service under logged on user account by changing token

    - by sam
    hi all,i have a desktop application that install and start a service,i know a process can get the explorer.exe token and lunch another process with the tkoen,it means the second process will run us logged on account, my question is this that can i start my service by explorer.exe token too ? is there is an example in delphi? thx for ur time

    Read the article

  • VS 2010 IDE 2GB limt

    - by user561732
    I am using VS 2010 on a win 7 64 bit system with 8 GB of memory. My application is 32 bit. While in the VS 2010 .Net IDE, the app shows up in the Windows task manager as "MyApp.vshost.exe *32" while the VS IDE itself shows up as "devenv.exe *32". I checked and it appears that the VS 2010 IDE file (devenv.exe) is complied with the /LargeAddressAware flag. However, when debugging large models, the IDE fails with an Out of memory exception. In the Windows Task manager, the "MyApp.vshost.exe *32" process indicates about 1400 MB of memory usage (while the "devenv.exe *32" process is well under 500 MB). Is it possible to set the "MyApp.vshost.exe *32" process to be /LargeAddressAware in order to avoid this out of memory situation? If so, how can this be done in the IDE. While setting the final application binary to be /LargeAddressAware would work, I still need to be able to debug the app in the IDE with these type of large models. I should also note that my app has a deep object hierarchy with many collections that together required a lot of memory. However, my issue is not related to trying to create say 1 large array that requires greater then 2 GB of memory etc. I should note that I am able to run the same app in the VB6 IDE and not get an out of memory situation as long as the VB6 IDE is made /LargeAddressAware. In the case of VB6, the IDE and the app being debugged are part of the same process (and not split into 2 as is the case with VS 2010.) The VB6 process can be larger then 3 GB without running into out of memory issues. Ultimately, my objective is to have my app run completely in 64 bit to access more memory. I am hoping that in such cases, the IDE will allow the debugging process to exceed 2 GB without crashing (and certainly more then 1.4 GB as is the current case). However, for now, while 95% of my app is 64 bit, I am calling a legacy COM 32 bit DLL and as such, my entire app is forced to still run in 32 bit mode until I replace that DLL.

    Read the article

  • Controlling processes from Python

    - by Nathan
    Hi, I want to control several subprocesses of the same type from python (I am under linux). I want to: Start them. Stop them. Ask if they are still running. I can start a processes with with spawnl, and get the pid. Using this pid I can stop it with kill. And I am sure there is also a way to ask if it is running with the pid. The problem is, what if the following happens: I start a process, remember the pid. The process ends without me noticing and another completely different process starts getting assigned the same pid. I attempt to kill my process, I kill a completely different one. What is the better way to start and control processes in python? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Preprocessor #if directive

    - by Caslav
    I am writing a big code and I don't want it all to be in my main.c so I wrote a .inc file that has IF-ELSE statement with function and I was wondering can it be written like this: #if var==1 process(int a) { printf("Result is: %d",2*a); } #else process(int a) { printf("Result is: %d",10*a); } #endif I tried to compile it but it gives me errors or in best case it just goes on the first function process without checking the var variable (it is set to 0).

    Read the article

  • A question about making a C# class persistant during a file load

    - by Adam
    Apologies for the indescriptive title, however it's the best I could think of for the moment. Basically, I've written a singleton class that loads files into a database. These files are typically large, and take hours to process. What I am looking for is to make a method where I can have this class running, and be able to call methods from within it, even if it's calling class is shut down. The singleton class is simple. It starts a thread that loads the file into the database, while having methods to report on the current status. In a nutshell it's al little like this: public sealed class BulkFileLoader { static BulkFileLoader instance = null; int currentCount = 0; BulkFileLoader() public static BulkFileLoader Instance { // Instanciate the instance class if necessary, and return it } public void Go() { // kick of 'ProcessFile' thread } public void GetCurrentCount() { return currentCount; } private void ProcessFile() { while (more rows in the import file) { // insert the row into the database currentCount++; } } } The idea is that you can get an instance of BulkFileLoader to execute, which will process a file to load, while at any time you can get realtime updates on the number of rows its done so far using the GetCurrentCount() method. This works fine, except the calling class needs to stay open the whole time for the processing to continue. As soon as I stop the calling class, the BulkFileLoader instance is removed, and it stops processing the file. What I am after is a solution where it will continue to run independently, regardless of what happens to the calling class. I then tried another approach. I created a simple console application that kicks off the BulkFileLoader, and then wrapped it around as a process. This fixes one problem, since now when I kick off the process, the file will continue to load even if I close the class that called the process. However, now the problem I have is that cannot get updates on the current count, since if I try and get the instance of BulkFileLoader (which, as mentioned before is a singleton), it creates a new instance, rather than returning the instance that is currently in the executing process. It would appear that singletons don't extend into the scope of other processes running on the machine. In the end, I want to be able to kick off the BulkFileLoader, and at any time be able to find out how many rows it's processed. However, that is even if I close the application I used to start it. Can anyone see a solution to my problem?

    Read the article

  • Shared memory of same DLL in different 32 bit processes is sometimes different in a terminal session

    - by KBrusing
    We have an 32 bit application consisting of some processes. They communicate with shared memory of a DLL used by every process. Shared memory is build with global variables in C++ by "#pragma data_seg ("Shared")". When running this application sometime during starting a new process in addition to an existing (first) process we observe that the shared memory of both processes is not the same. All new started processes cannot communicate with the first process. After stopping all of our processes and restarting the application (with some processes) everything works fine. But sometime or other after successfully starting and finishing new processes the problem occurs again. Running on all other Windows versions or terminal sessions on Windows server 2003 our application never got this problem. Is there any new "feature" on Windows server 2008 that might disturb the hamony of our application?

    Read the article

  • Android Terminal and Log Dumping

    - by J3hova
    I am trying to send terminal commands programmaticly from an android activity. At the moment I'm using something like the following: Process process = null; DataOutputStream os = null; process = Runtime.getRuntime().exec("su"); os = new DataOutputStream(process.getOutputStream()); os.writeBytes("./data/program1\n"); os.writeBytes("./data/program2\n"); os.writeBytes("exit\n"); os.flush(); However, my program1 is failing to run successfully and I believe it is due to inadequate user permissions. Now for my question: Does anyone know how I can dump the terminal to a file and save it on the phone or sdcard? The program is tying into the terminal to feed it commands, I want to know a way to open a connection the otherway and access the (what is normally visual on a terminal screen) output.

    Read the article

  • Execute an external application as root - problem

    - by user598011
    Good morning: I'm trying to run an external application that needs to be executed as root. I have to read the lines from exit after the execution of this application but it says "permission denied", as if the its not been done correctly. I've been thinking over a time and I can not move forward. The code is as follows: process = Runtime.getRuntime().exec("su"); String[] command = {external application command}; process = Runtime.getRuntime().exec(comando); InputStream inputStream = process.getInputStream(); BufferedReader bufferedReader = null; try { bufferedReader = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(inputStream),8192); String line = null; while ((line = bufferedReader.readLine()) != null) { System.out.println("read line:"+line ); } } catch (IOException ioe) { ioe.printStackTrace(); } process.waitFor(); Does anyone know why not let me run the command? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How are builds deployed into QA->Staging->Production for ASP.NET Web Applications?

    - by CodeToGlory
    Secondary questions are How do we best utilize SCM in the build process? How are code files labed and branched? Should we the .csproj and .sln files for build? How flexible are these when deploying to several environments? I know these are msbuild files. But as we add new files, this can become a bottlenect of updating and maintaining these .csproj files in SCM. How is rollback done in case of failed builds that QA missed testing etc,etc., Are there any good articles on the build process? This is more a question on the process and less on the choice of automated build tools. Please share your build process. I would like to get an end-to-end view from developers checking-in to Going Live.

    Read the article

  • C# WPF Unable to control Textboxes

    - by Bo0m3r
    I'm a beginner in coding into C#. While I'm launching a process I can't controls my textboxes. I found some answers on this forum but the explaination is a bit to difficult for me to implement it for my problem. I created a small program that will run a batch file to make a backup. While the backup is running I can't modify my textboxes, disabling buttons etc... I already saw that this is normal but I don't know how to implement the solutions. My last attempt was with Dispatcher.invoke as you can see below. public partial class MainWindow : Window { public MainWindow() { InitializeComponent(); tb_Status.Text = "Ready"; } public void status() { Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Send, new Action( () => { tb_Status.Text = "The backup is running!"; } ) ); } public void process() { try { Process p = new Process(); p.StartInfo.WindowStyle = ProcessWindowStyle.Minimized; p.StartInfo.CreateNoWindow = true; p.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = false; p.StartInfo.RedirectStandardOutput = true; p.StartInfo.FileName = "Robocopy.bat"; p.Start(); string output = p.StandardOutput.ReadToEnd(); p.WaitForExit(); tb_Output.Text = File.ReadAllText("Backup\\log.txt"); } catch (Exception ex) { tb_Status.Text = ex.Message.ToString(); } } private void Bt_Start_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { status(); Directory.CreateDirectory("Backup"); process(); tb_Status.Text = "The backup finished"; File.Delete("Backup\\log.txt"); } } } Any help is appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Why fork() before setsid()

    - by corentin.kerisit
    Why fork() before setsid() to daemonize a process ? Basically, if I want to detach a process from its controlling terminal and make it a process group leader : I use setsid(). Doing this without forking before doesn't work. Why ? Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • In linux, is it possible to do partial reads on a regular file

    - by Jimm
    I need to write an application that spits out log entries to a regular file at a very fast rate. Also, there will be another process, that can read the same file concurrently at the time, other process would be writing to it. I have following questions How does read() determine EOF, specially in the case, where the underlying file could be concurrently being modified? Is it possible for read() to return partially written data from the other process write? For example, the write process wrote half a line and read would pick that half line and return? The application would be written in C on linux 2.6.x using Ex4 filesystem UPDATE: Below link points to the patch, that locks inode in EXT4, before reading and writing. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/91834/

    Read the article

  • How to block writing in pipes, until the read has taken place ? (in C)

    - by user492194
    Hi everyone :) I'm currently working on some C program, and I'd like to know if there's any chance to block writing in the writer process (until the read is done) ? i.e. I have 3 pipes between the parent process and the children processes (the parent writes and the children read), I'd like to let the parent to write only to the process that finishes its reading :) I hope it's clear.. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • A way of doing real-world test-driven development (and some thoughts about it)

    - by Thomas Weller
    Lately, I exchanged some arguments with Derick Bailey about some details of the red-green-refactor cycle of the Test-driven development process. In short, the issue revolved around the fact that it’s not enough to have a test red or green, but it’s also important to have it red or green for the right reasons. While for me, it’s sufficient to initially have a NotImplementedException in place, Derick argues that this is not totally correct (see these two posts: Red/Green/Refactor, For The Right Reasons and Red For The Right Reason: Fail By Assertion, Not By Anything Else). And he’s right. But on the other hand, I had no idea how his insights could have any practical consequence for my own individual interpretation of the red-green-refactor cycle (which is not really red-green-refactor, at least not in its pure sense, see the rest of this article). This made me think deeply for some days now. In the end I found out that the ‘right reason’ changes in my understanding depending on what development phase I’m in. To make this clear (at least I hope it becomes clear…) I started to describe my way of working in some detail, and then something strange happened: The scope of the article slightly shifted from focusing ‘only’ on the ‘right reason’ issue to something more general, which you might describe as something like  'Doing real-world TDD in .NET , with massive use of third-party add-ins’. This is because I feel that there is a more general statement about Test-driven development to make:  It’s high time to speak about the ‘How’ of TDD, not always only the ‘Why’. Much has been said about this, and me myself also contributed to that (see here: TDD is not about testing, it's about how we develop software). But always justifying what you do is very unsatisfying in the long run, it is inherently defensive, and it costs time and effort that could be used for better and more important things. And frankly: I’m somewhat sick and tired of repeating time and again that the test-driven way of software development is highly preferable for many reasons - I don’t want to spent my time exclusively on stating the obvious… So, again, let’s say it clearly: TDD is programming, and programming is TDD. Other ways of programming (code-first, sometimes called cowboy-coding) are exceptional and need justification. – I know that there are many people out there who will disagree with this radical statement, and I also know that it’s not a description of the real world but more of a mission statement or something. But nevertheless I’m absolutely sure that in some years this statement will be nothing but a platitude. Side note: Some parts of this post read as if I were paid by Jetbrains (the manufacturer of the ReSharper add-in – R#), but I swear I’m not. Rather I think that Visual Studio is just not production-complete without it, and I wouldn’t even consider to do professional work without having this add-in installed... The three parts of a software component Before I go into some details, I first should describe my understanding of what belongs to a software component (assembly, type, or method) during the production process (i.e. the coding phase). Roughly, I come up with the three parts shown below:   First, we need to have some initial sort of requirement. This can be a multi-page formal document, a vague idea in some programmer’s brain of what might be needed, or anything in between. In either way, there has to be some sort of requirement, be it explicit or not. – At the C# micro-level, the best way that I found to formulate that is to define interfaces for just about everything, even for internal classes, and to provide them with exhaustive xml comments. The next step then is to re-formulate these requirements in an executable form. This is specific to the respective programming language. - For C#/.NET, the Gallio framework (which includes MbUnit) in conjunction with the ReSharper add-in for Visual Studio is my toolset of choice. The third part then finally is the production code itself. It’s development is entirely driven by the requirements and their executable formulation. This is the delivery, the two other parts are ‘only’ there to make its production possible, to give it a decent quality and reliability, and to significantly reduce related costs down the maintenance timeline. So while the first two parts are not really relevant for the customer, they are very important for the developer. The customer (or in Scrum terms: the Product Owner) is not interested at all in how  the product is developed, he is only interested in the fact that it is developed as cost-effective as possible, and that it meets his functional and non-functional requirements. The rest is solely a matter of the developer’s craftsmanship, and this is what I want to talk about during the remainder of this article… An example To demonstrate my way of doing real-world TDD, I decided to show the development of a (very) simple Calculator component. The example is deliberately trivial and silly, as examples always are. I am totally aware of the fact that real life is never that simple, but I only want to show some development principles here… The requirement As already said above, I start with writing down some words on the initial requirement, and I normally use interfaces for that, even for internal classes - the typical question “intf or not” doesn’t even come to mind. I need them for my usual workflow and using them automatically produces high componentized and testable code anyway. To think about their usage in every single situation would slow down the production process unnecessarily. So this is what I begin with: namespace Calculator {     /// <summary>     /// Defines a very simple calculator component for demo purposes.     /// </summary>     public interface ICalculator     {         /// <summary>         /// Gets the result of the last successful operation.         /// </summary>         /// <value>The last result.</value>         /// <remarks>         /// Will be <see langword="null" /> before the first successful operation.         /// </remarks>         double? LastResult { get; }       } // interface ICalculator   } // namespace Calculator So, I’m not beginning with a test, but with a sort of code declaration - and still I insist on being 100% test-driven. There are three important things here: Starting this way gives me a method signature, which allows to use IntelliSense and AutoCompletion and thus eliminates the danger of typos - one of the most regular, annoying, time-consuming, and therefore expensive sources of error in the development process. In my understanding, the interface definition as a whole is more of a readable requirement document and technical documentation than anything else. So this is at least as much about documentation than about coding. The documentation must completely describe the behavior of the documented element. I normally use an IoC container or some sort of self-written provider-like model in my architecture. In either case, I need my components defined via service interfaces anyway. - I will use the LinFu IoC framework here, for no other reason as that is is very simple to use. The ‘Red’ (pt. 1)   First I create a folder for the project’s third-party libraries and put the LinFu.Core dll there. Then I set up a test project (via a Gallio project template), and add references to the Calculator project and the LinFu dll. Finally I’m ready to write the first test, which will look like the following: namespace Calculator.Test {     [TestFixture]     public class CalculatorTest     {         private readonly ServiceContainer container = new ServiceContainer();           [Test]         public void CalculatorLastResultIsInitiallyNull()         {             ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();               Assert.IsNull(calculator.LastResult);         }       } // class CalculatorTest   } // namespace Calculator.Test       This is basically the executable formulation of what the interface definition states (part of). Side note: There’s one principle of TDD that is just plain wrong in my eyes: I’m talking about the Red is 'does not compile' thing. How could a compiler error ever be interpreted as a valid test outcome? I never understood that, it just makes no sense to me. (Or, in Derick’s terms: this reason is as wrong as a reason ever could be…) A compiler error tells me: Your code is incorrect, but nothing more.  Instead, the ‘Red’ part of the red-green-refactor cycle has a clearly defined meaning to me: It means that the test works as intended and fails only if its assumptions are not met for some reason. Back to our Calculator. When I execute the above test with R#, the Gallio plugin will give me this output: So this tells me that the test is red for the wrong reason: There’s no implementation that the IoC-container could load, of course. So let’s fix that. With R#, this is very easy: First, create an ICalculator - derived type:        Next, implement the interface members: And finally, move the new class to its own file: So far my ‘work’ was six mouse clicks long, the only thing that’s left to do manually here, is to add the Ioc-specific wiring-declaration and also to make the respective class non-public, which I regularly do to force my components to communicate exclusively via interfaces: This is what my Calculator class looks like as of now: using System; using LinFu.IoC.Configuration;   namespace Calculator {     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         public double? LastResult         {             get             {                 throw new NotImplementedException();             }         }     } } Back to the test fixture, we have to put our IoC container to work: [TestFixture] public class CalculatorTest {     #region Fields       private readonly ServiceContainer container = new ServiceContainer();       #endregion // Fields       #region Setup/TearDown       [FixtureSetUp]     public void FixtureSetUp()     {        container.LoadFrom(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory, "Calculator.dll");     }       ... Because I have a R# live template defined for the setup/teardown method skeleton as well, the only manual coding here again is the IoC-specific stuff: two lines, not more… The ‘Red’ (pt. 2) Now, the execution of the above test gives the following result: This time, the test outcome tells me that the method under test is called. And this is the point, where Derick and I seem to have somewhat different views on the subject: Of course, the test still is worthless regarding the red/green outcome (or: it’s still red for the wrong reasons, in that it gives a false negative). But as far as I am concerned, I’m not really interested in the test outcome at this point of the red-green-refactor cycle. Rather, I only want to assert that my test actually calls the right method. If that’s the case, I will happily go on to the ‘Green’ part… The ‘Green’ Making the test green is quite trivial. Just make LastResult an automatic property:     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         public double? LastResult { get; private set; }     }         One more round… Now on to something slightly more demanding (cough…). Let’s state that our Calculator exposes an Add() method:         ...   /// <summary>         /// Adds the specified operands.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="operand1">The operand1.</param>         /// <param name="operand2">The operand2.</param>         /// <returns>The result of the additon.</returns>         /// <exception cref="ArgumentException">         /// Argument <paramref name="operand1"/> is &lt; 0.<br/>         /// -- or --<br/>         /// Argument <paramref name="operand2"/> is &lt; 0.         /// </exception>         double Add(double operand1, double operand2);       } // interface ICalculator A remark: I sometimes hear the complaint that xml comment stuff like the above is hard to read. That’s certainly true, but irrelevant to me, because I read xml code comments with the CR_Documentor tool window. And using that, it looks like this:   Apart from that, I’m heavily using xml code comments (see e.g. here for a detailed guide) because there is the possibility of automating help generation with nightly CI builds (using MS Sandcastle and the Sandcastle Help File Builder), and then publishing the results to some intranet location.  This way, a team always has first class, up-to-date technical documentation at hand about the current codebase. (And, also very important for speeding up things and avoiding typos: You have IntelliSense/AutoCompletion and R# support, and the comments are subject to compiler checking…).     Back to our Calculator again: Two more R# – clicks implement the Add() skeleton:         ...           public double Add(double operand1, double operand2)         {             throw new NotImplementedException();         }       } // class Calculator As we have stated in the interface definition (which actually serves as our requirement document!), the operands are not allowed to be negative. So let’s start implementing that. Here’s the test: [Test] [Row(-0.5, 2)] public void AddThrowsOnNegativeOperands(double operand1, double operand2) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => calculator.Add(operand1, operand2)); } As you can see, I’m using a data-driven unit test method here, mainly for these two reasons: Because I know that I will have to do the same test for the second operand in a few seconds, I save myself from implementing another test method for this purpose. Rather, I only will have to add another Row attribute to the existing one. From the test report below, you can see that the argument values are explicitly printed out. This can be a valuable documentation feature even when everything is green: One can quickly review what values were tested exactly - the complete Gallio HTML-report (as it will be produced by the Continuous Integration runs) shows these values in a quite clear format (see below for an example). Back to our Calculator development again, this is what the test result tells us at the moment: So we’re red again, because there is not yet an implementation… Next we go on and implement the necessary parameter verification to become green again, and then we do the same thing for the second operand. To make a long story short, here’s the test and the method implementation at the end of the second cycle: // in CalculatorTest:   [Test] [Row(-0.5, 2)] [Row(295, -123)] public void AddThrowsOnNegativeOperands(double operand1, double operand2) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => calculator.Add(operand1, operand2)); }   // in Calculator: public double Add(double operand1, double operand2) {     if (operand1 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");     }     if (operand2 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");     }     throw new NotImplementedException(); } So far, we have sheltered our method from unwanted input, and now we can safely operate on the parameters without further caring about their validity (this is my interpretation of the Fail Fast principle, which is regarded here in more detail). Now we can think about the method’s successful outcomes. First let’s write another test for that: [Test] [Row(1, 1, 2)] public void TestAdd(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Add(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); } Again, I’m regularly using row based test methods for these kinds of unit tests. The above shown pattern proved to be extremely helpful for my development work, I call it the Defined-Input/Expected-Output test idiom: You define your input arguments together with the expected method result. There are two major benefits from that way of testing: In the course of refining a method, it’s very likely to come up with additional test cases. In our case, we might add tests for some edge cases like ‘one of the operands is zero’ or ‘the sum of the two operands causes an overflow’, or maybe there’s an external test protocol that has to be fulfilled (e.g. an ISO norm for medical software), and this results in the need of testing against additional values. In all these scenarios we only have to add another Row attribute to the test. Remember that the argument values are written to the test report, so as a side-effect this produces valuable documentation. (This can become especially important if the fulfillment of some sort of external requirements has to be proven). So your test method might look something like that in the end: [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 2)] [Row(0, 999999999, 999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, double.MaxValue)] public void TestAdd(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Add(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); } And this will produce the following HTML report (with Gallio):   Not bad for the amount of work we invested in it, huh? - There might be scenarios where reports like that can be useful for demonstration purposes during a Scrum sprint review… The last requirement to fulfill is that the LastResult property is expected to store the result of the last operation. I don’t show this here, it’s trivial enough and brings nothing new… And finally: Refactor (for the right reasons) To demonstrate my way of going through the refactoring portion of the red-green-refactor cycle, I added another method to our Calculator component, namely Subtract(). Here’s the code (tests and production): // CalculatorTest.cs:   [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 0)] [Row(0, 999999999, -999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, -double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, -double.MaxValue)] public void TestSubtract(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Subtract(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); }   [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 0)] [Row(0, 999999999, -999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, -double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, -double.MaxValue)] public void TestSubtractGivesExpectedLastResult(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       calculator.Subtract(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, calculator.LastResult); }   ...   // ICalculator.cs: /// <summary> /// Subtracts the specified operands. /// </summary> /// <param name="operand1">The operand1.</param> /// <param name="operand2">The operand2.</param> /// <returns>The result of the subtraction.</returns> /// <exception cref="ArgumentException"> /// Argument <paramref name="operand1"/> is &lt; 0.<br/> /// -- or --<br/> /// Argument <paramref name="operand2"/> is &lt; 0. /// </exception> double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2);   ...   // Calculator.cs:   public double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2) {     if (operand1 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");     }       if (operand2 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");     }       return (this.LastResult = operand1 - operand2).Value; }   Obviously, the argument validation stuff that was produced during the red-green part of our cycle duplicates the code from the previous Add() method. So, to avoid code duplication and minimize the number of code lines of the production code, we do an Extract Method refactoring. One more time, this is only a matter of a few mouse clicks (and giving the new method a name) with R#: Having done that, our production code finally looks like that: using System; using LinFu.IoC.Configuration;   namespace Calculator {     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         #region ICalculator           public double? LastResult { get; private set; }           public double Add(double operand1, double operand2)         {             ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(operand1, operand2);               return (this.LastResult = operand1 + operand2).Value;         }           public double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2)         {             ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(operand1, operand2);               return (this.LastResult = operand1 - operand2).Value;         }           #endregion // ICalculator           #region Implementation (Helper)           private static void ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(double operand1, double operand2)         {             if (operand1 < 0.0)             {                 throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");             }               if (operand2 < 0.0)             {                 throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");             }         }           #endregion // Implementation (Helper)       } // class Calculator   } // namespace Calculator But is the above worth the effort at all? It’s obviously trivial and not very impressive. All our tests were green (for the right reasons), and refactoring the code did not change anything. It’s not immediately clear how this refactoring work adds value to the project. Derick puts it like this: STOP! Hold on a second… before you go any further and before you even think about refactoring what you just wrote to make your test pass, you need to understand something: if your done with your requirements after making the test green, you are not required to refactor the code. I know… I’m speaking heresy, here. Toss me to the wolves, I’ve gone over to the dark side! Seriously, though… if your test is passing for the right reasons, and you do not need to write any test or any more code for you class at this point, what value does refactoring add? Derick immediately answers his own question: So why should you follow the refactor portion of red/green/refactor? When you have added code that makes the system less readable, less understandable, less expressive of the domain or concern’s intentions, less architecturally sound, less DRY, etc, then you should refactor it. I couldn’t state it more precise. From my personal perspective, I’d add the following: You have to keep in mind that real-world software systems are usually quite large and there are dozens or even hundreds of occasions where micro-refactorings like the above can be applied. It’s the sum of them all that counts. And to have a good overall quality of the system (e.g. in terms of the Code Duplication Percentage metric) you have to be pedantic on the individual, seemingly trivial cases. My job regularly requires the reading and understanding of ‘foreign’ code. So code quality/readability really makes a HUGE difference for me – sometimes it can be even the difference between project success and failure… Conclusions The above described development process emerged over the years, and there were mainly two things that guided its evolution (you might call it eternal principles, personal beliefs, or anything in between): Test-driven development is the normal, natural way of writing software, code-first is exceptional. So ‘doing TDD or not’ is not a question. And good, stable code can only reliably be produced by doing TDD (yes, I know: many will strongly disagree here again, but I’ve never seen high-quality code – and high-quality code is code that stood the test of time and causes low maintenance costs – that was produced code-first…) It’s the production code that pays our bills in the end. (Though I have seen customers these days who demand an acceptance test battery as part of the final delivery. Things seem to go into the right direction…). The test code serves ‘only’ to make the production code work. But it’s the number of delivered features which solely counts at the end of the day - no matter how much test code you wrote or how good it is. With these two things in mind, I tried to optimize my coding process for coding speed – or, in business terms: productivity - without sacrificing the principles of TDD (more than I’d do either way…).  As a result, I consider a ratio of about 3-5/1 for test code vs. production code as normal and desirable. In other words: roughly 60-80% of my code is test code (This might sound heavy, but that is mainly due to the fact that software development standards only begin to evolve. The entire software development profession is very young, historically seen; only at the very beginning, and there are no viable standards yet. If you think about software development as a kind of casting process, where the test code is the mold and the resulting production code is the final product, then the above ratio sounds no longer extraordinary…) Although the above might look like very much unnecessary work at first sight, it’s not. With the aid of the mentioned add-ins, doing all the above is a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds (while writing this post took hours and days…). The most important thing is to have the right tools at hand. Slow developer machines or the lack of a tool or something like that - for ‘saving’ a few 100 bucks -  is just not acceptable and a very bad decision in business terms (though I quite some times have seen and heard that…). Production of high-quality products needs the usage of high-quality tools. This is a platitude that every craftsman knows… The here described round-trip will take me about five to ten minutes in my real-world development practice. I guess it’s about 30% more time compared to developing the ‘traditional’ (code-first) way. But the so manufactured ‘product’ is of much higher quality and massively reduces maintenance costs, which is by far the single biggest cost factor, as I showed in this previous post: It's the maintenance, stupid! (or: Something is rotten in developerland.). In the end, this is a highly cost-effective way of software development… But on the other hand, there clearly is a trade-off here: coding speed vs. code quality/later maintenance costs. The here described development method might be a perfect fit for the overwhelming majority of software projects, but there certainly are some scenarios where it’s not - e.g. if time-to-market is crucial for a software project. So this is a business decision in the end. It’s just that you have to know what you’re doing and what consequences this might have… Some last words First, I’d like to thank Derick Bailey again. His two aforementioned posts (which I strongly recommend for reading) inspired me to think deeply about my own personal way of doing TDD and to clarify my thoughts about it. I wouldn’t have done that without this inspiration. I really enjoy that kind of discussions… I agree with him in all respects. But I don’t know (yet?) how to bring his insights into the described production process without slowing things down. The above described method proved to be very “good enough” in my practical experience. But of course, I’m open to suggestions here… My rationale for now is: If the test is initially red during the red-green-refactor cycle, the ‘right reason’ is: it actually calls the right method, but this method is not yet operational. Later on, when the cycle is finished and the tests become part of the regular, automated Continuous Integration process, ‘red’ certainly must occur for the ‘right reason’: in this phase, ‘red’ MUST mean nothing but an unfulfilled assertion - Fail By Assertion, Not By Anything Else!

    Read the article

  • Can't Install msysgit/tortoisegit

    - by Jay
    I ran msysGit-netinstall-1.7.0.2-preview20100407-2.exe.   (http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/downloads/list) Then I ran TortoiseGit-1.4.4.0-64bit.msi.   (http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/downloads/list) msysgit was installed in C:\ TortioseGit appears to have been installed in C:\Program Files\TortoiseGit I have: "Git Clone..." "Git Create repository here" "TortoiseGit" in Explorer context menu. When I try to clone, I get "git have not installed" [sic]. I have tried setting the MSysGit path, in the TortioseGit settings, to everything imaginable. Nothing works. Neither C:\Program Files or C:\Program Files (x86) have a Git folder. The git command gives "command not found" from both cmd.exe and bash (that msysgit installed) I don't not see msysgit in - Control Panel - Programs - Program Features, but I do see TortioseGit in there. I would like a procedure for verifying that msysgit is properly installed. A procedure for uninstalling msysgit would be an added bonus. I would like a procedure for getting TortoiseGit to work. I am running Windows 7 on a MacBook Pro.

    Read the article

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