Search Results

Search found 1334 results on 54 pages for 'constraint satisfaction'.

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 2/54 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Microsoft Solver Foundation constraint

    - by emaster70
    Hello, I'm trying to use Microsoft Solver Foundation 2 to solve a fairly complicated situation, however I'm stuck with an UnsupportedModelException even when I dumb down the model as much as possible. Does anyone have an idea of what I'm doing wrong? Following is the least example required to reproduce the problematic behavior. var ctx = SolverContext.GetContext(); var model = ctx.CreateModel(); var someConstant = 1337.0; var decisionA = new Decision(Domain.Real, "decisionA"); var decisionB = new Decision(Domain.Real, "decisionB"); var decisionC = new Decision(Domain.Real, "decisionC"); model.AddConstraint("ca", decisionA <= someConstant); model.AddConstraint("cb", decisionB <= someConstant); model.AddConstraint("cc", decisionC <= someConstant); model.AddConstraint("mainConstraint", Model.Equal(Model.Sum(decisionA, decisionB, decisionC), someConstant)) model.AddGoal("myComplicatedGoal", GoalKind.Minimize, decisionC); var solution = ctx.Solve(); solution.GetReport().WriteTo(Console.Out); Console.ReadKey(); Please consider that my actual model should include, once complete, a few constraints in the form of a*a+b*a <= someValue, so if what I'm willing to do ultimately isn't supported, please let me know in advance. If that's the case I'd also appreciate a suggestion of some other solver with a .NET friendly interface that I could use (only well-known commercial packages, please). Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • How to enforce this constraint in sql server

    - by Jeremy
    I have a table called city, and a table called city_city. city_city correlates two city records, so it has a fromcity_id and a tocity_id. I can enforce uniqueness on fromcity_id and and tocity_id through a unique key, but how do I enforce uniqueness so that I cant insert a record if fromcity_id and tocity_id are reversed. For example, the following records are conceptually the same: id fromcity_id tocity_id 1 100 200 2 200 100

    Read the article

  • Constraint Validation

    - by tanuja
    I am using javax.validation.Validator and relevant classes for annotation based validation. Configuration<?> configuration = Validation.byDefaultProvider().configure(); ValidatorFactory factory = configuration.buildValidatorFactory(); Validator validator = factory.getValidator(); Set<ConstraintViolation<ValidatableObject>> constraintViolations = validator.validate(o); for (ConstraintViolation<ValidatableObject> value : constraintViolations) { List< Class< ? extends ConstraintValidator< ? extends Annotation,?>>> list = value.getConstraintDescriptor().getConstraintValidatorClasses(); } I get a compilation error stating: Type mismatch: cannot convert from List< Class< ? extends ConstraintValidator< capture#4-of ?,? to List< Class< ? extends ConstraintValidator< ? extends Annotation,? What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • T-SQL foreign key check constraint

    - by PaN1C_Showt1Me
    When you create a foreign key constraint in a table and you create the script in MS SQL Management Studio, it looks like this. ALTER TABLE T1 WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK_T1 FOREIGN KEY(project_id) REFERENCES T2 (project_id) GO ALTER TABLE T1 CHECK CONSTRAINT FK_T1 GO What I don't understand is what purpose has the second alter with check constraint. Isn't creating the FK constraint enough? Do you have to add the check constraint to assure reference integrity ? Another question: how would it look like then when you'd write it directly in the column definition? CREATE TABLE T1 ( my_column INT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK_T1 REFERENCES T2(my_column) ) Isn't this enough?

    Read the article

  • Constraint-based expert systems design and development [on hold]

    - by Alex B.
    I would appreciate some recommendations & resources on design and development of expert systems, in particular, knowledge-based & constraint-based (not recommendation) systems. Ideally, your answers should consider the perspective (context) of using a SaaS business model and open source rules engine. How would you advise to address performance, scalability and other architectural criteria? Any other considerations on undertaking such project will be appreciated. Thanks much in advance!

    Read the article

  • SQL Constraints &ndash; CHECK and NOCHECK

    - by David Turner
    One performance issue i faced at a recent project was with the way that our constraints were being managed, we were using Subsonic as our ORM, and it has a useful tool for generating your ORM code called SubStage – once configured, you can regenerate your DAL code easily based on your database schema, and it can even be integrated into your build as a pre-build event if you want to do this.  SubStage also offers the useful feature of being able to generate DDL scripts for your entire database, and can script your data for you too. The problem came when we decided to use the generate scripts feature to migrate the database onto a test database instance – it turns out that the DDL scripts that it generates include the WITH NOCHECK option, so when we executed them on the test instance, and performed some testing, we found that performance wasn’t as expected. A constraint can be disabled, enabled but not trusted, or enabled and trusted.  When it is disabled, data can be inserted that violates the constraint because it is not being enforced, this is useful for bulk load scenarios where performance is important.  So what does it mean to say that a constraint is trusted or not trusted?  Well this refers to the SQL Server Query Optimizer, and whether it trusts that the constraint is valid.  If it trusts the constraint then it doesn’t check it is valid when executing a query, so the query can be executed much faster. Here is an example base in this article on TechNet, here we create two tables with a Foreign Key constraint between them, and add a single row to each.  We then query the tables: 1 DROP TABLE t2 2 DROP TABLE t1 3 GO 4 5 CREATE TABLE t1(col1 int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY) 6 CREATE TABLE t2(col1 int NOT NULL) 7 8 ALTER TABLE t2 WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT fk_t2_t1 FOREIGN KEY(col1) 9 REFERENCES t1(col1) 10 11 INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1) 12 INSERT INTO t2 VALUES(1) 13 GO14 15 SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t2 16 WHERE EXISTS17 (SELECT *18 FROM t1 19 WHERE t1.col1 = t2.col1) This all works fine, and in this scenario the constraint is enabled and trusted.  We can verify this by executing the following SQL to query the ‘is_disabled’ and ‘is_not_trusted’ properties: 1 select name, is_disabled, is_not_trusted from sys.foreign_keys This gives the following result: We can disable the constraint using this SQL: 1 alter table t2 NOCHECK CONSTRAINT fk_t2_t1 And when we query the constraints again, we see that the constraint is disabled and not trusted: So the constraint won’t be enforced and we can insert data into the table t2 that doesn’t match the data in t1, but we don’t want to do this, so we can enable the constraint again using this SQL: 1 alter table t2 CHECK CONSTRAINT fk_t2_t1 But when we query the constraints again, we see that the constraint is enabled, but it is still not trusted: This means that the optimizer will check the constraint each time a query is executed over it, which will impact the performance of the query, and this is definitely not what we want, so we need to make the constraint trusted by the optimizer again.  First we should check that our constraints haven’t been violated, which we can do by running DBCC: 1 DBCC CHECKCONSTRAINTS (t2) Hopefully you see the following message indicating that DBCC completed without finding any violations of your constraint: Having verified that the constraint was not violated while it was disabled, we can simply execute the following SQL:   1 alter table t2 WITH CHECK CHECK CONSTRAINT fk_t2_t1 At first glance this looks like it must be a typo to have the keyword CHECK repeated twice in succession, but it is the correct syntax and when we query the constraints properties, we find that it is now trusted again: To fix our specific problem, we created a script that checked all constraints on our tables, using the following syntax: 1 ALTER TABLE t2 WITH CHECK CHECK CONSTRAINT ALL

    Read the article

  • Performance Tune IBM DB2 z/OS Applications using Resource Constraint Analysis

    For the DB2 for z/OS professional the two most common systems tuning scenarios are tuning a DB2 data sharing group or tuning a series of application SQL statements. The data sharing group environment can involve multiple hardware installations and many other cross-system features and functions such as coupling facilities and management policies. Resource constraint analysis is a useful tool in both situations.

    Read the article

  • Estimates, constraint and design [closed]

    - by user65964
    For your next two software projects (assuming that you're getting programming assignments, otherwise consider the program to find the min and max of a set of rational numbers) estimate how much effort they would take before doing them, then keep track of the actual time spent. How accurate were your estimates? State the requirements, constraint, design, estimate (your original estimate and the actual time it took), implementation (conventions used, implement/test path followed.

    Read the article

  • Exclude css & image resources in web.xml Security Constraint

    - by Tiggles
    I am using JSF2.1 and Glassfish 3.1.2. I specify a security constraint to block everything: <security-constraint> <web-resource-collection> <web-resource-name>Secured Content</web-resource-name> <!-- Block all --> <url-pattern>/*</url-pattern> </web-resource-collection> <!-- only users with at least one of these roles are allowed to access the secured content --> <auth-constraint> <role-name>ADMINISTRATOR</role-name> </auth-constraint> </security-constraint> and have another to allow access a subset of pages and the resources: <security-constraint> <web-resource-collection> <web-resource-name>Open Content</web-resource-name> <!-- Allow subscribe --> <url-pattern>/subscribe/*</url-pattern> <url-pattern>/javax.faces.resource/*</url-pattern> </web-resource-collection> <!-- No Auth Contraint! --> </security-constraint> This works fine. However, is the following <url-pattern>/javax.faces.resource/*</url-pattern> the correct way to allow all resources? I only did this by looking at the url that Facelets injects into the xhtml. Is there security holes with this approach? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • XForms relation of 'constraint' and 'required' properties

    - by Danny
    As a reference, the most similar question already asked is: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8667849/making-xforms-enforce-the-constraint-and-type-model-item-properties-only-when-fi The difference is that I cannot use the relevant properties since I do want the field to be visible and accessible. I'm attempting to make a XForms form that has the following properties: It displays a text field named 'information'. (for the example) This field must not be required, since it may not be necessary to enter data. (Or this data will be entered at a later time.) However, if data is entered in this field, it must adhere to the specified constraint. I cannot mark the field as not relevant since this would hide the field and some data may need to be entered in it. The trouble now is that even though the field has no data in it, the constraint is still enforced (i.e. even though it is not marked as 'required'). I have taken a look at the XForms 1.1 specification, however it does not seem to describe how the properties 'required' and 'constraint' should interact. The only option I see, is to add a part to the constraint such that an empty value is allowed. e.g.: . = '' or <actual-constraint However, I don't like this. It feels like a workaround to add this to every such field. Is there any other way to express that non-required fields should not need to match the constraint for that field? (Am I missing something?)

    Read the article

  • SQL - How can I apply a "semi-unique" constraint?

    - by Erin Drummond
    Hi, I have a (simplified) table consisting of three columns: id INT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, foreignID INT NOT NULL, name VARCHAR NOT NULL Basically, I would like to add a constraint (at the database level rather than at the application level) where it only possible for one unique 'name' to exist per foreignID. For example, given the data (id, foreignid, name): 1,1,Name1 2,1,Name2 3,1,Name3 4,2,Name1 5,2,Name2 I want the constraint to fail if the user tries to insert another 'Name3' under foreignId 1, but succeed if the user tries to insert 'Name3' under foreignId 2. For this reason I cannot simply make the whole column UNIQUE. I am having difficulty coming up with a SQL expression to achieve this, can anybody help me? Thanks

    Read the article

  • UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on a column from foreign table in SQL Server 2008

    - by bodziec
    I have two tables: create table [dbo].[Main] ( [ID] [int] identity(1,1) primary key not null, [Sign] [char](1) not null ) create table [dbo].[Names] ( [ID_Main][int] primary key not null, [Name][nvarchar](128) not null, constraint [FK_Main_Users] foreign key ([ID_Main]) references [dbo].[Main]([ID]), constraint [CK_Name] unique ([Name], [Sign]) ) The problem is with the second constraint CK_Name Is there a way to make a constraint target column from a foreign table?

    Read the article

  • UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on a column from foreign table in MSSQL2008

    - by bodziec
    Hi, I have two tables: create table [dbo].[Main] ( [ID] [int] identity(1,1) primary key not null, [Sign] [char](1) not null ) create table [dbo].[Names] ( [ID_Main][int] primary key not null, [Name][nvarchar](128) not null, constraint [FK_Main_Users] foreign key ([ID_Main]) references [dbo].[Main]([ID]), constraint [CK_Name] unique ([Name], [Sign]) ) The problem is with the second constraint CK_Name Is there a way to make a constraint target column from a foreign table?

    Read the article

  • How to use constraint programming for optimizing shopping baskets?

    - by tangens
    I have a list of items I want to buy. The items are offered by different shops and different prices. The shops have individual delivery costs. I'm looking for an optimal shopping strategy (and a java library supporting it) to purchase all of the items with a minimal total price. Example: Item1 is offered at Shop1 for $100, at Shop2 for $111. Item2 is offered at Shop1 for $90, at Shop2 for $85. Delivery cost of Shop1: $10 if total order < $150; $0 otherwise Delivery cost of Shop2: $5 if total order < $50; $0 otherwise If I buy Item1 and Item2 at Shop1 the total cost is $100 + $90 +$0 = $190. If I buy Item1 and Item2 at Shop2 the total cost is $111 + $85 +$0 = $196. If I buy Item1 at Shop1 and Item2 at Shop2 the total cost is $100 + $10 + $85 + $0 = 195. I get the minimal price if I order Item1 and Item2 at Shop1: $190 What I tried so far I asked another question before that led me to the field of constraint programming. I had a look at cream and choco, but I did not figure out how to create a model to solve my problem. | shop1 | shop2 | shop3 | ... ----------------------------------------- item1 | p11 | p12 | p13 | item2 | p21 | p22 | p23 | . | | | | . | | | | ----------------------------------------- shipping | s1 | s2 | s3 | limit | l1 | l2 | l3 | ----------------------------------------- total | t1 | t2 | t3 | ----------------------------------------- My idea was to define these constraints: each price "p xy" is defined in the domain (0, c) where c is the price of the item in this shop only one price in a line should be non zero if one or more items are bought from one shop and the sum of the prices is lower than limit, then add shipping cost to the total cost shop total cost is the sum of the prices of all items in a shop total cost is the sum of all shop totals The objective is "total cost". I want to minimize this. In cream I wasn't able to express the "if then" constraint for conditional shipping costs. In choco these constraints exist, but even for 5 items and 10 shops the program was running for 10 minutes without finding a solution. Question How should I express my constraints to make this problem solvable for a constraint programming solver?

    Read the article

  • mysql error #1452 appearing when trying to add a constraint

    - by user1701484
    I am trying to alter a table so That I can add a foreign key constraint in mysql database: ALTER TABLE `Question` ADD CONSTRAINT `FK_question` FOREIGN KEY (`QuestionId`) REFERENCES `Image_Question` (`QuestionId`) ON DELETE CASCADE ; Problem is that it is giving me this error: 1452 - Cannot add or update a child row: a foreign key constraint fails (mobile_app. '#sql-4517_15241', CONSTRAINT FK_question FOREIGN KEY (QuestionId) REFERENCES Image_Question (QuestionId) ON DELETE CASCADE) What does this error actually mean and what are the possible solutions I might have to undertake in order to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Unable to drop constraint in sql server 2005 "Could not drop constraint. See previous errors"

    - by DannykPowell
    I'm trying to drop a constraint on a db table, something like: ALTER TABLE MyTable drop CONSTRAINT FK_MyTable_AnotherTable But the execution just runs and runs. If I stop it I see: Msg 3727, Level 16, State 0, Line 2 Could not drop constraint. See previous errors. Web search throws up various pages but note that the constraint is properly named and I am trying to remove it using the correct name

    Read the article

  • Dynamically sized UIWebView in a UITableViewCell with auto layout - constraint violation

    - by Orion Edwards
    I've got a UITableViewCell which contains a UIWebView. The table view cell adjusts it's height depending on the web view contents. I've got it all working fine, however when the view loads, I get a constraint violation exception in the debugger (the app continues running and functionally works fine, but I'd like to resolve this exception if possible). How I've got it set up: The TableView sets the cell height like this: -(CGFloat)tableView:(UITableView *)tableView heightForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath { if(indexPath.section == 0) { [_topCell layoutIfNeeded]; CGFloat finalHeight = [_topCell.contentView systemLayoutSizeFittingSize:UILayoutFittingCompressedSize].height; return finalHeight + 1; } The cell constraints are as follows: Arbitrary 7px offset from the cell's contentView (top) to the webView Web view has arbitrary fixed height constraint of 62px (will expand later once content loads) Arbitrary 8px offset from the webView to the cell's contentView (bottom) in my viewDidLoad, I tell the webView to go and load a URL, and in the webViewDidFinishLoad, I update the web view height constraint, like this -(void)webViewDidFinishLoad:(UIWebView *)webView { CGSize fittingSize = [webView sizeThatFits:CGSizeZero]; // fittingSize is approx 500 [self.tableView beginUpdates]; // Exceptions happen on the following line setting the constant _topCell.webViewHeightConstraint.constant = fittingSize.height; [_topCell layoutSubviews]; [self.tableView endUpdates]; } The exception looks like this: Unable to simultaneously satisfy constraints. Probably at least one of the constraints in the following list is one you don't want. Try this: (1) look at each constraint and try to figure out which you don't expect; (2) find the code that added the unwanted constraint or constraints and fix it. (Note: If you're seeing NSAutoresizingMaskLayoutConstraints that you don't understand, refer to the documentation for the UIView property translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints) ( "<NSLayoutConstraint:0x10964b250 V:[webView(62)] (Names: webView:0x109664a00 )>", "<NSLayoutConstraint:0x109243d30 V:|-(7)-[webView] (Names: webView:0x109664a00, cellContent:0x1092436f0, '|':cellContent:0x1092436f0 )>", "<NSLayoutConstraint:0x109243f80 V:[webView]-(8)-| (Names: cellContent:0x1092436f0, webView:0x109664a00, '|':cellContent:0x1092436f0 )>", "<NSAutoresizingMaskLayoutConstraint:0x10967c210 h=--& v=--& V:[cellContent(78)] (Names: cellContent:0x1092436f0 )>" ) Will attempt to recover by breaking constraint <NSLayoutConstraint:0x10964b250 V:[webView(62)] (Names: webView:0x109664a00 )> This seems a bit weird. It's implied that the constraint which sets the height of the web view is going to be broken, however the web view does get it's height correctly set, and the tableview renders perfectly well. From my guesses, it looks like the newly increased web view height constraint (it's about 500px after the web view loads) is going to conflict with the <NSAutoresizingMaskLayoutConstraint:0x10967c210 h=--& v=--& V:[cellContent(78)] setting the cell height to 78 (put there by interface builder). This makes sense, however I don't want that cell content to have a fixed height of 78px, I want it to increase it's height, and functionally, it actually does this, just with these exceptions. I've tried setting _topCell.contentView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = NO; to attempt to remove the NSAutoresizingMaskLayoutConstraint - this stops the exceptions, but then all the other layout is screwed up and the web view is about 10px high in the middle of the table view for no reason. I've also tried setting _topCell.contentView.autoresizingMask |= UIViewAutoresizingFlexibleHeight; in the viewDidLoad to hopefully affect the contentView 78px height constraint, but this has no effect Any help would be much appreciated

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Create Primary Key with Specific Name when Creating Table

    - by pinaldave
    It is interesting how sometimes the documentation of simple concepts is not available online. I had received email from one of the reader where he has asked how to create Primary key with a specific name when creating the table itself. He said, he knows the method where he can create the table and then apply the primary key with specific name. The attached code was as follows: CREATE TABLE [dbo].[TestTable]( [ID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [FirstName] [varchar](100) NULL) GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[TestTable] ADD  CONSTRAINT [PK_TestTable] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([ID] ASC) GO He wanted to know if we can create Primary Key as part of the table name as well, and also give it a name at the same time. Though it would look very normal to all experienced developers, it can be still confusing to many. Here is the quick code that functions as the above code in one single statement. CREATE TABLE [dbo].[TestTable]( [ID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [FirstName] [varchar](100) NULL CONSTRAINT [PK_TestTable] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([ID] ASC) ) GO Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, Readers Question, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Constraint and Keys, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • MySQL foreign key constraint disappearing

    - by Bramjam
    This is my table: /* oefenreeks leerplan */ CREATE TABLE leerplan_oefenreeks ( leerplan_oefenreeks_id INT PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT NOT NULL, leerplan_id INT NOT NULL, oefenreeks_id INT NOT NULL, plaats INT NOT NULL ); /* fk */ ALTER TABLE leerplan_oefenreeks ADD CONSTRAINT fk_leerp_oefenr_leerplan FOREIGN KEY(leerplan_id) REFERENCES leerplan (leerplan_id) ON DELETE CASCADE; ALTER TABLE leerplan_oefenreeks ADD CONSTRAINT fk_leerp_oefenr_oefenreeks FOREIGN KEY(oefenreeks_id) REFERENCES oefenreeks (oefenreeks_id) ON DELETE CASCADE; /* when I execute the nexline, my fk_leerp_oefenr_leerplan constraint vanishes/disappears*/ ALTER TABLE leerplan_oefenreeks ADD CONSTRAINT un_leerp_oefenr UNIQUE(leerplan_id, oefenreeks_id); ALTER TABLE leerplan_oefenreeks ADD CONSTRAINT un_leerp_oefenr_plaats UNIQUE(leerplan_id, plaats); When I go and check only 3 constraints exist. fk_leerp_oefenr_leerplan disappears. I don't understand why this happens.

    Read the article

  • Mysql Constraint problem

    - by Bramjam
    this is my table /* oefenreeks leerplan */ CREATE TABLE leerplan_oefenreeks ( leerplan_oefenreeks_id INT PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT NOT NULL, leerplan_id INT NOT NULL, oefenreeks_id INT NOT NULL, plaats INT NOT NULL ); /* fk */ ALTER TABLE leerplan_oefenreeks ADD CONSTRAINT fk_leerp_oefenr_leerplan FOREIGN KEY(leerplan_id) REFERENCES leerplan (leerplan_id) ON DELETE CASCADE; ALTER TABLE leerplan_oefenreeks ADD CONSTRAINT fk_leerp_oefenr_oefenreeks FOREIGN KEY(oefenreeks_id) REFERENCES oefenreeks (oefenreeks_id) ON DELETE CASCADE; /* unique s *//*when I execute the nexline, my fk_leerp_oefenr_leerplan constraint vanishes/disappears*/ ALTER TABLE leerplan_oefenreeks ADD CONSTRAINT un_leerp_oefenr UNIQUE(leerplan_id, oefenreeks_id); ALTER TABLE leerplan_oefenreeks ADD CONSTRAINT un_leerp_oefenr_plaats UNIQUE(leerplan_id, plaats); when I go and check only 3 constraints exist (fk_leerp_oefenr_leerplan is gone) I don't understand why this happens, plz tell me (if you need more info just ask ;)

    Read the article

  • how can i set up a uniqueness constraint in mysql for columns that can be null?

    - by user299689
    I know that in MySQL, UNIQUE constraits don't treat NULL values as equal. So if I have a unique constraint on ColumnX, then two separate rows can have values of NULL for ColumnX and this wouldn't violate the constraint. How can I work around this? I can't just set the value to an arbitrary constant that I can flag, because ColumnX in my case is actually a foreign key to another table. What are my options here? Please note that this table also has an "id" column that is its primary key. Since I'm using Ruby on Rails, it's important to keep this id column as the primary key. Note 2: In reality, my unique key encompasses many columns, and some of them have to be null, because they are foreign keys, and only one of them should be non-null. What I'm actually trying to do is to "simulate" a polymorphic relationship in a way that keep referential integrity in the db, but using the technique outlined in the first part of the question asked here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/922184/why-can-you-not-have-a-foreign-key-in-a-polymorphic-association

    Read the article

  • Rhino Mocks, AssertWasCalled with Arg Constraint on array parameter

    - by Etienne Giust
    Today, I had a hard time unit testing a function to make sure a Method with some array parameters was called. Method to be called : void AddUsersToRoles(string[] usernames, string[] roleNames);   I had previously used Arg<T>.Matches on complex types in other unit tests, but for some reason I was unable to find out how to apply the same logic with an array of strings.   It is actually quite simple to do, T really is a string[], so we use Arg<string[]>. As for the Matching part, a ToList() allows us to leverage the lambda expression.   sut.PermissionServices.AssertWasCalled(                 l => l.AddUsersToRoles(                     Arg<string[]>.Matches(a => a.ToList().First() == UserId.ToString())                     ,Arg<string[]>.Matches(a => a.ToList().First() == expectedRole1 && a.ToList()[1] == expectedRole2)                     )                     );   Of course, iw we expect an array with 2 or more values, the math would be something like : a => a.ToList()[0] == value1 && a.ToList()[1] == value2    … etc.

    Read the article

  • Handling Constraint Violations and Errors in SQL Server

    The database developer can, of course, throw all errors back to the application developer to deal with, but this is neither kind nor necessary. How errors are dealt with is dependent on the application, but the process itself isn't entirely obvious. Compress live data by 73% Red Gate's SQL Storage Compress reduces the size of live SQL Server databases, saving you disk space and storage costs. Learn more.

    Read the article

  • Entity and pattern validation vs DB constraint

    - by Joerg
    When it comes to performance: What is the better way to validate the user input? If you think about a phone number and you only want numbers in the database, but it could begin with a 0, so you will use varchar: Is it better to check it via the entity model like this: @Size(min = 10, max = 12) @Digits(fraction = 0, integer = 12) @Column(name = "phone_number") private String phoneNumber; Or is it better to use on the database side a CHECK (and no checking in the entity model) for the same feature?

    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 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >