Search Results

Search found 418 results on 17 pages for 'contracts'.

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 2/17 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Oracle Service Contracts – Calculate Estimated Tax with Higher Accuracy

    - by LuciaC-Oracle
    On a Service Contract the tax rate and its effectivity can change over the contract duration.  Hence, service organizations need to provide an accurate picture of the estimated tax that the customer might end up paying.  Prior to Release 12.1.3+, the Oracle Service Contracts application calculated the estimated tax based on the line/ sub line start date.  With Release 12.1.3+ (via Patch 16601269:R12.OKS.B) , new functionality provides users with an option to calculate tax at contract billing schedule level, thereby considering the changes in tax rate effectivity at that level.A new profile option 'OKS: Calculate Tax at Schedule' has been introduced which can be used to control whether the existing or new functionality is used.  If the profile is set to 'Yes' the application calculates tax at the billing schedule level for all lines/ sub lines.  For more details on the implementation steps and functionality, please refer to Doc ID 1676700.1: Oracle Service Contracts – How To Calculate Estimated Tax with Higher Accuracy.

    Read the article

  • How can I use Code Contracts in a C++/CLI project?

    - by Daniel Wolf
    I recently stumbled upon Code Contracts and have started using them in my C# projects. However, I also have a number of projects written in C++/CLI. For C# and VB, Code Contracts offer a handy configuration panel in the project properties dialog. For a C++/CLI project, there is no such panel. From the documentation, I got the impression that adding Code Contracts support to a C++/CLI project should be a simple matter of calling some external tools as part of the build process (namely ccrefgen.exe, cccheck.exe, and ccrewrite.exe). However, the number of command line options and restrictions concerning the call sequence have me somewhat intimidated. Can anybody point me to a simple way to run the Code Contracts tools as an automated part of the build process in Visual Studio?

    Read the article

  • Code Contracts: Hiding ContractException

    - by DigiMortal
    It’s time to move on and improve my randomizer I wrote for an example of static checking of code contracts. In this posting I will modify contracts and give some explanations about pre-conditions and post-conditions. Also I will show you how to avoid ContractExceptions and how to replace them with your own exceptions. As a first thing let’s take a look at my randomizer. public class Randomizer {     public static int GetRandomFromRange(int min, int max)     {         var rnd = new Random();         return rnd.Next(min, max);     }       public static int GetRandomFromRangeContracted(int min, int max)     {         Contract.Requires(min < max, "Min must be less than max");           var rnd = new Random();         return rnd.Next(min, max);     } } We have some problems here. We need contract for method output and we also need some better exception handling mechanism. As ContractException as type is hidden from us we have to switch from ContractException to some other Exception type that we can catch. Adding post-condition Pre-conditions are contracts for method’s input interface. Read it as follows: pre-conditions make sure that all conditions for method’s successful run are met. Post-conditions are contracts for output interface of method. So, post-conditions are for output arguments and return value. My code misses the post-condition that checks return value. Return value in this case must be greater or equal to minimum value and less or equal to maximum value. To make sure that method can run only the correct value I added call to Contract.Ensures() method. public static int GetRandomFromRangeContracted(int min, int max) {     Contract.Requires(min < max, "Min must be less than max");       Contract.Ensures(         Contract.Result<int>() >= min &&         Contract.Result<int>() <= max,         "Return value is out of range"     );       var rnd = new Random();     return rnd.Next(min, max); } I think that the line I added does not need any further comments. Avoiding ContractException for input interface ContractException lives in hidden namespace and we cannot see it at design time. But it is common exception type for all contract exceptions that we do not switch over to some other type. The case of Contract.Requires() method is simple: we can tell it what kind of exception we need if something goes wrong with contract it ensures. public static int GetRandomFromRangeContracted(int min, int max) {     Contract.Requires<ArgumentOutOfRangeException>(         min < max,         "Min must be less than max"     );       Contract.Ensures(         Contract.Result<int>() >= min &&         Contract.Result<int>() <= max,         "Return value is out of range"     );       var rnd = new Random();     return rnd.Next(min, max); } Now, if we violate the input interface contract giving min value that is not less than max value we get ArgumentOutOfRangeException. Avoiding ContractException for output interface Output interface is more complex to control. We cannot give exception type there and hope that this type of exception will be thrown if something goes wrong. Instead we have to use delegate that gathers information about problem and throws the exception we expect to be thrown. From documentation you can find the following example about the delegate I mentioned. Contract.ContractFailed += (sender, e) => {     e.SetHandled();     e.SetUnwind(); // cause code to abort after event     Assert.Fail(e.FailureKind.ToString() + ":" + e.DebugMessage); }; We can use this delegate to throw the Exception. Let’s move the code to separate method too. Here is our method that uses now ContractException hiding. public static int GetRandomFromRangeContracted(int min, int max) {     Contract.Requires(min < max, "Min must be less than max");       Contract.Ensures(         Contract.Result<int>() >= min &&         Contract.Result<int>() <= max,         "Return value is out of range"     );     Contract.ContractFailed += Contract_ContractFailed;       var rnd = new Random();     return rnd.Next(min, max)+1000; } And here is the delegate that creates exception. public static void Contract_ContractFailed(object sender,     ContractFailedEventArgs e) {     e.SetHandled();     e.SetUnwind();       throw new Exception(e.FailureKind.ToString() + ":" + e.Message); } Basically we can do in this delegate whatever we like to do with output interface errors. We can even introduce our own contract exception type. As you can see later then ContractFailed event is very useful at unit testing.

    Read the article

  • What are the alternatives to fixed-price or time-and-materials contracts for software development?

    - by Fortuity
    Where can I learn more about pros/cons of various pricing models for software development? Proponents of agile methodology suggest approaches such as multi-stage contracts, target cost contracts, target schedule contracts, shared benefit contracts, variable scope contracts (http://poppendieck.com/agilecontracts.htm). I'm looking for opinions, experience, case studies or informed discussion of these approaches.

    Read the article

  • What are the alternatives to fixed-price or time-and-materials contracts for software development?

    - by Fortuity
    Where can I learn more about pros/cons of various pricing models for software development? Proponents of agile methodology suggest approaches such as multi-stage contracts, target cost contracts, target schedule contracts, shared benefit contracts, variable scope contracts (http://poppendieck.com/agilecontracts.htm). I'm looking for opinions, experience, case studies or informed discussion of these approaches.

    Read the article

  • Understanding and Benefiting from Code Contracts in .NET 4.0

    One of the fundamental programming challenges is managing state. Chances are you have written dozens and dozens of methods that at the beginning check that certain conditions are met, and that another set of conditions is met when the method returns. With Code Contracts in .NET 4.0, you can make things considerably easier. Read on to learn how.

    Read the article

  • How to create contracts in python

    - by recluze
    I am just moving to python from Java and have a question about the way the two do things. My question relates to contracts. An example: an application defines an interface that all plugins must implement and then the main application can call it. In Java: public interface IPlugin { public Image modify(Image img); } public class MainApp { public main_app_logic() { String pluginName = "com.example.myplugin"; IPlugin x = (IPlugin) Class.forName(pluginName); x.modify(someimg); } } The plugin implements the interface and we use reflection in main app to call it. That way, there's a contract between the main app and the plugin that both can refer to. How does one go about doing something similar in Python? And also, which approach is better? p.s. I'm not posting this on SO because I'm much more concerned with the philosophy behind the two approaches.

    Read the article

  • Code Contracts: Do we have to specify Contract.Requires(...) statements redundantly in delegating me

    - by herzmeister der welten
    I'm intending to use the new .NET 4 Code Contracts feature for future development. This made me wonder if we have to specify equivalent Contract.Requires(...) statements redundantly in a chain of methods. I think a code example is worth a thousand words: public bool CrushGodzilla(string weapon, int velocity) { Contract.Requires(weapon != null); // long code return false; } public bool CrushGodzilla(string weapon) { Contract.Requires(weapon != null); // specify contract requirement here // as well??? return this.CrushGodzilla(weapon, int.MaxValue); } For runtime checking it doesn't matter much, as we will eventually always hit the requirement check, and we will get an error if it fails. However, is it considered bad practice when we don't specify the contract requirement here in the second overload again? Also, there will be the feature of compile time checking, and possibly also design time checking of code contracts. It seems it's not yet available for C# in Visual Studio 2010, but I think there are some languages like Spec# that already do. These engines will probably give us hints when we write code to call such a method and our argument currently can or will be null. So I wonder if these engines will always analyze a call stack until they find a method with a contract that is currently not satisfied? Furthermore, here I learned about the difference between Contract.Requires(...) and Contract.Assume(...). I suppose that difference is also to consider in the context of this question then?

    Read the article

  • Aspect-oriented Programming and Code Contracts in ASP.NET MVC

    There are some aspects to application programming, such as logging, tracing, profiling, authentication and authorization that cut across the business objects. These are difficult to deal with in an object-oriented paradigm without resorting to code-injection, code-duplication or interdependencies. In ASP.NET MVC, you can use attributes in the form of action filters to provide a neater way of implementing these cross-curring concerns.

    Read the article

  • Code Contracts with Interfaces: "Method Invocation skipped. Compiler will generate method invocation

    - by Jörg Battermann
    Good evening, I just started playing with Microsoft.Contracts (latest version) and plugging it on top of a sample interface and right now it looks like this: namespace iRMA2.Core.Interfaces { using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.ComponentModel.Composition; using System.Diagnostics.Contracts; /// <summary> /// Base Interface declarations for iRMA2 Extensions /// </summary> [InheritedExport] [ContractClass(typeof(IiRMA2ExtensionContract))] public interface IiRMA2Extension { /// <summary> /// Gets the name. /// </summary> /// <value>The name of the Extension.</value> string Name { get; } /// <summary> /// Gets the description. /// </summary> /// <value>The description.</value> string Description { get; } /// <summary> /// Gets the author of the extension. Please provide complete information to get in touch with author(s) and the corresponding department /// </summary> /// <value>The author of the extensions.</value> string Author { get; } /// <summary> /// Gets the major version. /// </summary> /// <value>The major version of the extension.</value> int MajorVersion { get; } /// <summary> /// Gets the minor version. /// </summary> /// <value>The minor version.</value> int MinorVersion { get; } /// <summary> /// Gets the build number. /// </summary> /// <value>The build number.</value> int BuildNumber { get; } /// <summary> /// Gets the revision. /// </summary> /// <value>The revision.</value> int Revision { get; } /// <summary> /// Gets the depends on. /// </summary> /// <value>The dependencies to other <c>IiRMA2Extension</c> this one has.</value> IList<IiRMA2Extension> DependsOn { get; } } /// <summary> /// Contract class for <c>IiRMA2Extension</c> /// </summary> [ContractClassFor(typeof(IiRMA2Extension))] internal sealed class IiRMA2ExtensionContract : IiRMA2Extension { #region Implementation of IiRMA2Extension /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the name. /// </summary> /// <value>The name of the Extension.</value> public string Name { get { Contract.Ensures(!String.IsNullOrEmpty(Contract.Result<string>())); return default(string); } set { Contract.Requires(value != null); } } /// <summary> /// Gets the description. /// </summary> /// <value>The description.</value> public string Description { get { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } /// <summary> /// Gets the author of the extension. Please provide complete information to get in touch with author(s) and the corresponding department /// </summary> /// <value>The author of the extensions.</value> public string Author { get { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } /// <summary> /// Gets the major version. /// </summary> /// <value>The major version of the extension.</value> public int MajorVersion { get { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } /// <summary> /// Gets the minor version. /// </summary> /// <value>The minor version.</value> public int MinorVersion { get { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } /// <summary> /// Gets the build number. /// </summary> /// <value>The build number.</value> public int BuildNumber { get { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } /// <summary> /// Gets the revision. /// </summary> /// <value>The revision.</value> public int Revision { get { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } /// <summary> /// Gets the Extensions this one depends on. /// </summary> /// <value>The dependencies to other <c>IiRMA2Extension</c> this one has.</value> public IList<IiRMA2Extension> DependsOn { get { Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<IList<IiRMA2Extension>>() != null); return default(IList<IiRMA2Extension>); } } #endregion } } Now why are the two Contract.Ensures(...) 'blured' out visually with the tooltip saying "Method Invocation skipped. Compiler will generate method invocation because the method is conditional or it is partial method without implementation" and in fact the CodeContracts output does not count/show them... What am I missing & doing wrong here? -J

    Read the article

  • Can I use .NET 4 Code Contracts and remain compatible with .NET 3.5?

    - by mafutrct
    .NET 4 introduced Code Contracts as a new feature. I'd like to use CC, but provide files that can still run in 3.5 SP1. Is that possible? Can I only use parts of the new functionality? Apparently it is possible to have CC only do static checks without being included in the binary files, is that correct? I'm aware CC was available for 3.5 as separate module, is this a feasible workaround in case I can't use the 4 version of CC? Is there a difference in the feature set?

    Read the article

  • How good idea is it to use code contracts in Visual Studio 2010 Professional (ie. no static checking

    - by Lasse V. Karlsen
    I create class libraries, some which are used by others around the world, and now that I'm starting to use Visual Studio 2010 I'm wondering how good idea it is for me to switch to using code contracts, instead of regular old-style if-statements. ie. instead of this: if (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(fileName)) throw new ArgumentNullException("fileName"); (yes, I know, if it is whitespace, it isn't strictly null) use this: Contract.Requires(!String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(fileName)); The reason I'm asking is that I know that the static checker is not available to me, so I'm a bit nervous about some assumptions that I make, that the compiler cannot verify. This might lead to the class library not compiling for someone that downloads it, when they have the static checker. This, coupled with the fact that I cannot even reproduce the problem, would make it tiresome to fix, and I would gather that it doesn't speak volumes to the quality of my class library if it seemingly doesn't even compile out of the box. So I have a few questions: Is the static checker on by default if you have access to it? Or is there a setting I need to switch on in the class library (and since I don't have the static checker, I won't) Are my fears unwarranted? Is the above scenario a real problem? Any advice would be welcome.

    Read the article

  • How do I imply code contracts of chained methods to avoid superfluous checks while chaining?

    - by Sandor Drieënhuizen
    I'm using Code Contracts in C# 4.0. I'm applying the usual static method chaining to simulate optional parameters (I know C# 4.0 supports optional parameters but I really don't want to use them). The thing is that my contract requirements are executed twice (or possibly the number of chained overloads I'd implement) if I call the Init(string , string[]) method -- an obvious effect from the sample source code below. This can be expensive, especially due to relatively expensive requirements like the File.Exists I use. public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies) { // The static contract checker 'makes' me put these here as well as // in the overload below. Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(configurationPath != null, "configurationPath"); Contract.Requires<ArgumentException>(configurationPath.Length > 0, "configurationPath is an empty string."); Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(File.Exists(configurationPath), configurationPath); Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(mappingAssemblies != null, "mappingAssemblies"); Contract.ForAll<string>(mappingAssemblies, (n) => File.Exists(n)); Init(configurationPath, mappingAssemblies, null); } public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies, string optionalArgument) { // This is the main implementation of Init and all calls to chained // overloads end up here. Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(configurationPath != null, "configurationPath"); Contract.Requires<ArgumentException>(configurationPath.Length > 0, "configurationPath is an empty string."); Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(File.Exists(configurationPath), configurationPath); Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(mappingAssemblies != null, "mappingAssemblies"); Contract.ForAll<string>(mappingAssemblies, (n) => File.Exists(n)); //... } If however, I remove the requirements from that method, the static checker complains that the requirements of the Init(string, string[], string) overload are not met. I reckon that the static checker doesn't understand that there requirements of the Init(string, string[], string) overload implicitly apply to the Init(string, string[]) method as well; something that would be perfectly deductable from the code IMO. This is the situation I would like to achieve: public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies) { // I don't want to repeat the requirements here because they will always // be checked in the overload called here. Init(configurationPath, mappingAssemblies, null); } public static void Init(string configurationPath, string[] mappingAssemblies, string optionalArgument) { // This is the main implementation of Init and all calls to chained // overloads end up here. Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(configurationPath != null, "configurationPath"); Contract.Requires<ArgumentException>(configurationPath.Length > 0, "configurationPath is an empty string."); Contract.Requires<FileNotFoundException>(File.Exists(configurationPath), configurationPath); Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(mappingAssemblies != null, "mappingAssemblies"); Contract.ForAll<string>(mappingAssemblies, (n) => File.Exists(n)); //... } So, my question is this: is there a way to have the requirements of Init(string, string[], string) implicitly apply to Init(string, string[]) automatically?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid "source !=null" when using Code Contracts and Linq To Sql?

    - by Florian
    I have the following code using a normal data context which works great: var dc = new myDataContext(); Contract.Assume(dc.Cars!= null); var cars = (from c in dc.Cars where c.Owner = 'Jim' select c).ToList(); However when I convert the filter to an extension method like this: var dc = new myDataContext(); Contract.Assume(dc.Cars!= null); var cars = dc.Cars.WithOwner('Jim'); public static IQueryable<Car> WithOwner(IQueryable<Car> cars, string owner) { Contract.Requires(cars != null); return cars.Where(c => c.Owner = owner); } I get the following warning: warning : CodeContracts: requires unproven: source != null

    Read the article

  • How to design WCF Contracts?

    - by Amitabh
    We are designing a WCF layer which can be invoked either by a Asp.Net or a WinForm application. Our Application contains too many Entities. If we design WCF Contract around these entities then we get too many Contracts e.g IPartyService, IUserService, IPaymentService etc. So, I may end up with 30-40 Contracts? Is it a good idea or should we go for one huge contracts with around 100 operations? What are the pros and cons of each approach or is there a better way.

    Read the article

  • Error message: "Two different contracts have the same ConfigurationName" when downloading wsdl from

    - by rwwilden
    I get the following error message when I try to use svcutil to generate a client proxy for a xamlx file that is hosted by AppFabric beta 2: Two different contracts have the same ConfigurationName I understand the message, however, I cannot find its cause or how to fix it. I'm following the 'Introduction to Workflow Services' lab from the VS2010RC training kit. The web application has two services: SubmitApplication.xamlx and EducationScreening.xamlx. I'm not sure why but both of them have four endpoints. If I take a look via the AppFabric Dashboard in IIS Mgmt Studio: basicHttpBinding (Contract: *) (Type: Application(Default)) netNamedPipeBinding (Contract: System.ServiceModel.Activities.IWorkflowInstanceManagement) (Type: System (workflowControlEndpoint)) netNamedPipeBinding (Contract: *) (Type: Application (Default)) serviceMetadataHttpGetBinding (Contract: serviceMetadataHttpGetContract) (Type: System (serviceMetadataEndpoint)) When taking a look at the SubmitApplication.xamlx in a browser, I see the following stacktrace: [InvalidOperationException: Two different contracts have the same ConfigurationName.] System.ServiceModel.Activities.WorkflowServiceHost.CreateDescription(IDictionary`2& implementedContracts) +361 System.ServiceModel.ServiceHostBase.InitializeDescription(UriSchemeKeyedCollection baseAddresses) +174 System.ServiceModel.Activities.WorkflowServiceHost.InitializeDescription(WorkflowService serviceDefinition, UriSchemeKeyedCollection baseAddresses) +82 System.ServiceModel.Activities.WorkflowServiceHost.InitializeFromConstructor(WorkflowService serviceDefinition, Uri[] baseAddresses) +206 System.ServiceModel.Activities.Activation.WorkflowServiceHostFactory.CreateWorkflowServiceHost(WorkflowService service, Uri[] baseAddresses) +43 System.ServiceModel.Activities.Activation.WorkflowServiceHostFactory.CreateServiceHost(String constructorString, Uri[] baseAddresses) +974 System.ServiceModel.HostingManager.CreateService(String normalizedVirtualPath) +1423 System.ServiceModel.HostingManager.ActivateService(String normalizedVirtualPath) +50 System.ServiceModel.HostingManager.EnsureServiceAvailable(String normalizedVirtualPath) +1132 [ServiceActivationException: The service '/HRApplicationServices/SubmitApplication.xamlx' cannot be activated due to an exception during compilation. The exception message is: Two different contracts have the same ConfigurationName..] System.Runtime.AsyncResult.End(IAsyncResult result) +889824 System.ServiceModel.Activation.HostedHttpRequestAsyncResult.End(IAsyncResult result) +179150 System.Web.AsyncEventExecutionStep.OnAsyncEventCompletion(IAsyncResult ar) +107 Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong? I haven't configured any of the bindings myself. The BasicHttpBinding is what you get by default in .NET 4 when hosting a service inside a web application. The other bindings are configured by AppFabric. I can't find their configuration anywhere. Kind regards, Ronald Wildenberg

    Read the article

  • WCF - separating service contracts and partial deriving?

    - by dwhittenburg
    So, I've seperated my WCF service contracts into discrete contracts for re-use. I use to have IOneServiceContract that contained 3 functions: Function1, Function2, Function3. I've seperated this service contract into two discrete service contracts: IServiceContract1 and IServiceContract2. IServiceContract1 contains Function1 and IServiceContract2 contains Function2 and Function3. This will allow me to re-use the discrete IServiceContract1 and/or IServiceContract2 to build a new service contract that represents the contract for the public service. Knowing this...and hopefully I haven't messed up the description so that you can't follow the rest... I have two services IService1 and IService2. IService1 implements IServiceContract1 and IServiceContract2. This works perfect as IService1 needs to implement all of the functions: Function1, Function2, Function3. IService2 however doesn't need to implement all of the functions of IServiceContract2, only Function1. Is there a way for IService2 to partially implement the contract? I know that sounds ridiculous. Is the correct way to handle this situation to try and logically separate IServiceContract2 so that IService2 only has to implement the pieces that it needs? Thanks

    Read the article

  • WCF Multiple contracts with duplicate method names

    - by haxelit
    Hello, I have a service with multiple contracts like so. [ServiceContract] public partial interface IBusinessFunctionDAO { [OperationContract] BusinessFunction GetBusinessFunction(Int32 businessFunctionRefID); [OperationContract] IEnumerable<Project> GetProjects(Int32 businessFunctionRefID); } [ServiceContract] public partial interface IBusinessUnitDAO { [OperationContract] BusinessUnit GetBusinessUnit(Int32 businessUnitRefID); [OperationContract] IEnumerable<Project> GetProjects(Int32 businessUnitRefID); } I then explicitly implemented each one of the interfaces like so. public class TrackingTool : IBusinessFunctionDAO, IBusinessUnitDAO { BusinessFunction IBusinessFunctionDAO.GetBusinessFunction(Int32 businessFunctionRefID) { // implementation } IEnumerable<Project> IBusinessFunctionDAO.GetProjects(Int32 businessFunctionRefID) { // implementation } BusinessUnit IBusinessUnitDAO.GetBusinessUnit(Int32 businessUnitRefID) { // implementation } IEnumerable<Project> IBusinessUnitDAO.GetProjects(Int32 businessUnitRefID) { // implementation } } As you can see I have two GetProjects(int) methods, but each one is implemented explicitly so this compiles just fine and is perfectly valid. The problem arises when I actually start this as a service. It gives me an error staying that TrackingTool already contains a definition GetProject. While it is true, it is part of a different service contract. Does WCF not distinguish between service contracts when generating the method names ? Is there a way to get it to distinguish between the service contracts ? My App.Config looks like this <service name="TrackingTool"> <endpoint address="BusinessUnit" contract="IBusinessUnitDAO" /> <endpoint address="BusinessFunction" contract="IBusinessFunctionDAO" /> </service> Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Raul

    Read the article

  • How come you cannot catch Code Contract exceptions?

    - by Finglas
    System.Diagnostics.Contracts.ContractException is not accessiable in my test project. Note this code is purely myself messing around with my shiney new copy of Visual Studio, but I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong. I'm using the professional edition of VS, therefore I do not have static checking. In order to still use code contracts (which I like) I figured the only way my method can work is to catch the exception that is thrown at runtime, but I'm not finding this possible. TestMethod [TestMethod, ExpectedException(typeof(System.Diagnostics.Contracts.ContractException))] public void returning_a_value_less_than_one_throws_exception() { var person = new Person(); person.Number(); } Method public int Number() { Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() >= 0); return -1; } Error Error 1 'System.Diagnostics.Contracts.ContractException' is inaccessible due to its protection level.

    Read the article

  • SLA Violations - Compensation expectations and vague contracts

    - by llllxllll
    Tagging this as cautionary tale. I took over for an admin a year and a half ago, and reviewed the 3 year contract with our ISP. There were no specific SLA promises in the contract that I found, and have been meaning to review the contract with our rep. Of course, we had an outage this past week that resulted in almost four days of downtime !!!!! This involves eff-ups of epic proportions on our ISP's part and a telco they colocate with. Details can be provided. I am the network / systems / purchasing / and helpdesk at my company...and am willing to fight with the ISP. I also have more management that can get involved, including the name on the contract. First, if there are not concrete guarantees about compensation and downtime, we are screwed right? Two, if we want out of our contract, does anyone have experience going the legal route, and if so, who knows a lawyer? =)

    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 >