Search Results

Search found 1138 results on 46 pages for 'formal verification'.

Page 2/46 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• How can I make a career in Formal Methods programming in USA?

  - by A5al Andy

  I've found that my (USA) professors recoil with a near-disgust when I ask them about how to pursue a career in Formal Methods programming. They say, "Oh, that stuff! That stuff is anal. You don't need that European POS to get a job." I'm sure I'll get a job without it, but Formal Methods interests me so much that I bet I'd like to make a career of it. I'd like to learn about Formal Methods at an American University and then work in that field here. I've found that even professors at more important universities than mine don't seem to welcome Formal Methods. Almost all FM research project webpages are semi-abandoned and moldering. Europe is where the action seems to be for this. Can anyone suggest a plan of attack, and along the way explain the antipathy to Formal Methods in the US? I'm a sophomore at a public university in the South.

  Read the article

• ISO 12207 - testing being only validation activity? [closed]

  - by user970696

  Possible Duplicate: How come verification does not include actual testing? ISO norm 12207 states that testing is only validation activity, while all static inspections are verification (that requirement, code.. is complete, correct..). I did found some articles saying its not correct but you know, it is not "official". I would like to understand because there are two different concepts (in books & articles): 1) Verification is all testing except for UAT (because only user can really validate the use). E.g. here OR 2) Verification is everything but testing. All testing is validation. E.g. here Definitions are mostly the same, as Sommerville's: The aim of verification is to check that the software meets its stated functional and non-functional requirements. Validation, however, is a more general process. The aim of validation is to ensure that the software meets the customer’s expectations. It goes beyond simply checking conformance with the specification to demonstrating that the software does what the customer expects it to do It is really bugging me because I tend to agree that functional testing done on a product (SIT) is still verification because I just follow the requirements. But ISO does not agree..

  Read the article

• Formal definition for term "pure OO language"?

  - by Yauhen Yakimovich

  I can't think of a better place among SO siblings to pose such a question. Originally I wanted to ask "Is python a pure OO language?" but considering troubles and some sort of discomfort people experience while trying to define the term I decided to start with obtaining a clear definition for the term itself. It would be rather fair to start with correspondence by Dr. Alan Kay, who has coined the term (note the inspiration in biological analogy to cells or other living objects). There are following ways to approach the task: Give a comparative analysis by listing programming languages that exhibits certain properties unique and sufficient to define the term (although Smalltalk and Java are passing examples but IMO this way seems neither really complete or nor fruitful) Give a formal definition (or close to it, e.g. in more academic or mathematical style). Give a philosophical definition that would totally rely on semantical context of concrete language or a priori programming experience (there must be some chance of successful explanation by the community). My current version: "If a certain programing (formal) language that can (grammatically) differentiate between operations and operands as well as infer about the type of each operand whether this type is an object (in sense of OOP) or not then we call such a language an OO-language as long as there is at least one type in this language which is an object. Finally, if all types of the language are also objects we define such language to be pure OO-language." Would appreciate any possible improvement of it. As you can see I just made the definition dependent on the term "object" (often fully referenced as class of objects).

  Read the article

• Java and AppStore receipt verification

  - by user1672461

  I am trying to verify a payment receipt on server side. I am getting a {"status":21002, "exception":"java.lang.IllegalArgumentException"} in return Here is the code: private final static String _sandboxUriStr = "https://sandbox.itunes.apple.com/verifyReceipt"; public static void processPayment(final String receipt) throws SystemException { final BASE64Encoder encoder = new BASE64Encoder(); final String receiptData = encoder.encode(receipt.getBytes()); final String jsonData = "{\"receipt-data\" : \"" + receiptData + "\"}"; System.out.println(receipt); System.out.println(jsonData); try { final URL url = new URL(_productionUriStr); final HttpURLConnection conn = (HttpsURLConnection) url.openConnection(); conn.setRequestMethod("POST"); conn.setDoOutput(true); final OutputStreamWriter wr = new OutputStreamWriter(conn.getOutputStream()); wr.write(jsonData); wr.flush(); // Get the response final BufferedReader rd = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(conn.getInputStream())); String line; while ((line = rd.readLine()) != null) { System.out.println(line); } wr.close(); rd.close(); } catch (IOException e) { throw new SystemException("Error when trying to send request to '%s', %s", _sandboxUriStr, e.getMessage()); } } My receipt looks like this: {\n\t"signature" = "[exactly_1320_characters]";\n\t"purchase-info" = "[exactly_868_characters]";\n\t"environment" = "Sandbox";\n\t"pod" = "100";\n\t"signing-status" = "0";\n} Receipt data with a BASE64 encoded receipt looks like this: Blockquote {"receipt-data" : "[Block_of_chars_76x40+44=3084_chars_total]"} Does someone have an Idea, or sample code how can I get from receipt string to reply JSON, mentioned here: [http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/NetworkingInternet/Conceptual/StoreKitGuide/VerifyingStoreReceipts/VerifyingStoreReceipts.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40008267-CH104-SW1]? Thank you

  Read the article

• Account verification Yelp style, how is it more "secure" than traditional verification?

  - by Chad

  For business owners to "take control" of their business page on Yelp, they register for it. The Yelp system performs a telephone call-back. From watching to the video here, it sounds like a telephone version of what we all typically do - e-mail check. For e-mail check, it basically goes like this: User registers verify e-mail sent they click link inside verify e-mail site verifies Here's Yelp's: User registers verify screen shown with code Yelp calls user user enters code site verifies It's essentially the same thing, via phone. Is there any reason you can see why this method is better than the e-mail method?

  Read the article

• System for email verification in ASP.NET

  - by James Cadd

  Is a pre-made system available to confirm a new user's email address for an ASP.NET site? I'm using the pre built Authentication and Role providers. The system should be able to send email to a user when they're added to the system that requires them to click a link, that link would then "unlock" the account. Users shouldn't be able to login until their email is verified. I could probably figure out how to roll this on my own but I'd prefer to use a standard method if one exists.

  Read the article

• Jar extraction and verification in BlackBerry

  - by Basilio

  Hi All, The application I am currently working on requires me to extract contents from and verify the authenticity of the signed jar that is stored on the SD Card. In Java [and Android], we have the java.util.jar and java.util.zip classes, that allow to extract jar. However, J2ME or BlackBerry® does not provide support for these packages. I have, however, successfully extracted these using the third party ZipMe library. Can anyone let me know, how to get the signature block from the .DSA/.RSA file to authenticate the jar? I have the certificate that was used to sign the jar as well. This is easily done in Java using the getCertificates() method available in java.util.jar.JarFile. Is there any 3rd party API available that emulates the JarFile for BlackBerry®? Any help in this regard will be deeply appreciated. Thanks & Regards Basilio John Vincent D'souza

  Read the article

• Change from static HTML file to meta tag for Google Webmaster verification

  - by Wilfred Springer

  I started verifying the server by putting a couple of static HTMLs in place. Then I noticed that Google wants you to keep these files in place. I didn't want to keep the static HTMLs in, so I want to switch to an alternative verification mechanism, and include the meta tags on the home page. Unfortunately, once your site is verified, you never seem to be able to change to an alternative way of verification. I tried removing the HTML pages. No luck whatsoever. Google still considers the site to be 'verified'. Does anybody know how to undo this? All I want to do is switch to the meta tag based method of site ownership verification.

  Read the article

• Verifying university membership/attendance via email address

  - by mettadore

  My client's web app allows members to sign up (Rails using AuthLogic) and those signups are limited in that they must be under the auspices of a university. To wit: A university organizer can sign up to be the representative of a university, and students can sign up as "attendees" of that university. I've been tasked with finding if there is a programmatic way to verify university membership/attendance. The only way I can see doing this is having a database of universities and a database of associated emails, and verifying that the student's email address is part of this database. That doesn't help if using Facebooker and AuthLogic's "sign up with Facebook credentials" ability, however. I suspect the answer to this is "via human intervention," and that this is something we can't solve programmatically. Either we, or the university, will have to bite the bullet and check records. However, I'd thought I'd ask if anyone else has run into the issue of verification of university membership before.

  Read the article

• Splitting a test to a set of smaller tests

  - by mkorpela

  I want to be able to split a big test to smaller tests so that when the smaller tests pass they imply that the big test would also pass (so there is no reason to run the original big test). I want to do this because smaller tests usually take less time, less effort and are less fragile. I would like to know if there are test design patterns or verification tools that can help me to achieve this test splitting in a robust way. I fear that the connection between the smaller tests and the original test is lost when someone changes something in the set of smaller tests. Another fear is that the set of smaller tests doesn't really cover the big test. An example of what I am aiming at: //Class under test class A { public void setB(B b){ this.b = b; } public Output process(Input i){ return b.process(doMyProcessing(i)); } private InputFromA doMyProcessing(Input i){ .. } .. } //Another class under test class B { public Output process(InputFromA i){ .. } .. } //The Big Test @Test public void theBigTest(){ A systemUnderTest = createSystemUnderTest(); // <-- expect that this is expensive Input i = createInput(); Output o = systemUnderTest.process(i); // <-- .. or expect that this is expensive assertEquals(o, expectedOutput()); } //The splitted tests @PartlyDefines("theBigTest") // <-- so something like this should come from the tool.. @Test public void smallerTest1(){ // this method is a bit too long but its just an example.. Input i = createInput(); InputFromA x = expectedInputFromA(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow Output expected = expectedOutput(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow B b = mock(B.class); when(b.process(x)).thenReturn(expected); A classUnderTest = createInstanceOfClassA(); classUnderTest.setB(b); Output o = classUnderTest.process(i); assertEquals(o, expected); verify(b).process(x); verifyNoMoreInteractions(b); } @PartlyDefines("theBigTest") // <-- so something like this should come from the tool.. @Test public void smallerTest2(){ InputFromA x = expectedInputFromA(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow Output expected = expectedOutput(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow B classUnderTest = createInstanceOfClassB(); Output o = classUnderTest.process(x); assertEquals(o, expected); }

  Read the article

• Tool to write linear temporal logic from UML 2.0 sequence diagram

  - by user326180

  i am working on checking model consistency of software. to do this i need to write linear temporal logic for UML 2.0 sequence diagram. if any body have any other tool for the same please response as soon as possible. I will be very obliged to you. i have found charmy tool have plugin for the same. Does anybody have source code for charmy tool(CHecking ARchitectural Model consistencY). It is not available on their website. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Secure Yourself by Using Two-Step Verification on These 16 Web Services

  - by Chris Hoffman

  Two-factor authentication, also known as 2-step verification, provides additional security for your online accounts. Even if someone discovers your password, they’ll need a special one-time code to log in after you enable two-factor authentication on these services. Notably absent from this list are banks and other financial institutions. It’s a shame that you can use two-factor authentication to protect your in-game currency in an MMORPG, but not the real money in your bank account. Secure Yourself by Using Two-Step Verification on These 16 Web Services How to Fix a Stuck Pixel on an LCD Monitor How to Factory Reset Your Android Phone or Tablet When It Won’t Boot

  Read the article

• Google webmaster Verification failed.

  - by KMC

  I have a site created by Ruby on Rails. I had verified against Google Webmaster Tool some months ago, which was successful. One day webmaster starts giving me Re-verification fails. I tried again to verify my site using Meta tags and HTML files. But I kept having "Verification failed. The connection to your server timed out." Since then, Google stop crawling my site's content - though, somehow google still crawl my PDF contents on my site.

  Read the article

• Coding in large chunks ... Code verification skills

  - by Andrew

  As a follow up to my prev question: What is the best aproach for coding in a slow compilation environment To recap: I am stuck with a large software system with which a TDD ideology of "test often" does not work. And to make it even worse the features like pre-compiled headers/multi-threaded compilation/incremental linking, etc is not available to me - hence I think that the best way out would be to add the extensive logging into the system and to start "coding in large chunks", which I understand as code for a two-three hours first (as opposed to 15-20 mins in TDD) - thoroughly eyeball the code for a 15 minutes and only after all that do the compilation and run the tests. As I have been doing TDD for a quite a while, my code eyeballing / code verification skills got rusty (you don't really need this that much if you can quickly verify what you've done in 5 seconds by running a test or two) - so I am after a recommendations on how to learn these source code verification/error spotting skills again. I know I was able to do that easily some 5-10 years ago when I din't have much support from the compiler/unit testing tools I had until recently, thus there should be a way to get back to the basics.

  Read the article

• I cannot solve the "Install these packages without verification" problem

  - by Yonatan Orlev

  I Googled and Googled and I just cannot find a solution to this problem: sudo apt-get install <whatever> Gives me: WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated! and Install these packages without verification [y/N]? I cannot find a decent solution. The closest I got was to run: sudo apt-get install debian-keyring debian-archive-keyring But then, even thought, and against my good judgment I agreed to install the package without confirmation, I get: (I replaced http with XXXX because of forum limitations). Install these packages without verification [y/N]? y Err XXXX://il.archive.ubuntu.com gutsy/universe debian-archive-keyring 2007.02.19-0.1 404 Not Found Err XXXX://il.archive.ubuntu.com gutsy/universe debian-keyring 2005.05.28 404 Not Found Failed to fetch XXXX://il.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/d/debian-archive-keyring/debian-archive-keyring_2007.02.19-0.1_all.deb 404 Not Found Failed to fetch XXXX://il.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/d/debian-keyring/debian-keyring_2005.05.28_all.deb 404 Not Found E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing? Trying to run apt-get update also does not help: I get tons of "404 Not Found" errors. Can someone please direct me to a good solution to this problem? I cannot understand why this issue is not better documented. There must be a simple solution which allows me to update my list of sources or whatever.

  Read the article

• SAF Evaluation part II the Formal Methods

  OnI talked about evaluating a candidate architecture in code. This post is dedicated to evaluation on paper.I remember one system I was working on, I was keen on making the architecture asynchronous and message oriented (it was all circa 2001 by the way) However, I was new on the team and my role (as the [...]...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• Mac OS X - Time Machine backup fails verification - What can I do to save the history?

  - by usermac75

  Hi, How do I make Time Machine to make a new complete backup without losing older versions of backed up files? Verbose: I am using the Time Machine backup on my OS X (Snow Leopard) to backup the whole computer to an external drive. I especially like the "history", i.e. the feature that allows you to restore the older version of a file. Problem: I had some data corruption on my external backup drive, I repaired it with the System Tool for doing that, it found some faults. I had the disk tool repair the external drive. After that, the external drive was OK and I could use Time Machine again. I let Time Machine do one more backup. Now I made a verification according to http://superuser.com/questions/47628/verifying-time-machine-backups, namely along sudo diff -qr . $HOME/Desktop 2>&1 | tee $HOME/timemachine-diff.log However: After doing the command above, several differences and missing files were reported, approx. 200 files in sum. Whereas some of the missing files were cache or excluded directories, the differences do bother me, especially as some important documents from me are listed as differing. How can I make sure that the data on the external drive is synced correctly? Is it possible to have Time Machine to do a complete new backup without losing the history? Or to have Time Machine compare all files for differences and re-write all files that are different? Or can I set some flags on the files that do not match to have them copied again? (like the archive-flag in Windows/Dos). I'd rather not touch the files because I would like to keep the date of last change/date of creation) Thank you for your thoughts!

  Read the article

• Mac OS X - Time Machine backup fails verification - What can I do to save the history?

  - by usermac75

  Hi, How do I make Time Machine to make a new complete backup without losing older versions of backed up files? Verbose: I am using the Time Machine backup on my OS X (Snow Leopard) to backup the whole computer to an external drive. I especially like the "history", i.e. the feature that allows you to restore the older version of a file. Problem: I had some data corruption on my external backup drive, I repaired it with the System Tool for doing that, it found some faults. I had the disk tool repair the external drive. After that, the external drive was OK and I could use Time Machine again. I let Time Machine do one more backup. Now I made a verification according to http://superuser.com/questions/47628/verifying-time-machine-backups, namely along sudo diff -qr . $HOME/Desktop 2>&1 | tee $HOME/timemachine-diff.log However: After doing the command above, several differences and missing files were reported, approx. 200 files in sum. Whereas some of the missing files were cache or excluded directories, the differences do bother me, especially as some important documents from me are listed as differing. How can I make sure that the data on the external drive is synced correctly? Is it possible to have Time Machine to do a complete new backup without losing the history? Or to have Time Machine compare all files for differences and re-write all files that are different? Or can I set some flags on the files that do not match to have them copied again? (like the archive-flag in Windows/Dos). I'd rather not touch the files because I would like to keep the date of last change/date of creation) Thank you for your thoughts!

  Read the article

• A Two-Way Requirements Verification Process during Design Phase

  This article will demonstrate a simple technique, "A Two-Way Requirements verification process", which reinforces the most critical connection point of any methodology: the transition between functional design or requirement sign off and the beginning of the technical design by the technical team.

  Read the article

• host key verification failed from "connect to server" utility

  - by rambo

  I am able to use SSH from terminal but I am not able to use it from "connect to Server.." utility. it is showing the error in the dialog box as below: Cannot display location "sftp://[email protected]:PORT/ "Host key verification failed" why so? from terminal using below command I am able to access the server: ubuntu# ssh -p 2222 [email protected] Description: Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS Release: 10.04 Codename: lucid any help please. thank you in advance.

  Read the article

• Why do some programmers think there is a contrast between theory and practice?

  - by Giorgio

  Comparing software engineering with civil engineering, I was surprised to observe a different way of thinking: any civil engineer knows that if you want to build a small hut in the garden you can just get the materials and go build it whereas if you want to build a 10-storey house you need to do quite some maths to be sure that it won't fall apart. In contrast, speaking with some programmers or reading blogs or forums I often find a wide-spread opinion that can be formulated more or less as follows: theory and formal methods are for mathematicians / scientists while programming is more about getting things done. What is normally implied here is that programming is something very practical and that even though formal methods, mathematics, algorithm theory, clean / coherent programming languages, etc, may be interesting topics, they are often not needed if all one wants is to get things done. According to my experience, I would say that while you do not need much theory to put together a 100-line script (the hut), in order to develop a complex application (the 10-storey building) you need a structured design, well-defined methods, a good programming language, good text books where you can look up algorithms, etc. So IMO (the right amount of) theory is one of the tools for getting things done. So my question is why do some programmers think that there is a contrast between theory (formal methods) and practice (getting things done)? Is software engineering (building software) perceived by many as easy compared to, say, civil engineering (building houses)? Or are these two disciplines really different (apart from mission-critical software, software failure is much more acceptable than building failure)?

  Read the article

• System testing - making sure the system conforms to specification. Validation?

  - by user970696

  After weeks of research I have nearly completed my thesis, yet I am unable to clear up my confusion contained in all previous threads here (and in many books): During system testing, we check the system function against system analysis (functional system design) - but that would fit to a definition of verification according to many books. But I follow ISO12207, which considers all testing as validation (making sure work product meets requirement for intended use). How can I justify that unit testing or system testing is validation, even though when I check it against specification? Which fullfils the definiton of verification? When testing that e.g. "Save button" works, is it validation? This picture shows my understanding of V&V, so different from many other sources, including ISTQB etc. Essential problem I have is that a book using the same picture also states on another place that: test activities in the area of validation are usability, alpha and beta testing. For verification, testable system requirements are defined whose correct implementation can be tested through system tests. Isn't that the opposite of what the picture says? Most books present the following picture, where validation is just making sure that customer needs are satisfied. Mind you that according to ISO, validation activity is testing.

  Read the article

• "Host key verification failed" error when transfering files using SCP command

  - by rvsi

  When I am trying to transfer files using SCP command I'm getting this error (Removed my IP and RSA key): @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ WARNING: REMOTE HOST IDENTIFICATION HAS CHANGED! @ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING NASTY! Someone could be eavesdropping on you right now (man-in-the-middle attack)! It is also possible that the RSA host key has just been changed. The fingerprint for the RSA key sent by the remote host is ------------------------(RSA key) Please contact your system administrator. Add correct host key in /home/users/myaccount/.ssh/known_hosts to get rid of this message. Offending key in /home/users/myaccount/.ssh/known_hosts:4 RSA host key for 'my IP' has changed and you have requested strict checking. Host key verification failed. lost connection I am using newly installed Ubuntu 12.04 and I can connect to this server using ssh. Any help?

  Read the article

• Is the Google Webmaster Tools verification temporary?

  - by Senseful

  When you add a site to Google Webmaster Tools, it asks you to verify it (e.g. via a <meta> tag). I verified a site a while ago, but when I logged in, I noticed that it isn't verified anymore. The history shows that it was verified 58 days ago, but then 30 days ago it tried and failed saying that "revierification failed". I'm not sure if this is a result of some setting I changed which required a reverification, or if Google Webmaster Tools periodically tries to verify the site. I was under the impression that the verification only happens once when you add the site, and then you can delete the <meta> tag. If this is not how it works, and it does reverify periodically, will it require a different <meta> tag value or can I keep the original one I used and never have to worry about it again?

  Read the article

• Identity verification

  - by acjohnson55

  On a site that I'm working on, I'm trying to find ways of enforcing a one-person, one-account rule. In general, we'd like to do this by providing options to authenticate users with third-party services that provide this assurance. For example, it's possible to authenticate with Facebook and check whether the user is considered "verified" by Facebook (which means they must have provided either a phone number or credit card). This is roughly the level of identity verification we require--we're not doing banking or anything like that. But we want to give the user options. My question is, who else, besides Facebook, provides this? (uncertain of the proper SE forum, please comment if there's a better SE site to ask this)

  Read the article

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