Search Results

Search found 10978 results on 440 pages for 'collision testing'.

Page 20/440 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

• Cheap server stress testing

  - by acrosman

  The IT department of the nonprofit organization I work for recently got a new virtual server running CentOS (with Apache and PHP 5), which is supposed to host our website. During the process of setting up the server I discovered that the slightest use of the new machine caused major performance problems (I couldn't extract tarballs without bringing it to a halt). After several weeks of casting about in the dark by tech support, it now appears to be working fine, but I'm still nervous about moving the main site there. I have no budget to work with (so no software or services that require money), although due to recent cut backs I have several older desktops that I could use if it helps. The site doesn't need to withstand massive amounts of traffic (it's a Drupal site just a few thousand visitors a day), but I would like to put it through a bit of it paces before moving the main site over. What are cheap tools that I can use to get a sense if the server can withstand even low levels of traffic? I'm not looking to test the site itself yet, just fundamental operation of the server.

  Read the article

• Separate Action from Assertion in Unit Tests

  - by DigitalMoss

  Setup Many years ago I took to a style of unit testing that I have come to like a lot. In short, it uses a base class to separate out the Arrangement, Action and Assertion of the test into separate method calls. You do this by defining method calls in [Setup]/[TestInitialize] that will be called before each test run. [Setup] public void Setup() { before_each(); //arrangement because(); //action } This base class usually includes the [TearDown] call as well for when you are using this setup for Integration tests. [TearDown] public void Cleanup() { after_each(); } This often breaks out into a structure where the test classes inherit from a series of Given classes that put together the setup (i.e. GivenFoo : GivenBar : WhenDoingBazz) with the Assertions being one line tests with a descriptive name of what they are covering [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } The Problem There are very few tests that wrap around a single action so you end up with lots of classes so recently I have taken to defining the action in a series of methods within the test class itself: [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { because_an_action_was_taken(); Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } private void because_an_action_was_taken() { //perform action here } This results in several "action" methods within the test class but allows grouping of similar tests (i.e. class == WhenTestingDifferentWaysToSetBuzz) The Question Does someone else have a better way of separating out the three 'A's of testing? Readability of tests is important to me so I would prefer that, when a test fails, that the very naming structure of the tests communicate what has failed. If someone can read the Inheritance structure of the tests and have a good idea why the test might be failing then I feel it adds a lot of value to the tests (i.e. GivenClient : GivenUser : WhenModifyingUserPermissions : ThenReadAccessShouldBeTrue). I am aware of Acceptance Testing but this is more on a Unit (or series of units) level with boundary layers mocked. EDIT : My question is asking if there is an event or other method for executing a block of code before individual tests (something that could be applied to specific sets of tests without it being applied to all tests within a class like [Setup] currently does. Barring the existence of this event, which I am fairly certain doesn't exist, is there another method for accomplishing the same thing? Using [Setup] for every case presents a problem either way you go. Something like [Action("Category")] (a setup method that applied to specific tests within the class) would be nice but I can't find any way of doing this.

  Read the article

• Should developers be involved in testing phases?

  - by LudoMC

  Hi, we are using a classical V-shaped development process. We then have requirements, architecture, design, implementation, integration tests, system tests and acceptance. Testers are preparing test cases during the first phases of the project. The issue is that, due to resources issues (*), test phases are too long and are often shortened due to time constraints (you know project managers... ;)). So my question is simple: should developers be involved in the tests phases and isn't it too 'dangerous'. I'm afraid it will give the project managers a false feeling of better quality as the work has been done but would the added man.days be of any value? I'm not really confident of developers doing tests (no offense here but we all know it's quite hard to break in a few clicks what you have made in severals days). Thanks for sharing your thoughts. (*) For obscure reasons, increasing the number of testers is not an option as of today. (Just upfront, it's not a duplicate of Should programmers help testers in designing tests? which talks about test preparation and not test execution, where we avoid the implication of developers)

  Read the article

• DRY, string, and unit testing

  - by Rodrigue

  I have a recurring question when writing unit tests for code that involves constant string values. Let's take an example of a method/function that does some processing and returns a string containing a pre-defined constant. In python, that would be something like: STRING_TEMPLATE = "/some/constant/string/with/%s/that/needs/interpolation/" def process(some_param): # We do some meaningful work that gives us a value result = _some_meaningful_action() return STRING_TEMPLATE % result If I want to unit test process, one of my tests will check the return value. This is where I wonder what the best solution is. In my unit test, I can: apply DRY and use the already defined constant repeat myself and rewrite the entire string def test_foo_should_return_correct_url(): string_result = process() # Applying DRY and using the already defined constant assert STRING_TEMPLATE % "1234" == string_result # Repeating myself, repeating myself assert "/some/constant/string/with/1234/that/needs/interpolation/" == url The advantage I see in the former is that my test will break if I put the wrong string value in my constant. The inconvenient is that I may be rewriting the same string over and over again across different unit tests.

  Read the article

• Testing my model for hybrid scheduling in Embedded Systems

  - by markusian

  I am working on a project for school, where I have to analyze the performances of a few fixed-priority servers algorithms (polling server, deferrable server, priority exchange) using a simulator in the case of hybrid scheduling, where we have both hard periodic tasks and soft aperiodic tasks. In my model I consider that: the hard tasks have a period equal to their deadline, with a known worst case execution time (wcet). The actual execution time could be smaller than the wcet. the soft tasks have a known wcet and random interarrival times. The actual execution time could be smaller than the wcet. In order to test those algorithms I need realistic case studies. For this reason I'm digging in the scientific literature but I am facing different problems: Sometimes I find a list of hard tasks with wcet, but it is not specified how the soft tasks parameters are found. Given the wcet of a task, how can I model its actual execution time? This means, what random distribution should I use considering the wcet? How can I model the random interarrival times of soft aperiodic tasks?

  Read the article

• Unit testing multiple conditions in an IF statement

  - by bwalk2895

  I have a chunk of code that looks something like this: function bool PassesBusinessRules() { bool meetsBusinessRules = false; if (PassesBusinessRule1 && PassesBusinessRule2 && PassesBusinessRule3) { meetsBusinessRules= true; } return meetsBusinessRules; } I believe there should be four unit tests for this particular function. Three to test each of the conditions in the if statement and ensure it returns false. And another test that makes sure the function returns true. Question: Should there actually be ten unit tests instead? Nine that checks each of the possible failure paths. IE: False False False False False True False True False And so on for each possible combination. I think that is overkill, but some of the other members on my team do not. The way I look at it is if BusinessRule1 fails then it should always return false, it doesn't matter if it was checked first or last.

  Read the article

• Web Form Testing [closed]

  - by Frank G.

  I created a application for a client that is along the lines of a ticket tracking system. I wanted to know if anyone know of software that could beta test the web forms. Well I am looking for something that could automatically populate/fill whatever forms are on the web page with generic data. The purpose of this is to just randomly populate data and see if I get any errors on the page when submitted plus to also see how validation for the form functions. Does anyone know of anything that could do this?

  Read the article

• Collision Detection (Ground & Slopes) in 2D Platform Game using Pygame Rects

  - by RedCap

  Hi, First off, I am not after any instructions on logic for collision detection; I get it. What I am trying to work out is the least complicated way to do this with Pygame using Sprites & Rects. I want to be able to check collisions for the Player against ground, walls & slopes. In theory it is quite straight forward, but I'm having difficulty because it seems like you cannot do this with one Rect. One Rect is simple enough to get you collisions in the X plane against walls. The same Rect could be used also be used in the Y plane against solids, but not with slopes - since with the collision routines in Pygame it checks the whole Rect (or mask), rather than perhaps just the bottom middle of the Rect. It seems in addition you need to have a number of "sprites" to check collisions with, that are 1x1 pixel in various places around the Player. What's the easiest way to do this, without having a bunch of 3, 4, or more separate "collision pixels" to check against slopes? Geoff

  Read the article

• 2d ball collision code problem XNA, over accelerated balls and stick together sometimes. help please? [closed]

  - by Sivan

  public static void Collision(Ball ball1, Ball ball2) { Vector3 x = new Vector3((ball1.BallPosition.X - ball2.BallPosition.X), (ball1.BallPosition.Y - ball2.BallPosition.Y), 0); x.Normalize(); Vector3 v1 = new Vector3(ball1.Speed, 0); float x1 = Vector3.Dot(x, v1); Vector3 v1x = x * x1; Vector3 v1y = v1 - v1x; x = -x; Vector3 v2 = new Vector3(ball2.Speed, 0); float x2 = Vector3.Dot(x, v2); Vector3 v2x = x * x2; Vector3 v2y = v2 - v2x; float m1 = 12, m2 = 4; float combinedMass = m1 + m2; Vector3 newVelA = (v1x * ((m1 - m2) / combinedMass)) + (v2x * ((2f * m2) / combinedMass)) + v1y; Vector3 newVelB = (v1x * ((2f * m1) / combinedMass)) + (v2x * ((m2 - m1) / combinedMass)) + v2y; ball1.Speed = new Vector2(newVelA.X, newVelA.Y); ball2.Speed = new Vector2(newVelB.X,newVelB.Y ); }

  Read the article

• How can i get almost pixel perfect collision detection in a multiplayer game?

  - by Freddy

  I'm currently working on a multiplayer game for iPhone. The problem i have, as with all multiplayer games, is that the other user will always see everything at a non-constant delay. The game I'm making need to have a almost pixel perfect collision detection, but 1 or 2 pixels off is not that big of a deal. How can I possibly get this working? I guess I could just set local player to also be at X ms delay. However this will probably just be worse and feel sloppy when the user input. I know this problem is probably something network programmers deal with everyday and I would be glad if someone could give me a possible solution for this.

  Read the article

• Using PhysX, how can I predict where I will need to generate procedural terrain collision shapes?

  - by Sion Sheevok

  In this situation, I have terrain height values I generate procedurally. For rendering, I use the camera's position to generate an appropriate sized height map. For collision, however, I need to have height fields generated in areas where objects may intersect. My current potential solution, which may be naive, is to iterate over all "awake" physics actors, use their bounds/extents and velocities to generate spheres in which they may reside after a physics update, then generate height values for ranges encompassing clustered groups of actors. Much of that data is likely already calculated by PhysX already, however. Is there some API, maybe a set of queries, even callbacks from the spatial system, that I could use to predict where terrain height values will be needed?

  Read the article

• Isolating test data in acceptance tests

  - by Matt Phillips

  I'm looking for guidance on how to keep my acceptance tests isolated. Right now the issue I'm having with being able to run the tests in parallel is the database records that are manipulated in the tests. I've written helpers that take care of doing inserts and deletes before tests are executed, to make sure the state is correct. But now I can't run them in parallel against the same database without uniquely generating the test data fields for each test. For example. Testing creating a row i'll delete everything where column A = foo and column B = bar Then I'll navigate through the UI in the test and create a record with column A = foo and column B = bar. Testing that a duplicate row is not allowed to be created. I'll insert a row with column A = foo and column B = bar and then use the UI to try and do the exact same thing. This will display an error message in the UI as expected. These tests work perfectly when ran separately and serially. But I can't run them at the same time for fear that one will create or delete a record the other is expecting. Any tips on how to structure them better so they can be run in parallel?

  Read the article

• Who should write the test plan?

  - by Cheng Kiang

  Hi, I am in the in-house development team of my company, and we develop our company's web sites according to the requirements of the marketing team. Before releasing the site to them for acceptance testing, we were requested to give them a test plan to follow. However, the development team feels that since the requirements came from the requestors, they would have the best knowledge of what to test, what to lookout for, how things should behave etc and a test plan is thus not required. We are always in an argument over this, and developers find it a waste of time to write down things like:- Click on button A. Key in XYZ in the form field and click button B. You should see behaviour C. which we have to repeat for each requirement/feature requested. This is basically rephrasing what's already in the requirements document. We are moving towards using an Agile approach for managing our projects and this is also requested at the end of each iteration. Unit and integration testing aside, who should be the one to come up with the end user acceptance test plan? Should it be the reqestors or the developers? Many thanks in advance. Regards CK

  Read the article

• Automated Acceptance tests under specific contraints

  - by HH_

  This is a follow up to my previous question, which was a bit general, so I'll be asking for a more precise situation. I want to automate acceptance testing on a web application. Briefly, this application allows the user to create contracts for subscribers with the two constraints: You cannot create more than one contract for a subscriber. Once a contract is created, it cannot be deleted (from the UI) Let's say TestCreate is a test case with tests for the normal creation of a contract. The constraints have introduced complexities to the testing process, mainly dependencies between test cases and test executions. Before we run TestCreate we need to make sure that the application is in a suitable state (the subscriber has no contract) If we run TestCreate twice, the second run will fail since the state of the application will have changed. So we need to revert back to the initial state (i.e. delete the contract), which is impossible to do from the UI. More generally, after each test case we should guarantee that the state is reverted back. And since, in this case, it is impossible to do it from the UI, how do you handle this? Possible solution: I thought about doing a backup of the database in the state that I desire, and after each test case, run a script which deletes the db and restores the backup. However, I find that to be too heavy to do for each single test case. In addition, what if some information are stored in files? or in multiple or unaccessible databases? My question: In this situation, what would an experienced tester do to write automated and maintanable tests. Thank you. More info: I'm trying to integrate tests into a BDD framework, which I find to be a neat solution for test documentation and communication, but it does not solve this particular problem (it even makes it harder)

  Read the article

• Writing Acceptance test cases

  - by HH_

  We are integrating a testing process in our SCRUM process. My new role is to write acceptance tests of our web applications in order to automate them later. I have read a lot about how tests cases should be written, but none gave me practical advices to write test cases for complex web applications, and instead they threw conflicting principles that I found hard to apply: Test cases should be short: Take the example of a CMS. Short test cases are easy to maintain and to identify the inputs and outputs. But what if I want to test a long series of operations (eg. adding a document, sending a notification to another user, the other user replies, the document changes state, the user gets a notice). It rather seems to me that test cases should represent complete scenarios. But I can see how this will produce overtly complex test documents. Tests should identify inputs and outputs:: What if I have a long form with many interacting fields, with different behaviors. Do I write one test for everything, or one for each? Test cases should be independent: But how can I apply that if testing the upload operation requires that the connect operation is successful? And how does it apply to writing test cases? Should I write a test for each operation, but each test declares its dependencies, or should I rewrite the whole scenario for each test? Test cases should be lightly-documented: This principles is specific to Agile projects. So do you have any advice on how to implement this principle? Although I thought that writing acceptance test cases was going to be simple, I found myself overwhelmed by every decision I had to make (FYI: I am a developer and not a professional tester). So my main question is: What steps or advices do you have in order to write maintainable acceptance test cases for complex applications. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Should we test all our methods?

  - by Zenzen

  So today I had a talk with my teammate about unit testing. The whole thing started when he asked me "hey, where are the tests for that class, I see only one?". The whole class was a manager (or a service if you prefer to call it like that) and almost all the methods were simply delegating stuff to a DAO so it was similar to: SomeClass getSomething(parameters) { return myDao.findSomethingBySomething(parameters); } A kind of boilerplate with no logic (or at least I do not consider such simple delegation as logic) but a useful boilerplate in most cases (layer separation etc.). And we had a rather lengthy discussion whether or not I should unit test it (I think that it is worth mentioning that I did fully unit test the DAO). His main arguments being that it was not TDD (obviously) and that someone might want to see the test to check what this method does (I do not know how it could be more obvious) or that in the future someone might want to change the implementation and add new (or more like "any") logic to it (in which case I guess someone should simply test that logic). This made me think, though. Should we strive for the highest test coverage %? Or is it simply an art for art's sake then? I simply do not see any reason behind testing things like: getters and setters (unless they actually have some logic in them) "boilerplate" code Obviously a test for such a method (with mocks) would take me less than a minute but I guess that is still time wasted and a millisecond longer for every CI. Are there any rational/not "flammable" reasons to why one should test every single (or as many as he can) line of code?

  Read the article

• Resurrecting a 5,000 line test plan that is a decade old

  - by ale

  I am currently building a test plan for the system I am working on. The plan is 5,000 lines long and about 10 years old. The structure is like this: 1. test title precondition: some W needs to be set up, X needs to be completed action: do some Y postcondition: message saying Z is displayed 2. ... What is this type of testing called ? Is it useful ? It isn't automated.. the tests would have to be handed to some unlucky person to run through and then the results would have to be given to development. It doesn't seem efficient. Is it worth modernising this method of testing (removing tests for removed features, updating tests where different postconditions happen, ...) or would a whole different approach be more appropriate ? We plan to start unit tests but the software requires so much work to actually get 'units' to test - there are no units at present ! Thank you.

  Read the article

• Understanding how software testing works and what to test.

  - by RHaguiuda

  Intro: I've seen lots of topics here on SO about software testing and other terms I don't understand. Problem: As a beginner developer I, unfortunately, have no idea how software testing works, not even how to test a simple function. This is a shame, but thats the truth. I also hope this question can help others beginners developers too. Question: Can you help me to understand this subject a little bit more? Maybe some questions to start would help: When I develop a function, how should I test it? For example: when working with a sum function, should I test every input value possible or just some limits? How about testing functions with strings as parameters? In a big program, do I have to test every single piece of code of it? When you guys program do you test every code written? How automated test works and how can I try one? How tools for automated testing works and what they do? I`ve heard about unit testing. Can I have a brief explanation on this? What is a testing framework? If possible please post some code with examples to clarify the ideas. Any help on this topic is very welcome! Thanks.

  Read the article

• Where should I place my reaction code in Per-Pixel Collision Detection?

  - by CJ Cohorst

  I have this collision detection code: public bool PerPixelCollision(Player player, Game1 dog) { Matrix atob = player.Transform * Matrix.Invert(dog.Transform); Vector2 stepX = Vector2.TransformNormal(Vector2.UnitX, atob); Vector2 stepY = Vector2.TransformNormal(Vector2.UnitY, atob); Vector2 iBPos = Vector2.Transform(Vector2.Zero, atob); for(int deltax = 0; deltax < player.playerTexture.Width; deltax++) { Vector2 bpos = iBPos; for (int deltay = 0; deltay < player.playerTexture.Height; deltay++) { int bx = (int)bpos.X; int by = (int)bpos.Y; if (bx >= 0 && bx < dog.dogTexture.Width && by >= 0 && by < dog.dogTexture.Height) { if (player.TextureData[deltax + deltay * player.playerTexture.Width].A > 150 && dog.TextureData[bx + by * dog.Texture.Width].A > 150) { return true; } } bpos += stepY; } iBPos += stepX; } return false; } What I want to know is where to put in the code where something happens. For example, I want to put in player.playerPosition.X -= 200 just as a test, but I don't know where to put it. I tried putting it under the return true and above it, but under it, it said unreachable code, and above it nothing happened. I also tried putting it by bpos += stepY; but that didn't work either. Where do I put the code?

  Read the article

• How to choose cell to put entity in in an uniform grid used for broad phase collision detection?

  - by nathan

  I'm trying to implement the broad phase of my collision detection algorithm. My game is an arcade game with lot of moving entities in an open space with relatively equivalent sizes. Regarding the above specifications, i decided to use an uniform grid for space partitioning. The problem i have right know is how to efficiently choose in which cells an entity should be added. ATM i'm doing something like this: for (int x = 0; x < gridSize; x++) { for (int y = 0; y < gridSize; y++) { GridCell cell = grid[x][y]; cell.clear(); //remove the previously added entities for (int i = 0; i < entities.size(); i++) { Entity e = entities.get(i); if (cell.isEntityOverlap(e)) { cell.add(e); } } } } The isEntityOverlap is a simple method i added my GridCell class. public boolean isEntityOverlap(Shape s) { return cellArea.intersects(s); } Where cellArea is a Rectangle. cellArea = new Rectangle(x, y, CollisionGrid.CELL_SIZE, CollisionGrid.CELL_SIZE); It works but it's damn slow. What would be a fast way to know all the cells an entity overlaps? Note: by "it works" i mean, the entities are contained in the good cells over the time after movements etc.

  Read the article

• How to fetch only the sprites in the player's range of motion for collision testing? (2D, axis aligned sprites)

  - by Twodordan

  I am working on a 2D sprite game for educational purposes. (In case you want to know, it uses WebGl and Javascript) I've implemented movement using the Euler method (and delta time) to keep things simple. Now I'm trying to tackle collisions. The way I wrote things, my game only has rectangular sprites (axis aligned, never rotated) of various/variable sizes. So I need to figure out what I hit and which side of the target sprite I hit (and I'm probably going to use these intersection tests). The old fashioned method seems to be to use tile based grids, to target only a few tiles at a time, but that sounds silly and impractical for my game. (Splitting the whole level into blocks, having each sprite's bounding box fit multiple blocks I might abide. But if the sprites change size and move around, you have to keep changing which tiles they belong to, every frame, it doesn't sound right.) In Flash you can test collision under one point, but it's not efficient to iterate through all the elements on stage each frame. (hence why people use the tile method). Bottom line is, I'm trying to figure out how to test only the elements within the player's range of motion. (I know how to get the range of motion, I have a good idea of how to write a collisionCheck(playerSprite, targetSprite) function. But how do I know which sprites are currently in the player's vicinity to fetch only them?) Please discuss. Cheers!

  Read the article

• Huge dataset point in polygon in .net (collision detection)

  - by Rickard Liljeberg

  I have a pretty big mesh with polygons, usually triangles but sometimes rectangles. Each point in my mesh has a value (value has nothing to do with coordinates). Now I am creating a second mesh in the same coordinate-space as the old mesh. I now want to interpolate out values for all points (vertices) in the new mesh using the values from the old mesh. Now I could loop each polygon in the new mesh and detect which old vertices are in each polygon by making 2d collision detection (altho even this I don't get to function properly so if anyone has simple and fast code for 2d collision detection (triangle is enough) I would gladly see it). However to my main point again. looping each old vertice for each new polygon seems less than efficient. is there a better way?

  Read the article

• Collision detection between ball & bricks in brick breaker game

  - by ketu

  How do you detect a collision between ball & bricks in a brick breaker game?

  Read the article

• Collision detection by sliding against a plane in XNA

  - by Bevin

  Hello, I am attempting to engineer a collision detection algorithm for a custom Minecraft client I'm making. Basically, the entire world is made up of cubes, and the player (or camera) needs to be able to stand on and move against these cubes. The result I want is illustrated in this image: The green line is the player's movement vector. When the player is brushing up against a plane of one of the cubes, I want the vector to change to one that is perpendicular with the plane. The vector should, however, keep all of it's velocity in the plane's direction, yet lose all velocity towards the plane. I hope I've made my question clear. What is the best and most efficient way to implement a collision detection system like this? Also, will a system like this allow for a simple gravity component?

  Read the article

• Collision Detection probelm (intersection with plane)

  - by Demi

  I'm doing a scene using openGL (a house). I want to do some collision detection, mainly with the walls in the house. I have tried the following code: // a plane is represented with a normal and a position in space Vector planeNor(0,0,1); Vector position(0,0,-10); Plane p(planeNor,position); Vector vel(0,0,-1); double lamda; // this is the intersection point Vector pNormal; // the normal of the intersection // this method is from Nehe's Lesson 30 coll= p.TestIntersionPlane(vel,Z,lamda,pNormal); glPushMatrix(); glBegin(GL_QUADS); if(coll) glColor3f(1,0,0); else glColor3f(1,1,1); glVertex3d(0,0,-10); glVertex3d(3,0,-10); glVertex3d(3,3,-10); glVertex3d(0,3,-10); glEnd(); glPopMatrix(); Nehe's method: #define EPSILON 1.0e-8 #define ZERO EPSILON bool Plane::TestIntersionPlane(const Vector3 & position,const Vector3 & direction, double& lamda, Vector3 & pNormal) { double DotProduct=direction.scalarProduct(normal); // Dot Product Between Plane Normal And Ray Direction double l2; // Determine If Ray Parallel To Plane if ((DotProduct<ZERO)&&(DotProduct>-ZERO)) return false; l2=(normal.scalarProduct(position))/DotProduct; // Find Distance To Collision Point if (l2<-ZERO) // Test If Collision Behind Start return false; pNormal= normal; lamda=l2; return true; } Z is initially (0,0,0) and every time I move the camera towards the plane, I reduce its z component by 0.1 (i.e. Z.z-=0.1 ). I know that the problem is with the vel vector, but I can't figure out what the right value should be. Can anyone please help me?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >