Search Results

Search found 2222 results on 89 pages for 'functional'.

Page 23/89 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • How can I bind the second argument in a function but not the first (in an elegant way)?

    - by Frank Osterfeld
    Is there a way in Haskell to bind the second argument but not the first of a function without using lambda functions or defining another "local" function? Example. I have a binary function like: sub :: Int -> Int -> Int sub x y = x - y Now if I want to bind the first argument, I can do so easily using (sub someExpression): mapSubFrom5 x = map (sub 5) x *Main> mapSubFrom5 [1,2,3,4,5] [4,3,2,1,0] That works fine if I want to bind the first n arguments without "gap". If I want to bind the second argument but not the first, the two options I am aware of are more verbose: Either via another, local, function: mapSub5 x = map sub5 x where sub5 x = sub x 5 *Main> mapSub5 [1,2,3,4,5] [-4,-3,-2,-1,0] Or using lambda: mapSub5 x = map (\x -> sub x 5) x While both are working fine, I like the elegance of "sub 5" and wonder if there is a similarly elegant way to bind the n-th (n 1) argument of a function?

    Read the article

  • JS best practice for member functions

    - by MickMalone1983
    I'm writing a little mobile games library, and I'm not sure the best practice for declaring member functions of instantiated function objects. For instance, I might create a simple object with one property, and a method to print it: function Foo(id){ this.id = id; this.print = function(){ console.log(this.id); }; }; However, a function which does not need access to 'private' members of the function does not need to be declared in the function at all. I could equally have written: function print(){ console.log(this.id); }; function Foo(id){ this.id = id; this.print = print; }; When the function is invoked through an instance of Foo, the instance becomes the context for this, so the output is the same in either case. I'm not entirely sure how memory is allocated with JS, and I can't find anything that I can understand about something this specific, but it seems to me that with the first example all members of Foo, including the print function, are duplicated each time it is instantiated - but with the second, it just gets a pointer to one, pre-declared function, which would save any more memory having to be allocated as more instances of Foo are created. Am I correct, and if I am, is there any memory/performance benefit to doing this?

    Read the article

  • Can Scala be considered a functional superset of Java?

    - by Giorgio
    Apart from the differences in syntax, can Scala be considered a superset of Java that adds the functional paradigm to the object-oriented paradigm? Or are there any major features in Java for which there is no direct Scala equivalent? With major features I mean program constructs that would force me to heavily rewrite / restructure my code, e.g., if I had to port a Java program to Scala. Or can I expect that, given a Java program, I can port it to Scala almost line-by-line?

    Read the article

  • What norms/standards should I follow when writing a functional spec?

    - by user970696
    I would like to know what documents (ISO?) should I follow when I write a functional specification. Or what should designers follow when creating the system design? I was told that there was a progress in last years but was not told what the progress was in (college professor). Thank you EDIT: I do not speak about document content etc. but about standards for capturing requirements, for business analysis.

    Read the article

  • How to get a handle/reference to the current controller object inside a rails functional test?

    - by Dave Paroulek
    I must be missing something very simple, but can't find the answer to this. I have a method named foo inside bar_controller. I simply want to call that method from inside a functional test. Here's my controller: class BarsController < ApplicationController def foo # does stuff end end Here's my functional test: class BarsControllerTest << ActionController::TestCase def "test foo" do # run foo foo # assert stuff end end When I run the test I get: NameError: undefined local variable or method `foo' for #<BarsControllerTest:0x102f2eab0> All the documentation on functional tests describe how to simulate a http get request to the bar_controller which then runs the method. But I'd just like to run the method without hitting it with an http get or post request. Is that possible? There must be a reference to the controller object inside the functional test, but I'm still learning ruby and rails so need some help.

    Read the article

  • Whats are basic things you should kept in mind while writing functional tests?

    - by piemesons
    Hello, what kind of functionality should be covered in functional test? How to prioritize what are the functionality that must be covered in functional test. I can understand it depends upon on the project, whats the functionality present the project. Lets take a example of stackoverflow. Suppose we are developing a basic working model of this. What kind of functional test must be covered in this. Just brief what the key points while writing functional tests. (taking any basic functionality from this site just to understand the reference) Still its platform independent question.I am using ruby on rails developer, but keeping ruby on rails as mind will be preferable.

    Read the article

  • Is there any functional difference between immutable value types and immutable reference types?

    - by Kendall Frey
    Value types are types which do not have an identity. When one variable is modified, other instances are not. Using Javascript syntax as an example, here is how a value type works. var foo = { a: 42 }; var bar = foo; bar.a = 0; // foo.a is still 42 Reference types are types which do have an identity. When one variable is modified, other instances are as well. Here is how a reference type works. var foo = { a: 42 }; var bar = foo; bar.a = 0; // foo.a is now 0 Note how the example uses mutatable objects to show the difference. If the objects were immutable, you couldn't do that, so that kind of testing for value/reference types doesn't work. Is there any functional difference between immutable value types and immutable reference types? Is there any algorithm that can tell the difference between a reference type and a value type if they are immutable? Reflection is cheating. I'm wondering this mostly out of curiosity.

    Read the article

  • Is an app that does nothing but link to a web site functional enough to meet Apple's iOS guidelines?

    - by Pointy
    I don't hang out on Programmers enough to know whether this question is "ok", so my apologies if not. I tried to make the title obvious so at least it can be closed quickly :-) The question is simple. My employer wants "home screen presence" (or at least the possibility thereof) on iOS devices (also Android but I'm mostly interested in Apple at the moment). Our actual application will be a pure web-delivered mobile-friendly application, so what we want on the homescreen is basically something that just acts as a link to bring up Safari (or Chrome now I guess; not important). I'm presuming that that's more-or-less possible; if not then that would be interesting too. I know that the Apple guidelines are such that low-functionality apps are generally rejected out of hand. There are a lot of existing apps that seem (to me) less functional than a link to something useful, but I'm not Apple of course. Because this seems like a not-too-weird situation, I'm hoping that somebody knows it's either definitely OK (maybe because there are many such apps) or definitely not OK. Note that I know about things like PhoneGap and I don't want that, at least not at the moment.

    Read the article

  • Languages with a clear distinction between subroutines that are purely functional, mutating, state-changing, etc?

    - by CPX
    Lately I've become more and more frustrated that in most modern programming languages I've worked with (C/C++, C#, F#, Ruby, Python, JS and more) there is very little, if any, language support for determining what a subroutine will actually do. Consider the following simple pseudo-code: var x = DoSomethingWith(y); How do I determine what the call to DoSomethingWith(y) will actually do? Will it mutate y, or will it return a copy of y? Does it depend on global or local state, or is it only dependent on y? Will it change the global or local state? How does closure affect the outcome of the call? In all languages I've encountered, almost none of these questions can be answered by merely looking at the signature of the subroutine, and there is almost never any compile-time or run-time support either. Usually, the only way is to put your trust in the author of the API, and hope that the documentation and/or naming conventions reveal what the subroutine will actually do. My question is this: Does there exist any languages today that make symbolic distinctions between these types of scenarios, and places compile-time constraints on what code you can actually write? (There is of course some support for this in most modern languages, such as different levels of scope and closure, the separation between static and instance code, lambda functions, et cetera. But too often these seem to come into conflict with each other. For instance, a lambda function will usually either be purely functional, and simply return a value based on input parameters, or mutate the input parameters in some way. But it is usually possible to access static variables from a lambda function, which in turn can give you access to instance variables, and then it all breaks apart.)

    Read the article

  • Repercussions of Raising Domain Functional Level to 2008 on Mac computers running 10.6.2 with OD

    - by JohnyV
    We have recently replaced all of our 2003 server domain controllers to 2008 r2 and have tried to implement PSO's but have found that the domain functional level must be raised to 2008. We have a mac server in our environment that runs open directory and it is integrated into AD. Does anyone know if I do raise the domain functional level (which makes sense since we only have 2008 r2 domain controllers) what the repercussions (if any) there will be on the macs in the environment? Macs are running 10.6.2 and mac server runs the same. Mac server is running OD and also bound to AD.

    Read the article

  • Can UML be used to model a Functional program?

    - by iestyn
    More specifically, how do you model a functional program, or one developed using the Functional Style (without classes) using a diagram, and not textual representation, is it at all possible and could someone please direct me towards the nearest application that would do this (open source, of free as in beer, if you please)

    Read the article

  • How to integrate technical line/functional manager into Scrum team?

    - by thegreendroid
    We have recently had a new line manager start who is managing our Scrum team. He is immensely experienced in our field but is relatively inexperienced at Agile/Scrum. He has extensive technical expertise in embedded software (the team's domain) that would go to waste if not utilised properly. However, the team is wary of making a line manager part of the Scrum team. The general consensus is that the line manager should not be part of the Scrum team at all. There are a number of issues that may crop up, e.g. the team may start "reporting" to the manager (i.e. a daily status update!), the manager may start to micro-manage team members etc etc. As it currently stands, he has already said that he feels like an outsider within the team. We really want to make use of his technical skills, we'd be foolish if we didn't because we are a relatively inexperienced and young team of twenty somethings. What would be the best approach to integrate a senior "technical" line manager in a Scrum team and make him feel like he is part of the team?

    Read the article

  • Do functional generics exist and what is the correct name for them if they do?

    - by voroninp
    Consider the following generic class: public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map: public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question: how can this be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the shortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<>: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structure should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exists in any programming language?

    Read the article

  • Do functional generics exist or what is the correct name for them if they do?

    - by voroninp
    Consider the following generic class public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question how this can be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the sortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structrue should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exist in any programming language?

    Read the article

  • Youtube controls (sound, etc) not functional in full-screen mode: is that normal?

    - by mlvljr
    When playing youtube videos full-screen, I can't mouse-interact with the player controls, except for the slider (only single-clicking on the video works as play/pause, but not double-click, interestingly, so the only way to leave full-screen mode is via Escape). Is this behavior known? What can I do about it? I'm on Ubuntu 12.04, using Google's Chrome browser. P.S. If that matters, some other flash players I've tried also display the same problem, so this may be an issue with Google-supplied Flash plugin. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Do You Know How OUM defines the four, basic types of business system testing performed on a project? Why not test your knowledge?

    - by user713452
    Testing is perhaps the most important process in the Oracle® Unified Method (OUM). That makes it all the more important for practitioners to have a common understanding of the various types of functional testing referenced in the method, and to use the proper terminology when communicating with each other about testing activities. OUM identifies four basic types of functional testing, which is sometimes referred to as business system testing.  The basic functional testing types referenced by OUM include: Unit Testing Integration Testing System Testing, and  Systems Integration Testing See if you can match the following definitions with the appropriate type above? A.  This type of functional testing is focused on verifying that interfaces/integration between the system being implemented (i.e. System under Discussion (SuD)) and external systems functions as expected. B.     This type of functional testing is performed for custom software components only, is typically performed by the developer of the custom software, and is focused on verifying that the several custom components developed to satisfy a given requirement (e.g. screen, program, report, etc.) interact with one another as designed. C.  This type of functional testing is focused on verifying that the functionality within the system being implemented (i.e. System under Discussion (SuD)), functions as expected.  This includes out-of-the -box functionality delivered with Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) applications, as well as, any custom components developed to address gaps in functionality.  D.  This type of functional testing is performed for custom software components only, is typically performed by the developer of the custom software, and is focused on verifying that the individual custom components developed to satisfy a given requirement  (e.g. screen, program, report, etc.) functions as designed.   Check your answers below: (D) (B) (C) (A) If you matched all of the functional testing types to their definitions correctly, then congratulations!  If not, you can find more information in the Testing Process Overview and Testing Task Overviews in the OUM Method Pack.

    Read the article

  • Will SRS be sufficient enough for the programmers to do their work, without the additional overhead of FS?

    - by SixSickSix
    We always make 2 documents the SRS (Software Requirement Specification) and the FS (Functional Specifications) documents for the coders aka programmers. As I have examined the SRS is more like containing both functional and non-functional requirements as compared to the FS that deals only with the functional requirements. To cut it short will the SRS be sufficient enough for the programmers to do their work? and not make any FS anymore?

    Read the article

  • Software RS vs. FS

    - by SixSickSix
    We always make 2 documents the SRS (Software Requirement Specification) and the FS (Functional Specifications) documents for the coders aka programmers. As I have examined the SRS is more like containing both functional and non-functional requirements as compared to the FS that deals only with the functional requirements. To cut it short will the SRS be sufficient enough for the programmers to do their work? and not make any FS anymore?

    Read the article

  • Where’s my MD.050?

    - by Dave Burke
    A question that I’m sometimes asked is “where’s my MD.050 in OUM?” For those not familiar with an MD.050, it serves the purpose of being a Functional Design Document (FDD) in one of Oracle’s legacy Methods. Functional Design Documents have existed for many years with their primary purpose being to describe the functional aspects of one or more components of an IT system, typically, a Custom Extension of some sort. So why don’t we have a direct replacement for the MD.050/FDD in OUM? In simple terms, the disadvantage of the MD.050/FDD approach is that it tends to lead practitioners into “Design mode” too early in the process. Whereas OUM encourages more emphasis on gathering, and describing the functional requirements of a system ahead of the formal Analysis and Design process. So that just means more work up front for the Business Analyst or Functional Consultants right? Well no…..the design of a solution, particularly when it involves a complex custom extension, does not necessarily take longer just because you put more thought into the functional requirements. In fact, one could argue the complete opposite, in that by putting more emphasis on clearly understanding the nuances of functionality requirements early in the process, then the overall time and cost incurred during the Analysis to Design process should be less. In short, as your understanding of requirements matures over time, it is far easier (and more cost effective) to update a document or a diagram, than to change lines of code. So how does that translate into Tasks and Work Products in OUM? Let us assume you have reached a point on a project where a Custom Extension is needed. One of the first things you should consider doing is creating a Use Case, and remember, a Use Case could be as simple as a few lines of text reflecting a “User Story”, or it could be what Cockburn1 describes a “fully dressed Use Case”. It is worth mentioned at this point the highly scalable nature of OUM in the sense that “documents” should not be produced just because that is the way we have always done things. Some projects may well be predicated upon a base of electronic documents, whilst other projects may take a much more Agile approach to describing functional requirements; through “User Stories” perhaps. In any event, it is quite common for a Custom Extension to involve the creation of several “components”, i.e. some new screens, an interface, a report etc. Therefore several Use Cases might be required, which in turn can then be assembled into a Use Case Package. Once you have the Use Cases attributed to an appropriate (fit-for-purpose) level of detail, and assembled into a Package, you can now create an Analysis Model for the Package. An Analysis Model is conceptual in nature, and depending on the solution being developing, would involve the creation of one or more diagrams (i.e. Sequence Diagrams, Collaboration Diagrams etc.) which collectively describe the Data, Behavior and Use Interface requirements of the solution. If required, the various elements of the Analysis Model may be indexed via an Analysis Specification. For Custom Extension projects that follow a pure Object Orientated approach, then the Analysis Model will naturally support the development of the Design Model without any further artifacts. However, for projects that are transitioning to this approach, then the various elements of the Analysis Model may be represented within the Analysis Specification. If we now return to the original question of “Where’s my MD.050”. The full answer would be: Capture the functional requirements within a Use Case Group related Use Cases into a Package Create an Analysis Model for each Package Consider creating an Analysis Specification (AN.100) as a index to each Analysis Model artifact An alternative answer for a relatively simple Custom Extension would be: Capture the functional requirements within a Use Case Optionally, group related Use Cases into a Package Create an Analysis Specification (AN.100) for each package 1 Cockburn, A, 2000, Writing Effective Use Case, Addison-Wesley Professional; Edition 1

    Read the article

  • F# and the rose-tinted reflection

    - by CliveT
    We're already seeing increasing use of many cores on client desktops. It is a change that has been long predicted. It is not just a change in architecture, but our notions of efficiency in a program. No longer can we focus on the asymptotic complexity of an algorithm by counting the steps that a single core processor would take to execute it. Instead we'll soon be more concerned about the scalability of the algorithm and how well we can increase the performance as we increase the number of cores. This may even lead us to throw away our most efficient algorithms, and switch to less efficient algorithms that scale better. We might even be willing to waste cycles in order to speculatively execute at the algorithm rather than the hardware level. State is the big headache in this parallel world. At the hardware level, main memory doesn't necessarily contain the definitive value corresponding to a particular address. An update to a location might still be held in a CPU's local cache and it might be some time before the value gets propagated. To get the latest value, and the notion of "latest" takes a lot of defining in this world of rapidly mutating state, the CPUs may well need to communicate to decide who has the definitive value of a particular address in order to avoid lost updates. At the user program level, this means programmers will need to lock objects before modifying them, or attempt to avoid the overhead of locking by understanding the memory models at a very deep level. I think it's this need to avoid statefulness that has led to the recent resurgence of interest in functional languages. In the 1980s, functional languages started getting traction when research was carried out into how programs in such languages could be auto-parallelised. Sadly, the impracticality of some of the languages, the overheads of communication during this parallel execution, and rapid improvements in compiler technology on stock hardware meant that the functional languages fell by the wayside. The one thing that these languages were good at was getting rid of implicit state, and this single idea seems like a solution to the problems we are going to face in the coming years. Whether these languages will catch on is hard to predict. The mindset for writing a program in a functional language is really very different from the way that object-oriented problem decomposition happens - one has to focus on the verbs instead of the nouns, which takes some getting used to. There are a number of hybrid functional/object languages that have been becoming more popular in recent times. These half-way houses make it easy to use functional ideas for some parts of the program while still allowing access to the underlying object-focused platform without a great deal of impedance mismatch. One example is F# running on the CLR which, in Visual Studio 2010, has because a first class member of the pack. Inside Visual Studio 2010, the tooling for F# has improved to the point where it is easy to set breakpoints and watch values change while debugging at the source level. In my opinion, it is the tooling support that will enable the widespread adoption of functional languages - without this support, people will put off any transition into the functional world for as long as they possibly can. Without tool support it will make it hard to learn these languages. One tool that doesn't currently support F# is Reflector. The idea of decompiling IL to a functional language is daunting, but F# is potentially so important I couldn't dismiss the idea. As I'm currently developing Reflector 6.5, I thought it wise to take four days just to see how far I could get in doing so, even if it achieved little more than to be clearer on how much was possible, and how long it might take. You can read what happened here, and of the insights it gave us on ways to improve the tool.

    Read the article

  • Documentation in RETL, RIB, and RSL Release 13.2.4

    - by Oracle Retail Documentation Team
    The Patch Release 13.2.4 of the integration-related products, Oracle Retail Extract, Transform and Load (RETL), Oracle Retail Integration Bus (RIB), and Oracle Retail Service Layer (RSL), is now available from My Oracle Support. End User Documentation Enhancements The following enhancements have been made to the documentation: New RETL Installation GuideNew in Release 13.2.4, the RETL Installation Guide includes complete instructions to install and configure RETL 13.2.4. Installation instructions were previously in the Programmer’s Guide. As part of this enhancement, content was added to and tested in the RETL Installation Guide to ensure that it contain similar chapters and sections included in other Oracle Retail Installation Guides. Template Creator documentation, under the RIB product umbrellaThe Oracle Retail Functional Artifact Guide and the Oracle Retail Functional ArtifactGenerator Guide contain new information about a new tool called the Template Creator. The Functional Artifacts Generator tool has been enhanced to generate custom and localized payloads business objects on demand, based on Oracle Retail Functional Artifact rules. A new tool called the Template Creator has been provided to create the placeholder XSDs and the import hooks in the base objects on an as-needed basis. In other words, this tool constructs the appropriate placeholders in the packaging structure in the correct locations. The Artifact Generator tools, including the Template Creator, can be used either as a command line or GUI tool set.   List of Documents in RETL, RIB, and the Oracle Retail Service Layer (RSL) 13.2.4  The following documents are included in release 13.2.4 of the applications noted above: RIB Oracle Retail Integration Bus Release Notes Oracle Retail Integration Bus Implementation Guide Oracle Retail Integration Bus Installation Guide Oracle Retail Integration Bus Operations Guide Oracle Retail Functional Artifact Generator Guide Oracle Retail Functional Artifacts Guide Oracle Retail Service Layer Installation Guide Oracle Retail SOA Enabler Tool Guide RIB Integration Guide (ID 1277421.1) RETL Oracle Retail Extract, Transform, and Load Release Notes Oracle Retail Extract, Transform, and Load Installation Guide Oracle Retail Extract, Transform, and Load Programmer’s Guide RSL Oracle Retail Service Layer Release Notes Oracle Retail Service Layer Installation Guide Oracle Retail Service Layer Programmer’s Guide

    Read the article

  • unit level testing, agile, and refactoring

    - by dsollen
    I'm working on a very agile development system, a small number of people with my doing the vast majority of progaming myself. I've gotten to the testing phase and find myself writing mostly functional level testing, which I should in theory be leavning for our tester (in practice I don't entirely...trust our tester to detect and identify defects enough to leave him the sole writter of functional tests). In theory what I should be writing is Unit level tests. However, I'm not sure it's worth the expense. Unit testing takes some time to do, more then functional testing since I have to set up mocks and plugs into smaller units that weren't design to run in issolation. More importantly, I find I refactor and redesign heavily-part of this is due to my inherriting code that needed heavy redesign and is still being cleaned up, but even once I've finished removing parts that need work I'm sure in the act of expanding the code I'll still do a decent amount of refactoring and redesign. It feels as if I will break my unit tests, forcing wasted time to refactor them as well, often due to unit test, by definition, having to be coupled so closely to the code structure. So.is it worth all the wasted time when functional tests, that will never break when I refactor/redesign, should find most defects? Do unit tests really provide that much extra defect detetection over through functional? and how does one create good unit tests that work with very quick and agile code that is modified rapidly? ps, I would be fine/happy with links to anything one considers an excellent resource for how to 'do' unit testing in a highly changing enviroment. edit: to clarify I am doing a bit of very unoffical TDD, I just seem to be writing tests on what would be considered a functional level rather then unit level. I think part of this is becaus I own nearly all of the project I don't feel I need to limit the scope as much; and part of it is that it's daunting to think of trying to go back and retroactively add the unit tests needed to cover enough code that I can feel comfortable testing only a unit without the full functionality and trust that unit still works with the rest of the units.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >