Search Results

Search found 9492 results on 380 pages for 'logic unit'.

Page 25/380 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

• choosing a c++ unit testing tool/framework

  - by David

  Could you recommend a testing tool/framework to use for testing C++ code in a UNIX environment ?

  Read the article

• Any way to separate unit tests from integration tests in VS2008?

  - by AngryHacker

  I have a project full of tests, unit and integration alike. Integration tests require that a pretty large database be present, so it's difficult to make it a part of the build process simply because of the time that it takes to re-initialize the database. Is there a way to somehow separate unit tests from integration tests and have the build server just run the unit tests? I see that there is an Ordered Unit test in VS2008, which allows you to pick and choose tests, but I can't make it just execute alone, without all the others. Is there a trick that I am missing? Or perhaps I could adorn the unit tests with an attribute? What are some of the approaches people are using? P.S. I know I could use mocking for integration tests (just to make them go faster) but then it wouldn't be a true integration test.

  Read the article

• GuestPost: Unit Testing Entity Framework (v1) Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator

  - by Eric Nelson

  Time for another guest post (check out others in the series), this time bringing together the world of mocking with the world of Entity Framework. A big thanks to Moses for agreeing to do this. Unit Testing Entity Framework Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator by Muhammad Mosa Introduction Unit testing data access code in my opinion is a challenging thing. Let us consider unit tests and integration tests. In integration tests you are allowed to have environmental dependencies such as a physical database connection to insert, update, delete or retrieve your data. However when performing unit tests it is often much more efficient and productive to remove environmental dependencies. Instead you will need to fake these dependencies. Faking a database (also known as mocking) can be relatively straight forward but the version of Entity Framework released with .Net 3.5 SP1 has a number of implementation specifics which actually makes faking the existence of a database quite difficult. Faking Entity Framework As mentioned earlier, to effectively unit test you will need to fake/simulate Entity Framework calls to the database. There are many free open source mocking frameworks that can help you achieve this but it will require additional effort to overcome & workaround a number of limitations in those frameworks. Examples of these limitations include: Not able to fake calls to non virtual methods Not able to fake sealed classes Not able to fake LINQ to Entities queries (replace database calls with in-memory collection calls) There is a mocking framework which is flexible enough to handle limitations such as those above. The commercially available TypeMock Isolator can do the job for you with less code and ultimately more readable unit tests. I’m going to demonstrate tackling one of those limitations using MoQ as my mocking framework. Then I will tackle the same issue using TypeMock Isolator. Mocking Entity Framework with MoQ One basic need when faking Entity Framework is to fake the ObjectContext. This cannot be done by passing any connection string. You have to pass a correct Entity Framework connection string that specifies CSDL, SSDL and MSL locations along with a provider connection string. Assuming we are going to do that, we’ll explore another limitation. The limitation we are going to face now is related to not being able to fake calls to non-virtual/overridable members with MoQ. I have the following repository method that adds an EntityObject (instance of a Blog entity) to Blogs entity set in an ObjectContext. public override void Add(Blog blog) { if(BlogContext.Blogs.Any(b=>b.Name == blog.Name)) { throw new InvalidOperationException("Blog with same name already exists!"); } BlogContext.AddToBlogs(blog); } The method does a very simple check that the name of the new Blog entity instance doesn’t exist. This is done through the simple LINQ query above. If the blog doesn’t already exist it simply adds it to the current context to be saved when SaveChanges of the ObjectContext instance (e.g. BlogContext) is called. However, if a blog with the same name exits, and exception (InvalideOperationException) will be thrown. Let us now create a unit test for the Add method using MoQ. [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException_When_Blog_With_Same_Name_Already_Exits() { //(1) We shouldn't depend on configuration when doing unit tests! But, //its a workaround to fake the ObjectContext string connectionString = ConfigurationManager .ConnectionStrings["MyBlogConnString"] .ConnectionString; //(2) Arrange: Fake ObjectContext var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); //(3) Next Line will pass, as ObjectContext now can be faked with proper connection string var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); //(4) Create fake ObjectQuery<Blog>. Will be used to substitute MyBlogContext.Blogs property var fakeObjectQuery = new Mock<ObjectQuery<Blog>>("[Blogs]", fakeContext.Object); //(5) Arrange: Set Expectations //Next line will throw an exception by MoQ: //System.ArgumentException: Invalid setup on a non-overridable member fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); //Act repo.Add(new Blog { Name = "NewBlog" }); } This test method is checking to see if the correct exception ([ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))]) is thrown when a developer attempts to Add a blog with a name that’s already exists. On (1) a connection string is initialized from configuration file. To retrieve the full connection string. On (2) a fake ObjectContext is being created. The ObjectContext here is MyBlogContext and its being created using this var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); This way a fake context is being created using MoQ. On (3) a BlogRepository instance is created. BlogRepository has dependency on generate Entity Framework ObjectContext, MyObjectContext. And so the fake context is passed to the constructor. var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); On (4) a fake instance of ObjectQuery<Blog> is being created to use as a substitute to MyObjectContext.Blogs property as we will see in (5). On (5) setup an expectation for calling Blogs property of MyBlogContext and substitute the return result with the fake ObjectQuery<Blog> instance created on (4). When you run this test it will fail with MoQ throwing an exception because of this line: fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); This happens because the generate property MyBlogContext.Blogs is not virtual/overridable. And assuming it is virtual or you managed to make it virtual it will fail at the following line throwing the same exception: fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); This time the test will fail because the Any extension method is not virtual/overridable. You won’t be able to replace ObjectQuery<Blog> with fake in memory collection to test your LINQ to Entities queries. Now lets see how replacing MoQ with TypeMock Isolator can help. Mocking Entity Framework with TypeMock Isolator The following is the same test method we had above for MoQ but this time implemented using TypeMock Isolator: [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_New_Blog_That_Already_Exists_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException() { //(1) Create fake in memory collection of blogs var fakeInMemoryBlogs = new List<Blog> {new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}}; //(2) create fake context var fakeContext = Isolate.Fake.Instance<MyBlogContext>(); //(3) Setup expected call to MyBlogContext.Blogs property through the fake context Isolate.WhenCalled(() => fakeContext.Blogs) .WillReturnCollectionValuesOf(fakeInMemoryBlogs.AsQueryable()); //(4) Create new blog with a name that already exits in the fake in memory collection in (1) var blog = new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}; //(5) Instantiate instance of BlogRepository (Class under test) var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext); //(6) Acting by adding the newly created blog () repo.Add(blog); } When running the above test method it will pass as the Add method of BlogRepository is going to throw an InvalidOperationException which is the expected behaviour. Nothing prevents us from faking out the database interaction! Even faking ObjectContext  at (2) didn’t require a connection string. On (3) Isolator sets up a faking result for MyBlogContext.Blogs when its being called through the fake instance fakeContext created on (2). The faking result is just an in-memory collection declared an initialized on (1). Finally at (6) action we call the Add method of BlogRepository passing a new Blog instance that has a name that’s already exists in the fake in-memory collection which we set up at (1). As expected the test will pass because it will throw the expected exception defined on top of the test method - InvalidOperationException. TypeMock Isolator succeeded in faking Entity Framework with ease. Conclusion We explored how to write a simple unit test using TypeMock Isolator for code which is using Entity Framework. We also explored a few of the limitations of other mocking frameworks which TypeMock is successfully able to handle. There are workarounds that you can use to overcome limitations when using MoQ or Rhino Mock, however the workarounds will require you to write more code and your tests will likely be more complex. For a comparison between different mocking frameworks take a look at this document produced by TypeMock. You might also want to check out this open source project to compare mocking frameworks. I hope you enjoyed this post Muhammad Mosa http://mosesofegypt.net/ http://twitter.com/mosessaur Screencast of unit testing Entity Framework Related Links GuestPost: Introduction to Mocking GuesPost: Typemock Isolator – Much more than an Isolation framework

  Read the article

• Bit by bit comparison of using Java or Python for unit testing frameworks and Selenium

  - by Anirudh

  Currently we are in the process of finalizing which language out of Java, Python should be used for Automation using selenium webdriver and a suitable unit testing frameworks. I have made use of Junit, TestNG and webdriver while using with Java and have designed frameworks without much fuss before. I am new to python though I came across pyhton's unit testing frameworks like unittest, pyunit, nose e.t.c but I have doubts if they would be as successful as testNG or Java. I would like to analyze point by point when used with selenium webdriver as below: 1)I have read that as Python is an interpreted language hence it's execution is slower, so say if I have to run 1000 test cases which take about 6 hours to run in Java, would python take considerably longer time for the same test cases like 8 hours? 2)Can the Python unit testing framework be as flexible as a Java unit testing framework like testNG in terms or Grouping the tests, parallel execution, skipping test. e.t.c 3)Also one point that I think of is that Python with selenium webdriver doeasn't have as big or learned community as we have for Java with webdriver, say if I run into trouble with something I am more likely to find an answer for Java as compared to python? 4)Somewhat related to point 3, is it safe to rely on tools, plugins or even webderiver's python's binding as a continuously well maintained? 5)One major drawback as I see while using python's unit testing framework is lack of boilerplate code or libraries for nicely illustrative HTML reports preferably historical reports with Pie charts, bar graphs and timelines as we have in case of Java like Allure, TestNG's default reports, reportNG or Junit reports with the help of ANT as shown below Allure Reports Junit Historical reports Also I would like to emphasize on the fact if there is a way for one to write the framework in java and make libraries or utilities according to out application in webdriver which can easily be called or integrated in with python code or modules? That would actually solve the problem for us as the client would be able to use the code we write in Java and make use of the same or call it from their python modules?

  Read the article

• Introducing QuickUnit

  - by RoyOsherove

  A friend of mine, Ariel, just finished up his latest project, in the unit testing world – called QuickUnit. From the site: QuickUnit significantly reduces the time needed to design and generate high-quality unit tests. I see it as an interactive unit test generator with all the options for isolation included. give it a whirl

  Read the article

• How do you handle measuring Code Coverage in JavaScript

  - by Dancrumb

  In order to measure Code Coverage for JavaScript unit tests, one needs to instrument the code, run the tests and then perform post-processing. My concern is that, as a result, you are unit testing code that will never be run in production. Since JavaScript isn't compiled, what you test should be precisely what you execute. So here's my question, how do you handle this? One thought I had was to run Unit Testing on the production code and use that for my pass fail. I would then create a shadow of my production code, with instrumentation and run my unit tests again; this would give me my code coverage stats. Has anyone come across a method that is a little more graceful than this?

  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

• Unit Testing A Silverlight 'Simplified MVVM' Modal Popup

  An example of a 'Simplified MVVM' Modal Popup Unit Test

  Read the article

• Unit turning in navmesh-based pathfinding

  - by Haddayn

  I'm working on an RTS game, and I'm using navmeshes for unit pathfinding. I do know how to find a general path within a navmesh, but how do you determine if the unit have enough space to turn? I have units of different shapes (mostly rectangles with different dimensions), and with different turn radii. Additionally some of units can turn in place, and some can move in reverse. So, how to find a path which unit can follow, considering that it can not rotate easily?

  Read the article

• Xcode Unit Testing - Accessing Resources from the application's bundle?

  - by Ben Scheirman

  I'm running into an issue and I wanted to confirm that I'm doing things the correct way. I can test simple things with my SenTestingKit tests, and that works okay. I've set up a Unit Test Bundle and set it as a dependency on the main application target. It successfully runs all tests whenever I press cmd+B. Here's where I'm running into issues. I have some XML files that I need to load from the resources folder as part of the application. Being a good unit tester, I want to write unit tests around this to make sure that they are loading properly. So I have some code that looks like this: NSString *filePath = [[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResource:@"foo" ofType:@"xml"]; This works when the application runs, but during a unit test, mainBundle points to the wrong bundle, so this line of code returns nil. So I changed it up to utilize a known class like this: NSString *filePath = [[NSBundle bundleForClass:[Config class]] pathForResource:@"foo" ofType:@"xml"]; This doesn't work either, because in order for the test to even compile code like this, it Config needs to be part of the Unit Test Target. If I add that, then the bundle for that class becomes the Unit Test bundle. (Ugh!) Am I approaching this the wrong way?

  Read the article

• How best to organize projects folders for unit tests in .NET?

  - by Dan Bailiff

  So I'm trying to introduce unit testing to my group. I've successfully upgraded a VS'05 web site project to a VS'08 web application, and now have a solution with the web app project and a unit test project. The issue now is how to fit this back into the source repository such that we don't break the build system and the unit test projects are persisted as well. Right now we have something like this: c:\root c:\root\projectA c:\root\projectB c:\root\projectC where projectA contains the sln file and all other related files/folders for the project. Now I have this new solution that looks like this: c:\root\projectA (parent folder) c:\root\projectA\projectA (the production code project) c:\root\projectA\projectA_Test (the unit test project) c:\root\projectA\TestResults c:\root\projecta\projectA.sln How do I integrate this new structure back into the code repository? I'd really prefer to keep the production code folder where it was in the source repository for the sake of the build, but is this necessary? If I keep the production code project in its usual place then where do I keep my unit test projects and how do I connect them with a sln file? Is it better to use this new structure and adjust the build process? I'd love to hear how other people are dealing with this issue of upgrading legacy projects to unit testing.

  Read the article

• Technique to Solve Hard Programming logic

  - by Paresh Mayani

  I have heard about many techniques which are used by developer/software manager to solve hard programming logic or to create flow of an application and this flow will be implemented by developers to create an actual application. Some of the technique which i know, are: Flowchart Screen-Layout Data Flow Diagram E-R Diagram Algorithm of every programs I'd like to know about two facts: (1) Are there any techniques other than this ? (2) Which one is the most suitable to solve hard programming logic and process of application creation?

  Read the article

• Downmix surround to Dolby Pro-Logic at the OS/driver level in Windows 7?

  - by davr

  First off, I'm talking about Dolby Pro-Logic, a really old tech for encoding 4 audio channels (L/R/C/SR) into two analog outputs, and then extracting them again. It was used in surround sound systems in the last century. I have a modern PC that can output 5.1 analog audio (Three outputs on the back carry six channels of audio). But I have a really old surround sound reciever that only has a two-channel, L/R input, which it extracts 4 channels of audio from, and outputs to 5.1 speakers. What I want is some way for the OS, Windows 7, to act as if I really had 5.1 audio channels available, so applications produce surround audio, but before outputting it out of the back of my PC, apply Dolby Pro-Logic matrix encoding so that it outputs over only two channels. These two channels would then get sent to my receiver via a RCA cable, which would decode it again and drive the surround speakers. Is anything like this possible? I'm pretty sure I could do it at an application / codec level, but I'm looking for something that I just have to set once.

  Read the article

• Delphi Unit local variables - how to make each instance unique?

  - by Justin

  Ok, this, I'm sure is something simple that is easy to do. The problem : I've inherited scary spaghetti code and am slowly trying to better it when new features need adding - generally when a refactor makes adding the new feature neater. I've got a bunch of code I'm packing into a single unit which, in different places in the application, controls the same physical thing in the outside world. The control appears in several places in the application and operates slightly differently in each instance. What I've done is to create a unit with all of the features I need which I can simply drop, as a frame, into each form that requires it. Each form then uses the unit's interface methods to customise the behaviour for each instance. The problem within the problem : In the unit in question (the frame) I have a variable declared in the IMPLEMENTATION section - local to the unit. I also have a procedure, declared in the TYPE section which takes an argument and assigns that argument to the local variable in question - each form passes a unique variable to each instance of the frame/unit. What I want it to do is for each instance of the frame to keep its own version of that variable, different from the others, and use that to define how it operates. What seems to be happening, however, is that all instances are using the same value, even if I explicitly pass each instance a different variable. ie: Unit FlexibleUnit; interface uses //the uses stuff type TFlexibleUnit=class(TFrame) //declarations including procedure makeThisInstanceX(passMeTheVar:integer); private // public // end; implementation uses //the uses var myLocalVar; procedure makeThisInstanceX(passMeTheVar:integer); begin myLocalVar:=passMeTheVar; end; //other procedures using myLocalVar //etc to the end; Now somewhere in another Form I've dropped this Frame onto the Design pane, sometimes two of these frames on one Form, and have it declared in the proper places, etc. Each is unique in that : ThisFlexibleUnit : TFlexibleUnit; ThatFlexibleUnit : TFlexibleUnit; and when I do a: ThisFlexibleUnit.makeThisInstanceX(var1); //want to behave in way "var1" ThatFlexibleUnit.makeThisInstanceX(var2); //want to behave in way "var2" it seems that they both share the same variable "myLocalVar". Am I doing this wrong, in principle? If this is the correct method then it's a matter of debugging what I have (which is too huge to post) but if this is not correct in principle then is there a way to do what I am suggesting? Thanks in advance, Stack Overflow - you guys (and gals!) are legendary.

  Read the article

• When does logic belong in the Business Object/Entity, and when does it belong in a Service?

  - by Casey

  In trying to understand Domain Driven Design I keep returning to a question that I can't seem to definitively answer. How do you determine what logic belongs to a Domain entity, and what logic belongs to a Domain Service? Example: We have an Order class for an online store. This class is an entity and an aggregate root (it contains OrderItems). Public Class Order:IOrder { Private List<IOrderItem> OrderItems Public Order(List<IOrderItem>) { OrderItems = List<IOrderItem> } Public Decimal CalculateTotalItemWeight() //This logic seems to belong in the entity. { Decimal TotalWeight = 0 foreach(IOrderItem OrderItem in OrderItems) { TotalWeight += OrderItem.Weight } return TotalWeight } } I think most people would agree that CalculateTotalItemWeight belongs on the entity. However, at some point we have to ship this order to the customer. To accomplish this we need to do two things: 1) Determine the postage rate necessary to ship this order. 2) Print a shipping label after determining the postage rate. Both of these actions will require dependencies that are outside the Order entity, such as an external webservice to retrieve postage rates. How should we accomplish these two things? I see a few options: 1) Code the logic directly in the domain entity, like CalculateTotalItemWeight. We then call: Order.GetPostageRate Order.PrintLabel 2) Put the logic in a service that accepts IOrder. We then call: PostageService.GetPostageRate(Order) PrintService.PrintLabel(Order) 3) Create a class for each action that operates on an Order, and pass an instance of that class to the Order through Constructor Injection (this is a variation of option 1 but allows reuse of the RateRetriever and LabelPrinter classes): Public Class Order:IOrder { Private List<IOrderItem> OrderItems Private RateRetriever _Retriever Private LabelPrinter _Printer Public Order(List<IOrderItem>, RateRetriever Retriever, LabelPrinter Printer) { OrderItems = List<IOrderItem> _Retriever = Retriever _Printer = Printer } Public Decimal GetPostageRate { _Retriever.GetPostageRate(this) } Public void PrintLabel { _Printer.PrintLabel(this) } } Which one of these methods do you choose for this logic, if any? What is the reasoning behind your choice? Most importantly, is there a set of guidelines that led you to your choice?

  Read the article

• Moving all UI logic to Client Side?

  - by Mag20

  Our team originally consisted of mostly server side developers with minimum expertise in Javascript. In ASP.NET we used to write a lot of UI logic in code-behind or more recently through controllers in MVC. A little while ago 2 high level client side developers joined our team. They can do in HTMl/CSS/Javascript pretty much anything that we could previously do with server-side code and server-side web controls: Show/hide controls Do validation Control AJAX refreshing So I started to think that maybe it would be more efficient to just create a high level API around our business logic, kinda like Amazon Fulfillment API: http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/fws/latest/APIReference/, so that client side developers would fully take over the UI, while server side developers would only concentrate on business logic. So for ordering system you would have a high level API like: OrderService.asmx CreateOrderResponse CreateOrder(CreateOrderRequest) AddOrderItem AddPayment - SubmitPayment - GetOrderByID FindOrdersByCriteria ... There would be JSON/REST access to API, so it would be easy to consume from client-side UI. We could use this API for both internal UI development and also for 3-rd parties to create their own applications. With advances in Javascript and availability of good client side developers, is it a good time to get rid of code-behind/controllers and just concentrate on developing high level APIs (ala Amazon) that client side developers can consume?

  Read the article

• RESTful applications logic and cross resource operations

  - by Gaz_Edge

  I have an RESTful api that allows my users to receive enquiries about their business e.g. 'I would like to book service x on date y. Is this available?'. The api saves this information as a resource to the following URI users/{userId}/enquiries/{enquiryId} The information shown when this resource is retrieved are the standard sort of things you'd expect from an enquiry - email, first_name, last_name, address, message The api also allows customers to be created for a user. The customer has a login and password and also a profile. The following URIs expose these two resources PUT users/{userId}/customers/{customerId} PUT users/{userId}/customers/{customerId}/profile The problem I am having is that I would like to have the ability to allow users to create a customer from an enquiry. For example, the user is able to offer their service on the date requested and will then want to setup a customer with login details etc to allow them to manage the rest of the process. The obvious answer would be to use a URI like users/{userId}/enquiries/{enquiryId}/convert-to-client The problem with this is is that it somewhat goes against a lot of what I've been reading about how to implement REST (specifically from the book Restful Web Services which suggests that URIs should point to resources not operations on resources). The other option would be to get the client application (i.e. the code that calls the api) to handle some of this application logic. This doesn't quite feel right to me. I have implemented in my design that the client app is fairly dumb. It knows just enough to display the results from the API, and does not contain any application logic. Would be great to hear what others views are on the best way of setting this up Am I wrong to have no application logic in the client app? How would I perform this operation purely in the REST api?

  Read the article

• Handling game logic events by behavior components

  - by chehob

  My question continues on topic discussed here I have tried implementing attribute/behavior design and here is a quick example demonstrating the issue. class HealthAttribute : public ActorAttribute { public: HealthAttribute( float val ) : mValue( val ) { } float Get( void ) const { return mValue; } void Set( float val ) { mValue = val; } private: float mValue; }; class HealthBehavior : public ActorBehavior { public: HealthBehavior( shared_ptr< HealthAttribute > health ) : pHealth( health ) { // Set OnDamage() to listen for game logic event "DamageEvent" } void OnDamage( IEventDataPtr pEventData ) { // Check DamageEvent target entity // ( compare my entity ID with event's target entity ID ) // If not my entity, do nothing // Else, modify health attribute with received DamageEvent data } protected: shared_ptr< HealthAttribute > pHealth; }; My question - is it possible to get rid of this annoying check for game logic events? In the current implementation when some entity must receive damage, game logic just fires off event that contains damage value and the entity id which should receive that damage. And all HealthBehaviors are subscribed to the DamageEvent type, which leads to any entity possesing HealthBehavior call OnDamage() even if he is not the addressee.

  Read the article

• Help me with this logic (newbie) [migrated]

  - by Surendra

  I need to generate a half pyramid number series with the entered starting number and the number of lines in a html page using Javascript and show the result in html page . I have done the Java scripting and stuff . What I don't get is the logic to it. Take a look at this you may get an idea what I'm talking about: Here is my function in Javascript that will be triggered on a button click function doFunction(){ var enteredNumber=document.getElementById("start"); var lines=document.getElementById("lines"); var result; for(i=0;i<=lines.value;i++) { for(j=enteredNumber.value;j<=i;j++) { document.write(j + "&nbsp;" + "&nbsp;"); } document.write("<br />"); } } Help me with the logic to print following order: 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 There is a condition. I will specify $start and $lines. If $start = 5 and $lines = 3 then output should be like: 5 5 6 5 6 7 I have had used the for loop , but that doesn't work if I give my own start number that is higher than the number of lines. I actually need it done with Javascript, I have had done the necessary but I'm confused with the logic to generate such series (with the user given values) I had actually used two for loops to generate the regular number series like below 1 1 2 1 2 3 and so on.

  Read the article

• Perform Unit Conversions with the Windows 7 Calculator

  - by Matthew Guay

  Want to easily convert area, volume, temperature, and many other units?  With the Calculator in Windows 7, it’s easy to convert most any unit into another. The New Calculator in Windows 7 Calculator received a visual overhaul in Windows 7, but at first glance it doesn’t seem to have any new functionality.  Here’s Windows 7’s Calculator on the left, with Vista’s calculator on the right.   But, looks can be deceiving.  Window’s 7’s calculator has lots of new exciting features.  Let’s try them out.  Simply type Calculator in the start menu search. To uncover the new features, click the View menu.  Here you can select many different modes, including Unit Conversion mode which we will look at. When you select the Unit Conversion mode, the Calculator will expand with a form on the left side. This conversions pane has 3 drop-down menus.  From the top one, select the type of unit you want to convert. In the next two menus, select which values you wish to convert to and from.  For instance, here we selected Temperature in the first menu, Degrees Fahrenheit in the second menu, and Degrees Celsius in the third menu. Enter the value you wish to convert in the From box, and the conversion will automatically appear in the bottom box. The Calculator contains dozens of conversion values, including more uncommon ones.  So if you’ve ever wanted to know how many US gallons are in a UK gallon, or how many knots a supersonic jet travels in an hour, this is a great tool for you!   Conclusion Windows 7 is filled with little changes that give you an all-around better experience in Windows to help you work more efficiently and productively.  With the new features in the Calculator, you just might feel a little smarter, too! Similar Articles Productive Geek Tips Add Windows Calculator to the Excel 2007 Quick Launch ToolbarEnjoy Quick & Easy Unit Conversion with Convert for WindowsCalculate with Qalculate on LinuxDisable the Annoying “This device can perform faster” Balloon Message in Windows 7Get stats on your Ruby on Rails code TouchFreeze Alternative in AutoHotkey The Icy Undertow Desktop Windows Home Server – Backup to LAN The Clear & Clean Desktop Use This Bookmarklet to Easily Get Albums Use AutoHotkey to Assign a Hotkey to a Specific Window Latest Software Reviews Tinyhacker Random Tips DVDFab 6 Revo Uninstaller Pro Registry Mechanic 9 for Windows PC Tools Internet Security Suite 2010 Install, Remove and HIDE Fonts in Windows 7 Need Help with Your Home Network? Awesome Lyrics Finder for Winamp & Windows Media Player Download Videos from Hulu Pixels invade Manhattan Convert PDF files to ePub to read on your iPad

  Read the article

• Achieving decoupling in Model classes

  - by Guven

  I am trying to test-drive (or at least write unit tests) my Model classes but I noticed that my classes end up being too coupled. Since I can't break this coupling, writing unit tests is becoming harder and harder. To be more specific: Model Classes: These are the classes that hold the data in my application. They resemble pretty much the POJO (plain old Java objects), but they also have some methods. The application is not too big so I have around 15 model classes. Coupling: Just to give an example, think of a simple case of Order Header - Order Item. The header knows the item and the item knows the header (needs some information from the header for performing certain operations). Then, let's say there is the relationship between Order Item - Item Report. The item report needs the item as well. At this point, imagine writing tests for Item Report; you need have a Order Header to carry out the tests. This is a simple case with 3 classes; things get more complicated with more classes. I can come up with decoupled classes when I design algorithms, persistence layers, UI interactions, etc... but with model classes, I can't think of a way to separate them. They currently sit as one big chunk of classes that depend on each other. Here are some workarounds that I can think of: Data Generators: I have a package that generates sample data for my model classes. For example, the OrderHeaderGenerator class creates OrderHeaders with some basic data in it. I use the OrderHeaderGenerator from my ItemReport unit-tests so that I get an instance to OrderHeader class. The problem is these generators get complicated pretty fast and then I also need to test these generators; defeating the purpose a little bit. Interfaces instead of dependencies: I can come up with interfaces to get rid of the hard dependencies. For example, the OrderItem class would depend on the IOrderHeader interface. So, in my unit tests, I can easily mock the behaviour of an OrderHeader with a FakeOrderHeader class that implements the IOrderHeader interface. The problem with this approach is the complexity that the Model classes would end up having. Would you have other ideas on how to break this coupling in the model classes? Or, how to make it easier to unit-test the model classes?

  Read the article

• Does Python doctest remove the need for unit-tests?

  - by daniel

  Hi all, A fellow developer on a project I am on believes that doctests are as good as unit-tests, and that if a piece of code is doctested, it does not need to be unit-tested. I do not believe this to be the case. Can anyone provide some solid, ideally cited, examples either for or against the argument that doctests do not replace the need for unit-tests? Thank you -Daniel

  Read the article

• Why should I bother with unit testing if I can just use integration tests?

  - by CodeGrue

  Ok, I know I am going out on a limb making a statement like that, so my question is for everyone to convince me I am wrong. Take this scenario: I have method A, which calls method B, and they are in different layers. So I unit test B, which delivers null as a result. So I test that null is returned, and the unit test passes. Nice. Then I unit test A, which expects an empty string to be returned from B. So I mock the layer B is in, an empty string is return, the test passes. Nice again. (Assume I don't realize the relationship of A and B, or that maybe two differente people are building these methods) My concern is that we don't find the real problem until we test A and B togther, i.e. Integration Testing. Since an integration test provides coverage over the unit test area, it seems like a waste of effort to build all these unit tests that really don't tell us anything (or very much) meaningful. Why am I wrong?

  Read the article

• How do I display the validation which failed in my Rails unit test?

  - by JD

  Summary: Failed unit tests tell me which assert (file:line) failed, but not which validation resulted in the failure. More info: I have 11 validations in one of my models. Unit testing is great, whether I run `rake test:units --trace' or 'ruby -Itest test/unit/mymodel_test.rb'. However, despite the fact that it tells me exactly which assert() failed me, I am not told which validation failed. I must be missing something obvious, because I can't ask Google this question well enough to get an answer. Thanks :)

  Read the article

• how often should the entire suite of a system's unit tests be run?

  - by gerryLowry

  Generally, I'm still very much a unit testing neophyte. BTW, you may also see this question on other forums like xUnit.net, et cetera, because it's an important question to me. I apoligize in advance for my cross posting; your opinions are very important to me and not everyone in this forum belongs to the other forums too. I was looking at a large decade old legacy system which has had over 700 unit tests written recently (700 is just a small beginning). The tests happen to be written in MSTest but this question applies to all testing frameworks AFAIK. When I ran, via vs2008 "ALL TESTS", the final count was only seven tests. That's about 1% of the total tests that have been written to date. MORE INFORMATION: The ASP.NET MVC 2 RTM source code, including its unit tests, is available on CodePlex; those unit tests are also written in MSTest even though (an irrelevant fact) Brad Wilson later joined the ASP.NET MVC team as its Senior Programmer. All 2000 plus tests get run, not just a few. QUESTION: given that AFAIK the purpose of unit tests is to identify breakages in the SUT, am I correct in thinking that the "best practice" is to always, or at least very frequently, run all of the tests? Thank you. Regards, Gerry (Lowry)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >