Search Results

Search found 11675 results on 467 pages for 'parallel testing'.

Page 3/467 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Testing Article for testing

  This is testing Article

  Read the article

• Agile Testing Days 2012 – Day 2 – Learn through disagreement

  - by Chris George

  I think I was in the right place! During Day 1 I kept on reading tweets about Lean Coffee that has happened earlier that morning. It intrigued me and I figured in for a penny in for a pound, and set my alarm for 6:45am. Following the award night the night before, it was _really_ hard getting up when it went off, but I did and after a very early breakfast, set off for the 10 min walk to the Dorint. With Lean Coffee due to start at 07:30, I arrived at the hotel and made my way to one of the hotel bars. I soon realised I was in the right place as although the bar was empty, there was a table with post-it’s and pens! This MUST be the place! The premise of Lean Coffee is to have several small timeboxed discussions. Everyone writes down what they would like to discuss on post-its that are then briefly explained and submitted to the pile. Once everyone is done, the group dot-votes on the topics. The topics are then sorted by the dot vote counts and the discussions begin. Each discussion had 8 mins to start with, which meant it prevented the discussions getting off topic too much. After the time elapsed, the group had a vote whether to extend the discussion by a further 4 mins or move on. Several discussion were had around training, soft skills etc. The conversations were really interesting and there were quite a few good ideas. Overall it was a very enjoyable experience, certainly worth the early start! Make Melly Happy Following Lean Coffee was real coffee, and much needed that was! The first keynote of the day was “Let’s help Melly (Changing Work into Life)”by Jurgen Appelo. Draw lines to track happiness This was a very interesting presentation, and set the day nicely. The theme to the keynote was projects are about the people, more-so than the actual tasks. So he started by showing a photo of an employee ‘Melly’ who looked happy enough. He then stated that she looked happy but actually hated her job. In fact 50% of Americans hate their jobs. He went on to say that the world over 50% of people hate Americans their jobs. Jurgen talked about many ways to reduce the feedback cycle, not only of the project, but of the people management. Ideas such as Happiness doors, happiness tracking (drawing lines on a wall indicating your happiness for that day), kudo boxes (to compliment a colleague for good work). All of these (and more) ideas stimulate conversation amongst the team, lead to early detection of issues and investigation of solutions. I’ve massively simplified Jurgen’s keynote and have certainly not done it justice, so I will post a link to the video once it’s available. Following more coffee, the next talk was “How releasing faster changes testing” by Alexander Schwartz. This is a topic very close to our hearts at the moment, so I was eager to find out any juicy morsels that could help us achieve more frequent releases, and Alex did not disappoint. He started off by confirming something that I have been a firm believer in for a number of years now; adding more people can do more harm than good when trying to release. This is for a number of reasons, but just adding new people to a team at such a critical time can be more of a drain on resources than they add. The alternative is to have the whole team have shared responsibility for faster delivery. So the whole team is responsible for quality and testing. Obviously you will have the test engineers on the project who have the specialist skills, but there is no reason that the entire team cannot do exploratory testing on the product. This links nicely with the Developer Exploratory testing presented by Sigge on Day 1, and certainly something that my team are really striving towards. Focus on cycle time, so what can be done to reduce the time between dev cycles, release cycles. What’s stops a release, what delays a release? all good solid questions that can be answered. Alex suggested that perhaps the product doesn’t need to be fully tested. Doing less testing will reduce the cycle time therefore get the release out faster. He suggested a risk-based approach to planning what testing needs to happen. Reducing testing could have an impact on revenue if it causes harm to customers, so test the ‘right stuff’! Determine a set of tests that are ‘face saving’ or ‘smoke’ tests. These tests cover the core functionality of the product and aim to prevent major embarrassment if these areas were to fail! Amongst many other very good points, Alex suggested that a good approach would be to release after every new feature is added. So do a bit of work -> release, do some more work -> release. By releasing small increments of work, the impact on the customer of bugs being introduced is reduced. Red Pill, Blue Pill The second keynote of the day was “Adaptation and improvisation – but your weakness is not your technique” by Markus Gartner and proved to be another very good presentation. It started off quoting lines from the Matrix which relate to adapting, improvising, realisation and mastery. It has alot of nerds in the room smiling! Markus went on to explain how through deliberate practice ( and a lot of it!) you can achieve mastery, but then you never stop learning. Through methods such as code retreats, testing dojos, workshops you can continually improve and learn. The code retreat idea was one that interested me. It involved pairing to write an automated test for, say, 45 mins, they deleting all the code, finding a different partner and writing the same test again! This is another keynote where the video will speak louder than anything I can write here! Markus did elaborate on something that Lisa and Janet had touched on yesterday whilst busting the myth that “Testers Must Code”. Whilst it is true that to be a tester, you don’t need to code, it is becoming more common that there is this crossover happening where more testers are coding and more programmers are testing. Markus made a special distinction between programmers and developers as testers develop tests code so this helped to make that clear. “Extending Continuous Integration and TDD with Continuous Testing” by Jason Ayers was my next talk after lunch. We already do CI and a bit of TDD on my project team so I was interested to see what this continuous testing thing was all about and whether it would actually work for us. At the start of the presentation I was of the opinion that it just would not work for us because our tests are too slow, and that would be the case for many people. Jason started off by setting the scene and saying that those doing TDD spend between 10-15% of their time waiting for tests to run. This can be reduced by testing less often, reducing the test time but this then increases the risk of introduced bugs not being spotted quickly. Therefore, in comes Continuous Testing (CT). CT systems run your unit tests whenever you save some code and runs them in the background so you can continue working. This is a really nice idea, but to do this, your tests must be fast, independent and reliable. The latter two should be the case anyway, and the first is ideal, but hard! Jason makes several suggestions to make tests fast. Firstly keep the scope of the test small, secondly spin off any expensive tests into a suite which is run, perhaps, overnight or outside of the CT system at any rate. So this started to change my mind, perhaps we could re-engineer our tests, and continuously run the quick ones to give an element of coverage. This talk was very interesting and I’ve already tried a couple of the tools mentioned on our product (Mighty Moose and NCrunch). Sadly due to the way our solution is built, it currently doesn’t work, but we will look at whether we can make this work because this has the potential to be a mini-game-changer for us. Using the wrong data Gojko’s Hierarchy of Quality The final keynote of the day was “Reinventing software quality” by Gojko Adzic. He opened the talk with the statement “We’ve got quality wrong because we are using the wrong data”! Gojko then went on to explain that we should judge a bug by whether the customer cares about it, not by whether we think it’s important. Why spend time fixing issues that the customer just wouldn’t care about and releasing months later because of this? Surely it’s better to release now and get customer feedback? This was another reference to the idea of how it’s better to build the right thing wrong than the wrong thing right. Get feedback early to make sure you’re making the right thing. Gojko then showed something which was very analogous to Maslow’s heirachy of needs. Successful – does it contribute to the business? Useful – does it do what the user wants Usable – does it do what it’s supposed to without breaking Performant/Secure – is it secure/is the performance acceptable Deployable Functionally ok – can it be deployed without breaking? He then explained that User Stories should focus on change. In other words they should focus on the users needs, not the users process. Describe what the change will be, how that change will happen then measure it! Networking and Beer Following the day’s closing keynote, there were drinks and nibble for the ‘Networking’ evening. This was a great opportunity to talk to people. I find approaching strangers very uncomfortable but once again, when in Rome! Pete Walen and I had a long conversation about only fixing issues that the customer cares about versus fixing issues that make you proud of your software! Without saying much, and asking the right questions, Pete made me re-evaluate my thoughts on the matter. Clever, very clever!  Oh and he ‘bought’ me a beer! My Takeaway Triple from Day 2: release small and release often to minimize issues creeping in and get faster feedback from ‘the real world’ Focus on issues that the customers care about, not what we think is important It’s okay to disagree with someone, even if they are well respected agile testing gurus, that’s how discussion and learning happens!  

  Read the article

• Point to Taken Care while Microsoft SQL Patching Testing in Production

  - by AbhishekLohani

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/AbhishekLohani/archive/2013/10/29/point-to-taken-care-while-sql-patching-testing--in.aspx Point to Taken Care while Microsoft SQL Patching Testing in Production It very critical testing like Paching testing  1. Build the Test Environment Parrel to Production Environment i.e Staging Environment2 Check the Version of Application deployed is same as Production Environment if Staging Environment not parrel to production environment then risk of defect in production 3.Check End to End Flow of Appliction 4 Check the Eventlog entries 5 Check the performance of the Application . Thanks & RegardsAbhishek

  Read the article

• Any thoughts on A/B testing in Django based project?

  - by Maddy

  We just now started doing the A/B testing for our Django based project. Can I get some information on best practices or useful insights about this A/B testing. Ideally each new testing page will be differentiated with a single parameter(just like Gmail). mysite.com/?ui=2 should give a different page. So for every view I need to write a decorator to load different templates based on the 'ui' parameter value. And I dont want to hard code any template names in decorators. So how would urls.py url pattern will be?

  Read the article

• Software or testing pipeline for testing multiple hard drives

  - by lions_leash

  I have a whole bunch of hard drives (maybe 10 or so) from a variety of sources that I'd like to test. If they work, I will put them in use and/or give them away. I was going to simply open up one of my machines and plug each one in, one at a time, and troubleshoot from there. Is there a way (or set of tools) that I can use to make this process easier and/or faster?

  Read the article

• Testing tools for Django Project

  - by Bharath

  Can anyone please suggest me some good testing tools for a django project? I need to test the different use case scenarios, unit testing, as well as load testing for my project. Is there any good standard testing suite available?? Any other suggestion(s) for the testing process is greatly appreciated. I use Django, postgresql on Ubuntu server if this information is necessary.

  Read the article

• Unit testing newbie team needs to unit test

  - by Walter

  I'm working with a new team that has historically not done ANY unit testing. My goal is for the team to eventually employ TDD (Test Driven Development) as their natural process. But since TDD is such a radical mind shift for a non-unit testing team I thought I would just start off with writing unit tests after coding. Has anyone been in a similar situation? What's an effective way to get a team to be comfortable with TDD when they've not done any unit testing? Does it make sense to do this in a couple of steps? Or should we dive right in and face all the growing pains at once?? EDIT Just for clarification, there is no one on the team (other than myself) who has ANY unit testing exposure/experience. And we are planning on using the unit testing functionality built into Visual Studio.

  Read the article

• Should I demand unit-testing from programmers?

  - by Morten

  I work at a place, where we buy a lot of IT-projects. We are currently producing a standard for systems-requirements for the requisition of future projects. In that process, We are discussing whether or not we can demand automated unit testing from our suppliers. I firmly believe, that proper automated unit-testing is the only way to document the quality and stability of the code. Everyone else seems to think that unit-testing is an optional method that concerns the supplier alone. Thus, we will make no demands of automated unit-testing, continous testing, coverage-reports, inspections of unit-tests or any of the kind. I find this policy extremely frustrating. Am I totally out of line here? Please provide me with arguments for any of the oppinions.

  Read the article

• Unit testing - getting started

  - by higgenkreuz

  I am just getting started with unit testing but I am not sure if I really understand the point of it all. I read tutorials and books on it all, but I just have two quick questions: I thought the purpose of unit testing is to test code we actually wrote. However, to me it seems that in order to just be able to run the test, we have to alter the original code, at which point we are not really testing the code we wrote but rather the code we wrote for testing. Most of our codes rely on external sources. Upon refactoring our code however, even it would break the original code, our tests still would run just fine, since the external sources are just muck-ups inside our test cases. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of unit testing? Sorry if I sound dumb here, but I thought someone could enlighten me a bit. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Do you enjoy 'Unit testing' ? [closed]

  - by jibin

  Possible Duplicate: How have you made unit testing more enjoyable ? i mean we all are developers & we love coding.I love learning new stuff(languages, frameworks, even new domains like mobile/Tablet development). But Testing ? As a newbie to the corporate environment,I just can't digest it.(We follow 'write-then-manually-test pattern').is it unit testing ?.Usually a single developer handles a module(From design to code & unit testing).So is it practical ? Somebody tell me how to make unit testing fun ? Or just How to do it properly?Do we try all possibilities manually.Say unit test for a webpage with lot of 'javascript validations'. PS:projects are all web applications.

  Read the article

• Which parallel pattern to use?

  - by Wim Van Houts

  I need to write a server application that fetches mails from different mail servers/mailboxes and then needs to process/analyze these mails. Traditionally, I would do this multi-threaded, launching a thread for fetching mails (or maybe one per mailbox) and then process the mails. We are moving more and more to servers where we have 8+ cores, so I would like to make use of these cores as much as possible (and not use 1 at 100% and leave the seven others untouched). So conceptually, as an example, it would be nice that I could write the application in such a way that two cores are "continuously" fetching emails and four cores are "continuously" processing/analyzing the emails (since processing and analyzing mails is more CPU intensive than fetching mails). This seems like a good concept, but after studying some parallel patterns, I'm not really sure how this is best implemented. None of the patterns really fit. I'm working in VS2012, native C++, but I guess from a design point of view this does not really matter and just some pointers on how to organize this would be great!

  Read the article

• Java Parallel Programming

  - by user578524

  Dear All, I need to parallelize a CPU intensive Java application on my multicore desktop but I am not so comfortable with threads programming. I looked at Scala but this would imply learning a new language which is really time consuming. I also looked at Ateji PX Java parallel extensions which seem very easy to use but did not have a chance yet to evaluate it. Would anyone recommend it? Other suggestions welcome. Thanks in advance for your help Bill

  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

• What kind of code would Kent Beck avoid unit testing?

  - by tieTYT

  I've been watching a few of the Is TDD Dead? talks on youtube, and one of the things that surprised me is Kent Beck seems to acknowledge that there are just some kinds of programs that aren't worth unit testing. For example, right here DHH says that Kent Beck is ... very happy to say "Well, TDD doesn't fit in this case, I'm just going to bail" It's frustrating to me that Kent Beck seems to acknowledge this, but nobody asks him to elaborate on it or give concrete examples. I'd like to know the situations where Kent Beck thinks TDD is a bad fit. Nobody can read his mind or speak for him, but I'm hoping he's been transparent enough through his books/tweets/whatever for someone to be able to answer. I'm not necessarily going to take what he says as gospel, but it would be useful to know that the times I've tried TDD and it just felt impossible/useless are situations that he would have bailed on it himself. Or, if it turned out he would have tested that code it'd suggest to me that I was approaching the process very wrong. I also think it would be enlightening to understand why he would bail on such projects. My opinion on why this is not a duplicate of "When is it appropriate to not unit test?" After skimming those answers I'm not satisfied. For example, look at UncleBob's answer. He doesn't even acknowledge that such a situation exists. I really think there's value in understanding Kent Beck's position, not just a general, "What's your opinion?" type of question. After all, he's the father of TDD.

  Read the article

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

  - by user970696

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

  Read the article

• Penetration testing - common examples?

  - by Mirek

  Hi, I was charged to do some basic penetration testing on our system. I tried to find some favoured practices but I was not successful. I guess SYN attack is retired (no NT here). Could anyone advice some basic steps of what to test in order to proceed at least very basic penetration test? Thanks

  Read the article

• About unit testing a function in the zend framework and unit testing in general

  - by sanders

  Hello people, I am diving into the world of unit testing. And i am sort of lost. I learned today that unit testing is testing if a function works. I wanted to test the following function: public function getEventById($id) { return $this->getResource('Event')->getEventById($id); } So i wanted to test this function as follows: public function test_Event_Get_Event_By_Id_Returns_Event_Item() { $p = $this->_model->getEventById(42); $this->assertEquals(42, EventManager_Resource_Event_Item_Interface); $this->assertType('EventManager_Resource_Event_Item_Interface', $p); } But then I got the error: 1) EventTest::test_Event_Get_Event_By_Id_Returns_Event_Item Zend_Db_Table_Exception: No adapter found for EventManager_Resource_Event /home/user/Public/ZendFramework-1.10.1/library/SF/Model/Abstract.php:101 /var/www/nrka2/application/modules/eventManager/models/Event.php:25 But then someone told me that i am currently unit testing and not doing an integration test. So i figured that i have to test the function getEventById on a different way. But I don't understand how. What this function does it just cals a resource and returns the event by id.

  Read the article

• Embarrassingly parallel workflow creates too many output files

  - by Hooked

  On a Linux cluster I run many (N > 10^6) independent computations. Each computation takes only a few minutes and the output is a handful of lines. When N was small I was able to store each result in a separate file to be parsed later. With large N however, I find that I am wasting storage space (for the file creation) and simple commands like ls require extra care due to internal limits of bash: -bash: /bin/ls: Argument list too long. Each computation is required to run through a qsub scheduling algorithm so I am unable to create a master program which simply aggregates the output data to a single file. The simple solution of appending to a single fails when two programs finish at the same time and interleave their output. I have no admin access to the cluster, so installing a system-wide database is not an option. How can I collate the output data from embarrassingly parallel computation before it gets unmanageable?

  Read the article

• Parallel processing via multithreading in Java

  - by Robz

  There are certain algorithms whose running time can decrease significantly when one divides up a task and gets each part done in parallel. One of these algorithms is merge sort, where a list is divided into infinitesimally smaller parts and then recombined in a sorted order. I decided to do an experiment to test whether or not I could I increase the speed of this sort by using multiple threads. I am running the following functions in Java on a Quad-Core Dell with Windows Vista. One function (the control case) is simply recursive: // x is an array of N elements in random order public int[] mergeSort(int[] x) { if (x.length == 1) return x; // Dividing the array in half int[] a = new int[x.length/2]; int[] b = new int[x.length/2+((x.length%2 == 1)?1:0)]; for(int i = 0; i < x.length/2; i++) a[i] = x[i]; for(int i = 0; i < x.length/2+((x.length%2 == 1)?1:0); i++) b[i] = x[i+x.length/2]; // Sending them off to continue being divided mergeSort(a); mergeSort(b); // Recombining the two arrays int ia = 0, ib = 0, i = 0; while(ia != a.length || ib != b.length) { if (ia == a.length) { x[i] = b[ib]; ib++; } else if (ib == b.length) { x[i] = a[ia]; ia++; } else if (a[ia] < b[ib]) { x[i] = a[ia]; ia++; } else { x[i] = b[ib]; ib++; } i++; } return x; } The other is in the 'run' function of a class that extends thread, and recursively creates two new threads each time it is called: public class Merger extends Thread { int[] x; boolean finished; public Merger(int[] x) { this.x = x; } public void run() { if (x.length == 1) { finished = true; return; } // Divide the array in half int[] a = new int[x.length/2]; int[] b = new int[x.length/2+((x.length%2 == 1)?1:0)]; for(int i = 0; i < x.length/2; i++) a[i] = x[i]; for(int i = 0; i < x.length/2+((x.length%2 == 1)?1:0); i++) b[i] = x[i+x.length/2]; // Begin two threads to continue to divide the array Merger ma = new Merger(a); ma.run(); Merger mb = new Merger(b); mb.run(); // Wait for the two other threads to finish while(!ma.finished || !mb.finished) ; // Recombine the two arrays int ia = 0, ib = 0, i = 0; while(ia != a.length || ib != b.length) { if (ia == a.length) { x[i] = b[ib]; ib++; } else if (ib == b.length) { x[i] = a[ia]; ia++; } else if (a[ia] < b[ib]) { x[i] = a[ia]; ia++; } else { x[i] = b[ib]; ib++; } i++; } finished = true; } } It turns out that function that does not use multithreading actually runs faster. Why? Does the operating system and the java virtual machine not "communicate" effectively enough to place the different threads on different cores? Or am I missing something obvious?

  Read the article

• JRuby-friendly method for parallel-testing Rails app

  - by Toby Hede

  I am looking for a system to parallelise a large suite of tests in a Ruby on Rails app (using rspec, cucumber) that works using JRuby. Cucumber is actually not too bad, but the full rSpec suite currently takes nearly 20 minutes to run. The systems I can find (hydra, parallel-test) look like they use forking, which isn't the ideal solution for the JRuby environment.

  Read the article

• JRuby-friendly method for parallel-testing Ruby on Rails app

  - by Toby Hede

  I am looking for a system to parallelise my tests in a Ruby on Rails app (using rspec, cucumber) that works using JRuby. The systems I can find (hydra, parallel-test) look like they use forking, which is problematic in a JRuby environment.

  Read the article

• Mock Objects for Unit Testing

  - by user9009

  Hello How often QA engineers are responsible for developing Mock Objects for Unit Testing. So dealing with Mock Objects is just developer job ?. The reason i ask is i'm interested in QA as my career and am learning tools like JUnit , TestNG and couple of frameworks. I just want to know until what level of unit testing is done by developer and from what point QA engineer takes over testing for better test coverage ? Thanks

  Read the article

• Development processes, the use of version control, and unit-testing

  - by ct01

  Preface I've worked at quite a few "flat" organizations in my time. Most of the version control policy/process has been "only commit after it's been tested". We were constantly committing at each place to "trunk" (cvs/svn). The same was true with unit-testing - it's always been a "we need to do this" mentality but it never really materializes in a substantive form b/c there is no institutional knowledge base to do it - no mentorship. Version Control The emphasis for version control management at one place was a very strict protocol for commit messages (format & content). The other places let employees just do "whatever". The branching, tagging, committing, rolling back, and merging aspect of things was always ill defined and almost never used. This sort of seems to leave the version control system in the position of being a fancy file-storage mechanism with a meta-data component that never really gets accessed/utilized. (The same was true for unit testing and committing code to the source tree) Unit tests It seems there's a prevailing "we must/should do this" mentality in most places I've worked. As a policy or standard operating procedure it never gets implemented because there seems to be a very ill-defined understanding about what that means, what is going to be tested, and how to do it. Summary It seems most places I've been to think version control and unit testing is "important" b/c the trendy trade journals say it is but, if there's very little mentorship to use these tools or any real business policies, then the full power of version control/unit testing is never really expressed. So grunts, like myself, never really have a complete understanding of the point beyond that "it's a good thing" and "we should do it". Question I was wondering if there are blogs, books, white-papers, or online journals about what one could call the business process or "standard operating procedures" or uses cases for version control and unit testing? I want to know more than the trade journals tell me and get serious about doing these things. PS: @Henrik Hansen had a great comment about the lack of definition for the question. I'm not interested in a specific unit-testing/versioning product or methodology (like, XP) - my interest is more about work-flow at the individual team/developer level than evangelism. This is more-or-less a by product of the management situation I've operated under more than a lack of reading software engineering books or magazines about development processes. A lot of what I've seen/read is more marketing oriented material than any specifically enumerated description of "well, this is how our shop operates".

  Read the article

• Advancing Code Review and Unit Testing Practice

  - by Graviton

  As a team lead managing a group of developers with no experience ( and see no need) in code review and unit testing, how can you advance code review and unit testing practice? How are you going to create a way so that code review and unit testing to naturally fit into the developer's flow? One of the resistance of these two areas is that "we are always tight on dateline, so no time for code review and unit testing". Another resistance for code review is that we currently don't know how to do it. Should we review the code upon every check-in, or review the code at a specified date?

  Read the article

• unit testing variable state explicit tests in dynamically typed languages

  - by kris welsh

  I have heard that a desirable quality of unit tests is that they test for each scenario independently. I realised whilst writing tests today that when you compare a variable with another value in a statement like: assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); You are really testing three things: The variable you are testing exists and is within scope. The variable you are testing is the expected type. The variable you are testing's value is what you expect it to be. Which to me raises the question of whether you should test for each of these implicitly so that a test fail would occur on the specific line that tests for that problem: assertTrue(stringFoo); assertTrue(stringFoo.typeOf() == "String"); assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); For example if the variable was an integer instead of a string the test case failure would be on line 2 which would give you more feedback on what went wrong. Should you test for this kind of thing explicitly or am i overthinking this?

  Read the article

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