Search Results

Search found 1261 results on 51 pages for 'trivial'.

Page 3/51 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Automatic testing of GUI related private methods

    - by Stein G. Strindhaug
    When it comes to GUI programming (at least for web) I feel that often the only thing that would be useful to unit test is some of the private methods*. While unit testing makes perfect sense for back-end code, I feel it doesn't quite fit the GUI classes. What is the best way to add automatic testing of these? * Why I think the only methods useful to test is private: Often when I write GUI classes they don't even have any public methods except for the constructor. The public methods if any is trivial, and the constructor does most of the job calling private methods. They receive some data from server does a lot of trivial output and feeds data to the constructor of other classes contained inside it, adding listeners that calls a (more or less directly) calls the server... Most of it pretty trivial (the hardest part is the layout: css, IE, etc.) but sometimes I create some private method that does some advanced tricks, which I definitely do not want to be publicly visible (because it's closely coupled to the implementation of the layout, and likely to change), but is sufficiently complicated to break. These are often only called by the constructor or repeatedly by events in the code, not by any public methods at all. I'd like to have a way to test this type of methods, without making it public or resorting to reflection trickery. (BTW: I'm currently using GWT, but I feel this applies to most languages/frameworks I've used when coding for GUI)

    Read the article

  • Invoking a method overloaded where all arguments implement the same interface

    - by double07
    Hello, My starting point is the following: - I have a method, transform, which I overloaded to behave differently depending on the type of arguments that are passed in (see transform(A a1, A a2) and transform(A a1, B b) in my example below) - All these arguments implement the same interface, X I would like to apply that transform method on various objects all implementing the X interface. What I came up with was to implement transform(X x1, X x2), which checks for the instance of each object before applying the relevant variant of my transform. Though it works, the code seems ugly and I am also concerned of the performance overhead for evaluating these various instanceof and casting. Is that transform the best I can do in Java or is there a more elegant and/or efficient way of achieving the same behavior? Below is a trivial, working example printing out BA. I am looking for examples on how to improve that code. In my real code, I have naturally more implementations of 'transform' and none are trivial like below. public class A implements X { } public class B implements X { } interface X { } public A transform(A a1, A a2) { System.out.print("A"); return a2; } public A transform(A a1, B b) { System.out.print("B"); return a1; } // Isn't there something better than the code below??? public X transform(X x1, X x2) { if ((x1 instanceof A) && (x2 instanceof A)) { return transform((A) x1, (A) x2); } else if ((x1 instanceof A) && (x2 instanceof B)) { return transform((A) x1, (B) x2); } else { throw new RuntimeException("Transform not implemented for " + x1.getClass() + "," + x2.getClass()); } } @Test public void trivial() { X x1 = new A(); X x2 = new B(); X result = transform(x1, x2); transform(x1, result); }

    Read the article

  • Can't connect to MySQL server on '127.0.0.1' + Postfix

    - by Andrew Dakin
    I just installed Postfix and configured it to use MySQL. It wasn't sending any emails out after I did that so I checked /var/log/mail.log and it came back with this: postfix/trivial-rewrite[5283]: fatal: proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-domains.cf(0,lock|fold_fix): table lookup problem postfix/cleanup[5258]: warning: AFCDC30437: virtual_alias_maps map lookup problem for [email protected] postfix/master[4761]: warning: process /usr/lib/postfix/trivial-rewrite pid 5282 exit status 1 postfix/proxymap[4126]: warning: connect to mysql server 127.0.0.1: Can't connect to MySQL server on '127.0.0.1' (110) In mysql-domains.cf I'm using: Hosts 127.0.0.1 I can connect to MySQL with this: mysql -u postfixuser -p But I can't connect this way: mysql -u postfixuser -h 127.0.0.1 -p maildbname Also when I run netstat -l it comes back with: tcp 0 0 localhost:mysql *:* LISTEN I've tried changing my hosts to: Hosts localhost But then I just get a socket error: postfix/cleanup[4870]: warning: connect to mysql server localhost: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock' I also have this set up in the MySQL config file: bind-address = 127.0.0.1 I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but I am pretty new to all this. Thanks! Andy

    Read the article

  • Postfix : error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql

    - by flavio.troja
    I've a problem w/ postfix problem: # tail -f /var/log/mail.err Aug 20 17:57:50 myserver postfix/smtpd[8243]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 17:57:50 myserver postfix/smtpd[8243]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 17:58:05 myserver postfix/smtpd[8244]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 17:58:05 myserver postfix/smtpd[8244]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:00:38 myserver postfix/smtpd[8277]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:00:38 myserver postfix/smtpd[8277]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:03:32 myserver postfix/smtpd[8320]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:03:32 myserver postfix/smtpd[8320]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:03:33 myserver postfix/trivial-rewrite[8322]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:03:33 myserver postfix/trivial-rewrite[8322]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql idea?

    Read the article

  • How to evaluate a user against optimal performance?

    - by Alex K
    I have trouble coming up with a system of assigning a rating to player's performance. Well, technically there is is a trivial rating system, but I don't like it because it would mean assigning negative scores, which I think most players will be discouraged by. The problem is that I only know the ideal number of actions to get the desired result. The worst case is infinite number of actions, so there is no obvious scale. The trivial way I referred to above is to take score = (#optimal-moves - #players-moves), with ideal score being zero. However, psychologically people like big numbers. No one wants to win by getting a mark of 0. I wonder if there is a system that someone else has come up with before to solve this problem? Essentially I wish to score the players based on: How close they've come to the ideal solution. Different challenges will have different optimal number of actions, so the scoring system needs to take that into account, e.g. Challenge 1 - max 10 points, Challenge 2 - max 20 points. I don't mind giving the players negative scores if they've performed exceptionally badly, I just don't want all scores to be <=0

    Read the article

  • Example of persisting an inheritance relationship using ORM

    - by Schemer
    I have some experience with OOP and RDBs, but very little exposure to web programming. I am trying to understand what non-trivial types of problems are solved by ORM. Of course, I am familiar with the need for data persistence, but I have never encountered a need for persisting relationships between objects, a situation which is indicated in many online articles about ORM. I am not asking about the process of persisting a POJO to a database and restoring it later. Nor am I asking about why ORM frameworks are useful -- or a pain in the butt -- for doing so. I am particularly interested in how the need arises to persist and restore relationships between objects. In various documentation, I have seen many examples of persisting POJOs to a database, but the examples have all been for only very simple objects that are essentially nothing more than records anyway: a constructor, some private fields, and getter/setter methods. The motivation for persisting such an "object-record" seems obvious and trivial. This example: Hibernate ORM Tutorial offers such an example, but goes on to discuss mismatch issues of granularity, inheritance, identity, associations, and navigation that are not motivated by the example. If someone could offer a toy example of an instance where, say, the need arises to persist an inheritance relationship, I would be grateful. This might be blindingly obvious for anyone who has already encountered this situation but I have not and a great deal of searching and reading have not turned up any examples.

    Read the article

  • Authorization design-pattern / practice?

    - by Lawtonfogle
    On one end, you have users. On the other end, you have activities. I was wondering if there is a best practice to relate the two. The simplest way I can think of is to have every activity have a role, and assign every user every role they need. The problem is that this gets really messy in practice as soon as you go beyond a trivial system. A way I recently designed was to have users who have roles, and roles have privileges, and activities require some combinations of privileges. For the trivial case, this is more complex, but I think it will scale better. But after I implemented it, I felt like it was overkill for the system I had. Another option would be to have users, who have roles, and activities require you to have a certain role to perform with many activities sharing roles. A more complex variant of this would given activities many possible roles, which you only needed one of. And an even more complex variant would be to allow logical statements of role ownership to use an activity (i.e. Must have A and (B exclusive or C) and must not have D). I could continue to list more, but I think this already gives a picture. And many of these have trade offs. But in software design, there are oftentimes solutions, while perhaps not perfect in every possible case, are clearly top of the pack to an extent it isn't even considered opinion based (i.e. how to store passwords, plain text is worse, hashing better, hashing and salt even better, despite the increased complexity of each level) (i.e. 2, Smart UI designs for applications are bad, even if it is subjective as to what the best design is). So, is there a best practice for authorization design that is not purely opinion based/subjective?

    Read the article

  • How does datomic handle "corrections"?

    - by blueberryfields
    tl;dr Rich Hickey describes datomic as a system which implicitly deals with timestamps associated with data storage from my experience, data is often imperfectly stored in systems, and on many occasions needs to retroactively be corrected (ie, often the question of "was a True on Tuesday at 12:00pm?" will have an incorrect answer stored in the database) This seems like a spot where the abstractions behind datomic might break - do they? If they don't, how does the system handle such corrections? Rich Hickey, in several of his talks, justifies the creation of datomic, and explains its benefits. His work, if I understand correctly, is motivated by core the insight that humans, when speaking about data and facts, implicitly associate some of the related context into their work(a date-time). By pushing the work required to manage the implicit date-time component of context into the database, he's created a system which is both much easier to understand, and much easier to program. This turns out to be relevant to most database programmers in practice - his work saves everyone a lot of time managing complex, hard to produce/debug/fix, time queries. However, especially in large databases, data is often damaged/incorrect (maybe it was not input correctly, maybe it eroded over time, etc...). While most database updates are insertions of new facts, and should indeed be treated that way, a non-trivial subset of the work required to manage time-queries has to do with retroactive updates. I have yet to see any documentation which explains how such corrections, or retroactive updates, are handled by datomic; from my experience, they are a non-trivial (and incredibly difficult to deal with) subset of time-related data manipulation that database programmers are faced with. Does datomic gracefully handle such updates? If so, how?

    Read the article

  • Do you write unit tests for all the time in TDD?

    - by mcaaltuntas
    I have been designing and developing code with TDD style for a long time. What disturbs me about TDD is writing tests for code that does not contain any business logic or interesting behaviour. I know TDD is a design activity more than testing but sometimes I feel it's useless to write tests in these scenarios. For example I have a simple scenario like "When user clicks check button, it should check file's validity". For this scenario I usually start writing tests for presenter/controller class like the one below. @Test public void when_user_clicks_check_it_should_check_selected_file_validity(){ MediaService service =mock(MediaService); View view =mock(View); when(view.getSelectedFile).thenReturns("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); MediaController controller =new MediaController(service,view); controller.check(); verify(service).check("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); } As you can see there is no design decision or interesting code to verify behaviour. I am testing values from view passed to MediaService. I usually write but don't like these kind of tests. What do yo do about these situations ? Do you write tests for all the time ? UPDATE : I have changed the test name and code after complaints. Some users said that you should write tests for the trivial cases like this so in the future someone might add interesting behaviour. But what about “Code for today, design for tomorrow.” ? If someone, including myself, adds more interesting code in the future the test can be created for it then. Why should I do it now for the trivial cases ?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid "DO YOU HAZ TEH CODEZ" situations?

    - by volothamp
    I have a strange situation at work, where a colleague of mine often asks me and other co-workers for working code. I would like to help him, but this constant request of trivial snippets interrupts my thoughts and sometimes makes it hard to concentrate. Plus, I have the impression (...) that this requests are generated by lack of competence, more than by laziness. In fact, he often asks things pretending to know the answer, since when I solve the problem he usually says things like "Sure", "Yes, that's what I thought", giving me the impression that my answer isn't worth it. How can I solve this embarrassing situation? Should I show more explicitly in front of other colleagues his lack of knowledge (by saying things like: "do it yourself if you can, please") or continue giving him what he wants? I think that he should aggregate all his answers in one, so that I can give him a portion of my time and he can work all by himself on his things. There is no hierarchy in the team, I must say we both have a similar seniority of five years, more or less. For the same reason I believe I cannot report to management, since trivial questions are often ignored. I discussed with other two members and they agree with me: in fact he often ask things cycling through colleagues.

    Read the article

  • What actions to take when people leave the team?

    - by finrod
    Recently one of our key engineers resigned. This engineer has co-authored a major component of our application. We are not hitting Truck number yet though, but we're getting close :) Before the guy waltzes off, we want to take actions necessary to recover from this loss as smoothly as possible and eventually 'grow' the rest of the team to competently cover the parts he authored. More about the context: the domain the component covers and the code are no rocket science but still a lot of non-trivial stuff. Some team members can already cover a lot of this but those have a lot on their plates and we want to make sure every. (as I see it): Improve tests and test coverage - especially for the non-trivial stuff, Update high level documents, Document any 'funny stuff' the code does (we had to do some heavy duct-taping), Add / update code documentation - have everything with 'public' visibility documented. Finally the questions: What do you think are the actions to take in this situation? What have you done in such situations? What did or did not work well for you?

    Read the article

  • Service Catalogs for Database as a Service

    - by B R Clouse
    At the end of last month, I had the opportunity to present a speaking session at Oracle OpenWorld: Database as a Service: Creating a Database Cloud Service Catalog.  The session was well-attended which would have surprised me several months ago when I started researching this topic.  At that time, I thought of service catalogs as something trivial which could be explained in a few simple slides.  But while looking at all the different options and approaches available, I came to learn that designing a succinct and effective catalog is not a trivial task, and mistakes can lead to confusion and unintended side effects.  And when the room filled up, my new point of view was confirmed. In case you missed the session, or were able to attend but would like more details, I've posted a white paper that covers the topics from the session, and more.  We start with an overview of the components of a service catalog: And then look at several customer case studies of service catalogs for DBaaS.  Synthesizing those examples, we summarize the main options for defining the service categories and their levels.  We end with a template for defining Bronze | Silver | Gold service tiers for Oracle Database Services. The paper is now available here - watch for updates as we work to expand some sections and incorporate readers' feedback (hint - that includes your feedback). Visit our OTN page for additional Database Cloud collateral.

    Read the article

  • A way of doing real-world test-driven development (and some thoughts about it)

    - by Thomas Weller
    Lately, I exchanged some arguments with Derick Bailey about some details of the red-green-refactor cycle of the Test-driven development process. In short, the issue revolved around the fact that it’s not enough to have a test red or green, but it’s also important to have it red or green for the right reasons. While for me, it’s sufficient to initially have a NotImplementedException in place, Derick argues that this is not totally correct (see these two posts: Red/Green/Refactor, For The Right Reasons and Red For The Right Reason: Fail By Assertion, Not By Anything Else). And he’s right. But on the other hand, I had no idea how his insights could have any practical consequence for my own individual interpretation of the red-green-refactor cycle (which is not really red-green-refactor, at least not in its pure sense, see the rest of this article). This made me think deeply for some days now. In the end I found out that the ‘right reason’ changes in my understanding depending on what development phase I’m in. To make this clear (at least I hope it becomes clear…) I started to describe my way of working in some detail, and then something strange happened: The scope of the article slightly shifted from focusing ‘only’ on the ‘right reason’ issue to something more general, which you might describe as something like  'Doing real-world TDD in .NET , with massive use of third-party add-ins’. This is because I feel that there is a more general statement about Test-driven development to make:  It’s high time to speak about the ‘How’ of TDD, not always only the ‘Why’. Much has been said about this, and me myself also contributed to that (see here: TDD is not about testing, it's about how we develop software). But always justifying what you do is very unsatisfying in the long run, it is inherently defensive, and it costs time and effort that could be used for better and more important things. And frankly: I’m somewhat sick and tired of repeating time and again that the test-driven way of software development is highly preferable for many reasons - I don’t want to spent my time exclusively on stating the obvious… So, again, let’s say it clearly: TDD is programming, and programming is TDD. Other ways of programming (code-first, sometimes called cowboy-coding) are exceptional and need justification. – I know that there are many people out there who will disagree with this radical statement, and I also know that it’s not a description of the real world but more of a mission statement or something. But nevertheless I’m absolutely sure that in some years this statement will be nothing but a platitude. Side note: Some parts of this post read as if I were paid by Jetbrains (the manufacturer of the ReSharper add-in – R#), but I swear I’m not. Rather I think that Visual Studio is just not production-complete without it, and I wouldn’t even consider to do professional work without having this add-in installed... The three parts of a software component Before I go into some details, I first should describe my understanding of what belongs to a software component (assembly, type, or method) during the production process (i.e. the coding phase). Roughly, I come up with the three parts shown below:   First, we need to have some initial sort of requirement. This can be a multi-page formal document, a vague idea in some programmer’s brain of what might be needed, or anything in between. In either way, there has to be some sort of requirement, be it explicit or not. – At the C# micro-level, the best way that I found to formulate that is to define interfaces for just about everything, even for internal classes, and to provide them with exhaustive xml comments. The next step then is to re-formulate these requirements in an executable form. This is specific to the respective programming language. - For C#/.NET, the Gallio framework (which includes MbUnit) in conjunction with the ReSharper add-in for Visual Studio is my toolset of choice. The third part then finally is the production code itself. It’s development is entirely driven by the requirements and their executable formulation. This is the delivery, the two other parts are ‘only’ there to make its production possible, to give it a decent quality and reliability, and to significantly reduce related costs down the maintenance timeline. So while the first two parts are not really relevant for the customer, they are very important for the developer. The customer (or in Scrum terms: the Product Owner) is not interested at all in how  the product is developed, he is only interested in the fact that it is developed as cost-effective as possible, and that it meets his functional and non-functional requirements. The rest is solely a matter of the developer’s craftsmanship, and this is what I want to talk about during the remainder of this article… An example To demonstrate my way of doing real-world TDD, I decided to show the development of a (very) simple Calculator component. The example is deliberately trivial and silly, as examples always are. I am totally aware of the fact that real life is never that simple, but I only want to show some development principles here… The requirement As already said above, I start with writing down some words on the initial requirement, and I normally use interfaces for that, even for internal classes - the typical question “intf or not” doesn’t even come to mind. I need them for my usual workflow and using them automatically produces high componentized and testable code anyway. To think about their usage in every single situation would slow down the production process unnecessarily. So this is what I begin with: namespace Calculator {     /// <summary>     /// Defines a very simple calculator component for demo purposes.     /// </summary>     public interface ICalculator     {         /// <summary>         /// Gets the result of the last successful operation.         /// </summary>         /// <value>The last result.</value>         /// <remarks>         /// Will be <see langword="null" /> before the first successful operation.         /// </remarks>         double? LastResult { get; }       } // interface ICalculator   } // namespace Calculator So, I’m not beginning with a test, but with a sort of code declaration - and still I insist on being 100% test-driven. There are three important things here: Starting this way gives me a method signature, which allows to use IntelliSense and AutoCompletion and thus eliminates the danger of typos - one of the most regular, annoying, time-consuming, and therefore expensive sources of error in the development process. In my understanding, the interface definition as a whole is more of a readable requirement document and technical documentation than anything else. So this is at least as much about documentation than about coding. The documentation must completely describe the behavior of the documented element. I normally use an IoC container or some sort of self-written provider-like model in my architecture. In either case, I need my components defined via service interfaces anyway. - I will use the LinFu IoC framework here, for no other reason as that is is very simple to use. The ‘Red’ (pt. 1)   First I create a folder for the project’s third-party libraries and put the LinFu.Core dll there. Then I set up a test project (via a Gallio project template), and add references to the Calculator project and the LinFu dll. Finally I’m ready to write the first test, which will look like the following: namespace Calculator.Test {     [TestFixture]     public class CalculatorTest     {         private readonly ServiceContainer container = new ServiceContainer();           [Test]         public void CalculatorLastResultIsInitiallyNull()         {             ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();               Assert.IsNull(calculator.LastResult);         }       } // class CalculatorTest   } // namespace Calculator.Test       This is basically the executable formulation of what the interface definition states (part of). Side note: There’s one principle of TDD that is just plain wrong in my eyes: I’m talking about the Red is 'does not compile' thing. How could a compiler error ever be interpreted as a valid test outcome? I never understood that, it just makes no sense to me. (Or, in Derick’s terms: this reason is as wrong as a reason ever could be…) A compiler error tells me: Your code is incorrect, but nothing more.  Instead, the ‘Red’ part of the red-green-refactor cycle has a clearly defined meaning to me: It means that the test works as intended and fails only if its assumptions are not met for some reason. Back to our Calculator. When I execute the above test with R#, the Gallio plugin will give me this output: So this tells me that the test is red for the wrong reason: There’s no implementation that the IoC-container could load, of course. So let’s fix that. With R#, this is very easy: First, create an ICalculator - derived type:        Next, implement the interface members: And finally, move the new class to its own file: So far my ‘work’ was six mouse clicks long, the only thing that’s left to do manually here, is to add the Ioc-specific wiring-declaration and also to make the respective class non-public, which I regularly do to force my components to communicate exclusively via interfaces: This is what my Calculator class looks like as of now: using System; using LinFu.IoC.Configuration;   namespace Calculator {     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         public double? LastResult         {             get             {                 throw new NotImplementedException();             }         }     } } Back to the test fixture, we have to put our IoC container to work: [TestFixture] public class CalculatorTest {     #region Fields       private readonly ServiceContainer container = new ServiceContainer();       #endregion // Fields       #region Setup/TearDown       [FixtureSetUp]     public void FixtureSetUp()     {        container.LoadFrom(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory, "Calculator.dll");     }       ... Because I have a R# live template defined for the setup/teardown method skeleton as well, the only manual coding here again is the IoC-specific stuff: two lines, not more… The ‘Red’ (pt. 2) Now, the execution of the above test gives the following result: This time, the test outcome tells me that the method under test is called. And this is the point, where Derick and I seem to have somewhat different views on the subject: Of course, the test still is worthless regarding the red/green outcome (or: it’s still red for the wrong reasons, in that it gives a false negative). But as far as I am concerned, I’m not really interested in the test outcome at this point of the red-green-refactor cycle. Rather, I only want to assert that my test actually calls the right method. If that’s the case, I will happily go on to the ‘Green’ part… The ‘Green’ Making the test green is quite trivial. Just make LastResult an automatic property:     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         public double? LastResult { get; private set; }     }         One more round… Now on to something slightly more demanding (cough…). Let’s state that our Calculator exposes an Add() method:         ...   /// <summary>         /// Adds the specified operands.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="operand1">The operand1.</param>         /// <param name="operand2">The operand2.</param>         /// <returns>The result of the additon.</returns>         /// <exception cref="ArgumentException">         /// Argument <paramref name="operand1"/> is &lt; 0.<br/>         /// -- or --<br/>         /// Argument <paramref name="operand2"/> is &lt; 0.         /// </exception>         double Add(double operand1, double operand2);       } // interface ICalculator A remark: I sometimes hear the complaint that xml comment stuff like the above is hard to read. That’s certainly true, but irrelevant to me, because I read xml code comments with the CR_Documentor tool window. And using that, it looks like this:   Apart from that, I’m heavily using xml code comments (see e.g. here for a detailed guide) because there is the possibility of automating help generation with nightly CI builds (using MS Sandcastle and the Sandcastle Help File Builder), and then publishing the results to some intranet location.  This way, a team always has first class, up-to-date technical documentation at hand about the current codebase. (And, also very important for speeding up things and avoiding typos: You have IntelliSense/AutoCompletion and R# support, and the comments are subject to compiler checking…).     Back to our Calculator again: Two more R# – clicks implement the Add() skeleton:         ...           public double Add(double operand1, double operand2)         {             throw new NotImplementedException();         }       } // class Calculator As we have stated in the interface definition (which actually serves as our requirement document!), the operands are not allowed to be negative. So let’s start implementing that. Here’s the test: [Test] [Row(-0.5, 2)] public void AddThrowsOnNegativeOperands(double operand1, double operand2) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => calculator.Add(operand1, operand2)); } As you can see, I’m using a data-driven unit test method here, mainly for these two reasons: Because I know that I will have to do the same test for the second operand in a few seconds, I save myself from implementing another test method for this purpose. Rather, I only will have to add another Row attribute to the existing one. From the test report below, you can see that the argument values are explicitly printed out. This can be a valuable documentation feature even when everything is green: One can quickly review what values were tested exactly - the complete Gallio HTML-report (as it will be produced by the Continuous Integration runs) shows these values in a quite clear format (see below for an example). Back to our Calculator development again, this is what the test result tells us at the moment: So we’re red again, because there is not yet an implementation… Next we go on and implement the necessary parameter verification to become green again, and then we do the same thing for the second operand. To make a long story short, here’s the test and the method implementation at the end of the second cycle: // in CalculatorTest:   [Test] [Row(-0.5, 2)] [Row(295, -123)] public void AddThrowsOnNegativeOperands(double operand1, double operand2) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => calculator.Add(operand1, operand2)); }   // in Calculator: public double Add(double operand1, double operand2) {     if (operand1 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");     }     if (operand2 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");     }     throw new NotImplementedException(); } So far, we have sheltered our method from unwanted input, and now we can safely operate on the parameters without further caring about their validity (this is my interpretation of the Fail Fast principle, which is regarded here in more detail). Now we can think about the method’s successful outcomes. First let’s write another test for that: [Test] [Row(1, 1, 2)] public void TestAdd(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Add(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); } Again, I’m regularly using row based test methods for these kinds of unit tests. The above shown pattern proved to be extremely helpful for my development work, I call it the Defined-Input/Expected-Output test idiom: You define your input arguments together with the expected method result. There are two major benefits from that way of testing: In the course of refining a method, it’s very likely to come up with additional test cases. In our case, we might add tests for some edge cases like ‘one of the operands is zero’ or ‘the sum of the two operands causes an overflow’, or maybe there’s an external test protocol that has to be fulfilled (e.g. an ISO norm for medical software), and this results in the need of testing against additional values. In all these scenarios we only have to add another Row attribute to the test. Remember that the argument values are written to the test report, so as a side-effect this produces valuable documentation. (This can become especially important if the fulfillment of some sort of external requirements has to be proven). So your test method might look something like that in the end: [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 2)] [Row(0, 999999999, 999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, double.MaxValue)] public void TestAdd(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Add(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); } And this will produce the following HTML report (with Gallio):   Not bad for the amount of work we invested in it, huh? - There might be scenarios where reports like that can be useful for demonstration purposes during a Scrum sprint review… The last requirement to fulfill is that the LastResult property is expected to store the result of the last operation. I don’t show this here, it’s trivial enough and brings nothing new… And finally: Refactor (for the right reasons) To demonstrate my way of going through the refactoring portion of the red-green-refactor cycle, I added another method to our Calculator component, namely Subtract(). Here’s the code (tests and production): // CalculatorTest.cs:   [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 0)] [Row(0, 999999999, -999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, -double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, -double.MaxValue)] public void TestSubtract(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Subtract(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); }   [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 0)] [Row(0, 999999999, -999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, -double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, -double.MaxValue)] public void TestSubtractGivesExpectedLastResult(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       calculator.Subtract(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, calculator.LastResult); }   ...   // ICalculator.cs: /// <summary> /// Subtracts the specified operands. /// </summary> /// <param name="operand1">The operand1.</param> /// <param name="operand2">The operand2.</param> /// <returns>The result of the subtraction.</returns> /// <exception cref="ArgumentException"> /// Argument <paramref name="operand1"/> is &lt; 0.<br/> /// -- or --<br/> /// Argument <paramref name="operand2"/> is &lt; 0. /// </exception> double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2);   ...   // Calculator.cs:   public double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2) {     if (operand1 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");     }       if (operand2 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");     }       return (this.LastResult = operand1 - operand2).Value; }   Obviously, the argument validation stuff that was produced during the red-green part of our cycle duplicates the code from the previous Add() method. So, to avoid code duplication and minimize the number of code lines of the production code, we do an Extract Method refactoring. One more time, this is only a matter of a few mouse clicks (and giving the new method a name) with R#: Having done that, our production code finally looks like that: using System; using LinFu.IoC.Configuration;   namespace Calculator {     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         #region ICalculator           public double? LastResult { get; private set; }           public double Add(double operand1, double operand2)         {             ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(operand1, operand2);               return (this.LastResult = operand1 + operand2).Value;         }           public double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2)         {             ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(operand1, operand2);               return (this.LastResult = operand1 - operand2).Value;         }           #endregion // ICalculator           #region Implementation (Helper)           private static void ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(double operand1, double operand2)         {             if (operand1 < 0.0)             {                 throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");             }               if (operand2 < 0.0)             {                 throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");             }         }           #endregion // Implementation (Helper)       } // class Calculator   } // namespace Calculator But is the above worth the effort at all? It’s obviously trivial and not very impressive. All our tests were green (for the right reasons), and refactoring the code did not change anything. It’s not immediately clear how this refactoring work adds value to the project. Derick puts it like this: STOP! Hold on a second… before you go any further and before you even think about refactoring what you just wrote to make your test pass, you need to understand something: if your done with your requirements after making the test green, you are not required to refactor the code. I know… I’m speaking heresy, here. Toss me to the wolves, I’ve gone over to the dark side! Seriously, though… if your test is passing for the right reasons, and you do not need to write any test or any more code for you class at this point, what value does refactoring add? Derick immediately answers his own question: So why should you follow the refactor portion of red/green/refactor? When you have added code that makes the system less readable, less understandable, less expressive of the domain or concern’s intentions, less architecturally sound, less DRY, etc, then you should refactor it. I couldn’t state it more precise. From my personal perspective, I’d add the following: You have to keep in mind that real-world software systems are usually quite large and there are dozens or even hundreds of occasions where micro-refactorings like the above can be applied. It’s the sum of them all that counts. And to have a good overall quality of the system (e.g. in terms of the Code Duplication Percentage metric) you have to be pedantic on the individual, seemingly trivial cases. My job regularly requires the reading and understanding of ‘foreign’ code. So code quality/readability really makes a HUGE difference for me – sometimes it can be even the difference between project success and failure… Conclusions The above described development process emerged over the years, and there were mainly two things that guided its evolution (you might call it eternal principles, personal beliefs, or anything in between): Test-driven development is the normal, natural way of writing software, code-first is exceptional. So ‘doing TDD or not’ is not a question. And good, stable code can only reliably be produced by doing TDD (yes, I know: many will strongly disagree here again, but I’ve never seen high-quality code – and high-quality code is code that stood the test of time and causes low maintenance costs – that was produced code-first…) It’s the production code that pays our bills in the end. (Though I have seen customers these days who demand an acceptance test battery as part of the final delivery. Things seem to go into the right direction…). The test code serves ‘only’ to make the production code work. But it’s the number of delivered features which solely counts at the end of the day - no matter how much test code you wrote or how good it is. With these two things in mind, I tried to optimize my coding process for coding speed – or, in business terms: productivity - without sacrificing the principles of TDD (more than I’d do either way…).  As a result, I consider a ratio of about 3-5/1 for test code vs. production code as normal and desirable. In other words: roughly 60-80% of my code is test code (This might sound heavy, but that is mainly due to the fact that software development standards only begin to evolve. The entire software development profession is very young, historically seen; only at the very beginning, and there are no viable standards yet. If you think about software development as a kind of casting process, where the test code is the mold and the resulting production code is the final product, then the above ratio sounds no longer extraordinary…) Although the above might look like very much unnecessary work at first sight, it’s not. With the aid of the mentioned add-ins, doing all the above is a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds (while writing this post took hours and days…). The most important thing is to have the right tools at hand. Slow developer machines or the lack of a tool or something like that - for ‘saving’ a few 100 bucks -  is just not acceptable and a very bad decision in business terms (though I quite some times have seen and heard that…). Production of high-quality products needs the usage of high-quality tools. This is a platitude that every craftsman knows… The here described round-trip will take me about five to ten minutes in my real-world development practice. I guess it’s about 30% more time compared to developing the ‘traditional’ (code-first) way. But the so manufactured ‘product’ is of much higher quality and massively reduces maintenance costs, which is by far the single biggest cost factor, as I showed in this previous post: It's the maintenance, stupid! (or: Something is rotten in developerland.). In the end, this is a highly cost-effective way of software development… But on the other hand, there clearly is a trade-off here: coding speed vs. code quality/later maintenance costs. The here described development method might be a perfect fit for the overwhelming majority of software projects, but there certainly are some scenarios where it’s not - e.g. if time-to-market is crucial for a software project. So this is a business decision in the end. It’s just that you have to know what you’re doing and what consequences this might have… Some last words First, I’d like to thank Derick Bailey again. His two aforementioned posts (which I strongly recommend for reading) inspired me to think deeply about my own personal way of doing TDD and to clarify my thoughts about it. I wouldn’t have done that without this inspiration. I really enjoy that kind of discussions… I agree with him in all respects. But I don’t know (yet?) how to bring his insights into the described production process without slowing things down. The above described method proved to be very “good enough” in my practical experience. But of course, I’m open to suggestions here… My rationale for now is: If the test is initially red during the red-green-refactor cycle, the ‘right reason’ is: it actually calls the right method, but this method is not yet operational. Later on, when the cycle is finished and the tests become part of the regular, automated Continuous Integration process, ‘red’ certainly must occur for the ‘right reason’: in this phase, ‘red’ MUST mean nothing but an unfulfilled assertion - Fail By Assertion, Not By Anything Else!

    Read the article

  • Getting the innermost .NET Exception

    - by Rick Strahl
    Here's a trivial but quite useful function that I frequently need in dynamic execution of code: Finding the innermost exception when an exception occurs, because for many operations (for example Reflection invocations or Web Service calls) the top level errors returned can be rather generic. A good example - common with errors in Reflection making a method invocation - is this generic error: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation In the debugger it looks like this: In this case this is an AJAX callback, which dynamically executes a method (ExecuteMethod code) which in turn calls into an Amazon Web Service using the old Amazon WSE101 Web service extensions for .NET. An error occurs in the Web Service call and the innermost exception holds the useful error information which in this case points at an invalid web.config key value related to the System.Net connection APIs. The "Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation" error is the Reflection APIs generic error message that gets fired when you execute a method dynamically and that method fails internally. The messages basically says: "Your code blew up in my face when I tried to run it!". Which of course is not very useful to tell you what actually happened. If you drill down the InnerExceptions eventually you'll get a more detailed exception that points at the original error and code that caused the exception. In the code above the actually useful exception is two innerExceptions down. In most (but not all) cases when inner exceptions are returned, it's the innermost exception that has the information that is really useful. It's of course a fairly trivial task to do this in code, but I do it so frequently that I use a small helper method for this: /// <summary> /// Returns the innermost Exception for an object /// </summary> /// <param name="ex"></param> /// <returns></returns> public static Exception GetInnerMostException(Exception ex) { Exception currentEx = ex; while (currentEx.InnerException != null) { currentEx = currentEx.InnerException; } return currentEx; } This code just loops through all the inner exceptions (if any) and assigns them to a temporary variable until there are no more inner exceptions. The end result is that you get the innermost exception returned from the original exception. It's easy to use this code then in a try/catch handler like this (from the example above) to retrieve the more important innermost exception: object result = null; string stringResult = null; try { if (parameterList != null) // use the supplied parameter list result = helper.ExecuteMethod(methodToCall,target, parameterList.ToArray(), CallbackMethodParameterType.Json,ref attr); else // grab the info out of QueryString Values or POST buffer during parameter parsing // for optimization result = helper.ExecuteMethod(methodToCall, target, null, CallbackMethodParameterType.Json, ref attr); } catch (Exception ex) { Exception activeException = DebugUtils.GetInnerMostException(ex); WriteErrorResponse(activeException.Message, ( HttpContext.Current.IsDebuggingEnabled ? ex.StackTrace : null ) ); return; } Another function that is useful to me from time to time is one that returns all inner exceptions and the original exception as an array: /// <summary> /// Returns an array of the entire exception list in reverse order /// (innermost to outermost exception) /// </summary> /// <param name="ex">The original exception to work off</param> /// <returns>Array of Exceptions from innermost to outermost</returns> public static Exception[] GetInnerExceptions(Exception ex) {     List<Exception> exceptions = new List<Exception>();     exceptions.Add(ex);       Exception currentEx = ex;     while (currentEx.InnerException != null)     {         exceptions.Add(ex);     }       // Reverse the order to the innermost is first     exceptions.Reverse();       return exceptions.ToArray(); } This function loops through all the InnerExceptions and returns them and then reverses the order of the array returning the innermost exception first. This can be useful in certain error scenarios where exceptions stack and you need to display information from more than one of the exceptions in order to create a useful error message. This is rare but certain database exceptions bury their exception info in mutliple inner exceptions and it's easier to parse through them in an array then to manually walk the exception stack. It's also useful if you need to log errors and want to see the all of the error detail from all exceptions. None of this is rocket science, but it's useful to have some helpers that make retrieval of the critical exception info trivial. Resources DebugUtils.cs utility class in the West Wind Web Toolkit© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2011Posted in CSharp  .NET  

    Read the article

  • Is there a calculator with LaTeX-syntax?

    - by Jørgen Fogh
    When I write math in LaTeX I often need to perform simple arithmetic on numbers in my LaTeX source, like 515.1544 + 454 = ???. I usually copy-paste the LaTeX code into Google to get the result, but I still have to manually change the syntax, e.g. \frac{154,7}{25} - (289 - \frac{1337}{42}) must be changed to 154,7/25 - (289 - 1337/42) It seems trivial to write a program to do this for the most commonly used operations. Is there a calculator which understand this syntax? EDIT: I know that doing this perfectly is impossible (because of the halting problem). Doing it for the simple cases I need is trivial. \frac, \cdot, \sqrt and a few other tags would do the trick. The program could just return an error for cases it does not understand.

    Read the article

  • Why does my 64-bit IIS app pool show 3 gigabytes more virtual memory than private memory?

    - by Brett
    I have an ASP.Net application that I am running on 64-bit IIS 6 on Windows XP x64. When I open performance counters after one page hit of a trivial page, I see a Private Bytes of about 88 megs, but a Virtual Bytes of about 3 Gigs. When I try the same thing with a VERY trivial ASP.Net app, I get the same result. We see something similar on Windows Server 2003 in production -- there it is an issue because we recycle when the virtual memory consumed outgrows a limit. Before we make any changes to our recycling settings, we'd like to answer the following questions: Why does the app pool grab such a large hunk of virtual memory? Is the amount of virtual memory headroom the app requests configurable? Thanks! Brett

    Read the article

  • formula for best approximation for center of 2D rotation with small angles

    - by RocketSurgeon
    This is not a homework. I am asking to see if problem is classical (trivial) or non-trivial. It looks simple on a surface, and I hope it is truly a simple problem. Have N points (N = 2) with coordinates Xn, Yn on a surface of 2D solid body. Solid body has some small rotation (below Pi/180) combined with small shifts (below 1% of distance between any 2 points of N). Possibly some small deformation too (<<0.001%) Same N points have new coordinates named XXn, YYn Calculate with best approximation the location of center of rotation as point C with coordinates XXX, YYY. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Looking for the most painless non-RDBMS storage method in C#

    - by NateD
    I'm writing a simple program that will run entirely client-side. (Desktop programming? do people still do that?) and I need a simple way to store trivial amounts of data in a structured form, but really don't see any need to use a database system. What's more, some of the data needs to be serialized and passed around to different users, like some kind of "file" or perhaps a "document". (has anyone ever done that before?) So, I've looked at using .Net DataSets, LINQ, direct XML manipulation, and they all seem like they would get the job done, but I would like to know before I dive into any of them if there's one method that is generally regarded as easier to code than others. As I said, the amount of data to be stored is trivial, even if one hundred people all used the same machine we're not talking about more than 10 MB, so performance is not as large a concern as is codeability/maintainability. Thank you all in advance!

    Read the article

  • Allow single-line accessor (getter/setter) syntax with Checkstyle

    - by Sam3
    We'd like to have trivial Java property accessors using a single line syntax, so they take up much much less space, and are more readable (in terms of 'seeing' the set of accessors quickly). But we do want to enforce multi-line method syntax for everything else in our checkstyle configuration. But I'm not sure how to make this exception for accessors in Checkstyle config and suspect it may not be possible. So we'd like our accessors to look something like this: public String getFoo() { return foo; } public void setFoo(String foo) { this.foo = foo; } [In fact we'd rather not have trivial accessors at all and instead just annotate the private member variables with @Property or something and have the accessors generated for us, since writing endless get and set code delivers no real benefit, but that's a general Java frustration and an aside as far as this question goes.]

    Read the article

  • How do I limit the permissions of a C# program to read only on an SQLServer Database?

    - by gav
    Hi Guys, I have written some C# which connects to a live production database. I want to give my application read only access to the DB but am unsure how to achieve this. Is there any trivial way to get this done by amending the connection string? My understanding is that the application will logon with the credentials of the person running the application and hence may or may not have write access to the db based on that fact. Can I statically limit the permissions of the application so that if someone changes the program to do something devastating at a later date any manipulation will fail? Apologies for how trivial the question may be but it's my first venture into the world of MS programming. Thanks, Gav

    Read the article

  • RewriteCond and Full QUERY_STRING

    - by Tim
    I'm having hard time getting my head wrapped around this one - and it should be trivial. I would like to redirect one URL with a specific query string to another URL. I want to send any requests that contain the query string in the URL http://mysite.com/index.php?option=com_user&view=register To: http://mysite.com/index.php?option=com_regme&view=form&regme=4&random=0&Itemid=6 If they add anything to the end of the first URL, it should still go to the second URL so that they cannot bypass the redirection. Nothing in the first query string needs to be preserved and passed to the second - all I want to do is change the URL completely. I'm tearing my hair out trying to get this to work yet it should be trivial. Suggestions? Thanks, -Tim

    Read the article

  • is there a way to get a "subtree" from hclust ? (R)

    - by Tal Galili
    Hello all, I wish to create a "subtree" from an hclust object. For example, let's say I have the following object: a <- list() # initialize empty object a$merge <- matrix(c(-1, -2, -3, -4, 1, 2, -5,-6, 3,4), nc=2, byrow=TRUE ) a$height <- c(1, 1.5, 3,4,4.5) # define merge heights a$order <- 1:6 # order of leaves(trivial if hand-entered) a$labels <- 1:6# LETTERS[1:4] # labels of leaves class(a) <- "hclust" # make it an hclust object plot(a) # look at the result Now I wish the extract from it the following subtree: a <- list() # initialize empty object a$merge <- matrix(c(-1, -2, -3, -4, 1, 2 ), nc=2, byrow=TRUE ) a$height <- c(1, 1.5, 3) # define merge heights a$order <- 1:4 # order of leaves(trivial if hand-entered) a$labels <- 1:4# LETTERS[1:4] # labels of leaves class(a) <- "hclust" # make it an hclust object plot(a) # look at the result How could I access it? (I know that cutree could get me the objects of the sub tree, but not create an actual hclust object) Thanks for any help, Tal

    Read the article

  • VWD Express won't let me add one table!

    - by user530809
    Sorry if this question is too trivial but I really haven't found any related questions and I am shaking too much to think logically. I spent like few hours waiting for SQL Server to finally install (you know, it's Microsoft) and now when I want to add new table to database it says "this feature is not supported by Microsoft Visual Web Developer Express". How could this happen? I mean, what's the point of even letting me use this if I can't even add one table to database, and I won't even know about it until I actually need to do it? Are they really serious or is it just some mistake? Is there any way to get around this problem? I need to create just one simple project with one small table in database but it won't let me, but I can't believe they could actually have nerves to make express edition without such a trivial function, so maybe I just made something wrong and there's actually some way to add this table? Sorry for being so whiny but I'm just fed up with this environment.

    Read the article

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