Search Results

Search found 22986 results on 920 pages for 'allocation unit size'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 32/920 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

  • How can I reduce the amount of time it takes to fully regression test an application ready for release?

    - by DrLazer
    An app I work on is being developed with a modified version of scrum. If you are not familiar with scrum, it's just an alternative approach to a more traditional watefall model, where a series of features are worked on for a set amount of time known as a sprint. The app is written in C# and makes use of WPF. We use Visual C# 2010 Express edition as an IDE. If we work on a sprint and add in a few new features, but do not plan to release until a further sprint is complete, then regression testing is not an issue as such. We just test the new features and give the app a good once over. However, if a release is planned that our customers can download - a full regression test is factored in. In the past this wasn't a big deal, it took 3 or 4 days and the devs simply fix up any bugs found in the regression phase, but now, as the app is getting larger and larger and incorporating more and more features, the regression is spanning out for weeks. I am interested in any methods that people know of or use that can decrease this time. At the moment the only ideas I have are to either start writing Unit Tests, which I have never fully tried out in a commercial environment, or to research the possibilty of any UI Automation API's or tools that would allow me to write a program to perform a series of batch tests. I know literally nothing about the possibilities of UI automation so any information would be valuable. I don't know that much about Unit testing either, how complicated can the tests be? Is it possible to get Unit tests to use the UI? Are there any other methods I should consider? Thanks for reading, and for any advice in advance. Edit: Thanks for the information. Does anybody know of any alternatives to what has been mentioned so far (NUnit, RhinoMocks and CodedUI)?

    Read the article

  • Should we test all our methods?

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

    Read the article

  • How can I reduce the amount of time it takes to fully regression test an application ready for release?

    - by DrLazer
    An app I work on is being developed with a modified version of scrum. If you are not familiar with scrum, it's just an alternative approach to a more traditional watefall model, where a series of features are worked on for a set amount of time known as a sprint. The app is written in C# and makes use of WPF. We use Visual C# 2010 Express edition as an IDE. If we work on a sprint and add in a few new features, but do not plan to release until a further sprint is complete, then regression testing is not an issue as such. We just test the new features and give the app a good once over. However, if a release is planned that our customers can download - a full regression test is factored in. In the past this wasn't a big deal, it took 3 or 4 days and the devs simply fix up any bugs found in the regression phase, but now, as the app is getting larger and larger and incorporating more and more features, the regression is spanning out for weeks. I am interested in any methods that people know of or use that can decrease this time. At the moment the only ideas I have are to either start writing Unit Tests, which I have never fully tried out in a commercial environment, or to research the possibilty of any UI Automation API's or tools that would allow me to write a program to perform a series of batch tests. I know literally nothing about the possibilities of UI automation so any information would be valuable. I don't know that much about Unit testing either, how complicated can the tests be? Is it possible to get Unit tests to use the UI? Are there any other methods I should consider? Thanks for reading, and for any advice in advance.

    Read the article

  • Is there a better way to organize my module tests that avoids an explosion of new source files?

    - by luser droog
    I've got a neat (so I thought) way of having each of my modules produce a unit-test executable if compiled with the -DTESTMODULE flag. This flag guards a main() function that can access all static data and functions in the module, without #including a C file. From the README: -- Modules -- The various modules were written and tested separately before being coupled together to achieve the necessary basic functionality. Each module retains its unit-test, its main() function, guarded by #ifdef TESTMODULE. `make test` will compile and execute all the unit tests, producing copious output, but importantly exitting with an appropriate success or failure code, so the `make test` command will fail if any of the tests fail. Module TOC __________ test obj src header structures CONSTANTS ---- --- --- --- -------------------- m m.o m.c m.h mfile mtab TABSZ s s.o s.c s.h stack STACKSEGSZ v v.o v.c v.h saverec_ f.o f.c f.h file ob ob.o ob.c ob.h object ar ar.o ar.c ar.h array st st.o st.c st.h string di di.o di.c di.h dichead dictionary nm nm.o nm.c nm.h name gc gc.o gc.c gc.h garbage collector itp itp.c itp.h context osunix.o osunix.c osunix.h unix-dependent functions It's compile by a tricky bit of makefile, m:m.c ob.h ob.o err.o $(CORE) itp.o $(OP) cc $(CFLAGS) -DTESTMODULE $(LDLIBS) -o $@ $< err.o ob.o s.o ar.o st.o v.o di.o gc.o nm.o itp.o $(OP) f.o where the module is compiled with its own C file plus every other object file except itself. But it's creating difficulties for the kindly programmer who offered to write the Autotools files for me. So the obvious way to make it "less weird" would be to bust-out all the main functions into separate source files. But, but ... Do I gotta?

    Read the article

  • What are the design principles that promote testable code? (designing testable code vs driving design through tests)

    - by bot
    Most of the projects that I work on consider development and unit testing in isolation which makes writing unit tests at a later instance a nightmare. My objective is to keep testing in mind during the high level and low level design phases itself. I want to know if there are any well defined design principles that promote testable code. One such principle that I have come to understand recently is Dependency Inversion through Dependency injection and Inversion of Control. I have read that there is something known as SOLID. I want to understand if following the SOLID principles indirectly results in code that is easily testable? If not, are there any well-defined design principles that promote testable code? I am aware that there is something known as Test Driven Development. Although, I am more interested in designing code with testing in mind during the design phase itself rather than driving design through tests. I hope this makes sense. One more question related to this topic is whether it's alright to re-factor an existing product/project and make changes to code and design for the purpose of being able to write a unit test case for each module?

    Read the article

  • How to mock Request.Files[] in MVC unit test class?

    - by kapil
    I want to test a controller method in MVC unit test. For my controller method to test, I require a Request.Files[] collection with length one. I want to mock Request.Files[] as I have used a file upload control on my view rendered by controller method. Can anyone please suggest how can I mock request.file collection in my unit test. thanks, kapil

    Read the article

  • GWT: Best practice for unit testing / mocking JSNI methods?

    - by Epaga
    I have a class which uses JSNI to retrieve JSON data stored in the host page: protected native JsArray<JsonModel> getModels() /*-{ return $wnd.jsonData; }-*/; This method is called, and the data is then translated and process in a different method. How should I unit test this class, since I'm not able to instantiate (or seemingly mock?) JsArray? What is the best way to unit test JSNI methods at all?

    Read the article

  • How to get Eclipse + PyDev + App Engine + Unit testing to work?

    - by PEZ
    I want to run my unit tests for a Python Google App Engine project using Run As = Python unit-test But when I try that all my Model tests bail with the error message: BadArgumentError: app must not be empty. Anyone got this to work? NB: The tests runs fine using Nose --with-gae. But I want the PyDev integration with hyperlinking of resources and such.

    Read the article

  • Can I ensure all tests contain an assertion in test/unit?

    - by Andrew Grimm
    With test/unit, and minitest, is it possible to fail any test that doesn't contain an assertion, or would monkey-patching be required (for example, checking if the assertion count increased after each test was executed)? Background: I shouldn't write unit tests without assertions - at a minimum, I should use assert_nothing_raised if I'm smoke testing to indicate that I'm smoke testing. Usually I write tests that fail first, but I'm writing some regression tests. Alternatively, I could supply an incorrect expected value to see if the test is comparing the expected and actual value.

    Read the article

  • How can I get "Copy to Output Directory" to work with Unit Tests?

    - by spoon16
    When I build a unit test project before the tests are executed the test output is copied to a TestResults folder and then the tests are executed. The issue I'm having is that not all the files in the Debug/bin directory are copied to the TestResults project. How can I get a file that is copied to the Debug/bin directory to also be copied to the TestResults folder? EDIT: Here is a link to a similar question on another site (no answer there though), http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/aspnet/29316967/files-and-unit-testing-wi.aspx

    Read the article

  • How to unit test private methods in BDD / TDD?

    - by robert_d
    I am trying to program according to Behavior Driven Development, which states that no line of code should be written without writing failing unit test first. My question is, how to use BDD with private methods? How can I unit test private methods? Is there better solution than: - making private methods public first and then making them private when I write public method that uses those private methods; or - in C# making all private methods internal and using InternalsVisibleTo attribute. Robert

    Read the article

  • What is a really simple explanation of unit testing?

    - by ensnare
    I've never done any unit testing before, and would like to learn what it is and how it can be useful in my Python code. I've read through a few Python unit testing tutorials online but they're all so complicated and assume an extended programming background. I'm using Python with Pylons to create a simple web app. Any simple examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to know if your Unit Test is "right-sized"?

    - by leeand00
    One thing that I've always noticed with my unit tests is that they get to be kind of verbose; seeing as they could also be not verbose enough, how do you get a sense of when your unit tests are the right size? I know of a good quote for this and it's: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to remove." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

    Read the article

  • C++ - Is it possible to implement memory leak testing in a unit test?

    - by sevaxx
    I'm trying to implement unit testing for my code and I'm having a hard time doing it. Ideally I would like to test some classes not only for good functionality but also for proper memory allocation/deallocation. I wonder if this check can be done using a unit testing framework. I am using Visual Assert btw. I would love to see some sample code , if possible !

    Read the article

  • How do I mock/fake/replace/stub a base class at unit-test time in C#?

    - by MatthewMartin
    UPDATE: I've changed the wording of the question. Previously it was a yes/no question about if a base class could be changed at runtime. I may be working on mission impossible here, but I seem to be getting close. I want to extend a ASP.NET control, and I want my code to be unit testable. Also, I'd like to be able to fake behaviors of a real Label (namely things like ID generation, etc), which a real Label can't do in an nUnit host. Here a working example that makes assertions on something that depends on a real base class and something that doesn't-- in a more realistic unit test, the test would depend on both --i.e. an ID existing and some custom behavior. Anyhow the code says it better than I can: public class LabelWrapper : Label //Runtime //public class LabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } //Ugh, now I have to test FakeLabelWrapper public class FakeLabelWrapper : FakeLabel //Unit Test time { private readonly LabelLogic logic= new LabelLogic(); public override string Text { get { return logic.ProcessGetText(base.Text); } set { base.Text=logic.ProcessSetText(value); } } } [TestFixture] public class UnitTest { [Test] public void Test() { //Wish this was LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(new FakeBase()) LabelWrapper label = new LabelWrapper(); //FakeLabelWrapper label = new FakeLabelWrapper(); label.Text = "ToUpper"; Assert.AreEqual("TOUPPER",label.Text); StringWriter stringWriter = new StringWriter(); HtmlTextWriter writer = new HtmlTextWriter(stringWriter); label.RenderControl(writer); Assert.AreEqual(1,label.ID); Assert.AreEqual("<span>TOUPPER</span>", stringWriter.ToString()); } } public class FakeLabel { virtual public string Text { get; set; } public void RenderControl(TextWriter writer) { writer.Write("<span>" + Text + "</span>"); } } //System Under Test internal class LabelLogic { internal string ProcessGetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } internal string ProcessSetText(string value) { return value.ToUpper(); } }

    Read the article

  • Is there performance to be gained by moving storage allocation local to a member function to its cla

    - by neuviemeporte
    Suppose I have the following C++ class: class Foo { double bar(double sth); }; double Foo::bar(double sth) { double a,b,c,d,e,f a = b = c = d = e = f = 0; /* do stuff with a..f and sth */ } The function bar() will be called millions of times in a loop. Obviously, each time it's called, the variables a..f have to be allocated. Will I gain any performance by making the variables a..f members of the Foo class and just initializing them at the function's point of entry? On the other hand, the values of a..f will be dereferenced through this-, so I'm wondering if it isn't actually a possible performance degradation. Is there any overhead to accessing a value through a pointer? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Sneak peek at next generation Three MiFi unit – Huawei E585

    - by Liam Westley
    Last Wednesday I was fortunate to be invited to a sneak preview of the next generation Three MiFi unit, the Huawei E585. Many thanks to all those who posted questions both via this blog or via @westleyl on Twitter. I think I made sure I asked every question posed to the MiFi product manager from Three UK, and so here's the answers you were after. What is a MiFi? For those who are wondering, a MiFi unit is a 3G broadband modem combined with a WiFi access point, providing 3G broadband data access to up to five devices simultaneously via standard WiFi connections. What is different? It appears the prime task of enhancing the MiFi was to improve the user experience and user interface, both in terms of the device hardware and within the management software to configure the device.  I think this was a very sensible decision as these areas had substantial room for improvement. Single button operation to switch on, enable WiFi and connect to 3G Improved OELD display (see below), replacing the multi coloured LEDs; including signal strength, SMS notifications, the number of connected clients and data usage Management is via a web based dashboard accessible from any web browser. This is a big win for those running Linux, Mac OS/X, iPad users and, for me, as I can now configure the device from Windows 7 64-bit Charging is via micro USB, the new standard for small USB devices; you cannot use your old charger for the new MiFi unit Automatic reconnection when regaining a signal Improved charging time, which should allow recharging of the device when in use Although subjective, the black and silver design does look more classy than the silver and white plastic of the original MiFi What is the same? Virtually the same size and weight The battery is the same unit as the original MiFi so you’ll have a handy spare if you upgrade Data plans remain the same as the current MiFi, so cheapest price for upgraders will be £49 pay as you go Still only works on 3G networks, with no fallback to GPRS or EDGE There is no specific upgrade path for existing three customers, either from dongle or from the original MiFi My opinion I think three have concentrated on the correct areas of usability and user experience rather than trying to add new whizz bang technology features which aren’t of interest to mainstream users. The one button operation and the improved device display will make it much easier to use when out and about. If the automatic reconnection proves reliable that will remove a major bugbear that I experienced the previous evening when travelling on the First Great Western line from Paddington to Didcot Parkway.  The signal was repeatedly lost as we sped through tunnels and cuttings, and without automatic reconnection is was a real pain to keep pressing the data button on the MiFi to re-establish my data connection. And finally, the web based dashboard will mean I no longer need to resort to my XP based netbook to configure the SSID and password. My everyday laptop runs Windows 7 64-bit which appears to confuse the older 3 WiFi manager which cannot locate the MiFi when connected. Links to other sites, and other images of the device Good first impressions from Ben Smith, http://thereallymobileproject.com/2010/06/3uk-announce-a-new-mifi-with-a-screen/ Also, a round up of other sneak preview posts, http://www.3mobilebuzz.com/2010/06/11/mifi-round-two-your-view/ Pictures Here is a comparison of the old MiFi device next to the new device, complete with OLED display and the Huawei logo now being a prominent feature on the front of the device. One of my fellow bloggers had a Linux based netbook, showing off the web based dashboard complete with Text messages panel to manage SMS. And finally, I never thought that my blog sub title would ever end up printed onto a cup cake, ... and here's some of the other cup cakes ...

    Read the article

  • Mouse pointer size inconsistent

    - by charon00
    Since installing Ubuntu 12.04, I've been having a problem with the mouse pointer size. On the desktop, it is quite a bit larger than it should be (24), though the different cursors (editing text, hyperlink hand, etc) are correct. The size changes to the correct size when the pointer is over some application windows (GVim, Netbeans, Firefox), but then changes back once it is moved out of the window. There was a similar question here, but the Xdefaults solution did not work for me, and I didn't want to try the one requiring editing the icon image. In addition, I've tried changing the cursor theme using sudo update-alternatives --config x-cursor-theme as well as using the dconf-editor, but though I can change the theme, the size issue remains. In case it's relevant, I'm running on a dual-screen setup with monitor sizes of 2560x1600 and 1920x1080, using the NVidia video driver. Is there another way to control pointer size, or a setting that might be messing it up? EDIT: These are the values/options I have for update-alternatives and in dconf-editor. I'm now wondering if Netbeans and Firefox are making the mouse pointer smaller than it should be, but I'm not sure how big 24 should be... update-alternatives: Selection Path Priority Status ------------------------------------------------------------ 0 /usr/share/icons/DMZ-White/cursor.theme 90 auto mode 1 /etc/X11/cursors/core.theme 30 manual mode 2 /etc/X11/cursors/handhelds.theme 20 manual mode 3 /etc/X11/cursors/redglass.theme 20 manual mode 4 /etc/X11/cursors/whiteglass.theme 20 manual mode * 5 /usr/share/icons/DMZ-Black/cursor.theme 30 manual mode 6 /usr/share/icons/DMZ-White/cursor.theme 90 manual mode dconf-editor: I can't post the image since I'm a new user but the cursor-size is set to 24 and the cursor-theme is DMZ-Black.

    Read the article

  • virsh XML interface allocation

    - by Kaushik Koneru
    I am trying to launch VM using a XML. This VM will be having 5 interfaces each connected to certain bridge. Issue here is allocation of these interfaces is random. My XML <interface type='bridge'> <mac address='52:54:00:9f:14:b3'/> <source bridge='br0'/> <target dev='vnet1'/> <model type='e1000'/> <alias name='net0'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x03' function='0x0'/> </interface> <interface type='bridge'> <mac address='52:54:00:9f:14:b4'/> <source bridge='br1'/> <target dev='vnet2'/> <model type='e1000'/> <alias name='net1'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x10' function='0x0'/> </interface> <interface type='bridge'> <mac address='52:54:00:9f:14:b5'/> <source bridge='br2'/> <target dev='vnet2'/> <model type='e1000'/> <alias name='net3'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x12' function='0x0'/> </interface> <interface type='bridge'> <mac address='52:54:00:9f:14:c4'/> <source bridge='br3'/> <target dev='vnet3'/> <model type='e1000'/> <alias name='net4'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x18' function='0x0'/> </interface> Allocation of interfaces are random mean e th6 will be connected to br3 ; eth7 -- br4 eth8 -- br2 eth9 -- br0. Is there any way to make it static?? At the same time is there anyway of assigning IP Address to these eth interfaces through XML file itself??

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing.... a data provider ?

    - by TomTom
    Given problem: I like unit tests. I develop connectivity software to external systems that pretty much and often use a C++ library The return of this systems is nonndeterministic. Data is received while running, but making sure it is all correctly interpreted is hard. How can I test this properly? I can run a unit test that does a connect. Sadly, it will then process a life data stream. I can say I run the test for 30 or 60 seconds before disconnecting, but getting code ccoverage is impossible - I simply dont even comeclose to get all code paths EVERY ONCE PER DAY (error code paths are rarely run). I also can not really assert every result. Depending on the time of the day we talk of 20.000 data callbacks per second - all of which are not relly determined good enough to validate each of them for consistency. Mocking? Well, that would leave me testing an empty shell of myself because the code handling the events basically is the to be tested case, and in many cases we talk here of a COMPLEX c level structure - hard to have mocking frameworks that integrate from Csharp to C++ Anyone any idea? I am short on giving up using unit tests for this part of the application.

    Read the article

  • Bad linking in Qt unit test -- missing the link to the moc file?

    - by dwj
    I'm trying to unit test a class that inherits QObject; the class itself is located up one level in my directory structure. When I build the unit test I get the standard unresolved errors if a class' MOC file cannot be found: test.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "public: virtual void * __thiscall UnitToTest::qt_metacast(char const *)" (?qt_metacast@UnitToTest@@UAEPAXPBD@Z) + 2 missing functions The MOC file is created but appears to not be linking. I've been poking around SO, the web, and Qt's docs for quite a while and have hit a wall. How do I get the unit test to include the MOC file in the link? ==== My project file is dead simple: TEMPLATE = app TARGET = test DESTDIR = . CONFIG += qtestlib INCLUDEPATH += . .. DEPENDPATH += . HEADERS += test.h SOURCES += test.cpp ../UnitToTest.cpp stubs.cpp DEFINES += UNIT_TEST My directory structure and files: C:. | UnitToTest.cpp | UnitToTest.h | \---test | test.cpp (Makefiles removed for clarity) | test.h | test.pro | stubs.cpp | +---debug | UnitToTest.obj | test.obj | test.pdb | moc_test.cpp | moc_test.obj | stubs.obj Edit: Additional information The generated Makefile.Debug shows the moc file missing: SOURCES = test.cpp \ ..\test.cpp \ stubs.cpp debug\moc_test.cpp OBJECTS = debug\test.obj \ debug\UnitToTest.obj \ debug\stubs.obj \ debug\moc_test.obj

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >