Search Results

Search found 4935 results on 198 pages for 'organizational unit'.

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 33/198 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • Generating Report for NUnit

    - by thangchung
     All source codes for this post can be found at my github.Time ago, I received a request that people ask me how they can generate reports of the results of testing using NUnit? In fact, I may never do this. In the little world of my programming, I only care about the test results, red-green-refactoring, and that was it. When I got that question quite a bit unexpected, I knew that I could use NCover to generate reports, but reports of NCover too simple, it did not give us more details on the number of test cases, test methods, ... And I began to see about creating interesting report for NUnit.I was lucky to find an open source here. Its authors call it NUnit2Report, but one disadvantage is it only running on .NET 1.0. Indeed too old compared to the current version 4.0. And I try to download the preview, but I could not run. I had to open its source code and found that it uses XSLT to convert the output of NUnit results from XML to HTML. Nothing really special, because I also knew that after NUnit run output file extension is XML is created. Author only use this file to convert to HTML using XSLT. And I decided to convert it to. NET 4.0, because I will not have to code from scratch. Conversion work made me take some time, but was lucky that I finally have what I want. Thanks Gilles for the this OSS. I will send a mail to thank him for his efforts but put this out for the OSS. Now I will show people how to do it. I used the auto built NAnt and NUnit for running TestCase, and I use Selenium testing framework. After writing three TestCase using Selenium, I ran NUnit, and got the following results: There are 1 fail and 2s success. In the bin directory of this project will have the NUnit output file as shown below: Then I create a build file, and a bat file for easy running (can use PowerShell is here also.) Double click in the bat file to create a report like this:       Finally open the index.html file in the folder to view report. As everyone can see, it is the TestCase and divide very clearly, that I meet the requirements. This is really good. Once again I really thank NUnit2Report from Gilles. People can contact him via the mail address [email protected] or website  http://nunit2report.sourceforge.net. It really is useful to those who promised to QA. Hopefully this post will help anyone really interested in doing reports for NUnit.   

    Read the article

  • How to make unit selection circles merge?

    - by MaT
    I would like to know how to make this effect of merged circle selection. Here are images to illustrate: Basically I'm looking for this effect: How the merge effect of the circles can be achieved ? I didn't found any explanation concerning this effect. I know that to project those texture I can develop a decal system but I don't know how to create the merging effect. If possible, I'm looking for purely shaders solution.

    Read the article

  • How to TDD test that objects are being added to a collection if the collection is private?

    - by Joshua Harris
    Assume that I planned to write a class that worked something like this: public class GameCharacter { private Collection<CharacterEffect> _collection; public void Add(CharacterEffect e) { ... } public void Remove(CharacterEffect e) { ... } public void Contains(CharacterEffect e) { ... } } When added an effect does something to the character and is then added to the _collection. When it is removed the effect reverts the change to the character and is removed from the _collection. It's easy to test if the effect was applied to the character, but how do I test that the effect was added to _collection? What test could I write to start constructing this class. I could write a test where Contains would return true for a certain effect being in _collection, but I can't arrange a case where that function would return true because I haven't implemented the Add method that is needed to place things in _collection. Ok, so since Contains is dependent on having Add working, then why don't I try to create Add first. Well for my first test I need to try and figure out if the effect was added to the _collection. How would I do that? The only way to see if an effect is in _collection is with the Contains function. The only way that I could think to test this would be to use a FakeCollection that Mocks the Add, Remove, and Contains of a real collection, but I don't want _collection being affected by outside sources. I don't want to add a setEffects(Collection effects) function, because I do not want the class to have that functionality. The one thing that I am thinking could work is this: public class GameCharacter<C extends Collection> { private Collection<CharacterEffect> _collection; public GameCharacter() { _collection = new C<CharacterEffect>(); } } But, that is just silly making me declare what some private data structures type is on every declaration of the character. Is there a way for me to test this without breaking TDD principles while still allowing me to keep my collection private?

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Productivity

    - by Nairou
    In my current project (a game, in C++), I decided that I would use Test Driven Development 100% during development. In terms of code quality, this has been great. My code has never been so well designed or so bug-free. I don't cringe when viewing code I wrote a year ago at the start of the project, and I have gained a much better sense for how to structure things, not only to be more easily testable, but to be simpler to implement and use. However... it has been a year since I started the project. Granted, I can only work on it in my spare time, but TDD is still slowing me down considerably compared to what I'm used to. I read that the slower development speed gets better over time, and I definitely do think up tests a lot more easily than I used to, but I've been at it for a year now and I'm still working at a snail's pace. Each time I think about the next step that needs work, I have to stop every time and think about how I would write a test for it, to allow me to write the actual code. I'll sometimes get stuck for hours, knowing exactly what code I want to write, but not knowing how to break it down finely enough to fully cover it with tests. Other times, I'll quickly think up a dozen tests, and spend an hour writing tests to cover a tiny piece of real code that would have otherwise taken a few minutes to write. Or, after finishing the 50th test to cover a particular entity in the game and all aspects of it's creation and usage, I look at my to-do list and see the next entity to be coded, and cringe in horror at the thought of writing another 50 similar tests to get it implemented. It's gotten to the point that, looking over the progress of the last year, I'm considering abandoning TDD for the sake of "getting the damn project finished". However, giving up the code quality that came with it is not something I'm looking forward to. I'm afraid that if I stop writing tests, then I'll slip out of the habit of making the code so modular and testable. Am I perhaps doing something wrong to still be so slow at this? Are there alternatives that speed up productivity without completely losing the benefits? TAD? Less test coverage? How do other people survive TDD without killing all productivity and motivation?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing with NUnit and Moles Redux

    - by João Angelo
    Almost two years ago, when Moles was still being packaged alongside Pex, I wrote a post on how to run NUnit tests supporting moled types. A lot has changed since then and Moles is now being distributed independently of Pex, but maintaining support for integration with NUnit and other testing frameworks. For NUnit the support is provided by an addin class library (Microsoft.Moles.NUnit.dll) that you need to reference in your test project so that you can decorate yours tests with the MoledAttribute. The addin DLL must also be placed in the addins folder inside the NUnit installation directory. There is however a downside, since Moles and NUnit follow a different release cycle and the addin DLL must be built against a specific NUnit version, you may find that the release included with the latest version of Moles does not work with your version of NUnit. Fortunately the code for building the NUnit addin is supplied in the archive (moles.samples.zip) that you can found in the Documentation folder inside the Moles installation directory. By rebuilding the addin against your specific version of NUnit you are able to support any version. Also to note that in Moles 0.94.51023.0 the addin code did not support the use of TestCaseAttribute in your moled tests. However, if you need this support, you need to make just a couple of changes. Change the ITestDecorator.Decorate method in the MolesAddin class: Test ITestDecorator.Decorate(Test test, MemberInfo member) { SafeDebug.AssumeNotNull(test, "test"); SafeDebug.AssumeNotNull(member, "member"); bool isTestFixture = true; isTestFixture &= test.IsSuite; isTestFixture &= test.FixtureType != null; bool hasMoledAttribute = true; hasMoledAttribute &= !SafeArray.IsNullOrEmpty( member.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(MoledAttribute), false)); if (!isTestFixture && hasMoledAttribute) { return new MoledTest(test); } return test; } Change the Tests property in the MoledTest class: public override System.Collections.IList Tests { get { if (this.test.Tests == null) { return null; } var moled = new List<Test>(this.test.Tests.Count); foreach (var test in this.test.Tests) { moled.Add(new MoledTest((Test)test)); } return moled; } } Disclaimer: I only tested this implementation against NUnit 2.5.10.11092 version. Finally you just need to run the NUnit console runner through the Moles runner. A quick example follows: moles.runner.exe [Tests.dll] /r:nunit-console.exe /x86 /args:[NUnitArgument1] /args:[NUnitArgument2]

    Read the article

  • White box testing with Google Test

    - by Daemin
    I've been trying out using GoogleTest for my C++ hobby project, and I need to test the internals of a component (hence white box testing). At my previous work we just made the test classes friends of the class being tested. But with Google Test that doesn't work as each test is given its own unique class, derived from the fixture class if specified, and friend-ness doesn't transfer to derived classes. Initially I created a test proxy class that is friends with the tested class. It contains a pointer to an instance of the tested class and provides methods for the required, but hidden, members. This worked for a simple class, but now I'm up to testing a tree class with an internal private node class, of which I need to access and mess with. I'm just wondering if anyone using the GoogleTest library has done any white box testing and if they have any hints or helpful constructs that would make this easier. Ok, I've found the FRIEND_TEST macro defined in the documentation, as well as some hints on how to test private code in the advanced guide. But apart from having a huge amount of friend declerations (i.e. one FRIEND_TEST for each test), is there an easier idion to use, or should I abandon using GoogleTest and move to a different test framework?

    Read the article

  • How do I inject test objects when the real objects are created dynamically?

    - by JW01
    I want to make a class testable using dependency injection. But the class creates multiple objects at runtime, and passes different values to their constructor. Here's a simplified example: public abstract class Validator { private ErrorList errors; public abstract void validate(); public void addError(String text) { errors.add( new ValidationError(text)); } public int getNumErrors() { return errors.count() } } public class AgeValidator extends Validator { public void validate() { addError("first name invalid"); addError("last name invalid"); } } (There are many other subclasses of Validator.) What's the best way to change this, so I can inject a fake object instead of ValidationError? I can create an AbstractValidationErrorFactory, and inject the factory instead. This would work, but it seems like I'll end up creating tons of little factories and factory interfaces, for every dependency of this sort. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Onsite Interview : QA Engineer with more Emphasis on Java Skills

    - by coolrockers2007
    Hello I'm having a onsite interview for QA engineer with Startup. While phone interview the person said he would want to test my JAVA, JUnit and SQL skills on white board with more importance on Object-oriented skills, So what all can i questions can i expect ? One more important issue : How do i overcome the fear of White board interview ?. I'm very bad at White board sessions, i get fully tensed. Please suggest me tips to overcome my jinx

    Read the article

  • LED 49-unit Quadcopter Formation Foreshadows The Robot Takeover

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    Perhaps there are a few more steps between 49 semi-autonomous quadcopters doing a little aerial dancing and Skynet, but we’re awed and apprehensive at the same time. Check out the video to see them in action. The video comes to us courtesy of a German art conference, Ars Electronica, and a colloboration between two design groups Futurelab and Ascending Technologies GmbH. The above video is just their warmup routine; according to YouTube comments they’ll be uploading even more videos of the quadcopters and their synchronized night flights in the coming days. [via Motherboard] HTG Explains: Is ReadyBoost Worth Using? HTG Explains: What The Windows Event Viewer Is and How You Can Use It HTG Explains: How Windows Uses The Task Scheduler for System Tasks

    Read the article

  • Agile Entity Framework 4 Repository: Part 6: Mocks & Unit Tests

    I did finish this series, honest I did. But not in the blog. Ive shown this in a number of conferences and even in my book, but I never came back and wrote it all down. In fact, I had the whole solutino written before I began the series, but it has gone through a lot of changes. Where did I leave off? Agile Entity Framework 4 Repository: Part 1- Model and POCO Classes Agile Entity Framework 4 Repository: Part 2- The Repository Agile EF4 Repository: Part 3 -Fine Tuning the Repository Agile...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Mock RequireJS define dependencies with config.map

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2014/08/18/mock-requirejs-define-dependencies-with-config.map.aspxI had a module dependency, that I’m pulling down with RequireJS that I needed to use and write tests against. In this case, I don’t care about the actual implementation of the module (it’s simple enough that I’m just avoiding some AJAX calls). EDIT: make sure you look at the bottom example after the edit before using the config.map approach. I found that there is an easier way. I did not want to change the constructor of the consumer as I had a chain of changes that would have to be made and that would have been to invasive for this task. I found a question on StackOverflow with a short, but helpful answer from “Artem Oboturov”. We can use the config.map from RequireJs to achieve this. Here is some code: A module example (“usefulModule” in Common/Modules/usefulModule.js): define([], function() { "use strict"; var testMethod = function() { ... }; // add more functionality of the module return { testMethod; } }); A consumer of usefulModule example: define([ "Commmon/Modules/usefulModule" ], function(usefulModule) { "use strict"; var consumerModule = function(){ var self = this; // add functionality of the module } }); Using config.map in the html of the test runner page (and in your Karma config –> I’m still trying to figure this out): map: {'*': { // replace usefulModule with a mock 'Common/Modules/usefulModule': '/Tests/Specs/Common/usefulModuleMock.js' } } With the new mapping, Require will load usefulModuleMock.js from Tests/Specs/Common instead of the real implementation. Some of the answers on StackOverflow mentioned Squire.js, which looked interesting, but I wasn’t ready to introduce a new library at this time. That’s all you need to be able to mock a depency in RequireJS. However, there are many good cases when you should pass it in through the constructor instead of this approach.   EDIT: After all that, here’s another, probably better way: The consumer class, updated: define([ "Commmon/Modules/usefulModule" ], function(UsefulModule) { "use strict"; var consumerModule = function(){ var self = this; self.usefulModule = new UsefulModule(); // add functionality of the module } }); Jasmine test: define([ "consumerModule", "/UnitTests/Specs/Common/Mocks/usefulModuleMock.js" ], function(consumerModule, UsefulModuleMock){ describe("when mocking out the module", function(){ it("should probably just override the property", function(){ var consumer = new consumerModule(); consumer.usefulModule = new UsefulModuleMock(); }); }); });   Thanks for letting me think out loud :-).

    Read the article

  • Testcase runner for parametrized testcases

    - by Razer
    Let me explain my situation. I'm planning a kind of test case runner for doing testcases on external devices, which are microcontroller based. Lets consider the devices: Device 1 Device 2 There exist a lot of test cases which can be run with one of the devices above. For example: Testcase 1 Testcase 2 The main reason that all the testcases can be run with any device is, that the testcases validates some standard and this software should be extensible for future devices. The testcases itself must be runnable with changing parameters. For example Testcase 1 does some Timing Verification the testcase needs as input parameter the datarate: 4800, 9600, 19200. Now hoping you understand the situation, let me explain my design questions. For implementing the test cases I thought about an Attribute based approach, like nunit does it. The more complicated problem is, how to define the parametrized testcases? Like this: Device 1: Testcase 1: datarate: 4800, 9600, 19200 Testcase 2: supply: 1, 2, 3 Device 2: Testcase 1: datarate: 9600, 19200, 38400 Testcase 2: supply: 3, 4, 5 How would you design such a framework? I've done a similar desin in python where I had for every device a XML containing the testcase definitions like: <Testcase="Testcase 1" datarate=4800/> <Testcase="Testcase 1" datarate=9600/> <Testcase="Testcase 1" datarate=19200/>

    Read the article

  • Which unit test framework for c++ based games?

    - by jmp97
    Which combination of testing tools do you feel is best? Given the framework / library of your choice you might consider: suitability for TDD ease of use / productivity dealing with mock objects setup with continuous integration error reporting Note: While this is potentially a generic question like the one on SO I would argue that game development is usually bound to a specific work flow which influences the choice for testing. For a higher-level perspective, see question Automated testing of games.

    Read the article

  • Do you test your SQL/HQL/Criteria ?

    - by 0101
    Do you test your SQL or SQL generated by your database framework? There are frameworks like DbUnit that allow you to create real in-memory database and execute real SQL. But its very hard to use(not developer-friendly so to speak), because you need to first prepare test data(and it should not be shared between tests). P.S. I don't mean mocking database or framework's database methods, but tests that make you 99% sure that your SQL is working even after some hardcore refactoring.

    Read the article

  • JUnit Testing in Multithread Application

    - by e2bady
    This is a problem me and my team faces in almost all of the projects. Testing certain parts of the application with JUnit is not easy and you need to start early and to stick to it, but that's not the question I'm asking. The actual problem is that with n-Threads, locking, possible exceptions within the threads and shared objects the task of testing is not as simple as testing the class, but testing them under endless possible situations within threading. To be more precise, let me tell you about the design of one of our applications: When a user makes a request several threads are started that each analyse a part of the data to complete the analysis, these threads run a certain time depending on the size of the chunk of data (which are endless and of uncertain quality) to analyse, or they may fail if the data was insufficient/lacking quality. After each completed its analysis they call upon a handler which decides after each thread terminates if the collected analysis-data is sufficient to deliver an answer to the request. All of these analysers share certain parts of the applications (some parts because the instances are very big and only a certain number can be loaded into memory and those instances are reusable, some parts because they have a standing connection, where connecting takes time, ex.gr. sql connections) so locking is very common (done with reentrant-locks). While the applications runs very efficient and fast, it's not very easy to test it under real-world conditions. What we do right now is test each class and it's predefined conditions, but there are no automated tests for interlocking and synchronization, which in my opionion is not very good for quality insurances. Given this example how would you handle testing the threading, interlocking and synchronization?

    Read the article

  • What is considered third party code?

    - by Songo
    Inspired by this question Using third-party libraries - always use a wrapper? I wanted to know what people actually consider as third-party libraries. Example from PHP: If I'm building an application using Zend framework, should I treat Zend framework libraries as third party code? Example from C#: If I'm building a desktop application, should I treat all .Net classes as third party code? Example from Java: Should I treat all libraries in the JDK as third party libraries? Some people say that if a library is stable and won't change often then one doesn't need to wrap it. However I fail to see how one would test a class that depends on a third party code without wrapping it.

    Read the article

  • How to unit test with lots of IO

    - by Eric
    I write Linux embedded software which closely integrates with hardware. My modules are such as : -CMOS video input with kernel driver (v4l2) -Hardware h264/mpeg4 encoders (texas instuments) -Audio Capture/Playback (alsa) -Network IO I'd like to have automated testing for those functionalities, such as integration testing. I am not sure how I can automate this process since most of the top level functionalities I face are IO bound. Sure, it is easy to test functions individually, but whole process checking means depending on tons of external dependencies only available at runtime.

    Read the article

  • Your experiences with TDD [closed]

    - by SkonJeet
    In your experience, does TDD prove to be a useful approach in all development projects? Do you take the approach of TDD even when working on an existing project? Also, how does mocking tie in with a TDD discipline? I'm not looking for opinions, I'm looking for developers' advice, tips and learning resources regarding TDD's usage based on their experience. I'm going to spend the day equipping myself with enough knowledge about TDD to start making small steps towards using it but I don't know to what extent I should be using it.

    Read the article

  • How to test the tests?

    - by Ryszard Szopa
    We test our code to make it more correct (actually, less likely to be incorrect). However, the tests are also code -- they can also contain errors. And if your tests are buggy, they hardly make your code better. I can think of three possible types of errors in tests: Logical errors, when the programmer misunderstood the task at hand, and the tests do what he thought they should do, which is wrong; Errors in the underlying testing framework (eg. a leaky mocking abstraction); Bugs in the tests: the test is doing slightly different than what the programmer thinks it is. Type (1) errors seem to be impossible to prevent (unless the programmer just... gets smarter). However, (2) and (3) may be tractable. How do you deal with these types of errors? Do you have any special strategies to avoid them? For example, do you write some special "empty" tests, that only check the test author's presuppositions? Also, how do you approach debugging a broken test case?

    Read the article

  • Mock the window.setTimeout in a Jasmine test to avoid waiting

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2014/08/21/mock-the-window.settimeout-in-a-jasmine-test-to-avoid-waiting.aspxJasmine has a clock mocking feature, but I was unable to make it work in a function that I’m calling and want to test. The example only shows using clock for a setTimeout in the spec tests and I couldn’t find a good example. Here is my current and slightly limited approach.   If we have a method we want to test: var test = function(){ var self = this; self.timeoutWasCalled = false; self.testWithTimeout = function(){ window.setTimeout(function(){ self.timeoutWasCalled = true; }, 6000); }; }; Here’s my testing code: var realWindowSetTimeout = window.setTimeout; describe('test a method that uses setTimeout', function(){ var testObject; beforeEach(function () { // force setTimeout to be called right away, no matter what time they specify jasmine.getGlobal().setTimeout = function (funcToCall, millis) { funcToCall(); }; testObject = new test(); }); afterEach(function() { jasmine.getGlobal().setTimeout = realWindowSetTimeout; }); it('should call the method right away', function(){ testObject.testWithTimeout(); expect(testObject.timeoutWasCalled).toBeTruthy(); }); }); I got a good pointer from Andreas in this StackOverflow question. This would also work for window.setInterval. Other possible approaches: create a wrapper module of setTimeout and setInterval methods that can be mocked. This can be mocked with RequireJS or passed into the constructor. pass the window.setTimeout function into the method (this could get messy)

    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 | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >