Search Results

Search found 5783 results on 232 pages for 'translation unit'.

Page 34/232 | < Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >

  • OpenJDK ? Nashorn ?????????

    - by Homma
    ???? Nashorn ? OpenJDK ??????????????????Nashorn ? OpenJDK ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????? ??? jlaskey ??? Nashorn Blog ????????????? https://blogs.oracle.com/nashorn/entry/the_vote_is_in ???????? ?? ?????????????????????????????? Jim Laskey ???????????? Nashorn ??????????? [1] ? ????????? ??: 20 ??: 0 ??: 0 ??????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????? -John Coomes [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2012-November/000139.html

    Read the article

  • Execute JavaScript from within a C# assembly

    - by ScottKoon
    I'd like to execute JavaScript code from within a C# assembly and have the results of the JavaScript code returned to the calling C# code. It's easier to define things that I'm not trying to do: I'm not trying to call a JavaScript function on a web page from my code behind. I'm not trying to load a WebBrowser control. I don't want to have the JavaScript perform an AJAX call to a server. What I want to do is write unit tests in JavaScript and have then unit tests output JSON, even plain text would be fine. Then I want to have a generic C# class/executible that can load the file containing the JS, run the JS unit tests, scrap/load the results, and return a pass/fail with details during a post-build task. I think it's possible using the old ActiveX ScriptControl, but it seems like there ought to be a .NET way to do this without using SilverLight, the DLR, or anything else that hasn't shipped yet. Anyone have any ideas? update: From Brad Abrams blog namespace Microsoft.JScript.Vsa { [Obsolete("There is no replacement for this feature. Please see the ICodeCompiler documentation for additional help. http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=14202")] Clarification: We have unit tests for our JavaScript functions that are written in JavaScript using the JSUnit framework. Right now during our build process, we have to manually load a web page and click a button to ensure that all of the JavaScript unit tests pass. I'd like to be able to execute the tests during the post-build process when our automated C# unit tests are run and report the success/failure alongside of out C# unit tests and use them as an indicator as to whether or not the build is broken.

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection: what belongs in the constructor?

    - by Adam Backstrom
    I'm evaluating my current PHP practices in an effort to write more testable code. Generally speaking, I'm fishing for opinions on what types of actions belong in the constructor. Should I limit things to dependency injection? If I do have some data to populate, should that happen via a factory rather than as constructor arguments? (Here, I'm thinking about my User class that takes a user ID and populates user data from the database during construction, which obviously needs to change in some way.) I've heard it said that "initialization" methods are bad, but I'm sure that depends on what exactly is being done during initialization. At the risk of getting too specific, I'll also piggyback a more detailed example onto my question. For a previous project, I built a FormField class (which handled field value setting, validation, and output as HTML) and a Model class to contain these fields and do a bit of magic to ease working with fields. FormField had some prebuilt subclasses, e.g. FormText (<input type="text">) and FormSelect (<select>). Model would be subclassed so that a specific implementation (say, a Widget) had its own fields, such as a name and date of manufacture: class Widget extends Model { public function __construct( $data = null ) { $this->name = new FormField('length=20&label=Name:'); $this->manufactured = new FormDate; parent::__construct( $data ); // set above fields using incoming array } } Now, this does violate some rules that I have read, such as "avoid new in the constructor," but to my eyes this does not seem untestable. These are properties of the object, not some black box data generator reading from an external source. Unit tests would progressively build up to any test of Widget-specific functionality, so I could be confident that the underlying FormFields were working correctly during the Widget test. In theory I could provide the Model with a FieldFactory() which could supply custom field objects, but I don't believe I would gain anything from this approach. Is this a poor assumption?

    Read the article

  • Finally! Entity Framework working in fully disconnected N-tier web app

    - by oazabir
    Entity Framework was supposed to solve the problem of Linq to SQL, which requires endless hacks to make it work in n-tier world. Not only did Entity Framework solve none of the L2S problems, but also it made it even more difficult to use and hack it for n-tier scenarios. It’s somehow half way between a fully disconnected ORM and a fully connected ORM like Linq to SQL. Some useful features of Linq to SQL are gone – like automatic deferred loading. If you try to do simple select with join, insert, update, delete in a disconnected architecture, you will realize not only you need to make fundamental changes from the top layer to the very bottom layer, but also endless hacks in basic CRUD operations. I will show you in this article how I have  added custom CRUD functions on top of EF’s ObjectContext to make it finally work well in a fully disconnected N-tier web application (my open source Web 2.0 AJAX portal – Dropthings) and how I have produced a 100% unit testable fully n-tier compliant data access layerfollowing the repository pattern. http://www.codeproject.com/KB/linq/ef.aspx In .NET 4.0, most of the problems are solved, but not all. So, you should read this article even if you are coding in .NET 4.0. Moreover, there’s enough insight here to help you troubleshoot EF related problems. You might think “Why bother using EF when Linq to SQL is doing good enough for me.” Linq to SQL is not going to get any innovation from Microsoft anymore. Entity Framework is the future of persistence layer in .NET framework. All the innovations are happening in EF world only, which is frustrating. There’s a big jump on EF 4.0. So, you should plan to migrate your L2S projects to EF soon.

    Read the article

  • Mocking concrete class - Not recommended

    - by Mik378
    I've just read an excerpt of "Growing Object-Oriented Software" book which explains some reasons why mocking concrete class is not recommended. Here some sample code of a unit-test for the MusicCentre class: public class MusicCentreTest { @Test public void startsCdPlayerAtTimeRequested() { final MutableTime scheduledTime = new MutableTime(); CdPlayer player = new CdPlayer() { @Override public void scheduleToStartAt(Time startTime) { scheduledTime.set(startTime); } } MusicCentre centre = new MusicCentre(player); centre.startMediaAt(LATER); assertEquals(LATER, scheduledTime.get()); } } And his first explanation: The problem with this approach is that it leaves the relationship between the objects implicit. I hope we've made clear by now that the intention of Test-Driven Development with Mock Objects is to discover relationships between objects. If I subclass, there's nothing in the domain code to make such a relationship visible, just methods on an object. This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I can't figure out exactly what he means when he says: This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I understand that the service corresponds to MusicCentre's method called startMediaAt. What does he mean by "elsewhere"? The complete excerpt is here: http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-mocking-concrete-classes.html

    Read the article

  • Inheritance vs containment while extending a large legacy project

    - by Flot2011
    I have got a legacy Java project with a lot of code. The code uses MVC pattern and is well structured and well written. It also has a lot of unit tests and it is still actively maintained (bug fixing, minor features adding). Therefore I want to preserve the original structure and code style as much as possible. The new feature I am going to add is a conceptual one, so I have to make my changes all over the code. In order to minimize changes I decided not to extend existing classes but to use containment: class ExistingClass { // .... existing code // my code adding new functionality private ExistingClassExtension extension = new ExistingClassExtension(); public ExistingClassExtension getExtension() {return extension;} } ... // somewhere in code ExistingClass instance = new ExistingClass(); ... // when I need a new functionality instance.getExtension().newMethod1(); All functionality that I am adding is inside a new ExistingClassExtension class. Actually I am adding only these 2 lines to each class that needs to be extended. By doing so I also do not need to instantiate new, extended classes all over the code and I may use existing tests to make sure there is no regression. However my colleagues argue that in this situation doing so isn't a proper OOP approach, and I need to inherit from ExistingClass in order to add a new functionality. What do you think? I am aware of numerous inheritance/containment questions here, but I think my question is different.

    Read the article

  • Are injectable classes allowed to have constructor parameters in DI?

    - by Songo
    Given the following code: class ClientClass{ public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $parser= new Parser($inputString); $result= $parser->parse(); } } class Parser{ private $inputString; public __construct($inputString){ $this->inputString=$inputString; } public function parse(){ //some code } } Now the ClientClass has dependency on class Parser. However, if I wanted to use Dependency Injection for unit testing it would cause a problem because now I can't send the input string to the parser constructor like before as its calculated inside ClientCalss itself: class ClientClass{ private $parser; public __construct(Parser $parser){ $this->parser=$parser; } public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $result= $this->parser->parse(); //--> will throw an exception since no string was provided } } The only solution I found was to modify all my classes that took parameters in their constructors to utilize Setters instead (example: setInputString()). However, I think there might be a better solution than this because sometimes modifying existing classes can cause much harm than benefit. So, Are injectable classes not allowed to have input parameters? If a class must take input parameters in its constructor, what would be the way to inject it properly? UPDATE Just for clarification, the problem happens when in my production code I decide to do this: $clientClass= new ClientClass(new Parser($inputString));//--->I have no way to predict $inputString as it is calculated inside `ClientClass` itself. UPDATE 2 Again for clarification, I'm trying to find a general solution to the problem not for this example code only because some of my classes have 2, 3 or 4 parameters in their constructors not only one.

    Read the article

  • What to do as a new team lead on a project with maintainability problems?

    - by Mr_E
    I have just been put in charge of a code project with maintainability problems. What things can I do to get the project on a stable footing? I find myself in a place where we are working with a very large multi-tiered .NET system that is missing a lot of the important things such as unit tests, IOC, MEF, too many static classes, pure datasets etc. I'm only 24 but I've been here for almost three years (this app has been in development for 5) and mostly due to time constraints we've been just adding in more crap to fit the other crap. After doing a number of projects in my free time I have begun to understand just how important all those concepts are. Also due to employee shifting I find myself to now be the team lead on this project and I really want to come up with some smart ways to improve this app. Ways where the value can be explained to management. I have ideas of what I would like to do but they all seem so overwhelming without much upfront gain. Any stories of how people have or would have dealt with this would be a very interesting read. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to verify the code that could take a substantial time to compile? [on hold]

    - by user18404
    As a follow up to my prev question: What is the best aproach for coding in a slow compilation environment To recap: I am stuck with a large software system with which a TDD ideology of "test often" does not work. And to make it even worse the features like pre-compiled headers/multi-threaded compilation/incremental linking, etc is not available to me - hence I think that the best way out would be to add the extensive logging into the system and to start "coding in large chunks", which I understand as code for a two-three hours first (as opposed to 15-20 mins in TDD) - thoroughly eyeball the code for a 15 minutes and only after all that do the compilation and run the tests. As I have been doing TDD for a quite a while, my code eyeballing / code verification skills got rusty (you don't really need this that much if you can quickly verify what you've done in 5 seconds by running a test or two) - so I am after a recommendations on how to learn these source code verification/error spotting skills again. I know I was able to do that easily some 5-10 years ago when I din't have much support from the compiler/unit testing tools I had until recently, thus there should be a way to get back to the basics.

    Read the article

  • Cannot create a neutral unit with a trigger

    - by Xitcod13
    I've been playing around with the starcraft UMS (Use map settings) for a while and usually i figure things out pretty quickly when im stuck. Alas not this time. I'm trying to place a neutral unit (player 12) using a trigger. It refuses to work. I'm using Scmdraft 2.0 as my editor (but i cant get it to work in other editors either) (all neutral units placed before the game starts are visible and all other triggers work fine. Also i created a text msg and it does displays it in-game so the trigger triggers ) For testing I created a trigger that looks like this: Player: neutral (i tried neutral players player 1 and all players as well) Condition: -always Action: -Create *1 Terran Medic* at '*location 022*' for *Neutral* (also tried neutral players) When I start the game nothing happens. Here is what I tried: I tried placing a start location for neutral player (player 12) I tried changing the owner under map properties of player 12 to neutral and computer from unused which was the default. Although it seems like it should be a common enough problem, I don't see it in any FAQ and I cant find anything about it when I Google it. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Resurrecting a 5,000 line test plan that is a decade old

    - by ale
    I am currently building a test plan for the system I am working on. The plan is 5,000 lines long and about 10 years old. The structure is like this: 1. test title precondition: some W needs to be set up, X needs to be completed action: do some Y postcondition: message saying Z is displayed 2. ... What is this type of testing called ? Is it useful ? It isn't automated.. the tests would have to be handed to some unlucky person to run through and then the results would have to be given to development. It doesn't seem efficient. Is it worth modernising this method of testing (removing tests for removed features, updating tests where different postconditions happen, ...) or would a whole different approach be more appropriate ? We plan to start unit tests but the software requires so much work to actually get 'units' to test - there are no units at present ! Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How can I test linkable/executable files that require re-hosting or retargeting?

    - by hagubear
    Due to data protection, I cannot discuss fine details of the work itself so apologies PROBLEM CASE Sometimes my software projects require merging/integration with third party (customer or other suppliers) software. these software are often in linkable executables or object code (requires that my source code is retargeted and linked with it). When I get the executables or object code, I cannot validate its operation fully without integrating it with my system. My initial idea is that executables are not meant to be unit tested, they are meant to be linkable with other system, but what is the guarantee that post-linkage and integration behaviour will be okay? There is also no sufficient documentation available (from the customer) to indicate how to go about integrating the executables or object files. I know this is philosophical question, but apparently not enough research could be found at this moment to conclude to a solution. I was hoping that people could help me go to the right direction by suggesting approaches. To start, I have found out that Avionics OEM software is often rehosted and retargeted by third parties e.g. simulator makers. I wonder how they test them. Surely, the source code will not be supplied due to IPR rgulations. UPDATE I have received reasonable and very useful suggestions regarding this area. My current struggle has shifted into testing 3rd party OBJECT code that needs to be linked with my own source code (retargeted) on my host machine. How can I even test object code? Surely, I need to link them first to even think about doing anything. Is it the post-link behaviour that needs to be determined and scripted (using perl,Tcl, etc.) so that inputs and outputs could be verified? No clue!! :( thanks,

    Read the article

  • Should I use a seperate class per test?

    - by user460667
    Taking the following simple method, how would you suggest I write a unit test for it (I am using MSTest however concepts are similar in other tools). public void MyMethod(MyObject myObj, bool validInput) { if(!validInput) { // Do nothing } else { // Update the object myObj.CurrentDateTime = DateTime.Now; myObj.Name = "Hello World"; } } If I try and follow the rule of one assert per test, my logic would be that I should have a Class Initialise method which executes the method and then individual tests which check each property on myobj. public class void MyTest { MyObj myObj; [TestInitialize] public void MyTestInitialize() { this.myObj = new MyObj(); MyMethod(myObj, true); } [TestMethod] public void IsValidName() { Assert.AreEqual("Hello World", this.myObj.Name); } [TestMethod] public void IsDateNotNull() { Assert.IsNotNull(this.myObj.CurrentDateTime); } } Where I am confused is around the TestInitialize. If I execute the method under TestInitialize, I would need seperate classes per variation of parameter inputs. Is this correct? This would leave me with a huge number of files in my project (unless I have multiple classes per file). Thanks

    Read the article

  • Zend_Translate scan translation files

    - by nute
    I've trying to use Zend_Translate from Zend Framework I am using "POEdit" to generate "gettext" translation files. My files are under /www/mysite.com/webapps/includes/locale (this path is in my include path). I have: pictures.en.mo pictures.en.po (I plan on having pictures.es.mo soon) It all works fine if I manually do addTranslation() for each file. However I want to use the automatic file scanning method. I tried both of those: <?php /*Localization*/ require_once 'Zend/Translate.php'; require_once 'Zend/Locale.php'; define('LOCALE','/www/mysite.com/webapps/includes/locale'); if(!empty($_GET['locale'])){ $locale = new Zend_Locale($_GET['locale']); } else{ $locale = new Zend_Locale(); } $translate = new Zend_Translate('gettext', LOCALE, null, array('scan' => Zend_Translate::LOCALE_FILENAME)); if ( $translate->isAvailable( $locale->getLanguage() ) ){ $translate->setLocale($locale); } else{ $translate->setLocale('en'); } And this: <?php /*Localization*/ require_once 'Zend/Translate.php'; require_once 'Zend/Locale.php'; define('LOCALE','/www/mysite.com/webapps/includes/locale'); if(!empty($_GET['locale'])){ $locale = new Zend_Locale($_GET['locale']); } else{ $locale = new Zend_Locale(); } $translate = new Zend_Translate('gettext', LOCALE); if ( $translate->isAvailable( $locale->getLanguage() ) ){ $translate->setLocale($locale); } else{ $translate->setLocale('en'); } In both cases, I get a Notice: No translation for the language 'en' available. in /www/mysite.com/webapps/includes/Zend/Translate/Adapter.php on line 411 It also worked if I tried to do directory scanning.

    Read the article

  • ANTLR Tree Grammar and StringTemplate Code Translation

    - by Behrooz Nobakht
    I am working on a code translation project with a sample ANTLR tree grammar as: start: ^(PROGRAM declaration+) -> program_decl_tmpl(); declaration: class_decl | interface_decl; class_decl: ^(CLASS ^(ID CLASS_IDENTIFIER)) -> class_decl_tmpl(cid={$CLASS_IDENTIFIER.text}); The group template file for it looks like: group My; program_decl_tmpl() ::= << *WHAT?* >> class_decl_tmpl(cid) ::= << public class <cid> {} >> Based on this, I have these questions: Everything works fine apart from that what I should express in WHAT? to say that a program is simply a list of class declarations to get the final generated output? Is this approach averagely suitable for not so a high-level language? I have also studied ANTLR Code Translation with String Templates, but it seems that this approach takes much advantage of interleaving code in tree grammar. Is it also possible to do it as much as possible just in String Templates?

    Read the article

  • Cisco 881 losing NAT NVI translation config after reload

    - by MasterRoot24
    This is a weird one, so I'll try to explain in as much detail as I can so I'm giving the whole picture. As I've mentioned in my other questions, I'm in the process of setting up a new Cisco 881 as my WAN router and NAT firewall. I'm facing an issue where NAT NVI rules that I have configured are not enabled after a reload of the router, regardless of the fact that they are present in the startup-config. In order to clarify this a little, here's the relevant section of my current running-config: Router1#show running-config | include nat source ip nat source list 1 interface FastEthernet4 overload ip nat source list 2 interface FastEthernet4 overload ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 1723 interface FastEthernet4 1723 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 80 interface FastEthernet4 80 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 443 interface FastEthernet4 443 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 25 interface FastEthernet4 25 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 587 interface FastEthernet4 587 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 143 interface FastEthernet4 143 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 993 interface FastEthernet4 993 ...and here's the mappings 'in action': Router1#show ip nat nvi translations | include --- tcp <WAN IP>:25 192.168.1.x:25 --- --- tcp <WAN IP>:80 192.168.1.x:80 --- --- tcp <WAN IP>:143 192.168.1.x:143 --- --- tcp <WAN IP>:443 192.168.1.x:443 --- --- tcp <WAN IP>:587 192.168.1.x:587 --- --- tcp <WAN IP>:993 192.168.1.x:993 --- --- tcp <WAN IP>:1723 192.168.1.x:1723 --- --- ...and here's proof that the mappings are saved to startup-config: Router1#show startup-config | include nat source ip nat source list 1 interface FastEthernet4 overload ip nat source list 2 interface FastEthernet4 overload ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 1723 interface FastEthernet4 1723 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 80 interface FastEthernet4 80 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 443 interface FastEthernet4 443 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 25 interface FastEthernet4 25 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 587 interface FastEthernet4 587 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 143 interface FastEthernet4 143 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 993 interface FastEthernet4 993 However, look what happens after a reload of the router: Router1#reload Proceed with reload? [confirm]Connection to router closed by remote host. Connection to router closed. $ ssh joe@router Password: Authorized Access only Router1>en Password: Router1#show ip nat nvi translations | include --- Router1# Router1#show ip nat translations | include --- tcp 188.222.181.173:25 192.168.1.2:25 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:80 192.168.1.2:80 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:143 192.168.1.2:143 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:443 192.168.1.2:443 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:587 192.168.1.2:587 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:993 192.168.1.2:993 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:1723 192.168.1.2:1723 --- --- Router1# Here's proof that the running config should have the mappings setup as NVI: Router1#show running-config | include nat source ip nat source list 1 interface FastEthernet4 overload ip nat source list 2 interface FastEthernet4 overload ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 1723 interface FastEthernet4 1723 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 80 interface FastEthernet4 80 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 443 interface FastEthernet4 443 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 25 interface FastEthernet4 25 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 587 interface FastEthernet4 587 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 143 interface FastEthernet4 143 ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 993 interface FastEthernet4 993 At this point, the mappings are not working (inbound connections from WAN on the HTTP/IMAP fail). I presume that this is because my interfaces are using ip nat enable for use with NVI mappings, instead of ip nat inside/outside. So, I re-apply the mappings: Router1#configure ter Router1#configure terminal Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z. Router1(config)#ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 1723 interface FastEthernet4 1723 Router1(config)#ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 80 interface FastEthernet4 80 Router1(config)#ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 443 interface FastEthernet4 443 Router1(config)#ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 25 interface FastEthernet4 25 Router1(config)#ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 587 interface FastEthernet4 587 Router1(config)#ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 143 interface FastEthernet4 143 Router1(config)#ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.2 993 interface FastEthernet4 993 Router1(config)#end ... then they show up correctly: Router1#show ip nat nvi translations | include --- tcp 188.222.181.173:25 192.168.1.2:25 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:80 192.168.1.2:80 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:143 192.168.1.2:143 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:443 192.168.1.2:443 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:587 192.168.1.2:587 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:993 192.168.1.2:993 --- --- tcp 188.222.181.173:1723 192.168.1.2:1723 --- --- Router1# Router1#show ip nat translations | include --- Router1# ... furthermore, now from both WAN and LAN, the services mapped above now work until the next reload. All of the above is required every time I have to reload the router (which is all too often at the moment :-( ). Here's my full current config: ! ! Last configuration change at 20:20:15 UTC Tue Dec 11 2012 by xxx version 15.2 no service pad service timestamps debug datetime msec service timestamps log datetime msec service password-encryption ! hostname xxx ! boot-start-marker boot-end-marker ! ! enable secret 4 xxxx ! aaa new-model ! ! aaa authentication login local_auth local ! ! ! ! ! aaa session-id common ! memory-size iomem 10 ! crypto pki trustpoint TP-self-signed-xxx enrollment selfsigned subject-name cn=IOS-Self-Signed-Certificate-xxx revocation-check none rsakeypair TP-self-signed-xxx ! ! crypto pki certificate chain TP-self-signed-xxx certificate self-signed 01 xxx quit ip gratuitous-arps ip auth-proxy max-login-attempts 5 ip admission max-login-attempts 5 ! ! ! ! ! ip domain list dmz.xxx.local ip domain list xxx.local ip domain name dmz.xxx.local ip name-server 192.168.1.x ip cef login block-for 3 attempts 3 within 3 no ipv6 cef ! ! multilink bundle-name authenticated license udi pid CISCO881-SEC-K9 sn xxx ! ! username admin privilege 15 secret 4 xxx username joe secret 4 xxx ! ! ! ! ! ip ssh time-out 60 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! interface FastEthernet0 no ip address ! interface FastEthernet1 no ip address ! interface FastEthernet2 no ip address ! interface FastEthernet3 switchport access vlan 2 no ip address ! interface FastEthernet4 ip address dhcp ip access-group 101 in ip nat enable duplex auto speed auto ! interface Vlan1 ip address 192.168.1.x 255.255.255.0 no ip redirects no ip unreachables no ip proxy-arp ip nat enable ! interface Vlan2 ip address 192.168.0.x 255.255.255.0 ! ip forward-protocol nd ip http server ip http access-class 1 ip http authentication local ip http secure-server ! ! ip nat source list 1 interface FastEthernet4 overload ip nat source list 2 interface FastEthernet4 overload ip nat source static tcp 192.168.1.x 1723 interface FastEthernet4 1723 ! ! access-list 1 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 2 permit 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 101 permit udp 193.x.x.0 0.0.0.255 any eq 5060 access-list 101 deny udp any any eq 5060 access-list 101 permit ip any any ! ! ! ! control-plane ! ! banner motd Authorized Access only ! line con 0 exec-timeout 15 0 login authentication local_auth line aux 0 exec-timeout 15 0 login authentication local_auth line vty 0 4 access-class 2 in login authentication local_auth length 0 transport input all ! ! end I'd appreciate it greatly if anyone can help me find out why these mappings are not setup correctly using the saved config after a reload.

    Read the article

  • LAN->LAN IP translation (for TortoiseSVN + Artifacts + Buffalo router)

    - by Armchair Bronco
    Here's my scenario: I've got a VisualSVN server on my main dev box @ home. I'm also using Visual Studio 2010, TortoiseSVN, VisualSVN client (for source control), and Versioned 'Artifacts' (for bug tracking). (I had to modify the fake URL's below to use only one slash because as a new user, I can't post more than one real URL.) I've got my Buffalo AirStation WHR-HP-G300N router properly configured so my business partner can connect to the SVN server. I have port forwarding enabled for the internet-side IP address (like http:/99.888.77.66:443) which gets forwarded to an internal IP (like 192.168.11.6). This part is working great. The problem I'm having is with the integration piece between TortoiseSVN and my bug tracking system. I need to provide a bugtraq:url property, but I haven't been able to get relative paths to work. So I'm forced to use an absolute URL. On my end, I need to use the name of my server (for example: bugtraq:url = https:/my-server/svn/bla..), but this doesn't work for my partner. He needs to specify the IP address (for example: bugtraq:url = https:/999.888.77.66:443/svn/bla...) Is there a way to configure my router such that the IP address for this parameter gets re-routed/re-mapped to "https://my-server" if the request originates from the LAN itself? My router's software supports LAN-Internet and Internet-LAN, but I don't see LAN-LAN.

    Read the article

  • Auto Mocking using JustMock

    - by mehfuzh
    Auto mocking containers are designed to reduce the friction of keeping unit test beds in sync with the code being tested as systems are updated and evolve over time. This is one sentence how you define auto mocking. Of course this is a more or less formal. In a more informal way auto mocking containers are nothing but a tool to keep your tests synced so that you don’t have to go back and change tests every time you add a new dependency to your SUT or System Under Test. In Q3 2012 JustMock is shipped with built in auto mocking container. This will help developers to have all the existing fun they are having with JustMock plus they can now mock object with dependencies in a more elegant way and without needing to do the homework of managing the graph. If you are not familiar with auto mocking then I won't go ahead and educate you rather ask you to do so from contents that is already made available out there from community as this is way beyond the scope of this post. Moving forward, getting started with Justmock auto mocking is pretty simple. First, I have to reference Telerik.JustMock.Container.DLL from the installation folder along with Telerik.JustMock.DLL (of course) that it uses internally and next I will write my tests with mocking container. It's that simple! In this post first I will mock the target with dependencies using current method and going forward do the same with auto mocking container. In short the sample is all about a report builder that will go through all the existing reports, send email and log any exception in that process. This is somewhat my  report builder class looks like: Reporter class depends on the following interfaces: IReporBuilder: used to  create and get the available reports IReportSender: used to send the reports ILogger: used to log any exception. Now, if I just write the test without using an auto mocking container it might end up something like this: Now, it looks fine. However, the only issue is that I am creating the mock of each dependency that is sort of a grunt work and if you have ever changing list of dependencies then it becomes really hard to keep the tests in sync. The typical example is your ASP.NET MVC controller where the number of service dependencies grows along with the project. The same test if written with auto mocking container would look like: Here few things to observe: I didn't created mock for each dependencies There is no extra step creating the Reporter class and sending in the dependencies Since ILogger is not required for the purpose of this test therefore I can be completely ignorant of it. How cool is that ? Auto mocking in JustMock is just released and we also want to extend it even further using profiler that will let me resolve not just interfaces but concrete classes as well. But that of course starts the debate of code smell vs. working with legacy code. Feel free to send in your expert opinion in that regard using one of telerik’s official channels. Hope that helps

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing TSQL

    - by Grant Fritchey
    I went through a period of time where I spent a lot of effort figuring out how to set up unit tests for TSQL. It wasn't easy. There are a few tools out there that help, but mostly it involves lots of programming. well, not as much as before. Thanks to the latest Down Tools Week at Red Gate a new utility has been built and released into the wild, SQL Test. Like a lot of the new tools coming out of Red Gate these days, this one is directly integrated into SSMS, which means you're working where you're comfortable and where you already have lots of tools at your disposal. After the install, when you launch SSMS and get connected, you're prompted to install the tSQLt example database. Go for it. It's a quick way to see how the tool works. I'd suggest using it. It' gives you a quick leg up. The concepts are pretty straight forward. There are a series of CLR commands that you use to configure a test and the test assertions. In between you're calling TSQL, either calls to your structure, queries, or stored procedures. They already have the one things that I always found wanting in database tests, a way to compare tables of results. I also like the ability to create a dummy copy of tables for the tests. It lets you control structures and behaviors so that the tests are more focused. One of the issues I always ran into with the other testing tools is that setting up the tests might require potentially destructive changes to the structure of the database (dropping FKs, etc.) which added lots of time and effort to setting up the tests, making testing more difficult, and therefor, less useful. Functionally, this is pretty similar to the Visual Studio tests and TSQLUnit tests that I used to use. The primary improvement over the Visual Studio tests is that I'm working in SSMS instead of Visual Studio. The primary improvement over TSQLUnit is the SQL Test interface it self. A lot of the functionality is the same, but having a sweet little tool to manage & run the tests from makes a huge difference. Oh, and don't worry. You can still run these tests directly from TSQL too, so automation has not gone away. I'm still thinking about how I'd use this in a dev environment where I also had source control to fret. That might be another blog post right there. I'm just getting started with SQL Test, so this is the first of several blog posts & videos. Watch this space. Try the tool.

    Read the article

  • What arguments can I use to "sell" the BDD concept to a team reluctant to adopt it?

    - by S.Robins
    I am a bit of a vocal proponent of the BDD methodology. I've been applying BDD for a couple of years now, and have adopted StoryQ as my framework of choice when developing DotNet applications. Even though I have been unit testing for many years, and had previously shifted to a test-first approach, I've found that I get much more value out of using a BDD framework, because my tests capture the intent of the requirements in relatively clear English within my code, and because my tests can execute multiple assertions without ending the test halfway through - meaning I can see which specific assertions pass/fail at a glance without debugging to prove it. This has really been the tip of the iceberg for me, as I've also noticed that I am able to debug both test and implementation code in a more targeted manner, with the result that my productivity has grown significantly, and that I can more easily determine where a failure occurs if a problem happens to make it all the way to the integration build due to the output that makes its way into the build logs. Further, the StoryQ api has a lovely fluent syntax that is easy to learn and which can be applied in an extraordinary number of ways, requiring no external dependencies in order to use it. So with all of these benefits, you would think it an easy to introduce the concept to the rest of the team. Unfortunately, the other team members are reluctant to even look at StoryQ to evaluate it properly (let alone entertain the idea of applying BDD), and have convinced each other to try and remove a number of StoryQ elements from our own core testing framework, even though they originally supported the use of StoryQ, and that it doesn't impact on any other part of our testing system. Doing so would end up increasing my workload significantly overall and really goes against the grain, as I am convinced through practical experience that it is a better way to work in a test-first manner in our particular working environment, and can only lead to greater improvements in the quality of our software, given I've found it easier to stick with test first using BDD. So the question really comes down to the following: What arguments can I use to really drive the point home that it would be better to use StoryQ, or at the very least apply the BDD methodology? Can you point me to any anecdotal evidence that I can use to support my argument to adopt BDD as our standard method of choice? What counter arguments can you think of that could suggest that my wish to convert the team efforts to BDD might be in error? Yes, I'm happy to be proven wrong provided the argument is a sound one. NOTE: I am not advocating that we rewrite our tests in their entirety, but rather to simply start working in a different manner for all future testing work.

    Read the article

  • Use a stored procedure parameter for unit parameter of DATE_SUB

    - by Mike
    I would like to know if it's possible to pass a parameter to a mysql stored procedure and use this parameter as the unit parameter of the DATE_SUB function. It seems that the unit parameter is a reserved word so I don't know if there's a type for unit. Exemple of what I'm trying to do : DELIMITER $$ DROP PROCEDURE IF EXISTS `test` $$ CREATE DEFINER=`root`@`%` PROCEDURE `test`(param1 unit) BEGIN select DATE_SUB(now(), INTERVAL 1 param1); END $$ DELIMITER ;

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test a LINQ query using Moq and Machine.Specifications?

    - by Phil.Wheeler
    I'm struggling to get my head around how to accommodate a mocked repository's method that only accepts a Linq expression as its argument. Specifically, the repository has a First() method that looks like this: public T First(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) { return All().Where(expression).FirstOrDefault(); } The difficulty I'm encountering is with my MSpec tests, where I'm (probably incorrectly) trying to mock that call: public abstract class with_userprofile_repository { protected static Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>> repository; Establish context = () => { repository = new Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>>(); repository.Setup<UserProfile>(x => x.First(up => up.OpenID == @"http://testuser.myopenid.com")).Returns(GetDummyUser()); }; protected static UserProfile GetDummyUser() { UserProfile p = new UserProfile(); p.OpenID = @"http://testuser.myopenid.com"; p.FirstName = "Joe"; p.LastLogin = DateTime.Now.Date.AddDays(-7); p.LastName = "Bloggs"; p.Email = "[email protected]"; return p; } } I run into trouble because it's not enjoying the Linq expression: System.NotSupportedException: Expression up = (up.OpenID = "http://testuser.myopenid.com") is not supported. So how does one test these sorts of scenarios?

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test a LINQ expression using Moq and Machine.Specifications?

    - by Phil.Wheeler
    I'm struggling to get my head around how to accommodate a mocked repository's method that only accepts a Linq expression as its argument. Specifically, the repository has a First() method that looks like this: public T First(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) { return All().Where(expression).FirstOrDefault(); } The difficulty I'm encountering is with my MSpec tests, where I'm (probably incorrectly) trying to mock that call: public abstract class with_userprofile_repository { protected static Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>> repository; Establish context = () => { repository = new Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>>(); repository.Setup<UserProfile>(x => x.First(up => up.OpenID == @"http://testuser.myopenid.com")).Returns(GetDummyUser()); }; protected static UserProfile GetDummyUser() { UserProfile p = new UserProfile(); p.OpenID = @"http://testuser.myopenid.com"; p.FirstName = "Joe"; p.LastLogin = DateTime.Now.Date.AddDays(-7); p.LastName = "Bloggs"; p.Email = "[email protected]"; return p; } } I run into trouble because it's not enjoying the Linq expression: System.NotSupportedException: Expression up = (up.OpenID = "http://testuser.myopenid.com") is not supported. So how does one test these sorts of scenarios?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >