Search Results

Search found 14702 results on 589 pages for 'testing logic'.

Page 37/589 | < Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >

• Testing and Validation – You Really Do Have The Time

  - by BuckWoody

  One of the great advantages in my role as a Technical Specialist here at Microsoft is that I get to work with so many great clients. I get to see their environments and how they use them, and the way they work with SQL Server. I’ve been a data professional myself for many years. Over that time I’ve worked with many database platforms, lots of client applications, and written a lot of code in many industries. For a while I was also a consultant, so I got to see how other shops did things as well. But because I now focus on a “set” base of clients (over 500 professionals in over 150 companies) I get to see them over a longer period of time. Many of them help me understand how they use the product in their projects, and I even attend some DBA regular meetings. I see the way the product succeeds, and I see when it fails. Something that has really impacted my way of thinking is the level of importance any given shop is able to place on testing and validation. I’ve always been a big proponent of setting up a test system and following a very disciplined regimen to make sure it will work in production for any new projects, and then taking the lessons learned into production as standards. I know, I know – there’s never enough time to do things right like this. Yet the shops I see that do it have the same level of work that they output as the shops that don’t. They just make the time to do the testing and validation and create a standard that they will follow in production. And what I’ve found (surprise surprise) is that they have fewer production problems. OK, that might seem obvious – but I’ve actually tracked it and those places that do the testing and best practices really do save stress, time and trouble from that effort. We all think that’s a good idea, but we just “don’t have time”. OK – but from what I’m seeing, you can gain time if you spend a little up front. You may find that you’re actually already spending the same amount of time that you would spend in doing the testing, you’re just doing it later, at night, under the gun. Food for thought.  Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

  Read the article

• OSB unit testing, part 1 by Qualogy

  - by JuergenKress

  First you need to implement the simple bpel process like this : In my current project, I inherited a lot of OSB components that have been developed by (former) team members, but they all lack unit tests. This is a situation I really dislike, since this makes it much harder to refactor or bug-fix the existing code base. So, for all newly created components (and components I have to bug-fix) I strive to add unit tests. Of course, the unit tests will be created using my favourite testing tool: soapUI ! Unit of test The unit test should be created for the service composition, which in OSB terms should be the proxy service combination with its business service. Now, since you do not want to rely on any other services, you should provide mock services for all services invoked from your Component-Under-Test. In a previous article, I wrote about mocking your services in soapUI. While this approach would also be valid here, creating a mock service (and certainly deploying it on a separate WebServer) does violate one of the core principles of unit testing: to make your unit tests as self-contained as possible, i.e. not depending on any external components. In this article, I will show you how to achieve this by simply providing a mock response inside your unit test. Scenario The scenario I implement for testing is a simple currency converter; the external request consists of a from and a to currency, and an amount (in currency from). The service will perform an exchange rate lookup using the WebServiceX CurrencyConverter and return a response to the caller consisting of both the source and target currencies and amounts. For the purpose of unit testing, I will implement a mock response for the exchange rate lookup. Read the complete article here. SOA & BPM Partner Community For regular information on Oracle SOA Suite become a member in the SOA & BPM Partner Community for registration please visit www.oracle.com/goto/emea/soa (OPN account required) If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Wiki Technorati Tags: Qualogy,OSB,SOA Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,Community,OPN,Jürgen Kress

  Read the article

• System testing hangs inexplicably

  - by Jamess

  I read that I can upload system testing reports to ubuntu site and was excited with it. But my last three efforts looks like gives me a hung 'system testing' process or it appears so for about an hour each. How I can find out what is happening and if it indeed hung? https://launchpad.net/+login says I am already logged in, but I do not see any progress (or even unable to close the window as well) I am attaching the Screen shot as well:

  Read the article

• Strangling the life out of Software Testing

  - by MarkPearl

  I recently did a course at the local university on Software Engineering. At the beginning of the course I looked over the outline of the subject and there seemed to be some really good content. It covered traditional & agile project methodologies, some general communication and modelling chapters and finished off with testing. I was particularly excited to see the section on testing as this was something I learnt on my own and see great value in. The course has now just ended and I am very disappointed. I now know one of the reasons why so few people i.e. in my region do Test Driven Development, or perform even basic testing methodologies. The topic was to academic! Yes, you might be able to list 4 different types of black box test approaches vs. white box test approaches and describe the characteristics of Smoke Tests, but never during course did we see an example of an actual test or how it might be implemented! In fact, if I did not have personal experience of applying testing in actual projects, I wouldn’t even know what a unit test looked like. Now, what worries me is the following… It took us 6 months to cover the course material, other students more than likely came out of that course with little appreciation of the subject – in fact they now have a very complex view of what a test is – so complex that I think most of them will never attempt it again on their own. Secondly, imagine studying to be a dentist without ever actually seeing a tooth? Yes, you might be able to describe a tooth, and know what it is made out of – but nobody would want a dentist who has never seen a tooth to operate on them. Yet somehow we expect people studying software engineering to do the same? This is not right. Now, before I finish my rant let me say that I know this is not the same everywhere in the world, and that there needs to be a balance on practical implementation and academic understanding – I am just disappointed that this does not seem to be happening at the institution that I am currently studying at ;-( Please, if you happen to be a lecturer or teacher reading this post – a combination of theory and practical's goes a long way. We need to up the quality of software being produced and that starts at learner level!

  Read the article

• On The Question Of Automated Website Testing

  Almost all webmasters (or at least "quite a lot of webmasters") have heard about the significance of website testing before the production. Having developed a website or a web application, most authors want to publish it immediately and see how people like it. If they ignore prior website testing, the project may appear unprepared for real Internet activity and reveal awful performance.

  Read the article

• Unit Testing Myths and Practices

  We all understand the value of Unit Testing, but how come so few organisations maintain unit tests for their in-house applications? We can no longer pretend that unit testing is a universal panacea for ensuring less-buggy applications. Instead, we should be prepared to actively justify the use of unit tests, and be more savvy about where in the development cycle the unit test resources should be most effectively used.

  Read the article

• Oracle Application Testing Suite 12.1 ??????????

  - by user773457

  Oracle Application Testing Suite 12.1 ??????????? http://japanmediacentre.oracle.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=1692???????????????? ?JD Edwards EnterpriseOne????????????????????????????????????? ?Oracle Application Testing Suite 12.1????????????????????????(IE9?Linux) ??????????????Oracle Enterprise Manager????????Oracle Cloud???????????????? ???????SQL?????????SELECT???????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? ???? ATS-Tech ??????????

  Read the article

• Unit test complex classes with many private methods

  - by Simon G

  Hi, I've got a class with one public method and many private methods which are run depending on what parameter are passed to the public method so my code looks something like: public class SomeComplexClass { IRepository _repository; public SomeComplexClass() this(new Repository()) { } public SomeComplexClass(IRepository repository) { _repository = repository; } public List<int> SomeComplexCalcualation(int option) { var list = new List<int>(); if (option == 1) list = CalculateOptionOne(); else if (option == 2) list = CalculateOptionTwo(); else if (option == 3) list = CalculateOptionThree(); else if (option == 4) list = CalculateOptionFour(); else if (option == 5) list = CalculateOptionFive(); return list; } private List<int> CalculateOptionOne() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionTwo() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionThree() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionFour() { // Some calculation } private List<int> CalculateOptionFive() { // Some calculation } } I've thought of a few ways to test this class but all of them seem overly complex or expose the methods more than I would like. The options so far are: Set all the private methods to internal and use [assembly: InternalsVisibleTo()] Separate out all the private methods into a separate class and create an interface. Make all the methods virtual and in my tests create a new class that inherits from this class and override the methods. Are there any other options for testing the above class that would be better that what I've listed? If you would pick one of the ones I've listed can you explain why? Thanks

  Read the article

• Writing good tests for Django applications

  - by Ludwik Trammer

  I've never written any tests in my life, but I'd like to start writing tests for my Django projects. I've read some articles about tests and decided to try to write some tests for an extremely simple Django app or a start. The app has two views (a list view, and a detail view) and a model with four fields: class News(models.Model): title = models.CharField(max_length=250) content = models.TextField() pub_date = models.DateTimeField(default=datetime.datetime.now) slug = models.SlugField(unique=True) I would like to show you my tests.py file and ask: Does it make sense? Am I even testing for the right things? Are there best practices I'm not following, and you could point me to? my tests.py (it contains 11 tests): # -*- coding: utf-8 -*- from django.test import TestCase from django.test.client import Client from django.core.urlresolvers import reverse import datetime from someproject.myapp.models import News class viewTest(TestCase): def setUp(self): self.test_title = u'Test title: bareksc' self.test_content = u'This is a content 156' self.test_slug = u'test-title-bareksc' self.test_pub_date = datetime.datetime.today() self.test_item = News.objects.create( title=self.test_title, content=self.test_content, slug=self.test_slug, pub_date=self.test_pub_date, ) client = Client() self.response_detail = client.get(self.test_item.get_absolute_url()) self.response_index = client.get(reverse('the-list-view')) def test_detail_status_code(self): """ HTTP status code for the detail view """ self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_detail.status_code, 200) def test_list_status_code(self): """ HTTP status code for the list view """ self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_index.status_code, 200) def test_list_numer_of_items(self): self.failUnlessEqual(len(self.response_index.context['object_list']), 1) def test_detail_title(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_detail.context['object'].title, self.test_title) def test_list_title(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_index.context['object_list'][0].title, self.test_title) def test_detail_content(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_detail.context['object'].content, self.test_content) def test_list_content(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_index.context['object_list'][0].content, self.test_content) def test_detail_slug(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_detail.context['object'].slug, self.test_slug) def test_list_slug(self): self.failUnlessEqual(self.response_index.context['object_list'][0].slug, self.test_slug) def test_detail_template(self): self.assertContains(self.response_detail, self.test_title) self.assertContains(self.response_detail, self.test_content) def test_list_template(self): self.assertContains(self.response_index, self.test_title)

  Read the article

• What's the use of writing tests matching configuration-like code line by line?

  - by Pascal Van Hecke

  Hi, I have been wondering about the usefulness of writing tests that match code one-by-one. Just an example: in Rails, you can define 7 restful routes in one line in routes.rb using: resources :products BDD/TDD proscribes you test first and then write code. In order to test the full effect of this line, devs come up with macros e.g. for shoulda: http://kconrails.com/2010/01/27/route-testing-with-shoulda-in-ruby-on-rails/ class RoutingTest < ActionController::TestCase # simple should_map_resources :products end I'm not trying to pick on the guy that wrote the macros, this is just an example of a pattern that I see all over Rails. I'm just wondering what the use of it is... in the end you're just duplicating code and the only thing you test is that Rails works. You could as well write a tool that transforms your test macros into actual code... When I ask around, people answer me that: "the tests should document your code, so yes it makes sense to write them, even if it's just one line corresponding to one line" What are your thoughts?

  Read the article

• How can I split abstract testcases in JUnit?

  - by Willi Schönborn

  I have an abstract testcase "AbstractATest" for an interface "A". It has several test methods (@Test) and one abstract method: protected abstract A unit(); which provides the unit under testing. No i have multiple implementations of "A", e.g. "DefaultA", "ConcurrentA", etc. My problem: The testcase is huge (~1500 loc) and it's growing. So i wanted to split it into multiple testcases. How can organize/structure this in Junit 4 without the need to have a concrete testcase for every implementation and abstract testcase. I want e.g. "AInitializeTest", "AExectueTest" and "AStopTest". Each being abstract and containing multiple tests. But for my concrete "ConcurrentA", i only want to have one concrete testcase "ConcurrentATest". I hope my "problem" is clear. EDIT Looks like my description was not that clear. Is it possible to pass a reference to a test? I know parameterized tests, but these require static methods, which is not applicable to my setup. Subclasses of an abstract testcase decide about the parameter.

  Read the article

• Visual Studio Load Testing using Windows Azure

  - by Tarun Arora

  In my opinion the biggest adoption barrier in performance testing on smaller projects is not the tooling but the high infrastructure and administration cost that comes with this phase of testing. Only if a reusable solution was possible and infrastructure management wasn’t as expensive, adoption would certainly spike. It certainly is possible if you bring Visual Studio and Windows Azure into the equation. It is possible to run your test rig in the cloud without getting tangled in SCVMM or Lab Management. All you need is an active Azure subscription, Windows Azure endpoint enabled developer workstation running visual studio ultimate on premise, windows azure endpoint enabled worker roles on azure compute instances set up to run as test controllers and test agents. My test rig is running SQL server 2012 and Visual Studio 2012 RC agents. The beauty is that the solution is reusable, you can open the azure project, change the subscription and certificate, click publish and *BOOM* in less than 15 minutes you could have your own test rig running in the cloud. In this blog post I intend to show you how you can use the power of Windows Azure to effectively abstract the administration cost of infrastructure management and lower the total cost of Load & Performance Testing. As a bonus, I will share a reusable solution that you can use to automate test rig creation for both VS 2010 agents as well as VS 2012 agents. Introduction The slide show below should help you under the high level details of what we are trying to achive... Leveraging Azure for Performance Testing View more PowerPoint from Avanade Scenario 1 – Running a Test Rig in Windows Azure To start off with the basics, in the first scenario I plan to discuss how to, - Automate deployment & configuration of Windows Azure Worker Roles for Test Controller and Test Agent - Automate deployment & configuration of SQL database on Test Controller on the Test Controller Worker Role - Scaling Test Agents on demand - Creating a Web Performance Test and a simple Load Test - Managing Test Controllers right from Visual Studio on Premise Developer Workstation - Viewing results of the Load Test - Cleaning up - Have the above work in the shape of a reusable solution for both VS2010 and VS2012 Test Rig Scenario 2 – The scaled out Test Rig and sharing data using SQL Azure A scaled out version of this implementation would involve running multiple test rigs running in the cloud, in this scenario I will show you how to sync the load test database from these distributed test rigs into one SQL Azure database using Azure sync. The selling point for this scenario is being able to collate the load test efforts from across the organization into one data store. - Deploy multiple test rigs using the reusable solution from scenario 1 - Set up and configure Windows Azure Sync - Test SQL Azure Load Test result database created as a result of Windows Azure Sync - Cleaning up - Have the above work in the shape of a reusable solution for both VS2010 and VS2012 Test Rig The Ingredients Though with an active MSDN ultimate subscription you would already have access to everything and more, you will essentially need the below to try out the scenarios, 1. Windows Azure Subscription 2. Windows Azure Storage – Blob Storage 3. Windows Azure Compute – Worker Role 4. SQL Azure Database 5. SQL Data Sync 6. Windows Azure Connect – End points 7. SQL 2012 Express or SQL 2008 R2 Express 8. Visual Studio All Agents 2012 or Visual Studio All Agents 2010 9. A developer workstation set up with Visual Studio 2012 – Ultimate or Visual Studio 2010 – Ultimate 10. Visual Studio Load Test Unlimited Virtual User Pack. Walkthrough To set up the test rig in the cloud, the test controller, test agent and SQL express installers need to be available when the worker role set up starts, the easiest and most efficient way is to pre upload the required software into Windows Azure Blob storage. SQL express, test controller and test agent expose various switches which we can take advantage of including the quiet install switch. Once all the 3 have been installed the test controller needs to be registered with the test agents and the SQL database needs to be associated to the test controller. By enabling Windows Azure connect on the machines in the cloud and the developer workstation on premise we successfully create a virtual network amongst the machines enabling 2 way communication. All of the above can be done programmatically, let’s see step by step how… Scenario 1 Video Walkthrough–Leveraging Windows Azure for performance Testing Scenario 2 Work in progress, watch this space for more… Solution If you are still reading and are interested in the solution, drop me an email with your windows live id. I’ll add you to my TFS preview project which has a re-usable solution for both VS 2010 and VS 2012 test rigs as well as guidance and demo performance tests.   Conclusion Other posts and resources available here. Possibilities…. Endless!

  Read the article

• Exposing business logic as WCF service

  - by Oren Schwartz

  I'm working on a middle-tier project which encapsulates the business logic (uses a DAL layer, and serves a web application server [ASP.net]) of a product deployed in a LAN. The BL serves as a bunch of services and data objects that are invoked upon user action. At present times, the DAL acts as a separate application whereas the BL uses it, but is consumed by the web application as a DLL. Both the DAL and the web application are deployed on different servers inside organization, and since the BL DLL is consumed by the web application, it resides in the same server. The worst thing about exposing the BL as a DLL is that we lost track with what we expose. Deployment is not such a big issue since mostly, product versions are deployed together. Would you recommend migrating from DLL to WCF service? If so, why? Do you know anyone who had a similar experience?

  Read the article

• How to integrate game logic in game engines

  - by MahanGM

  Recently I'm working on a 2d game engine example in .Net with C#. My main problem is that I can't figure out how I should include the game logic within the game. Currently I have a base engine which is a set of classes that they are running sub-systems like Render, Sound, Input and Core functionality. There is an editor which helps the user to add resources, build levels, write scripts and other stuffs. I came up with an idea to use Reflection and CSharpCodeProvider from my editor to compile the written code. This way I can get an executable of my product too. This way is quite well but I would like to know what's really the solution and architecture to do this. My engine's role is 2d platform. The scripting language is C# right now because I can't consist any other embeddable language for now. The game needs compilation and CSharpCodeProvider is the only way for me to do it meantime.

  Read the article

• Networking Client Server Packet logic (How they communicate)

  - by Trixmix

  I want to know what is the logic behind server client communication through packets for a real time game. for example the server sends x packets then the client receives x packets and processes them.. Basically what is the process to keep the client and server in sync and able to receive and send packets. more in depth example of what I want to know: client step 1 wait for a packet step 2 read x packets step 3 process x packets step 4 send x packets and so on... I need to know the very basic outline of the communication. Big questions are: 1) do I send and read packets all at one time? i.e for loop though the incoming packets array list and read them all or one every server loop or what... 2) what order should I do things i.e first receive then read then process then send etc.. 3) what I asked above a step by step of what the server / client should do.. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Basic WCF Unit Testing

  - by Brian

  Coming from someone who loves the KISS method, I was surprised to find that I was making something entirely too complicated. I know, shocker right? Now I'm no unit testing ninja, and not really a WCF ninja either, but had a desire to test service calls without a) going to a database, or b) making sure that the entire WCF infrastructure was tip top. Who does? It's not the environment I want to test, just the logic I’ve written to ensure there aren't any side effects. So, for the K.I.S.S. method: Assuming that you're using a WCF service library (you are using service libraries correct?), it's really as easy as referencing the service library, then building out some stubs for bunking up data. The service contract We’ll use a very basic service contract, just for getting and updating an entity. I’ve used the default “CompositeType” that is in the template, handy only for examples like this. I’ve added an Id property and overridden ToString and Equals. [ServiceContract] public interface IMyService { [OperationContract] CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id); [OperationContract] CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item); [OperationContract] CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes(); } The implementation When I implement the service, I want to be able to send known data into it so I don’t have to fuss around with database access or the like. To do this, I first have to create an interface for my data access: public interface IMyServiceDataManager { CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id); CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item); CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes(); } For the purposes of this we can ignore our implementation of the IMyServiceDataManager interface inside of the service. Pretend it uses LINQ to Entities to map its data, or maybe it goes old school and uses EntLib to talk to SQL. Maybe it talks to a tape spool on a mainframe on the third floor. It really doesn’t matter. That’s the point. So here’s what our service looks like in its most basic form: public CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id) { //sanity checks if (id == 0) throw new ArgumentException("id cannot be zero."); return _dataManager.GetCompositeType(id); } public CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item) { return _dataManager.SaveCompositeType(item); } public CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes() { return _dataManager.GetAllCompositeTypes(); } But what about the datamanager? The constructor takes care of that. I don’t want to expose any testing ability in release (or the ability for someone to swap out my datamanager) so this is what we get: IMyServiceDataManager _dataManager; public MyService() { _dataManager = new MyServiceDataManager(); } #if DEBUG public MyService(IMyServiceDataManager dataManager) { _dataManager = dataManager; } #endif The Stub Now it’s time for the rubber to meet the road… Like most guys that ever talk about unit testing here’s a sample that is painting in *very* broad strokes. The important part however is that within the test project, I’ve created a bunk (unit testing purists would say stub I believe) object that implements my IMyServiceDataManager so that I can deal with known data. Here it is: internal class FakeMyServiceDataManager : IMyServiceDataManager { internal FakeMyServiceDataManager() { Collection = new CompositeTypeCollection(); Collection.AddRange(new CompositeTypeCollection { new CompositeType { Id = 1, BoolValue = true, StringValue = "foo 1", }, new CompositeType { Id = 2, BoolValue = false, StringValue = "foo 2", }, new CompositeType { Id = 3, BoolValue = true, StringValue = "foo 3", }, }); } CompositeTypeCollection Collection { get; set; } #region IMyServiceDataManager Members public CompositeType GetCompositeType(int id) { if (id <= 0) return null; return Collection.SingleOrDefault(m => m.Id == id); } public CompositeType SaveCompositeType(CompositeType item) { var existing = Collection.SingleOrDefault(m => m.Id == item.Id); if (null != existing) { Collection.Remove(existing); } if (item.Id == 0) { item.Id = Collection.Count > 0 ? Collection.Max(m => m.Id) + 1 : 1; } Collection.Add(item); return item; } public CompositeTypeCollection GetAllCompositeTypes() { return Collection; } #endregion } So it’s tough to see in this example why any of this is necessary, but in a real world application you would/should/could be applying much more logic within your service implementation. This all serves to ensure that between refactorings etc, that it doesn’t send sparking cogs all about or let the blue smoke out. Here’s a simple test that brings it all home, remember, broad strokes: [TestMethod] public void MyService_GetCompositeType_ExpectedValues() { FakeMyServiceDataManager fake = new FakeMyServiceDataManager(); MyService service = new MyService(fake); CompositeType expected = fake.GetCompositeType(1); CompositeType actual = service.GetCompositeType(2); Assert.AreEqual<CompositeType>(expected, actual, "Objects are not equal. Expected: {0}; Actual: {1};", expected, actual); } Summary That’s really all there is to it. You could use software x or framework y to do the exact same thing, but in my case I just didn’t really feel like it. This speaks volumes to my not yet ninja unit testing prowess.

  Read the article

• Logic in Entity Components Systems

  - by aaron

  I'm making a game that uses an Entity/Component architecture basically a port of Artemis's framework to c++,the problem arises when I try to make a PlayerControllerComponent, my original idea was this. class PlayerControllerComponent: Component { public: virtual void update() = 0; }; class FpsPlayerControllerComponent: PlayerControllerComponent { public: void update() { //handle input } }; and have a system that updates PlayerControllerComponents, but I found out that the artemis framework does not look at sub-classes the way I thought it would. So all in all my question here is should I make the framework aware of subclasses or should I add a new Component like object that is used for logic.

  Read the article

• What use is a Business Logic Layer (BLL)?

  - by Andrew S. Arnold

  In reading up on good practice for database applications I've frequently come across advocates of so-called "business logic layers" and I'm trying to decide if it's best for my project to use one (it's a small personal project). My issue lies in the fact that I can't think of anything for the BLL to do that the DAL can't already handle (executing queries and mapping results to objects), so my BLL just calls the DAL without doing anything itself. Maybe I'm wrong about exactly what the DAL should be doing too. But regardless, what sorts of functionality should be expected of a BLL in a database management application?

  Read the article

• SSIS 2008 Configuration Settings Handling Logic for Variables Visualized

  - by Compudicted

  There are many articles discussing the specifics of how the configuration settings are applied including the differences between SSIS 2005 and 2008 version implementations, however this topic keeps resurfacing on MSDN’s SSIS Forum. I thought it could be useful to cover the logic aspect visually. Below is a diagram explaining the basic flow of a variable setting for a case when no parent package is involved.   As you can see the run time stage ignores any command line flags for variables already set in the config file, I realize this is not stressed enough in many publications. Besides, another interesting fact is that the command line dtexec tool is case sensitive for the portion following the package keyword, I mean if you specify your flag to set a new value for a variable like dtexec /f Package.dtsx -set \package.variables[varPkgMyDate].value;02/01/2011 (notice the lover case v in .value) You will get errors. By capitalizing the keyword the package runs successfully.

  Read the article

• What Counts for A DBA - Logic

  - by drsql

  "There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who will always wonder why there are only two items in my list and those who will figured it out the first time they saw this very old joke."  Those readers who will give up immediately and get frustrated with me for not explaining it to them are not likely going to be great technical professionals of any sort, much less a programmer or administrator who will be constantly dealing with the common failures that make up a DBA's day.  Many of these people will stare at this like a dog staring at a traffic signal and still have no more idea of how to decipher the riddle. Without explanation they will give up, call the joke "stupid" and, feeling quite superior, walk away indignantly to their job likely flipping patties of meat-by-product. As a data professional or any programmer who has strayed  to this very data-oriented blog, you would, if you are worth your weight in air, either have recognized immediately what was going on, or felt a bit ignorant.  Your friends are chuckling over the joke, but why is it funny? Unfortunately you left your smartphone at home on the dresser because you were up late last night programming and were running late to work (again), so you will either have to fake a laugh or figure it out.  Digging through the joke, you figure out that the word "two" is the most important part, since initially the joke mentioned 10. Hmm, why did they spell out two, but not ten? Maybe 10 could be interpreted a different way?  As a DBA, this sort of logic comes into play every day, and sometimes it doesn't involve nerdy riddles or Star Wars folklore.  When you turn on your computer and get the dreaded blue screen of death, you don't immediately cry to the help desk and sit on your thumbs and whine about not being able to work. Do that and your co-workers will question your nerd-hood; I know I certainly would. You figure out the problem, and when you have it narrowed down, you call the help desk and tell them what the problem is, usually having to explain that yes, you did in fact try to reboot before calling.  Of course, sometimes humility does come in to play when you reach the end of your abilities, but the ‘end of abilities’ is not something any of us recognize readily. It is handy to have the ability to use logic to solve uncommon problems: It becomes especially useful when you are trying to solve a data-related problem such as a query performance issue, and the way that you approach things will tell your coworkers a great deal about your abilities.  The novice is likely to immediately take the approach of  trying to add more indexes or blaming the hardware. As you become more and more experienced, it becomes increasingly obvious that performance issues are a very complex topic. A query may be slow for a myriad of reasons, from concurrency issues, a poor query plan because of a parameter value (like parameter sniffing,) poor coding standards, or just because it is a complex query that is going to be slow sometimes. Some queries that you will deal with may have twenty joins and hundreds of search criteria, and it can take a lot of thought to determine what is going on.  You can usually figure out the problem to almost any query by using basic knowledge of how joins and queries work, together with the help of such things as the query plan, profiler or monitoring tools.  It is not unlikely that it can take a full day’s work to understand some queries, breaking them down into smaller queries to find a very tiny problem. Not every time will you actually find the problem, and it is part of the process to occasionally admit that the problem is random, and everything works fine now.  Sometimes, it is necessary to realize that a problem is outside of your current knowledge, and admit temporary defeat: You can, at least, narrow down the source of the problem by looking logically at all of the possible solutions. By doing this, you can satisfy your curiosity and learn more about what the actual problem was. For example, in the joke, had you never been exposed to the concept of binary numbers, there is no way you could have known that binary - 10 = decimal - 2, but you could have logically come to the conclusion that 10 must not mean ten in the context of the joke, and at that point you are that much closer to getting the joke and at least won't feel so ignorant.

  Read the article

• How to design console application with good seperation of UI from Logic

  - by JavaSa

  Is it considered an overkill for console application to be design like MVC , MVP or N tier architecture? If not which is more common and if you can link me to simple example of it. I want to implement a tic tac toe game in console application. I have a solution which hold two projects: TicTacToeBusinessLogic (Class library project) and TicTacToeConsoleApplication (Console application project) to represent the view logic. In the TicTacToeConsoleApplication I've Program.cs class which holds the main entry point (public static void Main). Now I face a problem. I want the game to handle its own game flow so I can: Create new GameManager class (from BL) but this causing the view to directly know the BL part. So I'm a little confused how to write it in an acceptable way. Should I use delegates? Please show me a simple example.

  Read the article

• Logic in Entity Components Sytems

  - by aaron

  I'm making a game that uses an Entity/Component architecture basically a port of Artemis's framework to c++,the problem arises when I try to make a PlayerControllerComponent, my original idea was this. class PlayerControllerComponent: Component { public: virtual void update() = 0; }; class FpsPlayerControllerComponent: PlayerControllerComponent { public: void update() { //handle input } }; and have a system that updates PlayerControllerComponents, but I found out that the artemis framework does not look at sub-classes the way I thought it would. So all in all my question here is should I make the framework aware of subclasses or should I add a new Component like object that is used for logic.

  Read the article

• Is there a repository of game logic algorithms?

  - by New2This

  I'm writing my first 2D game, and I'm writing some tracking logic for the computer enemies. Basic follow-the-player tracking was easy, but ineffectual. Too easy to escape. So I'm trying to implement some more sophisticated flanking and other tactics, and (as expected) it's pretty tricky. This is a topic I know nothing about. I'm going to keep trying, but it'd be awesome to have some examples or tips to work off of. Is there any place that has a decent set of pseudocode AI algorithms, or tips or advice on the subject, e.g. for 2D tracking?

  Read the article

• Get/Post Controller Logic Best Practice

  - by Brian Mains

  In an ASP.NET MVC project (Razor), I have a Get request, which loads two properties on a model, dependent on the property passed into the action method. So if the parameter has a value, the Group property is supplied data. But if not, the Groups collection property is supplied data. In the post action method, when I process the data, to repopulate the view, I have to provide similar logic, and could getaway with returning Action(param) (the get response) to the caller. My question is, based on experience, is that a good practice to get into? I see some downsides to doing that, but adds the lack of code redundancy. Or is there a better alternative?

  Read the article

• Logic - Time measurement

  - by user73384

  To measure the following for tasks- Last execution time and maximum execution time for each task. CPU load/time consumed by each task over a defined period informed by application at run time. Maximum CPU load consumed by each task. Tasks have following characteristics- First task runs as background – Event information for entering only Second task - periodic – Event information for entering and exiting from task Third task is interrupt , can start any time – no information available from this task Forth task highest priority interrupt , can start any time – Event information for entering and exiting from task Should use least possible execution time and memory. 32bit increment timer available for time counting. Lets prepare and discuss the logic, It’s OK to have limitations …! Questions on understanding problem statement are welcome

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >