Search Results

Search found 10010 results on 401 pages for 'a b testing'.

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 39/401 | < Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >

  • TDD - Outside In vs Inside Out

    - by Songo
    What is the difference between building an application Outside In vs building it Inside Out using TDD? These are the books I read about TDD and unit testing: Test Driven Development: By Example Test-Driven Development: A Practical Guide: A Practical Guide Real-World Solutions for Developing High-Quality PHP Frameworks and Applications Test-Driven Development in Microsoft .NET xUnit Test Patterns: Refactoring Test Code The Art of Unit Testing: With Examples in .Net Growing Object-Oriented Software, Guided by Tests---This one was really hard to understand since JAVA isn't my primary language :) Almost all of them explained TDD basics and unit testing in general, but with little mention of the different ways the application can be constructed. Another thing I noticed is that most of these books (if not all) ignore the design phase when writing the application. They focus more on writing the test cases quickly and letting the design emerge by itself. However, I came across a paragraph in xUnit Test Patterns that discussed the ways people approach TDD. There are 2 schools out there Outside In vs Inside Out. Sadly the book doesn't elaborate more on this point. I wish to know what is the main difference between these 2 cases. When should I use each one of them? To a TDD beginner which one is easier to grasp? What is the drawbacks of each method? Is there any materials out there that discuss this topic specifically?

    Read the article

  • How can Agile methodologies be adapted to High Volume processing system development?

    - by luckyluke
    I am developing high volume processing systems. Like mathematical models that calculate various parameters based on millions of records, calculated derived fields over milions of records, process huge files having transactions etc... I am well aware of unit testing methodologies and if my code is in C# I have no problem in unit testing it. Problem is I often have code in T-SQL, C# code that is a SQL stored assembly, and SSIS workflow with a good amount of logic (and outcomes etc) or some SAS process. What is the approach YOu use when developing such systems. I usually develop several tests as Stored procedures in a designed schema(TEST) and then automatically run them overnight and check out the results. But this is only for T-SQL. And Continous integration IS hard. But the problem is with testing SSIS packages. How do You test it? What is Your preferred approach for stubbing data into tables (especially if You need a lot data initialization). I have some approach derived over the years but maybe I am just not reading enough articles. So Banking, Telecom, Risk developers out there. How do You test your mission critical apps that process milions of records at end day, month end etc? What frameworks do You use? How do You validate that Your ssis package is Correct (as You develop it)/ How do You achieve continous integration in such an environment (Personally I never got there)? I hope this is not to open-ended question. How do You test Your map-reduce jobs for example (i do not use hadoop but this is quite similar). luke Hope that this is not too open ended

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • How can "today's date" be varied for unit testing purposes?

    - by ck
    I use VS2008 targetting .NET 2.0 Framework, and, just in case, no I can't change this :) I have a DateCalculator class. Its method GetNextExpirationDate attempts to determine the next expiration, internally using DateTime.Today as a baseline date. As I was writing unit tests, I realized that I wanted to test GetNextExpirationDate for different 'today' dates. What's the best way to do this? Here are some alternatives I've considered: Expose a property/overloaded method with argument baselineDate and only use it from the unit test. In actual client code, disregard the property/overloaded method in favour of the method that defaults baselineDate to DateTime.Today. I'm reluctant to do this as it makes the public interface of the DateCalculator class awkward. Create a protected field called baselineDate that is internally set to DateTime.Today. When testing, derive a DateCalculatorForTesting from DateCalculator and set baslineDate via the constructor. It keeps the public interface clean, but still isn't great - baselineDate was made protected and a derived class is required, both solely for testing. Use extension methods. I tried this after adding the ExtensionAttribute, then realized it wouldn't work because extension methods can't access private/protected variables. I initially thought this was really quite an elegant solution. :( I'd be interested in hearing what others think.

    Read the article

  • Django unit testing: South-migrated DB works in MySQL, throws duplicate PK error in PostGreSQL. Am I

    - by unclaimedbaggage
    Hi folks, (Worth starting off with a disclaimer: I'm very new to PostGreSQL) I have a django site which involves a standard app/tests.py testing file. If I migrate the DB to MySQL (through South),, the tests all pass. However in PostGresQL, I'm getting the following error: IntegrityError: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "business_contact_pkey" Note this happens while unit testing only - the actual page runs fine in both MySQL & PostGresql. Really having a heckuva time figuring this one out. Anyone have ideas? Below are the Postgresql "\d business_contact" & offending tests.py method if they help. No changes made to either DB except the (same) South migrations Thanks first_name | character varying(200) | not null mobile_phone | character varying(100) | surname | character varying(200) | not null business_id | integer | not null created | timestamp with time zone | not null deleted | boolean | not null default false updated | timestamp with time zone | not null slug | character varying(150) | not null phone | character varying(100) | email | character varying(75) | id | integer | not null default nextval('business_contact_id_seq'::regclass) Indexes: "business_contact_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id) "business_contact_slug_key" UNIQUE, btree (slug) "business_contact_business_id" btree (business_id) Foreign-key constraints: "business_id_refs_id_772cc1b7b40f4b36" FOREIGN KEY (business_id) REFERENCES business(id) DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED Referenced by: TABLE "business" CONSTRAINT "primary_contact_id_refs_id_dfaf59c4041c850" FOREIGN KEY (primary_contact_id) REFERENCES business_contact(id) DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED TEST DEF: def test_add_business_contact(self): """ Add a business contact """ contact_slug = 'test-new-contact-added-new-adf' business_id = 1 business = Business.objects.get(id=business_id) postdata = { 'first_name': 'Test', 'surname': 'User', 'business': '1', 'slug': contact_slug, 'email': '[email protected]', 'phone': '12345678', 'mobile_phone': '9823452', 'business': 1, 'business_id': 1, } #Test to ensure contacts that should not exist are not returned contact_not_exists = Contact.objects.filter(slug=contact_slug) self.assertFalse(contact_not_exists) #Add the contact and ensure it is present in the DB afterwards """ contact_add_url = '%s%s/contact/add/' % (settings.BUSINESS_URL, business.slug) self.client.post(contact_add_url, postdata) added_contact = Contact.objects.filter(slug=contact_slug) print added_contact try: self.assertTrue(added_contact) except: formset = ContactForm(postdata) print formset.errors self.assertFalse(True, "Contact not found in the database - most likely, the post values in the test didn't validate against the form")

    Read the article

  • What's the state of PHP unit testing frameworks in 2010?

    - by Pekka
    As far as I can see, PHPUnit is the only serious product in the field at the moment. It is widely used, is integrated into Continuous Integration suites like phpUnderControl, and well regarded. The thing is, I don't really like working with PHPUnit. I find it hard to set up (PEAR is the only officially supported installation method, and I hate PEAR), sometimes complicated to work with and, correct me if I'm wrong, lacking executability from a web page context (i.e. no CLI, which would really be nice when developing a web app.) The only competition to I can see is Simpletest, which looks very nice but hasn't seen a new release for almost two years, which tends to rule it out for me - Unit Testing is quite a static field, true, but as I will be deploying those tests alongside web applications, I would like to see active development on the project, at least for security updates and such. There is a SO question that pretty much confirms what I'm saying: Simple test vs PHPunit Seeing that that is almost two years old as well, though, I think it's time to ask again: Does anybody know any other serious feature-complete unit testing frameworks? Am I wrong in my criticism of PHPUnit? Is there still development going on for SimpleTest?

    Read the article

  • Benefits of Behavior Driven Development

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/07/26/benefits-of-behavior-driven-development.aspxContinuing my previous article on BDD, I wanted to point out some benefits of BDD and since BDD is an extension of Test Driven Development (TDD), you get those as well. I’ll add another article on some possible downsides of this approach. There are many articles about the benefits of TDD and they apply to BDD. I’ve pointed out some here and copied some of the main points for each article, but there are many more including the book The Art of Unit Testing by Roy Osherove. http://geekswithblogs.net/leesblog/archive/2008/04/30/the-benefits-of-test-driven-development.aspx (Lee Brandt) Stability Accountability Design Ability Separated Concerns Progress Indicator http://tddftw.com/benefits-of-tdd/ Help maintainers understand the intention behind the code Bring validation and proper data handling concerns to the forefront. Writing the tests first is fun. Better APIs come from writing testable code. TDD will make you a better developer. http://www.slideshare.net/dhelper/benefit-from-unit-testing-in-the-real-world (from Typemock). Take a look at the slides, especially the extra time required for TDD (slide 10) and the next one of the bugs avoided using TDD (slide 11). Less bugs (slide 11) about testing and development (13) Increase confidence in code (14) Fearlessly change your code (14) Document Requirements (14) also see http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2013/06/01/roc-rocks.aspx Discover usability issues early (14) All these points and articles are great and there are many more. The following are my additions to the benefits of BDD from using it in real projects for my company. July 2013 on MSDN - Behavior-Driven Design with SpecFlow Scott Allen did a very informative TDD and MVC module, but to me he is doing BDDCompile and Execute Requirements in Microsoft .NET ~ Video from TechEd 2012 Communication I was working through a complicated task that the decision tree kept growing. After writing out the Given, When, Then of the scenario, I was able tell QA what I had worked through for their initial test cases. They were able to add from there. It is also useful to use this language with other developers, managers, or clients to help make informed decisions on if it meets the requirements or if it can simplified to save time (money). Thinking through solutions, before starting to code This was the biggest benefit to me. I like to jump into coding to figure out the problem. Many times I don't understand my path well enough and have to do some parts over. A past supervisor told me several times during reviews that I need to get better at seeing "the forest for the trees". When I sit down and write out the behavior that I need to implement, I force myself to think things out further and catch scenarios before they get to QA. A co-worker that is new to BDD and we’ve been using it in our new project for the last 6 months, said “It really clarifies things”. It took him awhile to understand it all, but now he’s seeing the value of this approach (yes there are some downsides, but that is a different issue). Developers’ Confidence This is huge for me. With tests in place, my confidence grows that I won’t break code that I’m not directly changing. In the past, I’ve worked on projects with out tests and we would frequently find regression bugs (or worse the users would find them). That isn’t fun. We don’t catch all problems with the tests, but when QA catches one, I can write a test to make sure it doesn’t happen again. It’s also good for Releasing code, telling your manager that it’s good to go. As time goes on and the code gets older, how confident are you that checking in code won’t break something somewhere else? Merging code - pre release confidence If you’re merging code a lot, it’s nice to have the tests to help ensure you didn’t merge incorrectly. Interrupted work I had a task that I started and planned out, then was interrupted for a month because of different priorities. When I started it up again, and un-shelved my changes, I had the BDD specs and it helped me remember what I had figured out and what was left to do. It would have much more difficult without the specs and tests. Testing and verifying complicated scenarios Sometimes in the UI there are scenarios that get tricky, because there are a lot of steps involved (click here to open the dialog, enter the information, make sure it’s valid, when I click cancel it should do {x}, when I click ok it should close and do {y}, then do this, etc….). With BDD I can avoid some of the mouse clicking define the scenarios and have them re-run quickly, without using a mouse. UI testing is still needed, but this helps a bunch. The same can be true for tricky server logic. Documentation of Assumptions and Specifications The BDD spec tests (Jasmine or SpecFlow or other tool) also work as documentation and show what the original developer was trying to accomplish. It’s not a different Word document, so developers will keep this up to date, instead of letting it become obsolete. What happens if you leave the project (consulting, new job, etc) with no specs or at the least good comments in the code? Sometimes I think of a new scenario, so I add a failing spec and continue in the same stream of thought (don’t forget it because it was on a piece of paper or in a notepad). Then later I can come back and handle it and have it documented. Jasmine tests and JavaScript –> help deal with the non-typed system I like JavaScript, but I also dislike working with JavaScript. I miss C# telling me if a property doesn’t actually exist at build time. I like the idea of TypeScript and hope to use it more in the future. I also use KnockoutJs, which has observables that need to be called with ending (), since the observable is a function. It’s hard to remember when to use () or not and the Jasmine specs/tests help ensure the correct usage.   This should give you an idea of the benefits that I see in using the BDD approach. I’m sure there are more. It talks a lot of practice, investment and experimentation to figure out how to approach this and to get comfortable with it. I agree with Scott Allen in the video I linked above “Remember that TDD can take some practice. So if you're not doing test-driven design right now? You can start and practice and get better. And you'll reach a point where you'll never want to get back.”

    Read the article

  • Is IE Collection reliable tool for testing with various versions of Internet Explorer?

    - by rsturim
    On my Windows machine -- I typically test different versions of Internet Explorer using an array of Virtual Machine instances (which obviously requires a fair amount of investment in time and money). In a pinch I have also used IETester -- which at times can be a little unreliable. However, I just discovered IE Collection and was wondering if people have used it -- and can I rely on it for web page testing purposes? Would love to know what you think.

    Read the article

  • What libraries are available to record a user browsing your website for usability testing?

    - by John
    I remember seeing a JavaScript library a long time ago that offered the ability to record where users clicked and moved their mouse on your website, in order to do usability testing. I can't seem to find it anymore. Are there any libraries out there that do something like this? What I'm looking for is something like http://clixpy.com/, where you can include some javascript on a page and get videos of what users do.

    Read the article

  • Can I use Visual Studio's testing facilities in native code?

    - by Billy ONeal
    Is it possible to use Visual Studio's testing system with native code? I have no objection to recompiling the code itself under C++/CLI if it's possible the code can be recompiled without changes -- but the production code shipped has to be native code. The Premium Edition comes with code coverage support which I might be able to get cheaply from my University -- but I can get the Professional Edition for free from DreamSpark -- and that's the only thing I can see that I'd use. (But I'd use it a LOT)

    Read the article

  • How is "clean" testing done on the Macintosh without virtualization?

    - by Schnapple
    One of the things I've run across on Windows is when a web browser plugin or program you're developing makes an assumption that something is installed that, by default, isn't always present on Windows. A perfect example would be .NET - a whole lot of people running Windows XP have never installed any versions of .NET and so the installer needs to detect and remedy this if necessary. The way I've been testing this in Windows is to have a virtual machine with a snapshot of a clean, patched, but otherwise untouched install of XP or Vista or 7 or whatever. When I'm done testing I just discard any changes since the snapshot. Works great. I'm now developing something for the Macintosh, a platform which is very new to me, and I'm seeing that virtualization does not appear to be an option. It's explicitly forbidden in the EULA of Mac OS X, it's only allowed from Mac OS X Server, which seeing as how I'm targeting an end product is of no use to me, and the one program I see which can virtualize it - VirtualBox - only supports the server and actively nukes any discussion of running the consumer/client version of Mac OS X. And the only instructions I find anywhere on the topic seem to involve the use of "hacking" programs which is very much incompatible with the full-time gig I'm trying to do this for. So it looks like virtualization is out, but at various points I'm going to want or need to simulate what it's like to install and run this software on a "clean" Macintosh. How do people usually do this? Just buy multiple Macintoshes and use Time Machine? Am I thinking about this all wrong and everything Just Works? To be clear I'm not trying to run Mac OS X on a Windows machine. I have a Macintosh, I'm fine with virtualizing Mac OS X on Apple hardware, I'm just not seeing a route to making the non-Server version do this. I'm aware that Mac OS X Server can be virtualized but that's not what I'm going for. I'm aware that there are unsanctioned/unsupported methods of making Mac OS X run in virtualization programs like VirtualBox but for legal reasons I am not interested in those. My question is not "how can I do this?" but rather "so this thing I do on Windows seems to not be possible, generally, on the Macintosh, so what do people do to achieve what I'm going for?"

    Read the article

  • Software Testing Humor

    - by mbcrump
    I usually don’t share these kind of things unless it really makes me laugh. At least, I can provide a link to a free eBook on the Pablo’s S.O.L.I.D principles eBook. S.O.L.I.D. is a collection of best-practice object-oriented design principles that you can apply to your design to accomplish various desirable goals like loose-coupling, higher maintainability, intuitive location of interesting code, etc You may also want to check out the Pablo’s 31 Days of Refactoring eBook as well.

    Read the article

  • Scoring/analysis of Subjective testing for skills assessment

    - by ChrisBint
    I am lucky in the sense that I have been given the opportunity to be a 'Technical Troubleshooter' for our offshore development team. While I am confident and capable of dealing with most issues, I have come across something that I am not. Based on initial discussions with various team members both on and offshore, a requirement for a 'repeatable, consistent' skills assessment has been identified. In my opinion, the best way to achieve this would be a combination of objective and subjective tests. The former normally being an initial online skills assessment on various subjects, for example General C#, WCF and MVC. The latter being a technical test where the candidate would need to solve various problems and (hopefully) explain the thought processes involved with the solution whilst doing so. Obviously, the first method is consistent, repeatable and extremely accurate. The second is always going to be subjective and based on the approach, the solution (or possibly not) and other factors. The 'scoring' of this is also going to be down to the experience and skills of the assessor and this is where my problem lies; The person that is expected to be the assessor initially (me) has no experience. The people that will ultimately continue this process for other people will never remain the same due to project constraints and internal reasons, this changes the baseline for comparison. I am not aware of any suitable system that can be classed as consistent and repeatable for subjective tests with the 2 factors above, let alone if those did not exist. So anyway, I have to present a plan that will ultimately generate a skills/gap analysis and it is unlikely that I will be able to use an objective method (budget constraints most likely reason). The only option left is the subjective methods and the issues above. Does anyone have any suggestions for an approach that may tick all the boxes?

    Read the article

  • AgUnit - Silverlight unit testing with ReSharper

    - by koevoeter
    If you’re a ReSharper user and Silverlight 4 developer you’ll probably like this add-in that two of my co-workers created. It lets you run your Silverlight unit tests inside the Visual Studio IDE. You can get the add-in from Codeplex: http://agunit.codeplex.com/ (requires ReSharper 5 and Silverlight 4)

    Read the article

  • Manipulating Human Tasks (for testing) by Mark Nelson

    - by JuergenKress
    A few months ago, while working on a BPM migration, I had the need to look at the status of human tasks, and to manipulate them – essentially to just have a single user take random actions on them at some interval, to help drive a set of processes that were being tested. To do this, I wrote a little utility called httool.  It reuses some of the core domain classes from my custom worklist sample (with minimal changes to make it a remote client instead of a local one). I have not got around to documenting it yet, but it is pretty simple and fairly self explanatory.  So I thought I would go ahead and share it with folks, in case anyone is interested in playing with it. You can get the code from my ci-samples repository on java.net: git clone git://java.net/ci4fmw~ci-samples It is in the httool directory. I do plan to get back to this “one day” and enhance it to be more intelligent – target particular task types, update the payload, follow a set of “rules” about what action to take – so that I can use it for more driving more interesting test scenarios.  If anyone is feeling generous with their time, and interested, please feel free to join the java.net project and hack away to your heart’s content. 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: Mark Nelson,Human Task,SOA Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,Community,OPN,Jürgen Kress

    Read the article

  • A Reusable Builder Class for Ruby Testing

    - by Liam McLennan
    My last post was about a class for building test data objects in C#. This post describes the same tool, but implemented in Ruby. The C# version was written first but I originally came up with the solution in my head using Ruby, and then I translated it to C#. The Ruby version was easier to write and is easier to use thanks to Ruby’s dynamic nature making generics unnecessary.  Here are my example domain classes: class Person attr_accessor :name, :age def initialize(name, age) @name = name @age = age end end class Property attr_accessor :street, :manager def initialize(street, manager) @street = street @manager = manager end end and the test class showing what the builder does: class Test_Builder < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @build = Builder.new @build.configure({ Property => lambda { Property.new '127 Creek St', @build.a(Person) }, Person => lambda { Person.new 'Liam', 26 } }) end def test_create assert_not_nil @build end def test_can_get_a_person @person = @build.a(Person) assert_not_nil @person assert_equal 'Liam', @person.name assert_equal 26, @person.age end def test_can_get_a_modified_person @person = @build.a Person do |person| person.age = 999 end assert_not_nil @person assert_equal 'Liam', @person.name assert_equal 999, @person.age end def test_can_get_a_different_type_that_depends_on_a_type_that_has_not_been_configured_yet @my_place = @build.a(Property) assert_not_nil @my_place assert_equal '127 Creek St', @my_place.street assert_equal @build.a(Person).name, @my_place.manager.name end end Finally, the implementation of Builder: class Builder # defaults is a hash of Class => creation lambda def configure defaults @defaults = defaults end def a(klass) temp = @defaults[klass].call() yield temp if block_given? temp end end

    Read the article

  • Testing for Auto Save and Load Game

    - by David Dimalanta
    I'm trying to make a simple app that will test the save and load state. Is it a good idea to make an app that has an auto save and load game every time the newbies open the first app then continues it on the other day? I'm trying to make a simple app with a simple moving block sprite, starting at the center coordinate. Once I moved the sprite to the top by touch n' drag, I touch the back key to close the app. I expected that once I re-open the app and the block sprite is still at the top. But instead, it goes back to the center instead. Where can I find more ways to use the preferences or manipulating by telling the dispose method to dispose only specific wastes but not the important records (fastest time, last time where the sprite is located via coordinates, etc.). Is there really an easy way or it has no shortcuts but most effective way? I need help to expand more ideas. Thank you. Here are the following links that I'm trying to figure it out how to use them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gER5GGQYzGc http://www.badlogicgames.com/wordpress/?p=1585 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0PtLexfBCA&feature=relmfu Take note that these links above are codes. But I'm not looking answers for code but to look how to start or figure it out how to use them. Tell me if I'm wrong.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing internal methods in a strongly named assembly/project

    - by Rohit Gupta
    If you need create Unit tests for internal methods within a assembly in Visual Studio 2005 or greater, then we need to add an entry in the AssemblyInfo.cs file of the assembly for which you are creating the units tests for. For e.g. if you need to create tests for a assembly named FincadFunctions.dll & this assembly contains internal/friend methods within which need to write unit tests for then we add a entry in the FincadFunctions.dll’s AssemblyInfo.cs file like so : 1: [assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.InternalsVisibleTo("FincadFunctionsTests")] where FincadFunctionsTests is the name of the Unit Test project which contains the Unit Tests. However if the FincadFunctions.dll is a strongly named assembly then you will the following error when compiling the FincadFunctions.dll assembly :      Friend assembly reference “FincadFunctionsTests” is invalid. Strong-name assemblies must specify a public key in their InternalsVisibleTo declarations. Thus to add a public key token to InternalsVisibleTo Declarations do the following: You need the .snk file that was used to strong-name the FincadFunctions.dll assembly. You can extract the public key from this .snk with the sn.exe tool from the .NET SDK. First we extract just the public key from the key pair (.snk) file into another .snk file. sn -p test.snk test.pub Then we ask for the value of that public key (note we need the long hex key not the short public key token): sn -tp test.pub We end up getting a super LONG string of hex, but that's just what we want, the public key value of this key pair. We add it to the strongly named project "FincadFunctions.dll" that we want to expose our internals from. Before what looked like: 1: [assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.InternalsVisibleTo("FincadFunctionsTests")] Now looks like. 1: [assembly: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.InternalsVisibleTo("FincadFunctionsTests, 2: PublicKey=002400000480000094000000060200000024000052534131000400000100010011fdf2e48bb")] And we're done. hope this helps

    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 | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >