Search Results

Search found 68011 results on 2721 pages for 'unit of work'.

Page 4/2721 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Should adapters or wrappers be unit tested?

  - by m3th0dman

  Suppose that I have a class that implements some logic: public MyLogicImpl implements MyLogic { public void myLogicMethod() { //my logic here } } and somewhere else a test class: public MyLogicImplTest { @Test public void testMyLogicMethod() { /test my logic } } I also have: @WebService public MyWebServices class { @Inject private MyLogic myLogic; @WebMethod public void myLogicWebMethod() { myLogic.myLogicMethod(); } } Should there be a test unit for myLogicWebMethod or should the testing for it be handled in integration testing.

  Read the article

• Separate Action from Assertion in Unit Tests

  - by DigitalMoss

  Setup Many years ago I took to a style of unit testing that I have come to like a lot. In short, it uses a base class to separate out the Arrangement, Action and Assertion of the test into separate method calls. You do this by defining method calls in [Setup]/[TestInitialize] that will be called before each test run. [Setup] public void Setup() { before_each(); //arrangement because(); //action } This base class usually includes the [TearDown] call as well for when you are using this setup for Integration tests. [TearDown] public void Cleanup() { after_each(); } This often breaks out into a structure where the test classes inherit from a series of Given classes that put together the setup (i.e. GivenFoo : GivenBar : WhenDoingBazz) with the Assertions being one line tests with a descriptive name of what they are covering [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } The Problem There are very few tests that wrap around a single action so you end up with lots of classes so recently I have taken to defining the action in a series of methods within the test class itself: [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { because_an_action_was_taken(); Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } private void because_an_action_was_taken() { //perform action here } This results in several "action" methods within the test class but allows grouping of similar tests (i.e. class == WhenTestingDifferentWaysToSetBuzz) The Question Does someone else have a better way of separating out the three 'A's of testing? Readability of tests is important to me so I would prefer that, when a test fails, that the very naming structure of the tests communicate what has failed. If someone can read the Inheritance structure of the tests and have a good idea why the test might be failing then I feel it adds a lot of value to the tests (i.e. GivenClient : GivenUser : WhenModifyingUserPermissions : ThenReadAccessShouldBeTrue). I am aware of Acceptance Testing but this is more on a Unit (or series of units) level with boundary layers mocked. EDIT : My question is asking if there is an event or other method for executing a block of code before individual tests (something that could be applied to specific sets of tests without it being applied to all tests within a class like [Setup] currently does. Barring the existence of this event, which I am fairly certain doesn't exist, is there another method for accomplishing the same thing? Using [Setup] for every case presents a problem either way you go. Something like [Action("Category")] (a setup method that applied to specific tests within the class) would be nice but I can't find any way of doing this.

  Read the article

• iOS - Unit tests for KVO/delegate codes

  - by ZhangChn

  I am going to design a MVC pattern. It could be either designed as a delegate pattern, or a Key-Value-Observing(KVO), to notify the controller about changing models. The project requires certain quality control procedures to conform to those verification documents. My questions: Does delegate pattern fit better for unit testing than KVO? If KVO fits better, would you please suggest some sample codes?

  Read the article

• Unit Testing DateTime – The Crazy Way

  - by João Angelo

  We all know that the process of unit testing code that depends on DateTime, particularly the current time provided through the static properties (Now, UtcNow and Today), it’s a PITA. If you go ask how to unit test DateTime.Now on stackoverflow I’ll bet that you’ll get two kind of answers: Encapsulate the current time in your own interface and use a standard mocking framework; Pull out the big guns like Typemock Isolator, JustMock or Microsoft Moles/Fakes and mock the static property directly. Now each alternative has is pros and cons and I would have to say that I glean more to the second approach because the first adds a layer of abstraction just for the sake of testability. However, the second approach depends on commercial tools that not every shop wants to buy or in the not so friendly Microsoft Moles. (Sidenote: Moles is now named Fakes and it will ship with VS 2012) This tends to leave people without an acceptable and simple solution so after reading another of these types of questions in SO I came up with yet another alternative, one based on the first alternative that I presented here but tries really hard to not get in your way with yet another layer of abstraction. So, without further dues, I present you, the Tardis. The Tardis is single section of conditionally compiled code that overrides the meaning of the DateTime expression inside a single class. You still get the normal coding experience of using DateTime all over the place, but in a DEBUG compilation your tests will be able to mock every static method or property of the DateTime class. An example follows, while the full Tardis code can be downloaded from GitHub: using System; using NSubstitute; using NUnit.Framework; using Tardis; public class Example { public Example() : this(string.Empty) { } public Example(string title) { #if DEBUG this.DateTime = DateTimeProvider.Default; this.Initialize(title); } internal IDateTimeProvider DateTime { get; set; } internal Example(string title, IDateTimeProvider provider) { this.DateTime = provider; #endif this.Initialize(title); } private void Initialize(string title) { this.Title = title; this.CreatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow; } private string title; public string Title { get { return this.title; } set { this.title = value; this.UpdatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow; } } public DateTime CreatedAt { get; private set; } public DateTime UpdatedAt { get; private set; } } public class TExample { public void T001() { // Arrange var tardis = Substitute.For<IDateTimeProvider>(); tardis.UtcNow.Returns(new DateTime(2000, 1, 1, 6, 6, 6)); // Act var sut = new Example("Title", tardis); // Assert Assert.That(sut.CreatedAt, Is.EqualTo(tardis.UtcNow)); } public void T002() { // Arrange var tardis = Substitute.For<IDateTimeProvider>(); var sut = new Example("Title", tardis); tardis.UtcNow.Returns(new DateTime(2000, 1, 1, 6, 6, 6)); // Act sut.Title = "Updated"; // Assert Assert.That(sut.UpdatedAt, Is.EqualTo(tardis.UtcNow)); } } This approach is also suitable for other similar classes with commonly used static methods or properties like the ConfigurationManager class.

  Read the article

• Unit testing a database connection and general questions on database-dependent code and unit testing

  - by dotnetdev

  Hi, If I have a method which establishes a database connection, how could this method be tested? Returning a bool in the event of a successful connection is one way, but is that the best way? From a testability method, is it best to have the connection method as one method and the method to get data back a seperate method? Also, how would I test methods which get back data from a database? I may do an assert against expected data but the actual data can change and still be the right resultset. EDIT: For the last point, to check data, if it's supposed to be a list of cars, then I can check they are real car models. Or if they are a bunch of web servers, I can have a list of existant web servers on the system, return that from the code under test, and get the test result. If the results are different, the data is the issue but the query not? THnaks

  Read the article

• unit testing variable state explicit tests in dynamically typed languages

  - by kris welsh

  I have heard that a desirable quality of unit tests is that they test for each scenario independently. I realised whilst writing tests today that when you compare a variable with another value in a statement like: assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); You are really testing three things: The variable you are testing exists and is within scope. The variable you are testing is the expected type. The variable you are testing's value is what you expect it to be. Which to me raises the question of whether you should test for each of these implicitly so that a test fail would occur on the specific line that tests for that problem: assertTrue(stringFoo); assertTrue(stringFoo.typeOf() == "String"); assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); For example if the variable was an integer instead of a string the test case failure would be on line 2 which would give you more feedback on what went wrong. Should you test for this kind of thing explicitly or am i overthinking this?

  Read the article

• Learning a new language using broken unit tests

  - by Brian MacKay

  I was listening to a dot net rocks the other day where they mentioned, almost in passing, a really intriguing tool for learning new languages -- I think they were specifically talking about F#. It's a solution you open up and there are a bunch of broken unit tests. Fixing them walks you through the steps of learning the language. I want to check it out, but I was driving in my car and I have no idea what the name of the project is or which dot net rocks episode it was. Google hasn't helped much. Any idea?

  Read the article

• Unit-Testing functions which have parameters of classes where source code is not accessible

  - by McMannus

  Relating to this question, I have another question regarding unit testing functions in the utility classes: Assume you have function signatures like this: public function void doSomething(InternalClass obj, InternalElement element) where InternalClass and InternalElement are both Classes which source code are not available, because they are hidden in the API. Additionally, doSomething only operates on obj and element. I thought about mocking those classes away but this option is not possible due to the fact that they do not implement an interface at all which I could use for my Mocking classes. However, I need to fill obj with defined data to test doSomething. How can this problem be solved?

  Read the article

• design pattern for unit testing?

  - by Maddy.Shik

  I am beginner in developing test cases, and want to follow good patterns for developing test cases rather than following some person or company's specific ideas. Some people don't make test cases and just develop the way their senior have done in their projects. I am facing lot problems like object dependencies (when want to test method which persist A object i have to first persist B object since A is child of B). Please suggest some good books or sites preferably for learning design pattern for unit test cases. Or reference to some good source code or some discussion for Dos and Donts will do wonder. So that i can avoid doing mistakes be learning from experience of others.

  Read the article

• Pair programming and unit testing

  - by TheSilverBullet

  My team follows the Scrum development cycle. We have received feedback that our unit testing coverage is not very good. A team member is suggesting the addition of an external testing team to assist the core team, but I feel this will backfire in a bad way. I am thinking of suggesting pair programming approach. I have a feeling that this should help the code be more "test-worthy" and soon the team can move to test driven development! What are the potential problems that might arise out of pair programming??

  Read the article

• How do you unit test your javascript.

  - by Erin

  I spend a lot of time working in javascript of late. I have not found a way that seems to work well for testing javascript. This in the past hasn't been a problem for me since most of the websites I worked on had very little javascript in them. I now have a new website that makes extensive use of jQuery I would like to build unit tests for most of the system. My problems are this. Most of the functions make changes to the DOM in some way. Most of the functions request data from the web server as well and require a session on the service to get results back. I would like to run the test from either a command line or a test running harness rather then in a browser. Any help or articles I should be reading would be helpful.

  Read the article

• How do you unit test your javascript

  - by Erin

  I spend a lot of time working in javascript of late. I have not found a way that seems to work well for testing javascript. This in the past hasn't been a problem for me since most of the websites I worked on had very little javascript in them. I now have a new website that makes extensive use of jQuery I would like to build unit tests for most of the system. My problems are this. Most of the functions make changes to the DOM in some way. Most of the functions request data from the web server as well and require a session on the service to get results back. I would like to run the test from either a command line or a test running harness rather then in a browser. Any help or articles I should be reading would be helpful.

  Read the article

• Adding unit tests to a legacy, plain C project

  - by Groo

  The title says it all. My company is reusing a legacy firmware project for a microcontroller device, written completely in plain C. There are parts which are obviously wrong and need changing, and coming from a C#/TDD background I don't like the idea of randomly refactoring stuff with no tests to assure us that functionality remains unchanged. Also, I've seen that hard to find bugs were introduced in many occasions through slightest changes (which is something which I believe would be fixed if regression testing was used). A lot of care needs to be taken to avoid these mistakes: it's hard to track a bunch of globals around the code. To summarize: How do you add unit tests to existing tightly coupled code before refactoring? What tools do you recommend? (less important, but still nice to know) I am not directly involved in writing this code (my responsibility is an app which will interact with the device in various ways), but it would be bad if good programming principles were left behind if there was a chance they could be used.

  Read the article

• Code excavations, wishful invocations, perimeters and domain specific unit test frameworks

  - by RoyOsherove

  One of the talks I did at QCON London was about a subject that I’ve come across fairly recently , when I was building SilverUnit – a “pure” unit test framework for silverlight objects that depend on the silverlight runtime to run. It is the concept of “cogs in the machine” – when your piece of code needs to run inside a host framework or runtime that you have little or no control over for testability related matters. Examples of such cogs and machines can be: your custom control running inside silverlight runtime in the browser your plug-in running inside an IDE your activity running inside a windows workflow your code running inside a java EE bean your code inheriting from a COM+ (enterprise services) component etc.. Not all of these are necessarily testability problems. The main testability problem usually comes when your code actually inherits form something inside the system. For example. one of the biggest problems with testing objects like silverlight controls is the way they depend on the silverlight runtime – they don’t implement some silverlight interface, they don’t just call external static methods against the framework runtime that surrounds them – they actually inherit parts of the framework: they all inherit (in this case) from the silverlight DependencyObject Wrapping it up? An inheritance dependency is uniquely challenging to bring under test, because “classic” methods such as wrapping the object under test with a framework wrapper will not work, and the only way to do manually is to create parallel testable objects that get delegated with all the possible actions from the dependencies.    In silverlight’s case, that would mean creating your own custom logic class that would be called directly from controls that inherit from silverlight, and would be tested independently of these controls. The pro side is that you get the benefit of understanding the “contract” and the “roles” your system plays against your logic, but unfortunately, more often than not, it can be very tedious to create, and may sometimes feel unnecessary or like code duplication. About perimeters A perimeter is that invisible line that your draw around your pieces of logic during a test, that separate the code under test from any dependencies that it uses. Most of the time, a test perimeter around an object will be the list of seams (dependencies that can be replaced such as interfaces, virtual methods etc.) that are actually replaced for that test or for all the tests. Role based perimeters In the case of creating a wrapper around an object – one really creates a “role based” perimeter around the logic that is being tested – that wrapper takes on roles that are required by the code under test, and also communicates with the host system to implement those roles and provide any inputs to the logic under test. in the image below – we have the code we want to test represented as a star. No perimeter is drawn yet (we haven’t wrapped it up in anything yet). in the image below is what happens when you wrap your logic with a role based wrapper – you get a role based perimeter anywhere your code interacts with the system: There’s another way to bring that code under test – using isolation frameworks like typemock, rhino mocks and MOQ (but if your code inherits from the system, Typemock might be the only way to isolate the code from the system interaction.   Ad-Hoc Isolation perimeters the image below shows what I call ad-hoc perimeter that might be vastly different between different tests: This perimeter’s surface is much smaller, because for that specific test, that is all the “change” that is required to the host system behavior.   The third way of isolating the code from the host system is the main “meat” of this post: Subterranean perimeters Subterranean perimeters are Deep rooted perimeters  - “always on” seams that that can lie very deep in the heart of the host system where they are fully invisible even to the test itself, not just to the code under test. Because they lie deep inside a system you can’t control, the only way I’ve found to control them is with runtime (not compile time) interception of method calls on the system. One way to get such abilities is by using Aspect oriented frameworks – for example, in SilverUnit, I’ve used the CThru AOP framework based on Typemock hooks and CLR profilers to intercept such system level method calls and effectively turn them into seams that lie deep down at the heart of the silverlight runtime. the image below depicts an example of what such a perimeter could look like: As you can see, the actual seams can be very far away form the actual code under test, and as you’ll discover, that’s actually a very good thing. Here is only a partial list of examples of such deep rooted seams : disabling the constructor of a base class five levels below the code under test (this.base.base.base.base) faking static methods of a type that’s being called several levels down the stack: method x() calls y() calls z() calls SomeType.StaticMethod()  Replacing an async mechanism with a synchronous one (replacing all timers with your own timer behavior that always Ticks immediately upon calls to “start()” on the same caller thread for example) Replacing event mechanisms with your own event mechanism (to allow “firing” system events) Changing the way the system saves information with your own saving behavior (in silverunit, I replaced all Dependency Property set and get with calls to an in memory value store instead of using the one built into silverlight which threw exceptions without a browser) several questions could jump in: How do you know what to fake? (how do you discover the perimeter?) How do you fake it? Wouldn’t this be problematic  - to fake something you don’t own? it might change in the future How do you discover the perimeter to fake? To discover a perimeter all you have to do is start with a wishful invocation. a wishful invocation is the act of trying to invoke a method (or even just create an instance ) of an object using “regular” test code. You invoke the thing that you’d like to do in a real unit test, to see what happens: Can I even create an instance of this object without getting an exception? Can I invoke this method on that instance without getting an exception? Can I verify that some call into the system happened? You make the invocation, get an exception (because there is a dependency) and look at the stack trace. choose a location in the stack trace and disable it. Then try the invocation again. if you don’t get an exception the perimeter is good for that invocation, so you can move to trying out other methods on that object. in a future post I will show the process using CThru, and how you end up with something close to a domain specific test framework after you’re done creating the perimeter you need.

  Read the article

• What to do when projects are slow and you are being held up by others?

  - by antonpug

  Where I work, projects take a significant amount of time because the teams are large, there is a lot of "design and analysis", a lot of documentation, and work always gets pushed off. I work in the middle tier and I always have to wait for the services and client folks to get their work done. Oftentimes there are weeks at a time when I can't get any work done. I feel bored and weird just sitting here scrambling to at least appear like I am busy. Management seems to do little when asked for more work. What do you do in such cases?

  Read the article

• What is the effect of creating unit tests during development on time to develop as well as time spent in maintenance activities?

  - by jgauffin

  I'm a consultant and I am going to introduce unit tests to all developers at my client site. My goal is to ensure that all new applications should have unit tests for all classes created. The client has a problem with high maintenance costs from fixing bugs in their existing applications. Their applications have a life span from between 5-15 years in which they continuously add new features. I'm quite confident that they will benefit greatly from starting with unit tests. I'm interested in the effect of unit tests on the time and cost of development: How much time will writing unit tests as part of the development process add? How much time will be saved in maintenance activities (testing and debugging) by having good unit tests?

  Read the article

• First time unit testing (in silverlight)

  - by Jakob

  Hi I've searched some other posts, but most of them assumed that people knew what they were doing in their unit testing, and frankly I don't. I see the idea behind unit testing, and I'm coding an silverlight application much in the blind right now, and I'd like to write some unit tests to kind of be sure I'm on the right path. I'd like to be able to use the SL4 vs 2010 silverlight unit test project template, to keep it simple and not use external tools. So what I need an answer for are questions like: what are the methods of unit testing? what are the differences between unit tests, and automated unit tests? How do I meaningfully unit test in silverlight? What should I be aware of while unit testing (in silverlight) ? Also should I implement some kind of IRepository pattern in my silverlight app to make unit testing easier?

  Read the article

• Unit test SHA256 wrapper queries

  - by Sam Leach

  I am just beginning to write unit tests. So please bear with me. I have the following SHA256 wrapper. public static string SHA256(string plainText) { StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); SHA256CryptoServiceProvider provider = new SHA256CryptoServiceProvider(); var hashedBytes = provider.ComputeHash(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(plainText)); for (int i = 0; i < hashedBytes.Length; i++) { sb.Append(hashedBytes[i].ToString("x2").ToLower()); } return sb.ToString(); } Do I want to be testing it? If so, what do you recommend? My thought process is as follows: What logic is there here. The answer is my for loop and ToString("x2") so from my understanding I want to be testing this part? I can assume Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(plainText) works. Correct assumption? I can assume SHA256CryptoServiceProvider.ComputeHash() works. Correct assumption? I want to be only testing my logic. In this case is limited to the printing of hex encoded hash. Correct? Thanks.

  Read the article

• How can I unit test rendering output?

  - by stephelton

  I've been embracing Test-Driven Development (TDD) recently and it's had wonderful impacts on my development output and the resiliency of my codebase. I would like to extend this approach to some of the rendering work that I do in OpenGL, but I've been unable to find any good approaches to this. I'll start with a concrete example so we know what kinds of things I want to test; lets say I want to create a unit cube that rotates about some axis, and that I want to ensure that, for some number of frames, each frame is rendered correctly. How can I create an automated test case for this? Preferably, I'd even be able to write a test case before writing any code to render the cube (per usual TDD practices.) Among many other things, I'd want to make sure that the cube's size, location, and orientation are correct in each rendered frame. I may even want to make sure that the lighting equations in my shaders are correct in each frame. The only remotely useful approach to this that I've come across involves comparing rendered output to a reference output, which generally precludes TDD practice, and is very cumbersome. I could go on about other desired requirements, but I'm afraid the ones I've listed already are out of reach.

  Read the article

• how to fully unit test functions and their internal validation

  - by Patrick

  I am just now getting into formal unit testing and have come across an issue in testing separate internal parts of functions. I have created a base class of data manipulation (i.e.- moving files, chmodding file, etc) and in moveFile() I have multiple levels of validation to pinpoint when a moveFile() fails (i.e.- source file not readable, destination not writeable). I can't seem to figure out how to force a couple particular validations to fail while not tripping the previous validations. Example: I want the copying of a file to fail, but by the time I've gotten to the actual copying, I've checked for everything that can go wrong before copying. Code Snippit: (Bad code on the fifth line...) // if the change permissions is set, change the file permissions if($chmod !== null) { $mod_result = chmod($destination_directory.DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR.$new_filename, $chmod); if($mod_result === false || $source_directory.DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR.$source_filename == '/home/k...../file_chmod_failed.qif') { DataMan::logRawMessage('File permissions update failed on moveFile [ERR0009] - ['.$destination_directory.DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR.$new_filename.' - '.$chmod.']', sfLogger::ALERT); return array('success' => false, 'type' => 'Internal Server Error [ERR0009]'); } } So how do I simulate the copy failing. My stop-gap measure was to perform a validation on the filename being copied and if it's absolute path matched my testing file, force the failure. I know this is very bad to put testing code into the actual code that will be used to run on the production server but I'm not sure how else to do it. Note: I am on PHP 5.2, symfony, using lime_test(). EDIT I am testing the chmodding and ensuring that the array('success' = false, 'type' = ..) is returned

  Read the article

• Unit Tests as a learning tool - a good idea?

  - by Ekkehard.Horner

  I'm interested in ways and means for learning (a) programming language(s) efficiently. I believe that using Unit Test concepts and infrastructure early in that process is a good thing, even better than starting with "Hello world". Why: To write a decent program even for a toy/restricted problem in a new language, you'll have to master many heterogenous concepts (control flow & variables & IO ...), you are tempted to glance over details just to get your program 'to work'. Putting (your understanding of) the facts about the new language in assertions with good descriptions (=success messages) enforces thinking thru/clearness/precision. Grouping topics and adding assertions to such groups is much easier than incorporation features from the 2. chapter of your "Learning X" book to your chapter 1 program. Why not: 'Real' Unit Tests are meant to output "1234 tests ok; 1 failure: saveWorld() chokes on negative input"; 'didactic' Unit Tests should output relevant facts about the new language like perl6 10-string.t # ### p5chop ... ok 13 - p5chop( "cbä" ) returns "ä" ok 14 - after that, victim is changed to "cb" # ### (p6) chop ... ok 27 - (p6) chop( "cbä" ) returns chopped copy: "cb" ok 18 - after that, victim is unchanged: "cbä" # ### chomp ... So (mis?)using Unit Tests may be counterproductive - practicing actions while learning you wouldn't use professionally. How: Writing 'didactic' Unit Tests in languages with lightweight testing systems (Perl 5/6) is easy; (mis?)using more elaborate systems (JUnit, CppUnit) may be not worth the effort or not suitable for a person just starting with a new language. So Is using Unit Tests as a learning tool a bad idea? Can the Unit Test tool(s) of your favourite language(s) used didactically? Should implementation details (eventually) be discussed here or over at stackoverflow.com?

  Read the article

• The Work Order Printing Challenge

  - by celine.beck

  One of the biggest concerns we've heard from maintenance practitioners is the ability to print and batch print work order details along with its accompanying attachments. Indeed, maintenance workers traditionally rely on work order packets to complete their job. A standard work order packet can include a variety of information like equipment documentation, operating instructions, checklists, end-of-task feedback forms and the likes. Now, the problem is that most Asset Lifecycle Management applications do not provide a simple and efficient solution for process printing with document attachments. Work order forms can be easily printed but attachments are usually left out of the printing process. This sounds like a minor problem, but when you are processing high volume of work orders on a regular basis, this inconvenience can result in important inefficiencies. In order to print work order and its related attachments, maintenance personnel need to print the work order details and then go back to the work order and open each individual attachment using the proper authoring application to view and print each document. The printed output is collated into a work order packet. The AutoVue Document Print Service products that were just released in April 2010 aim at helping organizations address the work order printing challenge. Customers and partners can leverage the AutoVue Document Print Services to build a complete printing solution that complements their existing print server solution with AutoVue's document- and platform-agnostic document print services. The idea is to leverage AutoVue's printing services to invoke printing either programmatically or manually directly from within the work order management application, and efficiently process the printing of complete work order packets, including all types of attachments, from office files to more advanced engineering documents like 2D CAD drawings. Oracle partners like MIPRO Consulting, specialists in PeopleSoft implementations, have already expressed interest in the AutoVue Document Print Service products for their ability to offer print services to the PeopleSoft ALM suite, so that customers are able to print packages of documents for maintenance personnel. For more information on the subject, please consult MIPRO Consulting's article entitled Unsung Value: Primavera and AutoVue Integration into PeopleSoft posted on their blog. The blog post entitled Introducing AutoVue Document Print Service provides additional information on how the solution works. We would also love to hear what your thoughts are on the topic, so please do not hesitate to post your comments/feedback on our blog. Related Articles: Introducing AutoVue Document Print Service Print Any Document Type with AutoVue Document Print Services

  Read the article

• If your unit test code "smells" does it really matter?

  - by Buttons840

  Usually I just throw my unit tests together using copy and paste and all kind of other bad practices. The unit tests usually end up looking quite ugly, they're full of "code smell," but does this really matter? I always tell myself as long as the "real" code is "good" that's all that matters. Plus, unit testing usually requires various "smelly hacks" like stubbing functions. How concerned should I be over poorly designed ("smelly") unit tests?

  Read the article

• How I Work: Staying Productive Whilst Traveling

  - by BuckWoody

  I travel a lot. Not like some folks that are gone every week, mind you, although in the last month I’ve been to: Cambridge, UK; Anchorage, AK; San Jose, CA; Copenhagen, DK, Boston, MA; and I’m currently en-route to Anaheim, CA.  While this many places in a month is a bit unusual for me, I would say I travel frequently. I’ve travelled most of my 28+ years in IT, and at one time was a consultant traveling weekly.   With that much time away from my primary work location, I have to find ways to stay productive. Some might say “just rest – take a nap!” – but I’m not able to do that. For one thing, I’m a very light sleeper and I’ve never slept on a plane - even a 30+ hour trip to New Zealand in Business Class - so that just isn’t option. I also am not always in the plane, of course. There’s the hotel, the taxi/bus/train, the airport and then all that over again when I arrive. Since my regular jobs have many demands, I have to get work done.   Note: No, I’m not always focused on work. I need downtime just like everyone else. Sometimes I just think, watch a movie or listen to tunes – and I give myself permission to do that anytime – sometimes the whole trip. I have too fewheartbeats left in life to only focus on work – it’s just not that important, and neither am I. Some of these tasks are letters to friends and family, or other personal things. What I’m talking about here is a plan, not some task list I have to follow. When I get to the location I’m traveling to, I always build in as much time as I can to ensure I enjoy those sights and the people I’m with. I would find traveling to be a waste if not for that.   The Unrealistic Expectation As I would evaluate the trip I was taking – say a 6-8 hour flight – I would expect to get 10-12 hours of work done. After all, there’s the time at the airport, the taxi and so on, and then of course the time in the air with all of the room, power, internet and everything else I needed to get my work done. I would pile up tasks at home, pack my bags, and head happily to the magical land of the TSA.   Right. On return from the trip, I had accomplished little, had more e-mails and other work that had piled up, and I was tired, hungry, and unorganized. This had to change. So, I decided to do three things: Segment my work Set realistic expectations Plan accordingly  Segmenting By Available Resources The first task was to decide what kind of work I could do in each location – if any. I found that I was dependent on a few things to get work done, such as power, the Internet, and a place to sit down. Before I fly, I take some time at home to get all of the work I’d like to accomplish while away segmented into these areas, and print that out on paper, which goes in my suit-coat pocket along with a mechanical pencil. I print my tickets, and I’m all set for the adventure ahead. Then I simply do each kind of work whenever I’m in that situation. No power There are certain times when I don’t have power available. But not only that, I might not even be able to use most of my electronics. So I now schedule as many phone calls as I can for the taxi/bus/train ride and the airports as I can. I have a paper notebook (Moleskine, of course) and a pencil and I print out any notes or numbers I need prior to the trip. Once I’m airborne or at the airport, I work on my laptop. I check and respond to e-mails, create slides, write code, do architecture, whatever I can.  If I can’t use any electronics, or once the power runs out, I schedule time for reading. I can read at the airport or anywhere, actually, even in-flight or any other transport. I “read with a pencil”, meaning I take a lot of notes, which I liketo put in OneNote, but since in most cases I don’t have power, I use the Moleskine to do that. Speaking of which, sometimes as I’m thinking I come up with new topics, ideas, blog posts, or things to teach in my classes. Once again I take out the notebook and write it down. All of these notes get a check-mark when I get back to the office and transfer the writing to OneNote. I’ve tried those “smart pens” and so on to automate this, but it just never works out. Pencil and paper are just fine. As I mentioned, sometime I just need to think. I’ll do nothing, and let my mind wander, thinking of nothing in particular, or some math problem or science question I’m interested in. My only issue with this is that I communicate tothink, and I don’t want to drive people crazy by being that guy that won’t shut up, so I think in a different way. Power, but no Internet or Phone If I have power but no Internet or phone, I focus on the laptop and the tablet as before, and I also recharge my other gadgets. Power, Internet, Phone and a Place to Work At first I thought that when I arrived at the hotel or event I could get the same amount of work done that I do at the office. Not so. There’s simply too many distractions, things you need, or other issues that allow this. Of course, Ican work on any device, read, think, write or whatever, but I am simply not as productive as I am in my home office. So I plan for about 25-50% as much work getting done in this environment as I think I could really do. I’ve done some measurements, and this holds out to be true almost every time. The key is that I re-set my expectations (and my co-worker’s expectations as well) that this is the case. I use the Out-Of-Office notices to let people know that I’m just not going to be 100% at this time – it’s hard for everyone, but it’s more honest and realistic, and I’d rather they know that – and that I realize that – than to let them think I’m totally available. Because I’m not – I’m traveling. I don’t tend to put too much detail, because after all I don’t necessarily want to let people know when I’m not home :) but I do think it’s important to let people that depend on my know that I’ll get back with them later. I hope this helps you think through your own methodology of staying productive when you travel. Or perhaps you just go offline, and don’t worry about any of this – good for you! That’s completely valid as well.   (Oh, and yes, I wrote this at 35K feet, on Alaska Airlines on a trip. :)  Practice what you preach, Buck.)

  Read the article

• Good practices - database programming, unit testing

  - by Piotr Rodak

  Jason Brimhal wrote today on his blog that new book, Defensive Database Programming , written by Alex Kuznetsov ( blog ) is coming to bookstores. Alex writes about various techniques that make your code safer to run. SQL injection is not the only one vulnerability the code may be exposed to. Some other include inconsistent search patterns, unsupported character sets, locale settings, issues that may occur during high concurrency conditions, logic that breaks when certain conditions are not met. The...(read more)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >