Search Results

Search found 13375 results on 535 pages for 'agile tools'.

Page 42/535 | < Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >

• Learn How to Use Oracle’s Spatial and BI Tools for Location-aware Predictive Analytics

  - by Mandy Ho

  November 29, 2-3pm EST Are you a OBIEE (Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition) user? Have Location data you'd like to incorporate into your analysis as well? This is a great webinar for you! Join us, as Oracle experts from both teams show how to perform perdictive analytics, network analytics and spatial analysis, combined together, in real world scenarios. We will include demos evaluating airline on-time performance and retail establishment performance.  Learn how to: - Gain better business insights and improve ROI with Oracle Spatial and Graph, Oracle Advanced Analytics, and Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition (OBIEE). - Streamline and remove the complexity of building applications with OBIEE’s built-in location and analytics features. - Create the statistical model, build interactive reports and dashboards including location analysis and map visualization, and incorporate network analytics for geomarketing and site scoring. - Perform location analysis and processing such as proximity, containment, geocoding, aggregation of geographic regions, and more. Speakers include Jayant Sharma, Director, Product Management, Oracle Spatial and Mapping Technologies; Jean Ihm, Principal Product Manager, Oracle Spatial and Mapping Technologies; and Abhinav Agarwal, OBIEE Product Management. Who should attend This webinar is appropriate for CIOs, business and technical managers, developers, and analysts involved in design and management of analytic applications and solutions where spatial analysis can add insight and value to business processes. Click here, or the link below to sign up today! https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/764677554

  Read the article

• Playing with aspx page cycle using JustMock

  - by mehfuzh

  In this post , I will cover a test code that will mock the various elements needed to complete a HTTP page request and  assert the expected page cycle steps. To begin, i have a simple enumeration that has my predefined page steps: public enum PageStep {     PreInit,     Load,     PreRender,     UnLoad } Once doing so, i  first created the page object [not mocking]. Page page = new Page(); Here, our target is to fire up the page process through ProcessRequest call, now if we take a look inside the method with reflector.net,  the call trace will go like : ProcessRequest –> ProcessRequestWithNoAssert –> SetInstrinsics –> Finallly ProcessRequest. Inside SetInstrinsics ,  it requires calls from HttpRequest, HttpResponse and HttpBrowserCababilities. Using this clue at hand, we can easily know the classes / calls  we need to mock in order to get through the expected call. Accordingly, for  HttpBrowserCapabilities our required mock code will look like: var browser = Mock.Create<HttpBrowserCapabilities>(); // Arrange Mock.Arrange(() => browser.PreferredRenderingMime).Returns("text/html"); Mock.Arrange(() => browser.PreferredResponseEncoding).Returns("UTF-8"); Mock.Arrange(() => browser.PreferredRequestEncoding).Returns("UTF-8"); Now, HttpBrowserCapabilities is get though [Instance]HttpRequest.Browser. Therefore, we create the HttpRequest mock: var request = Mock.Create<HttpRequest>(); Then , add the required get call : Mock.Arrange(() => request.Browser).Returns(browser); As, [instance]Browser.PerferrredResponseEncoding and [instance]Browser.PreferredResponseEncoding  are also set to the request object and to make that they are set properly, we can add the following lines as well [not required though]. bool requestContentEncodingSet = false; Mock.ArrangeSet(() => request.ContentEncoding = Encoding.GetEncoding("UTF-8")).DoInstead(() =>  requestContentEncodingSet = true); Similarly, for response we can write:  var response = Mock.Create<HttpResponse>();    bool responseContentEncodingSet = false;  Mock.ArrangeSet(() => response.ContentEncoding = Encoding.GetEncoding("UTF-8")).DoInstead(() => responseContentEncodingSet = true); Finally , I created a mock of HttpContext and set the Request and Response properties that will returns the mocked version. var context = Mock.Create<HttpContext>();   Mock.Arrange(() => context.Request).Returns(request); Mock.Arrange(() => context.Response).Returns(response); As, Page internally calls RenderControl method , we just need to replace that with our one and optionally we can check if  invoked properly: bool rendered = false; Mock.Arrange(() => page.RenderControl(Arg.Any<HtmlTextWriter>())).DoInstead(() => rendered = true); That’s  it, the rest of the code is simple,  where  i asserted the page cycle with the PageSteps that i defined earlier: var pageSteps = new Queue<PageStep>();   page.PreInit +=delegate { pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.PreInit); }; page.Load += delegate { pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.Load); }; page.PreRender += delegate { pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.PreRender);}; page.Unload +=delegate { pageSteps.Enqueue(PageStep.UnLoad);};   page.ProcessRequest(context);   Assert.True(requestContentEncodingSet); Assert.True(responseContentEncodingSet); Assert.True(rendered);   Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.PreInit); Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.Load); Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.PreRender); Assert.Equal(pageSteps.Dequeue(), PageStep.UnLoad);   Mock.Assert(request); Mock.Assert(response); You can get the test class shown in this post here to give a try by yourself with of course JustMock :-). Enjoy!!

  Read the article

• Introduction to Lean Software Development and Kanban Systems

  - by Ben Griswold

  Last year I took myself through a crash course on Lean Software Development and Kanban Systems in preparation for an in-house presentation.  I learned a bunch.  In this series, I’ll be sharing what I learned with you.   If your career looks anything like mine, you have probably been affiliated with a company or two which pushed requirements gathering and documentation to the nth degree. To add insult to injury, they probably added planning process (documentation, requirements, policies, meetings, committees) to the extent that it possibly retarded any progress. In my opinion, the typical company resembles the quote from Tom DeMarco. It isn’t enough just to do things right – we also had to say in advance exactly what we intended to do and then do exactly that. In the 1980s, Toyota turned the tables and revolutionize the automobile industry with their approach of “Lean Manufacturing.” A massive paradigm shift hit factories throughout the US and Europe. Mass production and scientific management techniques from the early 1900’s were questioned as Japanese manufacturing companies demonstrated that ‘Just-in-Time’ was a better paradigm. The widely adopted Japanese manufacturing concepts came to be known as ‘lean production’. Lean Thinking capitalizes on the intelligence of frontline workers, believing that they are the ones who should determine and continually improve the way they do their jobs. Lean puts main focus on people and communication – if people who produce the software are respected and they communicate efficiently, it is more likely that they will deliver good product and the final customer will be satisfied. In time, the abstractions behind lean production spread to logistics, and from there to the military, to construction, and to the service industry. As it turns out, principles of lean thinking are universal and have been applied successfully across many disciplines. Lean has been adopted by companies including Dell, FedEx, Lens Crafters, LLBean, SW Airlines, Digital River and eBay. Lean thinking got its name from a 1990’s best seller called The Machine That Changed the World : The Story of Lean Production. This book chronicles the movement of automobile manufacturing from craft production to mass production to lean production. Tom and Mary Poppendieck, that is.  Here’s one of their books: Implementing Lean Software Thinking: From Concept to Cash Our in-house presentations are supposed to run no more than 45 minutes.  I really cranked and got through my 87 slides in just under an hour. Of course, I had to cheat a little – I only covered the 7 principles and a single practice. In the next part of the series, we’ll dive into Principle #1: Eliminate Waste. And I am going to be a little obnoxious about listing my Lean and Kanban references with every series post.  The references are great and they deserve this sort of attention. 

  Read the article

• Should you ever re-estimate user stories?

  - by f1dave

  My current project is having a 'discussion' which is split down the middle- "this story is more complex than we originally thought, we should re-estimate" vs "you should never re-estimate as you only ever estimate up and never down". Can anyone shed some light on whether you ever should re-estimate? IMHO I'd imagine you could bring up an entirely new card for a new requirement or story, but going back and re-estimating on backlog items seems to skew the concept of relative sizing and will only ever 'inflate' your backlog.

  Read the article

• Learning PostgreSql: Reading and Writing From .Net

  - by Alexander Kuznetsov

  In this post we shall do some setup tasks, save a few rows of data from a .Net client to PostgreSql, and read it back. Setting up We have set up a virtual machine running Red Hat Linux, installed PostgreSql 9.3 on it, and made sure there is enough disk space. 9.3 is a very recent version, released this September. Because PostgreSqlis not known for releasing before the full testing is complete, we did not have to wait for the next service pack or something like that. Smoke test On the client machine...(read more)

  Read the article

• Selecting the (right?) technology and environment

  - by Tor

  We are two developers on the edge of starting new web product development. We are both fans of lean start-up approach and would like to practice continuous deployment. Here comes the dilemma - we are both coming from a C# / Windows background and we need to decide between: Stick to .NET and Windows, we will not waste time on learning new technologies and put all our effort in the development. Switch to Ruby on Rails and Linux which has a good reputation of fast ramp up and vast open source support. The negative side is that we will need to put a lot of effort in learning Ruby, Rails and Linux... What would you do? What other considerations should we take?

  Read the article

• Doing your first mock with JustMock

  - by mehfuzh

  In this post, i will start with a  more traditional mocking example that  includes a fund transfer scenario between two different currency account using JustMock.Our target interface that we will be mocking looks similar to: public interface ICurrencyService {     float GetConversionRate(string fromCurrency, string toCurrency); } Moving forward the SUT or class that will be consuming the  service and will be invoked by user [provided that the ICurrencyService will be passed in a DI style] looks like: public class AccountService : IAccountService         {             private readonly ICurrencyService currencyService;               public AccountService(ICurrencyService currencyService)             {                 this.currencyService = currencyService;             }               #region IAccountService Members               public void TransferFunds(Account from, Account to, float amount)             {                 from.Withdraw(amount);                 float conversionRate = currencyService.GetConversionRate(from.Currency, to.Currency);                 float convertedAmount = amount * conversionRate;                 to.Deposit(convertedAmount);             }               #endregion         }   As, we can see there is a TransferFunds action implemented from IAccountService  takes in a source account from where it withdraws some money and a target account to where the transfer takes place using the provided conversion rate. Our first step is to create the mock. The syntax for creating your instance mocks is pretty much same and  is valid for all interfaces, non-sealed/sealed concrete instance classes. You can pass in additional stuffs like whether its an strict mock or not, by default all the mocks in JustMock are loose, you can use it as default valued objects or stubs as well. ICurrencyService currencyService = Mock.Create<ICurrencyService>(); Using JustMock, setting up your expectations and asserting them always goes with Mock.Arrang|Assert and this is pretty much same syntax no matter what type of mocking you are doing. Therefore,  in the above scenario we want to make sure that the conversion rate always returns 2.20F when converting from GBP to CAD. To do so we need to arrange in the following way: Mock.Arrange(() => currencyService.GetConversionRate("GBP", "CAD")).Returns(2.20f).MustBeCalled(); Here, I have additionally marked the mock call as must. That means it should be invoked anywhere in the code before we do Mock.Assert, we can also assert mocks directly though lamda expressions  but the more general Mock.Assert(mocked) will assert only the setups that are marked as "MustBeCalled()”. Now, coming back to the main topic , as we setup the mock, now its time to act on it. Therefore, first we create our account service class and create our from and to accounts respectively. var accountService = new AccountService(currencyService);   var canadianAccount = new Account(0, "CAD"); var britishAccount = new Account(0, "GBP"); Next, we add some money to the GBP  account: britishAccount.Deposit(100); Finally, we do our transfer by the following: accountService.TransferFunds(britishAccount, canadianAccount, 100); Once, everything is completed, we need to make sure that things were as it is we have expected, so its time for assertions.Here, we first do the general assertions: Assert.Equal(0, britishAccount.Balance); Assert.Equal(220, canadianAccount.Balance); Following, we do our mock assertion,  as have marked the call as “MustBeCalled” it will make sure that our mock is actually invoked. Moreover, we can add filters like how many times our expected mock call has occurred that will be covered in coming posts. Mock.Assert(currencyService); So far, that actually concludes our  first  mock with JustMock and do stay tuned for more. Enjoy!!

  Read the article

• How to write a user story specific to tasks in this case

  - by vignesh

  We have planned to take up an user story say As a player I want to view the game map to know current standings of my team The sprint is for two weeks. We will be able to complete only HTML in two weeks time, this user story will take 4-6 weeks to be completed as we have a shortage of content designing resources. How can we change this user story so that HTML completion can be considered as a done for this user story and we need to take up the integration of this user story in the next sprint? Is it possible to create two different user stories, one for HTML and other for integration, testing, bug fixing etc?

  Read the article

• How can i use JIRA for project management with Green Hopper

  - by user22

  I am thinking of using JIRA + GreenHopper for my project management. I have seen that Green Hopper is for making User stories , sprints. I am not able to find how do i need to add tasks , or how to break user stories in to sub stoires. DO i first need to create project in JIRA and then use Green Hopper or i can use use Green Hopper as stand alone for project management. I am thinking of JIRA as issue tracker not project management.

  Read the article

• Clean Code says to avoid protected variables

  - by Matsemann

  I have a question to a statement in Clean Code. I don't fully understand the reasoning to why we should avoid protected variables. It's from the chapter about Formatting, section about Vertical Distance: Concepts that are closely related should be kept vertically close to each other. Clearly this rule doesn't work for concepts that belong in separate files. But then closely related concepts should not be separated into different files unless you have a very good reason. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that protected variables should be avoided.

  Read the article

• Getting from a user-story to code while using TDD (scrum)

  - by Ittai

  I'm getting into scrum and TDD and I think I have some confusion which I'd like to get your feedback about. Let's assume I have a user-story in my backlog, in order for me to start developing it as part of TDD I need to have requirements, right so far? Is it true to say that the product manager and the QA should be responsible for taking the user-story and breaking it down to acceptance tests? I think the above is true since the acceptance tests need to be formal, so they can be used as tests, but also human readable so that the product can approve they are the requirements, right? Is it also true that I later take these acceptance tests and use them as my requirements, i.e. they are a set of use-cases which I implement (through TDD)? I hope I'm not making too much of a mess but that's the current flow I have in mind right now. Update I think my initial intentions were unclear so I'll try to rephrase. I want to know more details about the scrum flow of turning a user-story into code while using TDD. The starting point is obvious, a user surfaces a need (or the user's representative as the product) which is a short 1-2 lines description in the known format and that is added to the product backlog. When there is a spring planning meeting user-stories are taken from the backlog and assigned to developers. In order for a developer to write code they need requirements (especially in TDD since the requirements are what the tests are derived from). When, by whom and to which format are the requirements compiled? What I had in mind was that the product and QA define the requirements via acceptance tests (I'm thinking of automatic using FitNesse or the sort but that's not the core I think) which help to serve 2 purposes at the same time: They define "Done" properly. They give a developer something to derive tests from. I wasn't sure when these were written (before the sprint they're picked then that might be a waste since additional information will arrive or the story won't be picked, during the iteration then the developer might get stuck waiting for them...)

  Read the article

• TDD - what are the short term gains/benefits?

  - by ratkok

  Quite often benefits of using TDD are considered as 'long term' gains - the overall code will be better structured, more testable, overall less bugs reported by customers, etc. However, where are the short terms benefits of using TDD? Are there any which are actually tengible and easily measureable? Is it important to have an obvious (or even not obvious by quantifiable) short term benefit at all, if the long term gains are measurable?

  Read the article

• Learning PostgreSql: bulk loading data

  - by Alexander Kuznetsov

  In this post we shall start loading data in bulk. For better performance of inserts, we shall load data into a table without constraints and indexes. This sounds familiar. There is a bulk copy utility, and it is very easy to invoke from C#. The following code feeds the output from a T-SQL stored procedure into a PostgreSql table: using ( var pgTableTarget = new PgTableTarget ( PgConnString , "Data.MyPgTable" , GetColumns ())) using ( var conn = new SqlConnection ( connectionString )) { conn.Open...(read more)

  Read the article

• Geographically limited / gradual release process

  - by daniel.sedlacek

  I am looking for more information on a gradual release process - that is when you release new version of a software only to certain set of end users, mostly geographically limited (or limited by a reach of particular server). Google seems to be blind to this term - that indicates that's not how it's called. What's the name then? EDIT: An example of what I mean is when Facebook rolled out new image galleries they were first visible to certain users only, then to whole US and then to the rest of the world.

  Read the article

• Newbie worried about CASE tool.

  - by Jason Evans

  Hi there. I'm looking for some guidance on CASE tools and whether my concerns are valid. Recently I was in a meeting between my employer and an external software company which have a CASE tool currently in beta. They demonstrated this tool to us, showing how you build a UML model in Enterprise Architect (or something like it) and then, through their tool, that UML model is transformed into a Visual Studio project, with C# files, stored procedures for SQL Server, code for the data layer, WCF stuff, logging code and allsorts. Now, admittedly, I don't see the point in this, as in I'm not convinced it will save that much time (plus it feels like overkill). The tool authors said that a trial of the tool at another company had saved a team there 5 weeks of development time (from 6 weeks down to about 1 week) using this tool. I find the accuracy of that estimate hard to believe. My main concern is whether using this tool is going slow down my productivity. For example - Say I have a UML model which I built a VS solution from. Now, I want to rename a class method to something else; will this mean having to update the UML model first and then rebuilding the code? Is this how case tools normally work? Something I will need to check with the authors is the structure of the generated VS solution. I like the Domain Driven Design way of project structure - Infrstructure, Services, Model, etc. I doubt very much this tool will do that. Also, I've been playing around with Entity Framework Code First and think it's a great way to build the data model. I have nice repositories, unit of work classes and other design patterns that work well with EF. I have data anootations and stuff like that working great. By not having EF (the CASE tool uses it's own data layer code) I'm concerned that this tool's data layer code might not be a nice to integrate in the UoW pattern, repositories, etc. This I will need to verify when I get a closer look at the generated code. What are other people's experiences with CASE tools? Am I being paranoid about nothing? Am I being unfair - are my negativities unfounded? EDIT: I like to use TDD/BDD for building my code, and using a CASE tool looks like it will make this difficult. Again, any feedback on this would be great. Cheers. Jas.

  Read the article

• SSMS Tools Pack 1.8 is out!

  - by Mladen Prajdic

  This is a release that fixes all known major bugs and most of the minor ones. The main feature list hasn’t changed. The only addition is the ability to export and import only SQL snippets. Before you could only export/import all settings which included the snippets. You can download the new version here. Enjoy it!

  Read the article

• How do I handle a user story that I complete, but with compromise and need to revisit?

  - by ProfK

  I have just fulfilled (is that a good term?) two user stories out of a new project backlog I have just built. These are user registration and password reset, both requiring mail. I need to implement a substitute mail component because my initial choice, and a normally reliable one, wasn't working. Because I was focused on delivering the user stories, not debugging the mail component, I swapped it out to deliver working code at sprint end. Do I now log a new support issue for the mailer, or 're-insert' these stories into the backlog? If I do the latter, am I not introducing too much tech detail into user stories?

  Read the article

• Introducing QuickUnit

  - by RoyOsherove

  A friend of mine, Ariel, just finished up his latest project, in the unit testing world – called QuickUnit. From the site: QuickUnit significantly reduces the time needed to design and generate high-quality unit tests. I see it as an interactive unit test generator with all the options for isolation included. give it a whirl

  Read the article

• TDD - what are the short term gains/benefits?

  - by ratkok

  Quite often benefits of using TDD are considered as 'long term' gains - the overall code will be better structured, more testable, overall less bugs reported by customers, etc. However, where are the short terms benefits of using TDD? Are there any which are actually tengible and easily measureable? Is it important to have an obvious (or even not obvious by quantifiable) short term benefit at all, if the long term gains are measurable?

  Read the article

• Deploying SSIS to Integration Services Catalog (SSISDB) via SQL Server Data Tools

  - by Kevin Shyr

  There are quite a few good articles/blogs on this.  For a straight forward deployment, read this (http://www.bibits.co/post/2012/08/23/SSIS-SQL-Server-2012-Project-Deployment.aspx).  For a more dynamic and comprehensive understanding about all the different settings, read part 1 (http://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2450/ssis-package-deployment-model-in-sql-server-2012-part-1-of-2/) and part 2 (http://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2451/ssis-package-deployment-model-in-sql-server-2012-part-2-of-2/) Microsoft official doc: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh213373 This only thing I would add is the following.  After your first deployment, you'll notice that the subsequent deployment skips the second step (go directly "Select Destination" and skipped "Select Source").  That's because after your initial deployment, a ispac file is created to track deployment.  If you decide to go back to "Select Source" and select SSIS catalog again, the deployment process will complete, but the packages will not be deployed.

  Read the article

• Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-After

  - by Timothy Klenke

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-after.aspxIn this post I’m going to outline a few common methods that can be used to increase the coverage of of your test suite.  This won’t be yet another post on why you should be doing testing; there are plenty of those types of posts already out there.  Assuming you know you should be testing, then comes the problem of how do I actual fit that into my day job.  When the opportunity to automate testing comes do you take it, or do you even recognize it? There are a lot of ways (workflows) to go about creating automated tests, just like there are many workflows to writing a program.  When writing a program you can do it from a top-down approach where you write the main skeleton of the algorithm and call out to dummy stub functions, or a bottom-up approach where the low level functionality is fully implement before it is quickly wired together at the end.  Both approaches are perfectly valid under certain contexts. Each approach you are skilled at applying is another tool in your tool belt.  The more vectors of attack you have on a problem – the better.  So here is a short, incomplete list of some of the workflows that can be applied to increasing the amount of automation in your testing and level of quality in general.  Think of each workflow as an opportunity that is available for you to take. Test workflows basically fall into 2 categories:  test first or test after.  Test first is the best approach.  However, this post isn’t about the one and only best approach.  I want to focus more on the lesser known, less ideal approaches that still provide an opportunity for adding tests.  In this post I’ll enumerate some test-after workflows.  In my next post I’ll cover test-first. Bug Reporting When someone calls you up or forwards you a email with a vague description of a bug its usually standard procedure to create or verify a reproduction plan for the bug via manual testing and log that in a bug tracking system.  This can be problematic.  Often reproduction plans when written down might skip a step that seemed obvious to the tester at the time or they might be missing some crucial environment setting. Instead of data entry into a bug tracking system, try opening up the test project and adding a failing unit test to prove the bug.  The test project guarantees that all aspects of the environment are setup properly and no steps are missing.  The language in the test project is much more precise than the English that goes into a bug tracking system. This workflow can easily be extended for Enhancement Requests as well as Bug Reporting. Exploratory Testing Exploratory testing comes in when you aren’t sure how the system will behave in a new scenario.  The scenario wasn’t planned for in the initial system requirements and there isn’t an existing test for it.  By definition the system behaviour is “undefined”. So write a new unit test to define that behaviour.  Add assertions to the tests to confirm your assumptions.  The new test becomes part of the living system specification that is kept up to date with the test suite. Examples This workflow is especially good when developing APIs.  When you are finally done your production API then comes the job of writing documentation on how to consume the API.  Good documentation will also include code examples.  Don’t let these code examples merely exist in some accompanying manual; implement them in a test suite. Example tests and documentation do not have to be created after the production API is complete.  It is best to write the example code (tests) as you go just before the production code. Smoke Tests Every system has a typical use case.  This represents the basic, core functionality of the system.  If this fails after an upgrade the end users will be hosed and they will be scratching their heads as to how it could be possible that an update got released with this core functionality broken. The tests for this core functionality are referred to as “smoke tests”.  It is a good idea to have them automated and run with each build in order to avoid extreme embarrassment and angry customers. Coverage Analysis Code coverage analysis is a tool that reports how much of the production code base is exercised by the test suite.  In Visual Studio this can be found under the Test main menu item. The tool will report a total number for the code coverage, which can be anywhere between 0 and 100%.  Coverage Analysis shouldn’t be used strictly for numbers reporting.  Companies shouldn’t set minimum coverage targets that mandate that all projects must have at least 80% or 100% test coverage.  These arbitrary requirements just invite gaming of the coverage analysis, which makes the numbers useless. The analysis tool will break down the coverage by the various classes and methods in projects.  Instead of focusing on the total number, drill down into this view and see which classes have high or low coverage.  It you are surprised by a low number on a class this is an opportunity to add tests. When drilling through the classes there will be generally two types of reaction to a surprising low test coverage number.  The first reaction type is a recognition that there is low hanging fruit to be picked.  There may be some classes or methods that aren’t being tested, which could easy be.  The other reaction type is “OMG”.  This were you find a critical piece of code that isn’t under test.  In both cases, go and add the missing tests. Test Refactoring The general theme of this post up to this point has been how to add more and more tests to a test suite.  I’ll step back from that a bit and remind that every line of code is a liability.  Each line of code has to be read and maintained, which costs money.  This is true regardless whether the code is production code or test code. Remember that the primary goal of the test suite is that it be easy to read so that people can easily determine the specifications of the system.  Make sure that adding more and more tests doesn’t interfere with this primary goal. Perform code reviews on the test suite as often as on production code.  Hold the test code up to the same high readability standards as the production code.  If the tests are hard to read then change them.  Look to remove duplication.  Duplicate setup code between two or more test methods that can be moved to a shared function.  Entire test methods can be removed if it is found that the scenario it tests is covered by other tests.  Its OK to delete a test that isn’t pulling its own weight anymore. Remember to only start refactoring when all the test are green.  Don’t refactor the tests and the production code at the same time.  An automated test suite can be thought of as a double entry book keeping system.  The unchanging, passing production code serves as the tests for the test suite while refactoring the tests. As with all refactoring, it is best to fit this into your regular work rather than asking for time later to get it done.  Fit this into the standard red-green-refactor cycle.  The refactor step no only applies to production code but also the tests, but not at the same time.  Perhaps the cycle should be called red-green-refactor production-refactor tests (not quite as catchy).   That about covers most of the test-after workflows I can think of.  In my next post I’ll get into test-first workflows.

  Read the article

• Internet Marketing Tools: Organic vs Pay Per Click

  Creative advertising, preventing image theft and an interview with Shelby Larson, founder of ContentDivas, about driving sales through organic marketing strategies.

  Read the article

• Internet Marketing Tools: Organic vs Pay Per Click

  Creative advertising, preventing image theft and an interview with Shelby Larson, founder of ContentDivas, about driving sales through organic marketing strategies.

  Read the article

• Handy Web Tools for Entrepreneurs

  TripIt.com keeps your travel itinerary available no matter where you go, plus an SEO resource to keep tabs on your competition and a great source for large business posters.

  Read the article

• Handy Web Tools for Entrepreneurs

  TripIt.com keeps your travel itinerary available no matter where you go, plus an SEO resource to keep tabs on your competition and a great source for large business posters.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >