Search Results

Search found 9492 results on 380 pages for 'logic unit'.

Page 44/380 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • Sharing logic across different platforms

    - by Pranz
    Hello all, We have a business logic that works with the file systems on OS that we want to implement on both Linux and Windows platforms. The language we have selected is Python for Linux and C# for Windows. GUI is not a priority for now. We were looking for ways to abstract the business logic in a way that we dont have to repeat the business logic (ofcourse I understand since it is related to file system, some code will differ from platform to platform). Any ideas on how to implement it? Is C/C++ the only option. We dont want to use Java. Thanks, Pranz

    Read the article

  • The new workflow management of Oracle´s Hyperion Planning: Define more details with Planning Unit Hierarchies and Promotional Paths

    - by Alexandra Georgescu
    After having been almost unchanged for several years, starting with the 11.1.2 release of Oracle´s Hyperion Planning the Process Management has not only got a new name: “Approvals” now is offering the possibility to further split Planning Units (comprised of a unique Scenario-Version-Entity combination) into more detailed combinations along additional secondary dimensions, a so called Planning Unit Hierarchy, and also to pre-define a path of planners, reviewers and approvers, called Promotional Path. I´d like to introduce you to changes and enhancements in this new process management and arouse your curiosity for checking out more details on it. One reason of using the former process management in Planning was to limit data entry rights to one person at a time based on the assignment of a planning unit. So the lowest level of granularity for this assignment was, for a given Scenario-Version combination, the individual entity. Even if in many cases one person wasn´t responsible for all data being entered into that entity, but for only part of it, it was not possible to split the ownership along another additional dimension, for example by assigning ownership to different accounts at the same time. By defining a so called Planning Unit Hierarchy (PUH) in Approvals this gap is now closed. Complementing new Shared Services roles for Planning have been created in order to manage set up and use of Approvals: The Approvals Administrator consisting of the following roles: Approvals Ownership Assigner, who assigns owners and reviewers to planning units for which Write access is assigned (including Planner responsibilities). Approvals Supervisor, who stops and starts planning units and takes any action on planning units for which Write access is assigned. Approvals Process Designer, who can modify planning unit hierarchy secondary dimensions and entity members for which Write access is assigned, can also modify scenarios and versions that are assigned to planning unit hierarchies and can edit validation rules on data forms for which access is assigned. (this includes as well Planner and Ownership Assigner responsibilities) Set up of a Planning Unit Hierarchy is done under the Administration menu, by selecting Approvals, then Planning Unit Hierarchy. Here you create new PUH´s or edit existing ones. The following window displays: After providing a name and an optional description, a pre-selection of entities can be made for which the PUH will be defined. Available options are: All, which pre-selects all entities to be included for the definitions on the subsequent tabs None, manual entity selections will be made subsequently Custom, which offers the selection for an ancestor and the relative generations, that should be included for further definitions. Finally a pattern needs to be selected, which will determine the general flow of ownership: Free-form, uses the flow/assignment of ownerships according to Planning releases prior to 11.1.2 In Bottom-up, data input is done at the leaf member level. Ownership follows the hierarchy of approval along the entity dimension, including refinements using a secondary dimension in the PUH, amended by defined additional reviewers in the promotional path. Distributed, uses data input at the leaf level, while ownership starts at the top level and then is distributed down the organizational hierarchy (entities). After ownership reaches the lower levels, budgets are submitted back to the top through the approval process. Proceeding to the next step, now a secondary dimension and the respective members from that dimension might be selected, in order to create more detailed combinations underneath each entity. After selecting the Dimension and a Parent Member, the definition of a Relative Generation below this member assists in populating the field for Selected Members, while the Count column shows the number of selected members. For refining this list, you might click on the icon right beside the selected member field and use the check-boxes in the appearing list for deselecting members. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIP: In order to reduce maintenance of the PUH due to changes in the dimensions included (members added, moved or removed) you should consider to dynamically link those dimensions in the PUH with the dimension hierarchies in the planning application. For secondary dimensions this is done using the check-boxes in the Auto Include column. For the primary dimension, the respective selection criteria is applied by right-clicking the name of an entity activated as planning unit, then selecting an item of the shown list of include or exclude options (children, descendants, etc.). Anyway in order to apply dimension changes impacting the PUH a synchronization must be run. If this is really necessary or not is shown on the first screen after selecting from the menu Administration, then Approvals, then Planning Unit Hierarchy: under Synchronized you find the statuses Yes, No or Locked, where the last one indicates, that another user is just changing or synchronizing the PUH. Select one of the not synchronized PUH´s (status No) and click the Synchronize option in order to execute. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the next step owners and reviewers are assigned to the PUH. Using the icons with the magnifying glass right besides the columns for Owner and Reviewer the respective assignments can be made in the ordermthat you want them to review the planning unit. While it is possible to assign only one owner per entity or combination of entity+ member of the secondary dimension, the selection for reviewers might consist of more than one person. The complete Promotional Path, including the defined owners and reviewers for the entity parents, can be shown by clicking the icon. In addition optional users might be defined for being notified about promotions for a planning unit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIP: Reviewers cannot change data, but can only review data according to their data access permissions and reject or promote planning units. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In order to complete your PUH definitions click Finish - this saves the PUH and closes the window. As a final step, before starting the approvals process, you need to assign the PUH to the Scenario-Version combination for which it should be used. From the Administration menu select Approvals, then Scenario and Version Assignment. Expand the PUH in order to see already existing assignments. Under Actions click the add icon and select scenarios and versions to be assigned. If needed, click the remove icon in order to delete entries. After these steps, set up is completed for starting the approvals process. Start, stop and control of the approvals process is now done under the Tools menu, and then Manage Approvals. The new PUH feature is complemented by various additional settings and features; some of them at least should be mentioned here: Export/Import of PUHs: Out of Office agent: Validation Rules changing promotional/approval path if violated (including the use of User-defined Attributes (UDAs)): And various new and helpful reviewer actions with corresponding approval states. About the Author: Bernhard Kinkel started working for Hyperion Solutions as a Presales Consultant and Consultant in 1998 and moved to Hyperion Education Services in 1999. He joined Oracle University in 2007 where he is a Principal Education Consultant. Based on these many years of working with Hyperion products he has detailed product knowledge across several versions. He delivers both classroom and live virtual courses. His areas of expertise are Oracle/Hyperion Essbase, Oracle Hyperion Planning and Hyperion Web Analysis.

    Read the article

  • Why is code quality not popular?

    - by Peter Kofler
    I like my code being in order, i.e. properly formatted, readable, designed, tested, checked for bugs, etc. In fact I am fanatic about it. (Maybe even more than fanatic...) But in my experience actions helping code quality are hardly implemented. (By code quality I mean the quality of the code you produce day to day. The whole topic of software quality with development processes and such is much broader and not the scope of this question.) Code quality does not seem popular. Some examples from my experience include Probably every Java developer knows JUnit, almost all languages implement xUnit frameworks, but in all companies I know, only very few proper unit tests existed (if at all). I know that it's not always possible to write unit tests due to technical limitations or pressing deadlines, but in the cases I saw, unit testing would have been an option. If a developer wanted to write some tests for his/her new code, he/she could do so. My conclusion is that developers do not want to write tests. Static code analysis is often played around in small projects, but not really used to enforce coding conventions or find possible errors in enterprise projects. Usually even compiler warnings like potential null pointer access are ignored. Conference speakers and magazines would talk a lot about EJB3.1, OSGI, Cloud and other new technologies, but hardly about new testing technologies or tools, new static code analysis approaches (e.g. SAT solving), development processes helping to maintain higher quality, how some nasty beast of legacy code was brought under test, ... (I did not attend many conferences and it propably looks different for conferences on agile topics, as unit testing and CI and such has a higer value there.) So why is code quality so unpopular/considered boring? EDIT: Thank your for your answers. Most of them concern unit testing (and has been discussed in a related question). But there are lots of other things that can be used to keep code quality high (see related question). Even if you are not able to use unit tests, you could use a daily build, add some static code analysis to your IDE or development process, try pair programming or enforce reviews of critical code.

    Read the article

  • TFSBuild.Proj and Manual SQL Server Work Help?

    - by ScSub
    Using the VS 2008 GDR update, I have created a database project. I have created a SQL Server deployment package. I have created a database unit test. Using some wizards, the stuff got into my tfsbuild.proj file so near the end of the automated build process a database is created. I lack a little control of the whole process, I now see. What I would like to do is manually deploy the DB, run 3 custom scripts against the DB, and then manually start the DB unit test. I have other non-DB unit tests that already run. I do not want to use VSMDI or ordered unit test stuff because in out multi-developer environment it gets messy. Help!

    Read the article

  • CUDA: How to reuse kernels in multiple files (for unit testing)

    - by zenna
    How can I go about reusing the same kernel without getting fatal linking errors due to defining the symbol multiple times In Visual Studio I get "fatal error LNK1169: one or more multiply defined symbols found" My current structure is as follows: Interface.h has an extern interface to a C function: myCfunction() (ala the C++ integration SDK example) Kernel.cu contains the actual __global__ kernels and is NOT included in the build: __global__ my_kernel() Wrapper.cu inlcudes Kernel.cu and Interface.h and calls my_kernel<<<...>>> This all works fine. But if I add another C function in another file which also includes Kernel.cu and uses those kernels, I get the errors. So how can I reuse the kernels in Kernel.cu among many C functions in different files. The purpose of this by the way is unit testing, and integrating my kernels with CPP unit, if there is no way to reuse kernels (there must be!) then other suggestions for unit testing kernels within my existing CPP unit framework would be appreciate. Thanks Zenna

    Read the article

  • Embedded Prolog Interpreter/Compiler for Java

    - by Sami
    I'm working on an application in Java, that needs to do some complex logic rule deductions as part of its functionality. I'd like to code my logic deductions in Prolog or some other logic/constraint programming language, instead of Java, as I believe the resulting code will be significantly simpler and more maintainable. I Googled for embedded Java implementations on Prolog, and found number of them, each with very little documentation. My (modest) selection criteria are: should be embeddable in Java (e.g. can be bundled up with my java package instead of requiring any native installations on external programs) simple interface to use from Java (for initiating deductions, inspecting results, and adding rules) come with at least a few examples on how to use it doesn't necessarely have to be Prolog, but other logic/constraint programming languages with the above criteria would suit my needs, too. What choices do I have and what are their advantages and disadvantages?

    Read the article

  • JUnit Test method with randomized nature

    - by Peter
    Hey, I'm working on a small project for myself at the moment and I'm using it as an opportunity to get acquainted with unit testing and maintaining proper documentation. I have a Deck class with represents a deck of cards (it's very simple and, to be honest, I can be sure that it works without a unit test, but like I said I'm getting used to using unit tests) and it has a shuffle() method which changes the order of the cards in the deck. The implementation is very simple and will certainly work: public void shuffle() { Collections.shuffle(this.cards); } But, how could I implement a unit test for this method. My first thought was to check if the top card of the deck was different after calling shuffle() but there is of course the possibility that it would be the same. My second thought was to check if the entire order of cards has changed, but again they could possibly be in the same order. So, how could I write a test that ensures this method works in all cases? And, in general, how can you unit test methods for which the outcome depends on some randomness? Cheers, Pete

    Read the article

  • Generating a random displacement on the unit sphere

    - by becko
    Given a unit vector n, I need to generate, as fast as possible, another random unit vector m. The deviation of m from n should be on the order of a positive parameter sigma, and the distribution of m on the unit sphere should be symmetrical around n. I have no specific requirements on the representation of unit vectors, so you can use spherical angles, Cartesian coordinates, or whatever turns out to be convenient. Also, there are no precise requirements on the probability distributions used, as long as it decays when m deviates more than sigma from n. I am working with gsl and C. I have come up with a somewhat convoluted method using Cartesian coordinates. I will post it later if it is useful, but I would like to see people's ideas.

    Read the article

  • P implies Q, how to read in english

    - by user177883
    how to read P implies Q in classical logic? example : Distributivity: Ka(X->Y) -> (KaX -> KaY) This is model logic which uses classical logic rules. KaX : a knows the that X is true. I m curious about how to read implication in english? if then else?

    Read the article

  • How to run xunit in Visual Studio 2012?

    - by user1978421
    I am very new to unit testing. I have been following the procedures for creating a unit test in visual studio 2012 on http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/TechEd/Europe/2012/DEV214. The test just won't start. And it will prompt me "A project with an Output Type of Class Library cannot be started directly. In order to debug this project, add an executable project to this solution which references the library project. Set an executable project as the startup project. Even though I attached the unit test class code to a console program, the test does not start and the test explorer is empty. In the video, it doesn't need to have any running program. The lady only created a class library, and the test will run. what should I do? Note. there is no "create unit test" on the mouse right click menu

    Read the article

  • JUnit - Testing a method that in turn invokes a few more methods

    - by stratwine
    Hi, This is my doubt on what we regard as a "unit" while unit-testing. say I have a method like this, public String myBigMethod() { String resultOne = moduleOneObject.someOperation(); String resultTwo = moduleTwoObject.someOtherOperation(resultOne); return resultTwo; } ( I have unit-tests written for someOperation() and someOtherOperation() seperately ) and this myBigMethod() kinda integrates ModuleOne and ModuleTwo by using them as above, then, is the method "myBigMethod()" still considered as a "unit" ? Should I be writing a test for this "myBigMethod()" ? Say I have written a test for myBigMethod()... If testSomeOperation() fails, it would also result in testMyBigMethod() to fail... Now testMyBigMethod()'s failure might show a not-so-correct-location of the bug. One-Cause causing two tests to fail doesn't look so good to me. But donno if there's any better way...? Is there ? Thanks !

    Read the article

  • Orthographic unit translation mismatch on grid (e.g. 64 pixels translates incorrectly)

    - by Justin Van Horne
    I am looking for some insight into a small problem with unit translations on a grid. Setup 512x448 window 64x64 grid gl_Position = projection * world * position; projection is defined by ortho(-w/2.0f, w/2.0f, -h/2.0f, h/2.0f); This is a textbook orthogonal projection function. world is defined by a fixed camera position at (0, 0) position is defined by the sprite's position. Problem In the screenshot below (1:1 scaling) the grid spacing is 64x64 and I am drawing the unit at (64, 64), however the unit draws roughly ~10px in the wrong position. I've tried uniform window dimensions to prevent any distortion on the pixel size, but now I am a bit lost in the proper way in providing a 1:1 pixel-to-world-unit projection. Anyhow, here are some quick images to aide in the problem. I decided to super-impose a bunch of the sprites at what the engine believes is 64x offsets. When this seemed off place, I went about and did the base case of 1 unit. Which seemed to line up as expected. The yellow shows a 1px difference in the movement. Vertices It would appear that the vertices going into the vertex shader are correct. For example, in reference to the first image the data looks like this in the VBO: x y x y ---------------------------- tl | 0.0 24.0 64.0 24.0 bl | 0.0 0.0 -> 64.0 0.0 tr | 16.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 br | 16.0 24.0 80.0 24.0 With that said, all I am left to believe is that I am munging up my actual projection. So, I am looking for any insight into maintaining the 1:1 pixel-to-world-unit projection.

    Read the article

  • Best way to calculate unit deaths in browser game combat?

    - by MikeCruz13
    My browser game's combat system is written and mechanically functioning well. It's written in PHP and uses a SQL database. I'm happy with the unit balance in relation to one another. I am, however, a little worried about how I'm calculating unit deaths when one player attacks another because the deaths seem to pile up a little fast for my taste. For this system, a battle doesn't just trigger, calculate winner, and end. Instead, it is allowed to go for several rounds (say one round every 15 mins.) until one side passes a threshold of being too strong for the other player and allows players to send reinforcements between rounds. Each round, units pair up and attack each other. Essentially what I do is calculate the damage: AP = Attack Points HP = Hit Points Units AP * Quantity * Random Factors * other factors (such as attrition) I take that and divide by the defending unit's HP to find the number of casualties of defending units. So, for example (simplified to take out some factors), if I have: 500 attackers with 50 AP vs 1000 defenders with 100 HP = 250 deaths. I wonder if that last step could be handled better to reduce the deaths piling up. Some ideas: I just change all the units with more HP? I make sure to set the Attacking unit's AP to be a max of the defender's HP to make sure they only kill 1 unit. (is that fair if I have less huge units vs many small units?) I spread the damage around more by including the defending unit's quantity more? i.e. in that scenario some are dead and some are 50% damage. (How would I track this every round?) Other better mathematical approaches?

    Read the article

  • Any sample C# project that highlights separate data access layer (using EF) to business logic layer

    - by Greg
    Hi, I'm interested in having a look at a small sample project that would highlight a good technique to separate data access layer (using Entity Framework) to business logic layer. In C# would be good. That is, it would highlight how to pass data between the layer without coupling them. That is, the assumption here is not to use the EF classes in the Business Logic layer, and how to achieve this low coupling, but minimizing plumbing code.

    Read the article

  • Logic behind SCCM 2012 required PXE deployments

    - by Omnomnomnom
    I'm in the process of setting up Windows 7 deployment through PXE boot, with Microsoft SCCM 2012. The imaging itself works very well, but I have a question about the logic behind PXE deployments. My setup is the following: My Windows 7 deployment task sequence is deployed to the unknown computers group. (not required, press F12 to start installing) OSDComputerName variable is also set on the unknown computers group, so unknown computers that are being imaged will prompt for a pc name. The computer then becomes known in SCCM and is added to the correct collection(s). But if I want to reïnstall windows on a known computer things are different: I can do a required deployment of the imaging task sequence to the collection of computers. Then windows installs through PXE, without any human interaction, keeping the original computer name. But because the initial deployment was not required, the "required PXE deployment" flag is not set. So as soon as I add a new computer to a collection with a required PXE deployment, it will start to reïnstall windows again. I can also deploy the imaging task sequence to the new unknown computers as required, so the flag gets set initially. But then it does not prompt for a computer name. (and it generates a name like MININT-xxx) Which is also sort of what I want. Because when i want to re-install a machine, I want it to install without interaction. How can I solve this?

    Read the article

  • How much is modern programming still tied to underyling digital logic?

    - by New Talk
    First of all: I've got no academic background. I'm working primarily with Java and Spring and I'm also fond of web programming and relational databases. I hope I'm using the right terms and I hope that this vague question makes some sense. Today the following question came to my mind: How much is modern programming still tied to the underlying digital logic? With modern programming I mean concepts like OOP, AOP, Java 7, AJAX, … I hope you get the idea. Do they no longer need the digital logic with which computers are working internally? Or is binary logic still ubiquitous when programming this way? If I'd change the inner workings of a computer overnight, would it matter, because my programming techniques are already that abstract? P. S.: With digital logic I mean the physical representation of everything "inside" the computer as zeroes and ones. Changed "binary" to "digital".

    Read the article

  • Push or Pull Input Data In the Game Logic?

    - by Qua
    In the process of preparing my game for networking I'm adding a layer of seperation between the physical input (mouse/keyboard) and the actual game "engine"/logic. All input that has any relation to the game logic is wrapped inside action objects such as BuildBuildingAction. I was thinking of having an action processing layer that would determine what to do with the input. This layer could then be set up to either just pass the actions locally to the game engine or send it via sockets to the network server depending on whether the game was single- or multiplayer. In network games it would make sense that the player's actions should be sent to the server, but should the game logic be pulling (polling?) the data through some sort of interface or should the action processing layer be adding the actions to an input queue in the game logic code?

    Read the article

  • Logic inside an enum

    - by Vivin Paliath
    My colleagues and I were having a discussion regarding logic in enums. My personal preference is to not have any sort of logic in Java enums (although Java provides the ability to do that). The discussion in this cased centered around having a convenience method inside the enum that returned a map: public enum PackageTypes { Letter("01", "Letter"), .. .. Tube("02", "Packaging Tube"); private String packageCode; private String packageDescription; .. .. public static Map<String, String> toMap() { Map<String, String> map = new LinkedHashMap<String, String>(); for(PackageType packageType : PackageType.values()) { map.put(packageType.getPackageCode(), packageType.getPackageDescription()); } return map; } } My personal preference is to pull this out into a service. The argument for having the method inside the enum centered around convenience. The idea was that you don't have to go to a service to get it, but can query the enum directly. My argument centered around separation of concern and abstracting any kind of logic out to a service. I didn't think "convenience" was a strong argument to put this method inside an enum. From a best-practices perspective, which one is better? Or does it simply come down to a matter of personal preference and code style?

    Read the article

  • UIView Login screen to tabbar logic

    - by Benjamin De Bos
    Folks, i'm having trouble with some navigation logic. Currently i have a simple two tabbed tabbar application. But i want to show a loginscreen in front. So that would be an UIView. Currently the code is as follows: - (BOOL)application:(UIApplication *)application didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:(NSDictionary *)launchOptions { self.window = [[UIWindow alloc] initWithFrame:[[UIScreen mainScreen] bounds]]; UIViewController *viewController1 = [[roosterViewController alloc] initWithNibName:@"roosterViewController" bundle:nil]; UIViewController *viewController2 = [[SecondViewController alloc] initWithNibName:@"SecondViewController" bundle:nil]; self.tabBarController = [[UITabBarController alloc] init]; self.tabBarController.viewControllers = @[viewController1, viewController2]; self.window.rootViewController = self.tabBarController; [self.window makeKeyAndVisible]; return YES; } SO this pushes a simple tabcontroller. Well, now i want to have a login screen. So that would be a simple UIView which pushes the tabbar controller. But i can't seem to see the logic on how to do this. I've been trying to present a modal view controller, but the thing is: the tabbar will be loaded on the background. Since i need the username/password information to work on the tabbarview, this won't work. My Logic would be: delegate load loginViewController load tabbar controller But, then i need to be able to "logout". So i need to destroy the tabbar controller and present the login screen. Any thoughts on this?

    Read the article

  • How to achieve interaction between GUI class with logic class

    - by volting
    Im new to GUI programming, and haven't done much OOP. Im working on a basic calculator app to help me learn GUI design and to brush up on OOP. I understand that anything GUI related should be kept seperate from the logic, but Im unsure how to implement interaction between logic an GUI classes when needed i.e. basically passing variables back and forth... Im using TKinter and when I pass a tkinter variable to my logic it only seems to hold the string PY_VAR0. def on_equal_btn_click(self): self.entryVariable.set(self.entryVariable.get() + "=") calculator = Calc(self.entryVariable) self.entryVariable.set(calculator.calculate()) Im sure that im probably doing something fundamentally wrong and probabaly really stupid, I spent a considerable amount of time experimenting (and searching for answers online) but Im getting no where. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, V The Full Program (well just enough to show the structure..) import Tkinter class Gui(Tkinter.Tk): def __init__(self,parent): Tkinter.Tk.__init__(self,parent) self.parent = parent self.initialize() def initialize(self): self.grid() self.create_widgets() """ grid config """ #self.grid_columnconfigure(0,weight=1,pad=0) self.resizable(False, False) def create_widgets(self): """row 0 of grid""" """Create Text Entry Box""" self.entryVariable = Tkinter.StringVar() self.entry = Tkinter.Entry(self,width=30,textvariable=self.entryVariable) self.entry.grid(column=0,row=0, columnspan = 3 ) self.entry.bind("<Return>", self.on_press_enter) """create equal button""" equal_btn = Tkinter.Button(self,text="=",width=4,command=self.on_equal_btn_click) equal_btn.grid(column=3, row=0) """row 1 of grid""" """create number 1 button""" number1_btn = Tkinter.Button(self,text="1",width=8,command=self.on_number1_btn_click) number1_btn.grid(column=0, row=1) . . . def on_equal_btn_click(self): self.entryVariable.set(self.entryVariable.get() + "=") calculator = Calc(self.entryVariable) self.entryVariable.set(calculator.calculate()) class Calc(): def __init__(self, equation): self.equation = equation def calculate(self): #TODO: parse string and calculate... return self.equation if __name__ == "__main__": app = Gui(None) app.title('Calculator') app.mainloop()

    Read the article

  • How do you run your unit tests? Compiler flags? Static libraries?

    - by Christopher Gateley
    I'm just getting started with TDD and am curious as to what approaches others take to run their tests. For reference, I am using the google testing framework, but I believe the question is applicable to most other testing frameworks and to languages other than C/C++. My general approach so far has been to do either one of three things: Write the majority of the application in a static library, then create two executables. One executable is the application itself, while the other is the test runner with all of the tests. Both link to the static library. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and enable or disable the testing code using compiler flags. This is probably the best approach I've used so far, but clutters up the code a bit. Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and, given certain command-line switches either run the application itself or run the tests embedded in the application. None of these solutions are particularly elegant... How do you do it?

    Read the article

  • Handling learning curve for new developers

    - by pete the pagan-gerbil
    Our company likes to hire new developers, with no experience. We have a core set of skills that we try to get them up to speed with, like ASP.NET and WinForms - to teach basic programming, the .NET languages, and the things they'll need to maintain and write. We also try and mentor them through early projects, so they can learn from someone more experienced. Recently, we've been seeing the benefits of new frameworks like MVC and ideas like Unit Testing and TDD (by extension, dependancy injection and IoC), and we'd like to start using these in the team. However, this increases the time that a junior would have before they can get started on a new project - because doing something like unit tests wrong could cause major headaches months or years later in maintenance, especially if we believe unit tests to be comprehensive. How do you handle the huge amount of things that a junior will need to take on, acknowledging that the business wants them working independantly as soon as possible? Is it acceptable to tell them not to unit test till a while after they are independant (and give them small, simpler projects in the meantime) before taking them to 'level 2' of the core skills?

    Read the article

  • Is JPA persistence.xml classpath located?

    - by Vinnie
    Here's what I'm trying to do. I'm using JPA persistence in a web application, but I have a set of unit tests that I want to run outside of a container. I have my primary persistence.xml in the META_INF folder of my main app and it works great in the container (Glassfish). I placed a second persistence.xml in the META-INF folder of my test-classes directory. This contains a separate persistence unit that I want to use for test only. In eclipse, I placed this folder higher in the classpath than the default folder and it seems to work. Now when I run the maven build directly from the command line and it attempts to run the unit tests, the persistence.xml override is ignored. I can see the override in the META-INF folder of the maven generated test-classes directory and I expected the maven tests to use this file, but it isn't. My Spring test configuration overrides, achieved in a similar fashion are working. I'm confused at to whether the persistence.xml is located through the classpath. If it were, my override should work like the spring override since the maven surefire plugin explains "[The test class directory] will be included at the beginning the test classpath". Did I wrongly anticipate how the persistence.xml file is located? I could (and have) create a second persistence unit in the production persistence.xml file, but it feels dirty to place test configuration into this production file. Any other ideas on how to achieve my goal is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Unit test project doesn't recognize the classes it was generated from

    - by DougLeary
    I have a fairly simple file-system website consisting of one aspx page and several classes in separate .cs files. Everything is on my own HD. The web app itself builds and runs fine. Out of curiosity I decided to try out Visual Studio's nifty, easy-to-use unit test feature. So I opened each class file and clicked Create Unit Tests. VS generated a test project containing a set of test classes and some other files. Easy! But when I try to build or run the test project it throws a series of build errors, one for every class: The type or namespace name 'class-name' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?). Somebody asked if my test project has a reference to the original project. Well no, because the original project is a file-system website. It has no bin folder and no DLL, so there's nothing to reference as far as I can tell. I would think that since VS generated these unit tests it would generate whatever references it needs, but apparently not. Is generating unit tests for file-system web apps an undocumented no-no, or is there a magic trick to getting it to work?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >