Search Results

Search found 4783 results on 192 pages for 'tests'.

Page 44/192 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • Using Mock for event listeners in unit-testing

    - by phtrivier
    I keep getting to test this kind of code (language irrelevant) : public class Foo() { public Foo(Dependency1 dep1) { this.dep1 = dep1; } public void setUpListeners() { this.dep1.addSomeEventListener(.... some listener code ...); } } Typically, you want to test what when the dependency fires the event, the class under tests reacts appropriately (in some situation, the only purpose of such classes is to wire lots of other components, that can be independently tested. So far, to test this, I always end up doing something like : creating a 'stub' that implements both a addXXXXListener, that simply stores the callback, and a fireXXXX, that simply calls any registered listener. This is a bit tedious since you have to create the mock with the right interface, but that can do use an introspective framework that can 'spy' on a method, and inject the real dependency in tests Is there a cleaner way to do this kind of things ?

    Read the article

  • Looking for a very subtle unit testing example

    - by Stéphane Bruckert
    In the context of Continuous Integration, I need to teach unit testing to a 20-people audience of programmers. Everything will be all right, but I am still trying to find the perfect unit testing example. More than writing tests like a robot, I want to show that unit testing can help prevent very subtle errors. I am thinking of the following scenario to happen when doing a live TDD demo: the test cases would already be written, we would have to write methods together, most of us would naturally have forgotten to handle a specific case for a method, everyone would then be surprised, when seeing that all tests don't pass, the failing test would make us think more and realize that we forgot an important case. My question will probably finish as "too broad" or "not clear what you are asking", but we never know, one of you might have a great idea. Your answer can use Java and JUnit, though any other language will be fine since only the idea will matter.

    Read the article

  • Assets.getBytes returns null in test environment

    - by ashes999
    I'm using the latest Haxe (2.10), NME (3.4.3), and MUnit. I've written some unit tests that need to fetch bitmap data from SWF symbols. The first step is to actually load the SWF data. To do this, I use NME's getByteArray along with the swf library, like so: var blah:SWF = new SWF(Assets.getBytes("assets/swf/test.swf")); The call to Assets.getBytes returns null when I'm running this under MUnit. When running my actual game code, I'm able to get the byte array (and consequentially, instantiate the SWF class). Am I doing something wrong? What am I missing? Edit: My directory structure is: . (root .\assets .\assets\*.png (other images) .\assets\swf\*.swf (SWFs) .\Source\*.hx (source code) .\Test\*.hx (tests)

    Read the article

  • Passing a list of files to javac

    - by Robert Menteer
    How can I get the javac task to use an existing fileset? In my build.xml I have created several filesets to be used in multiple places throughout build file. Here is how they have been defined: <fileset dir = "${src}" id = "java.source.all"> <include name = "**/*.java" /> </fileset> <fileset dir = "${src}" id = "java.source.examples"> <include name = "**/Examples/**/*.java" /> </fileset> <fileset dir = "${src}" id = "java.source.tests"> <include name = "**/Tests/*.java" /> </fileset> <fileset dir = "${src}" id = "java.source.project"> <include name = "**/*.java" /> <exclude name = "**/Examples/**/*.java" /> <exclude name = "**/Tests/**/*.java" /> </fileset> I have also used macrodef to compile the java files so the javac task does not need to be repeated multiple times. The macro looks like this: <macrodef name="compile"> <attribute name="sourceref"/> <sequential> <javac srcdir = "${src}" destdir = "${build}" classpathref = "classpath" includeantruntime = "no" debug = "${debug}"> <filelist dir="." files="@{sourceref}" /> <-- email is about this </javac> </sequential> What I'm trying to do is compile only the classes that are needed for specific targets not all the targets in the source tree. And do so without having to specify the files every time. Here are how the targets are defined: <target name = "compile-examples" depends = "init"> <compile sourceref = "${toString:java.source.examples}" /> </target> <target name = "compile-project" depends = "init"> <compile sourceref = "${toString:java.source.project}" /> </target> <target name = "compile-tests" depends = "init"> <compile sourceref = "${toString:java.source.tests}" /> </target> As you can see each target specifies the java files to be compiled as a simi-colon separated list of absolute file names. The only problem with this is that javac does not support filelist. It also does not support fileset, path or pathset. I've tried using but it treats the list as a single file name. Another thing I tried is sending the reference directly (not using toString) and using but include does not have a ref attribute. SO THE QUESTION IS: How do you get the javac task to use a reference to a fileset that was defined in another part of the build file? I'm not interested in solutions that cause me to have multiple javac tasks. Completely re-writting the macro is acceptable. Changes to the targets are also acceptable provided redundant code between targets is kept to a minimum. p.s. Another problem is that fileset wants a comma separated list. I've only done a brief search for a way to convert semi-colons to commas and haven't found a way to do that. p.p.s. Sorry for the yelling but some people are too quick to post responses that don't address the subject.

    Read the article

  • Using Definition of Done to Drive Agile Maturity

    - by Dylan Smith
    I’ve been an Agile Coach at a lot of different clients over the years, and I want to share an approach I use to help them adopt and mature over time. It’s important to realize that “Agile” is not a black/white yes/no thing. Teams can be varying degrees of agile. I think of this as their agile maturity level. When I coach teams I want them to start out being a little agile, and get more agile as they mature. The approach I teach them is to use the definition of done as a technique to continuously improve their agile maturity over time. We’re probably all familiar with the concept of “Done Done” that represents what *actually* being done a feature means. Not just when a developer says he’s done right after he writes that last line of code that makes the feature kind-of work. Done Done means the coding is done, it’s been tested, installers and deployment packages have been created, user manuals have been updated, architecture docs have been updated, etc. To enable teams to internalize the concept of “Done Done”, they usually get together and come up with their Definition of Done (DoD) that defines all the activities that need to be completed before a feature is considered Done Done. The Done Done technique typically is applied only to features (aka User Stories). What I do is extend this to apply to several concepts such as User Stories, Sprints, Releases (and sometimes Check-Ins). During project kick-off I’ll usually sit down with the team and go through an exercise of creating DoD’s for each of these concepts (Stories/Sprints/Releases). We’ll usually start by just brainstorming a bunch of activities that could end up in these various DoD’s. Here’s some examples: Code Reviews StyleCop FxCop User Manuals Updated Architecture Docs Updated Tested by QA Tested by UAT Installers Created Support Knowledge Base Updated Deployment Instructions (for Ops) written Automated Unit Tests Run Automated Integration Tests Run Then we start by arranging these activities into the place they occur today (e.g. Do you do UAT testing only once per release? every sprint? every feature?). If the team was previously Waterfall most of these activities probably end up in the Release DoD. An extremely mature agile team would probably have most of these activities in the DoD for the User Stories (because an extremely mature agile team will probably do continuous deployment and release every story). So what we need to do as a team, is work to move these activities from their current home (Release DoD) down into the Sprint DoD and eventually into the User Story DoD (and maybe into the lower-level Check-In DoD if we decide to use that). We don’t have to move them all down to User Story immediately, but as a team we figure out what we think we’re capable of moving down to the Sprint cycle, and Story cycle immediately, and that becomes our starting DoD’s. Over time the team makes an effort to continue moving activities down from Release->Sprint->Story as they become more agile and more mature. I try to encourage them to envision a world in which they deploy to production as each User Story is completed. They would need to be updating User Manuals, creating installers, doing UAT testing (typical Release cycle activities) on every single User Story. They may never actually reach that point, but they should envision that, and strive to keep driving the activities down closer to the User Story cycle s they mature. This is a great technique to give a team an easy-to-follow roadmap to mature their agile practices over time. Sure there’s other aspects to maturity outside of this, but it’s a great technique, that’s easy to visualize, to drive agility into the team. Just keep moving those activities (aka “gates”) down the board from Release->Sprint->Story. I’ll try to give an example of what a recent client of mine had for their DoD’s (this is from memory, so probably not 100% accurate): Release Create/Update deployment Instructions For Ops Instructional Videos Updated Run manual regression test suite UAT Testing In this case that meant deploying to an environment shared across the enterprise that mirrored production and asking other business groups to test their own apps to ensure we didn’t break anything outside our system Sprint Deploy to UAT Environment But not necessarily actually request UAT testing occur User Guides updated Sprint Features Video Created In this case we decided to create a video each sprint showing off the progress (video version of Sprint Demo) User Story Manual Test scripts developed and run Tested by BA Deployed in shared QA environment Using automated deployment process Peer Code Review Code Check-In Compiled (warning-free) Passes StyleCop Passes FxCop Create installer packages Run Automated Tests Run Automated Integration Tests PS – One of my clients had a great question when we went through this activity. They said that if a Sprint is by definition done when the end-date rolls around (time-boxed), isn’t a DoD on a sprint meaningless – it’s done on the end-date regardless of whether those other activities are complete or not? My answer is that while that statement is true – the sprint is done regardless when the end date rolls around – if the DoD activities haven’t been completed I would consider the Sprint a failure (similar to not completing what was committed/planned – failure may be too strong a word but you get the idea). In the Retrospective that will become an agenda item to discuss and understand why we weren’t able to complete the activities we agreed would need to be completed each Sprint.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to hide some topics in phpBB forum?

    - by Martin
    I would like to be able to hide some of the topics in a phpBB-based forum temporarily from the users - perhaps with the exception of administrators and moderators. I am using the forum for my students and I have solutions of some problems from exams and tests there - posted either by me or by some of the students. I plan to use the same or very similar problems during the next academic year. So I don't want the students to see them, but I want to make the solutions visible again after the tests; so that I do not have to post solutions to same questions again. Is something like this possible? Is this a standard part of phpBB, or do I need to install some modification(s) for it?

    Read the article

  • How to copy files while keeping directory structure?

    - by Cubic
    This is for a java project, but the same concept can be applied more generally: Basically, I have a projects with all *.java files located in some sub directory of src. Now I want to grab all directories with the name test in that directory tree and move them into a new directory called tests, e.g.: src->com->a1 -> A.java -> B.java -> test -> test1.java -> test2.java to src->com->a1 -> A.java -> B.java tests->com->a1->test -> test1.java -> test2.java How would I best do that?

    Read the article

  • Starting new project with TDD

    - by Carol
    I'm studying TDD and I read that it also helps you to define the design of the app, correct? So I decided to start creating a new project to help me understand it better. I want to create a simple user registration system that will ask for its name, email address, country (will pick one from a list) and phone number. So the question is... I created a new solution in VS 2010, added a new Test project and I just don't know what tests to write! Since it will help me define the design, what tests could I write here? Thanks for any help!

    Read the article

  • What happened to GremCheck? Is there a viable replacement?

    - by goober
    [Cross-posted on StackOverflow, but thought it would receive a better response here. Thanks!] Hi all, I was a big fan of an app called "GremCheck" that was out a while back, that seems to have disappeared. It was a JavaScript included in a master page that placed an icon at the bottom of the page. It was used during testing. You could define your own tests, and the box could pop up per page and viewers would answer the questions you define (such as "Does this page have the correct title?", "Is the Grammar Correct", "Does the design look consistent"). This was useful for end-user tests groups and quick testing for developers if time was squeezed on full functional testing. Anyone know where GremCheck went, if I can get to it, and if there's anything out there that does something similar? Thanks for any help you can give!

    Read the article

  • Is IE9 a modern browser?

    - by TATWORTH
    At http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/ie9/ there is a very provocative article entitled "Is IE9 a modern browser?". There is a rebuttal by Tim Sneath at http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tims/archive/2011/02/15/a-modern-browser.aspx that is well worth a look. Certainly IE9 is already superior to its predecessors. My comment on the matter is that those that consider IE9 to be non-standards compliant, should submit tests to the W3C to demonstrate the non-compliance. Upon acceptance by the W3C, all the competing browsers can then be re-tested. I prefer objective tests to subjective opinion. I have used IE9 and on some sites such as Hotmail, it is noticeably faster. I have so far been unable to apply the promised IE9 lockout of spyware cookies. With Firefox, I just instal NoScript and never enable spyware sites.

    Read the article

  • OpenJDK 6 B26 Available

    - by user9158633
    On September 21, 2012 the source bundle for OpenJDK 6 b26 was published at http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk6/. The main changes in b26 are the latest round of security updates and a number of other fixes. For more information see the detailed list of all the changes in OpenJDK 6 B26. Test Results: All the jdk regression tests run with  make test passed on linux. cd jdk6 make make test For the current list of excluded tests see  jdk6/jdk/test/ProblemList.txt file:  ProblemList.html in B26 |  Latest ProblemList.txt (in the tip revision). Special thanks to Kelly O'Hair for his contributions to the project and Dave Katleman for his Release Engineering work.

    Read the article

  • OpenJDK 6 B27 Available

    - by user9158633
    On October 26, 2012 the source bundle for OpenJDK 6 b27 was published at http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk6/. The main changes in b27 are the latest round of security updates and a number of other fixes. For more information see the detailed list of all the changes in OpenJDK 6 B27. Test Results: All the jdk regression tests run with  make test passed on linux_i586 cd jdk6 make make test Note: sun/tools/jinfo/Basic.sh test failed on linux_x64. For the current list of excluded tests see  jdk6/jdk/test/ProblemList.txt file:  ProblemList.html in B27 |  Latest ProblemList.txt (in the tip revision). Special thanks to Kelly O'Hair for his contributions to the project and Dave Katleman for his Release Engineering work.

    Read the article

  • So, I though I wanted to learn frontend/web development and break out of my comfort zone...

    - by ripper234
    I've been a backend developer for a long time, and I really swim in that field. C++/C#/Java, databases, NoSql, caching - I feel very much at ease around these platforms/concepts. In the past few years, I started to taste end-to-end web programming, and recently I decided to take a job offer in a front end team developing a large, complex product. I wanted to break out of my comfort zone and become more of an "all around developer". Problem is, I'm getting more and more convinced I don't like it. Things I like about backend programming, and missing in frontend stuff: More interesting problems - When I compare designing a server that handle massive data, to adding another form to a page or changing the validation logic, I find the former a lot more interesting. Refactoring refactoring refactoring - I am addicted to Visual Studio with Resharper, or IntelliJ. I feel very comfortable writing code as it goes without investing too much thought, because I know that with a few clicks I can refactor it into beautiful code. To my knowledge, this doesn't exist at all in javascript. Intellisense and navigation - I hate looking at a bunch of JS code without instantly being able to know what it does. In VS/IntelliJ I can summon the documentation, navigate to the code, climb up inheritance hiererchies ... life is sweet. Auto-completion - Just hit Ctrl-Space on an object to see what you can do with it. Easier to test - With almost any backend feature, I can use TDD to capture the requirements, see a bunch of failing tests, then implement, knowing that if the tests pass I did my job well. With frontend, while tests can help a bit, I find that most of the testing is still manual - fire up that browser and verify the site didn't break. I miss that feeling of "A green CI means everything is well with the world." Now, I've only seriously practiced frontend development for about two months now, so this might seem premature ... but I'm getting a nagging feeling that I should abandon this quest and return to my comfort zone, because, well, it's so comfy and fun. Another point worth mentioning in this context is that while I am learning some frontend tools, a lot of what I'm learning is our company's specific infrastructure, which I'm not sure will be very useful later on in my career. Any suggestions or tips? Do you think I should give frontend programming "a proper chance" of at least six to twelve months before calling it quits? Could all my pains be growing pains, and will they magically disappear as I get more experienced? Or is gaining this perspective is valuable enough, even if plan to do more "backend stuff" later on, that it's worth grinding my teeth and continuing with my learning?

    Read the article

  • Switch from back-end to front-end programming: I'm out of my comfort zone, should I switch back?

    - by ripper234
    I've been a backend developer for a long time, and I really swim in that field. C++/C#/Java, databases, NoSql, caching - I feel very much at ease around these platforms/concepts. In the past few years, I started to taste end-to-end web programming, and recently I decided to take a job offer in a front end team developing a large, complex product. I wanted to break out of my comfort zone and become more of an "all around developer". Problem is, I'm getting more and more convinced I don't like it. Things I like about backend programming, and missing in frontend stuff: More interesting problems - When I compare designing a server that handle massive data, to adding another form to a page or changing the validation logic, I find the former a lot more interesting. Refactoring refactoring refactoring - I am addicted to Visual Studio with Resharper, or IntelliJ. I feel very comfortable writing code as it goes without investing too much thought, because I know that with a few clicks I can refactor it into beautiful code. To my knowledge, this doesn't exist at all in javascript. Intellisense and navigation - I hate looking at a bunch of JS code without instantly being able to know what it does. In VS/IntelliJ I can summon the documentation, navigate to the code, climb up inheritance hiererchies ... life is sweet. Auto-completion - Just hit Ctrl-Space on an object to see what you can do with it. Easier to test - With almost any backend feature, I can use TDD to capture the requirements, see a bunch of failing tests, then implement, knowing that if the tests pass I did my job well. With frontend, while tests can help a bit, I find that most of the testing is still manual - fire up that browser and verify the site didn't break. I miss that feeling of "A green CI means everything is well with the world." Now, I've only seriously practiced frontend development for about two months now, so this might seem premature ... but I'm getting a nagging feeling that I should abandon this quest and return to my comfort zone, because, well, it's so comfy and fun. Another point worth mentioning in this context is that while I am learning some frontend tools, a lot of what I'm learning is our company's specific infrastructure, which I'm not sure will be very useful later on in my career. Any suggestions or tips? Do you think I should give frontend programming "a proper chance" of at least six to twelve months before calling it quits? Could all my pains be growing pains, and will they magically disappear as I get more experienced? Or is gaining this perspective is valuable enough, even if plan to do more "backend stuff" later on, that it's worth grinding my teeth and continuing with my learning?

    Read the article

  • What arguments can I use to "sell" the BDD concept to a team reluctant to adopt it?

    - by S.Robins
    I am a bit of a vocal proponent of the BDD methodology. I've been applying BDD for a couple of years now, and have adopted StoryQ as my framework of choice when developing DotNet applications. Even though I have been unit testing for many years, and had previously shifted to a test-first approach, I've found that I get much more value out of using a BDD framework, because my tests capture the intent of the requirements in relatively clear English within my code, and because my tests can execute multiple assertions without ending the test halfway through - meaning I can see which specific assertions pass/fail at a glance without debugging to prove it. This has really been the tip of the iceberg for me, as I've also noticed that I am able to debug both test and implementation code in a more targeted manner, with the result that my productivity has grown significantly, and that I can more easily determine where a failure occurs if a problem happens to make it all the way to the integration build due to the output that makes its way into the build logs. Further, the StoryQ api has a lovely fluent syntax that is easy to learn and which can be applied in an extraordinary number of ways, requiring no external dependencies in order to use it. So with all of these benefits, you would think it an easy to introduce the concept to the rest of the team. Unfortunately, the other team members are reluctant to even look at StoryQ to evaluate it properly (let alone entertain the idea of applying BDD), and have convinced each other to try and remove a number of StoryQ elements from our own core testing framework, even though they originally supported the use of StoryQ, and that it doesn't impact on any other part of our testing system. Doing so would end up increasing my workload significantly overall and really goes against the grain, as I am convinced through practical experience that it is a better way to work in a test-first manner in our particular working environment, and can only lead to greater improvements in the quality of our software, given I've found it easier to stick with test first using BDD. So the question really comes down to the following: What arguments can I use to really drive the point home that it would be better to use StoryQ, or at the very least apply the BDD methodology? Can you point me to any anecdotal evidence that I can use to support my argument to adopt BDD as our standard method of choice? What counter arguments can you think of that could suggest that my wish to convert the team efforts to BDD might be in error? Yes, I'm happy to be proven wrong provided the argument is a sound one. NOTE: I am not advocating that we rewrite our tests in their entirety, but rather to simply start working in a different manner for all future testing work.

    Read the article

  • What is testable code?

    - by Michael Freidgeim
    We are improving quality of code and trying to develop more unit tests. The question that developers asked  was  "How to make code testable ?"  From http://openmymind.net/2010/8/17/Write-testable-code-even-if-you-dont-write-tests/ First and foremost, its loosely coupled, taking advantage of dependency injection (and auto-wiring), composition and interface-programming. Testable code is also readable - meaning it leverages single responsibility principle and Liskov substitution principle.A few practical suggestions are listed in http://misko.hevery.com/code-reviewers-guide/More recommendations are in http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/08/by-miko-hevery-so-you-decided-to.htmlIt is slightly too theoretical - " the trick is translating these abstract concepts into concrete decisions in your code."

    Read the article

  • How do I get from a highly manual process of development and deploy to continuous integration?

    - by Tonny Dourado
    We have a development process which is completely manual. No unit tests, interface tests are manual, and merging and integration are as well. How could we go from this state to implementing continuous integration with full (or at least close to full) automation of build and test? We have a pretty intense development cycle, and are not currently using agile, so switching to agile with CI in one move would be a very complicated and expensive investment. How can we take it slowly, and still moving constantly towards a CI environment?

    Read the article

  • unit testing on ARM

    - by NomadAlien
    We are developing application level code that runs on an ARM processor. The BSP (low level code) is being delivered by a 3d party so our code sits just on top of this abstraction layer (code is written in c++). To do unit testing, I assume we will have to mock/stub out the BSP library(essentially abstracting out the HW), but what I'm not sure of is if I write/run the unit test on my pc, do I compile it with for example GCC? Normally we use Realview compiler to compile our code for the ARM. Can I assume that if I compile and run the code with x86 compiler and the unit tests pass that it will also pass when compiled with RealView compiler? I'm not sure how much difference the compiler makes and if you can trust that if the x86 compiled code pass the unit tests that you can also be confident that the Realview compiled code is ok.

    Read the article

  • rotating an object on an arc

    - by gardian06
    I am trying to get a turret to rotate on an arc, and have hit a wall. I have 8 possible starting orientations for the turrets, and want them to rotate on a 90 degree arc. I currently take the starting rotation of the turret, and then from that derive the positive, and negative boundary of the arc. because of engine restrictions (Unity) I have to do all of my tests against a value which is between [0,360], and due to numerical precision issues I can not test against specific values. I would like to write a general test without having to go in, and jury rig cases //my current test is: // member variables public float negBound; public float posBound; // found in Start() function (called immediately after construction) // eulerAngles.y is the the degree measure of the starting y rotation negBound = transform.eulerAngles.y-45; posBound = transform.eulerAngles.y+45; // insure that values are within bounds if(negBound<0){ negBound+=360; }else if(posBound>360){ posBound-=360; } // called from Update() when target not in firing line void Rotate(){ // controlls what direction if(transform.eulerAngles.y>posBound){ dir = -1; } else if(transform.eulerAngles.y < negBound){ dir = 1; } // rotate object } follows is a table of values for my different cases (please excuse my force formatting) read as base is the starting rotation of the turret, neg is the negative boundry, pos is the positive boundry, range is the acceptable range of values, and works is if it performs as expected with the current code. |base-|-neg-|-pos--|----------range-----------|-works-| |---0---|-315-|--45--|-315-0,0-45----------|----------| |--45--|---0---|--90--|-0-45,54-90----------|----x----| |-135-|---90--|-180-|-90-135,135-180---|----x----| |-180-|--135-|-225-|-135-180,180-225-|----x----| |-225-|--180-|-270-|-180-225,225-270-|----x----| |-270-|--225-|-315-|-225-270,270-315-|----------| |-315-|--270-|---0---|--270-315,315-0---|----------| I will need to do all tests from derived, or stored values, but can not figure out how to get all of my cases to work simultaneously. //I attempted to concatenate the 2 tests: if((transform.eulerAngles.y>posBound)&&(transform.eulerAngles.y < negBound)){ dir *= -1; } this caused only the first case to be successful // I attempted to store a opposite value, and do a void Rotate(){ // controlls what direction if((transform.eulerAngles.y > posBound)&&(transform.eulerAngles.y<oposite)){ dir = -1; } else if((transform.eulerAngles.y < negBound)&&(transform.eulerAngles.y>oposite)){ dir = 1; } // rotate object } this causes the opposite situation as indicated on the table. What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • Fixing a bug while working on a different part of the code base

    - by imgx64
    This happened at least once to me. I'm working on some part of the code base and find a small bug in a different part, and the bug stops me from completing what I'm currently trying to do. Fixing the bug could be as simple as changing a single statement. What do you do in that situation? Fix the bug and commit it together with your current work Save your current work elsewhere, fix the bug in a separate commit, then continue your work [1] Continue what you're supposed to do, commit the code (even if it breaks the build fails some tests), then fix the bug (and the build make tests pass) in a separate commit [1] In practice, this would mean: clone the original repository elsewhere, fix the bug, commit/push the changes, pull the commit to the repository you're working on, merge the changes, and continue your work. Edit: I changed number three to reflect what I really meant.

    Read the article

  • How to learn an API

    - by inovaovao
    When I find some interesting project (e.g. on GitHub) I often would like to use it and try it out to see how it works, but if there isn't a good documentation or some kind of tutorial it's hard to figure out how to use it. So my question is: how do you approach such a situation? How do you figure out which classes are important and how to chain them to put them to use? What would you look at first? An advice I found is to look at the tests (if there are any). But if there are unit tests for every class, how do you know which ones to look at first?

    Read the article

  • Is there an effective way to test XSL transforms/BizTalk maps?

    - by nlawalker
    Creating repeatable tests for BizTalk maps is frustrating. I can't find a way to handle testing them like I'd do unit testing, because I can't find ways to break them into logical chunks. They tend to be one big monolithic unit, and any change has the potential to ripple through the map and break a lot of unit tests. Even if I could break it up, creating XML test inputs is painful and error prone. Is there any effective way of testing these? I'd settle for recommendations for testing XSL transforms in general, but I specifically mention BizTalk maps primarily for the reason that when using the mapper, there really isn't any way to break your XSLT into templates (which I'd imagine you could use to break up your logic into testable chunks, but I've honestly never gotten that far with XSLT).

    Read the article

  • Creating an Interface To a Language's Standard Library?

    - by Nathan Arthur
    In the process of learning test-driven development, I've been introduced to dependency injection and the use of interfaces, and have started using these concepts in my own PHP code in order to make it more testable. There have been times when I've needed to test code that was doing things like calling the PHP time() function. In order to make these tests predictable, it seemed logical to create an interface to the standard PHP functions I use so that I can mock them out in my tests. Is this good software design? What are the pros and cons of doing this? I've found myself groaning at how quickly my PHP interface can stick its fingers into everything I do. Is there a better way to make code that relies on PHP-accessed state and functions more testable?

    Read the article

  • Overview of XSLT

    - by kaleidoscope
    XSLT (Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations) is a declarative- XMLbased language used for the transformation of XML documents into other XML documents. Using XSLT , the original document does not changed; rather, a new document is created based on the content of an existing one. XSLT is developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).   Using XSLT we can transform source xml file into another xml file, word file or Excel file.    XSLT Functions : -   There are the following built - in XSLT functions :   Name Description current() Returns the current node document() Used to access the nodes in an external XML document element-available() Tests whether the element specified is supported by the XSLT processor format-number() Converts a number into a string function-available() Tests whether the function specified is supported by the XSLT processor generate-id() Returns a string value that uniquely identifies a specified node key() Returns a node-set using the index specified by an <xsl:key> element system-property() Returns the value of the system properties unparsed-entity-uri() Returns the URI of an unparsed entity   For more information –   http://www.w3schools.com/xsl/default.asp   Technorati Tags: Ritesh, Overview of XSLT

    Read the article

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