Search Results

Search found 6839 results on 274 pages for 'functional tests'.

Page 45/274 | < Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >

• BAD DC transfering FSMO Roles to ADC

  - by Suleman

  I have a DC (FQDN:server.icmcpk.local) and an ADC (FQDN:file-server.icmcpk.local). Recently my DC is facing a bad sector problem so I changed the Operation Masters to file-server for all five roles. but when ever i turn off the OLD DC the file-server also stops wroking with AD and GPMC further i m also unable to join any other computer to this domain. For Test purpose i also added a new ADC (FQDN:wds-server.icmcpk.local) but no succes with the old DC off i had to turn the old DC on and then joined it. I m attaching the Dcdiags for all three servers. Kindly help me so that i b able to reinstall new HDD and it can go online again. --------------------------------------- Server --------------------------------------- C:\Program Files\Support Tools>dcdiag Domain Controller Diagnosis Performing initial setup: Done gathering initial info. Doing initial required tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\SERVER Starting test: Connectivity ......................... SERVER passed test Connectivity Doing primary tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\SERVER Starting test: Replications [Replications Check,SERVER] A recent replication attempt failed: From FILE-SERVER to SERVER Naming Context: DC=ForestDnsZones,DC=icmcpk,DC=local The replication generated an error (1908): Could not find the domain controller for this domain. The failure occurred at 2012-05-04 14:07:13. The last success occurred at 2012-05-04 13:48:39. 1 failures have occurred since the last success. Kerberos Error. A KDC was not found to authenticate the call. Check that sufficient domain controllers are available. [Replications Check,SERVER] A recent replication attempt failed: From WDS-SERVER to SERVER Naming Context: DC=ForestDnsZones,DC=icmcpk,DC=local The replication generated an error (1908): Could not find the domain controller for this domain. The failure occurred at 2012-05-04 14:07:13. The last success occurred at 2012-05-04 13:48:39. 1 failures have occurred since the last success. Kerberos Error. A KDC was not found to authenticate the call. Check that sufficient domain controllers are available. [Replications Check,SERVER] A recent replication attempt failed: From FILE-SERVER to SERVER Naming Context: DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=icmcpk,DC=local The replication generated an error (1908): Could not find the domain controller for this domain. The failure occurred at 2012-05-04 14:07:13. The last success occurred at 2012-05-04 13:48:39. 1 failures have occurred since the last success. Kerberos Error. A KDC was not found to authenticate the call. Check that sufficient domain controllers are available. [Replications Check,SERVER] A recent replication attempt failed: From WDS-SERVER to SERVER Naming Context: DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=icmcpk,DC=local The replication generated an error (1908): Could not find the domain controller for this domain. The failure occurred at 2012-05-04 14:07:13. The last success occurred at 2012-05-04 13:48:39. 1 failures have occurred since the last success. Kerberos Error. A KDC was not found to authenticate the call. Check that sufficient domain controllers are available. [Replications Check,SERVER] A recent replication attempt failed: From FILE-SERVER to SERVER Naming Context: CN=Schema,CN=Configuration,DC=icmcpk,DC=local The replication generated an error (1908): Could not find the domain controller for this domain. The failure occurred at 2012-05-04 14:07:13. The last success occurred at 2012-05-04 13:48:39. 1 failures have occurred since the last success. Kerberos Error. A KDC was not found to authenticate the call. Check that sufficient domain controllers are available. [Replications Check,SERVER] A recent replication attempt failed: From WDS-SERVER to SERVER Naming Context: CN=Schema,CN=Configuration,DC=icmcpk,DC=local The replication generated an error (1908): Could not find the domain controller for this domain. The failure occurred at 2012-05-04 14:07:13. The last success occurred at 2012-05-04 13:48:39. 1 failures have occurred since the last success. Kerberos Error. A KDC was not found to authenticate the call. Check that sufficient domain controllers are available. [Replications Check,SERVER] A recent replication attempt failed: From WDS-SERVER to SERVER Naming Context: DC=icmcpk,DC=local The replication generated an error (1908): Could not find the domain controller for this domain. The failure occurred at 2012-05-04 14:07:13. The last success occurred at 2012-05-04 13:48:39. 1 failures have occurred since the last success. Kerberos Error. A KDC was not found to authenticate the call. Check that sufficient domain controllers are available. ......................... SERVER passed test Replications Starting test: NCSecDesc ......................... SERVER passed test NCSecDesc Starting test: NetLogons ......................... SERVER passed test NetLogons Starting test: Advertising ......................... SERVER passed test Advertising Starting test: KnowsOfRoleHolders ......................... SERVER passed test KnowsOfRoleHolders Starting test: RidManager ......................... SERVER passed test RidManager Starting test: MachineAccount ......................... SERVER passed test MachineAccount Starting test: Services ......................... SERVER passed test Services Starting test: ObjectsReplicated ......................... SERVER passed test ObjectsReplicated Starting test: frssysvol ......................... SERVER passed test frssysvol Starting test: frsevent There are warning or error events within the last 24 hours after the SYSVOL has been shared. Failing SYSVOL replication problems may cause Group Policy problems. ......................... SERVER failed test frsevent Starting test: kccevent ......................... SERVER passed test kccevent Starting test: systemlog An Error Event occured. EventID: 0x80001778 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:05:39 Event String: The previous system shutdown at 1:26:31 PM on An Error Event occured. EventID: 0x825A0011 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:07:45 (Event String could not be retrieved) An Error Event occured. EventID: 0x00000457 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:13:40 (Event String could not be retrieved) An Error Event occured. EventID: 0x00000457 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:14:25 (Event String could not be retrieved) An Error Event occured. EventID: 0x00000457 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:14:25 (Event String could not be retrieved) An Error Event occured. EventID: 0x00000457 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:14:38 (Event String could not be retrieved) An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC1010020 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:16:14 Event String: Dependent Assembly Microsoft.VC80.MFCLOC could An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC101003B Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:16:14 Event String: Resolve Partial Assembly failed for An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC101003B Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:16:14 Event String: Generate Activation Context failed for An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC1010020 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:16:14 Event String: Dependent Assembly Microsoft.VC80.MFCLOC could An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC101003B Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:16:14 Event String: Resolve Partial Assembly failed for An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC101003B Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:16:14 Event String: Generate Activation Context failed for An Error Event occured. EventID: 0x825A0011 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:22:57 (Event String could not be retrieved) An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC1010020 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:22:59 Event String: Dependent Assembly Microsoft.VC80.MFCLOC could An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC101003B Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:22:59 Event String: Resolve Partial Assembly failed for An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC101003B Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:22:59 Event String: Generate Activation Context failed for An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC1010020 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:22:59 Event String: Dependent Assembly Microsoft.VC80.MFCLOC could An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC101003B Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:22:59 Event String: Resolve Partial Assembly failed for An Error Event occured. EventID: 0xC101003B Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:22:59 Event String: Generate Activation Context failed for ......................... SERVER failed test systemlog Starting test: VerifyReferences ......................... SERVER passed test VerifyReferences Running partition tests on : ForestDnsZones Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... ForestDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... ForestDnsZones passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : DomainDnsZones Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... DomainDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... DomainDnsZones passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : Schema Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Schema passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Schema passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : Configuration Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Configuration passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Configuration passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : icmcpk Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... icmcpk passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... icmcpk passed test CheckSDRefDom Running enterprise tests on : icmcpk.local Starting test: Intersite ......................... icmcpk.local passed test Intersite Starting test: FsmoCheck ......................... icmcpk.local passed test FsmoCheck ---------------------- File-Server ---------------------- C:\Users\Administrator.ICMCPK>dcdiag Directory Server Diagnosis Performing initial setup: Trying to find home server... Home Server = FILE-SERVER * Identified AD Forest. Done gathering initial info. Doing initial required tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\FILE-SERVER Starting test: Connectivity ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test Connectivity Doing primary tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\FILE-SERVER Starting test: Advertising Warning: DsGetDcName returned information for \\Server.icmcpk.local, when we were trying to reach FILE-SERVER. SERVER IS NOT RESPONDING or IS NOT CONSIDERED SUITABLE. ......................... FILE-SERVER failed test Advertising Starting test: FrsEvent ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test FrsEvent Starting test: DFSREvent ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test DFSREvent Starting test: SysVolCheck ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test SysVolCheck Starting test: KccEvent ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test KccEvent Starting test: KnowsOfRoleHolders ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test KnowsOfRoleHolders Starting test: MachineAccount ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test MachineAccount Starting test: NCSecDesc Error NT AUTHORITY\ENTERPRISE DOMAIN CONTROLLERS doesn't have Replicating Directory Changes In Filtered Set access rights for the naming context: DC=ForestDnsZones,DC=icmcpk,DC=local Error NT AUTHORITY\ENTERPRISE DOMAIN CONTROLLERS doesn't have Replicating Directory Changes In Filtered Set access rights for the naming context: DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=icmcpk,DC=local ......................... FILE-SERVER failed test NCSecDesc Starting test: NetLogons Unable to connect to the NETLOGON share! (\\FILE-SERVER\netlogon) [FILE-SERVER] An net use or LsaPolicy operation failed with error 67, The network name cannot be found.. ......................... FILE-SERVER failed test NetLogons Starting test: ObjectsReplicated ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test ObjectsReplicated Starting test: Replications ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test Replications Starting test: RidManager ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test RidManager Starting test: Services ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test Services Starting test: SystemLog An Error Event occurred. EventID: 0x00000469 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:01:10 Event String: The processing of Group Policy failed because of lack of network con nectivity to a domain controller. This may be a transient condition. A success m essage would be generated once the machine gets connected to the domain controll er and Group Policy has succesfully processed. If you do not see a success messa ge for several hours, then contact your administrator. An Warning Event occurred. EventID: 0x8000A001 Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:07:11 Event String: The Security System could not establish a secured connection with th e server ldap/icmcpk.local/[email protected]. No authentication protocol was available. An Warning Event occurred. EventID: 0x00000BBC Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:30:34 Event String: Windows Defender Real-Time Protection agent has detected changes. Mi crosoft recommends you analyze the software that made these changes for potentia l risks. You can use information about how these programs operate to choose whet her to allow them to run or remove them from your computer. Allow changes only if you trust the program or the software publisher. Windows Defender can't undo changes that you allow. An Warning Event occurred. EventID: 0x00000BBC Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:30:36 Event String: Windows Defender Real-Time Protection agent has detected changes. Mi crosoft recommends you analyze the software that made these changes for potentia l risks. You can use information about how these programs operate to choose whet her to allow them to run or remove them from your computer. Allow changes only if you trust the program or the software publisher. Windows Defender can't undo changes that you allow. ......................... FILE-SERVER failed test SystemLog Starting test: VerifyReferences ......................... FILE-SERVER passed test VerifyReferences Running partition tests on : ForestDnsZones Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... ForestDnsZones passed test CheckSDRefDom Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... ForestDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : DomainDnsZones Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... DomainDnsZones passed test CheckSDRefDom Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... DomainDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : Schema Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Schema passed test CheckSDRefDom Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Schema passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : Configuration Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Configuration passed test CheckSDRefDom Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Configuration passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : icmcpk Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... icmcpk passed test CheckSDRefDom Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... icmcpk passed test CrossRefValidation Running enterprise tests on : icmcpk.local Starting test: LocatorCheck ......................... icmcpk.local passed test LocatorCheck Starting test: Intersite ......................... icmcpk.local passed test Intersite --------------------- WDS-Server --------------------- C:\Users\Administrator.ICMCPK>dcdiag Directory Server Diagnosis Performing initial setup: Trying to find home server... Home Server = WDS-SERVER * Identified AD Forest. Done gathering initial info. Doing initial required tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\WDS-SERVER Starting test: Connectivity ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test Connectivity Doing primary tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\WDS-SERVER Starting test: Advertising Warning: DsGetDcName returned information for \\Server.icmcpk.local, when we were trying to reach WDS-SERVER. SERVER IS NOT RESPONDING or IS NOT CONSIDERED SUITABLE. ......................... WDS-SERVER failed test Advertising Starting test: FrsEvent There are warning or error events within the last 24 hours after the SYSVOL has been shared. Failing SYSVOL replication problems may cause Group Policy problems. ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test FrsEvent Starting test: DFSREvent ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test DFSREvent Starting test: SysVolCheck ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test SysVolCheck Starting test: KccEvent ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test KccEvent Starting test: KnowsOfRoleHolders ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test KnowsOfRoleHolders Starting test: MachineAccount ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test MachineAccount Starting test: NCSecDesc Error NT AUTHORITY\ENTERPRISE DOMAIN CONTROLLERS doesn't have Replicating Directory Changes In Filtered Set access rights for the naming context: DC=ForestDnsZones,DC=icmcpk,DC=local Error NT AUTHORITY\ENTERPRISE DOMAIN CONTROLLERS doesn't have Replicating Directory Changes In Filtered Set access rights for the naming context: DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=icmcpk,DC=local ......................... WDS-SERVER failed test NCSecDesc Starting test: NetLogons Unable to connect to the NETLOGON share! (\\WDS-SERVER\netlogon) [WDS-SERVER] An net use or LsaPolicy operation failed with error 67, The network name cannot be found.. ......................... WDS-SERVER failed test NetLogons Starting test: ObjectsReplicated ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test ObjectsReplicated Starting test: Replications ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test Replications Starting test: RidManager ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test RidManager Starting test: Services ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test Services Starting test: SystemLog An Error Event occurred. EventID: 0x0000041E Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:02:55 Event String: The processing of Group Policy failed. Windows could not obtain the name of a domain controller. This could be caused by a name resolution failure. Verify your Domain Name Sysytem (DNS) is configured and working correctly. An Error Event occurred. EventID: 0x0000041E Time Generated: 05/04/2012 14:08:33 Event String: The processing of Group Policy failed. Windows could not obtain the name of a domain controller. This could be caused by a name resolution failure. Verify your Domain Name Sysytem (DNS) is configured and working correctly. ......................... WDS-SERVER failed test SystemLog Starting test: VerifyReferences ......................... WDS-SERVER passed test VerifyReferences Running partition tests on : ForestDnsZones Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... ForestDnsZones passed test CheckSDRefDom Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... ForestDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : DomainDnsZones Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... DomainDnsZones passed test CheckSDRefDom Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... DomainDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : Schema Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Schema passed test CheckSDRefDom Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Schema passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : Configuration Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Configuration passed test CheckSDRefDom Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Configuration passed test CrossRefValidation Running partition tests on : icmcpk Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... icmcpk passed test CheckSDRefDom Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... icmcpk passed test CrossRefValidation Running enterprise tests on : icmcpk.local Starting test: LocatorCheck ......................... icmcpk.local passed test LocatorCheck Starting test: Intersite ......................... icmcpk.local passed test Intersite

  Read the article

• unit level testing, agile, and refactoring

  - by dsollen

  I'm working on a very agile development system, a small number of people with my doing the vast majority of progaming myself. I've gotten to the testing phase and find myself writing mostly functional level testing, which I should in theory be leavning for our tester (in practice I don't entirely...trust our tester to detect and identify defects enough to leave him the sole writter of functional tests). In theory what I should be writing is Unit level tests. However, I'm not sure it's worth the expense. Unit testing takes some time to do, more then functional testing since I have to set up mocks and plugs into smaller units that weren't design to run in issolation. More importantly, I find I refactor and redesign heavily-part of this is due to my inherriting code that needed heavy redesign and is still being cleaned up, but even once I've finished removing parts that need work I'm sure in the act of expanding the code I'll still do a decent amount of refactoring and redesign. It feels as if I will break my unit tests, forcing wasted time to refactor them as well, often due to unit test, by definition, having to be coupled so closely to the code structure. So.is it worth all the wasted time when functional tests, that will never break when I refactor/redesign, should find most defects? Do unit tests really provide that much extra defect detetection over through functional? and how does one create good unit tests that work with very quick and agile code that is modified rapidly? ps, I would be fine/happy with links to anything one considers an excellent resource for how to 'do' unit testing in a highly changing enviroment. edit: to clarify I am doing a bit of very unoffical TDD, I just seem to be writing tests on what would be considered a functional level rather then unit level. I think part of this is becaus I own nearly all of the project I don't feel I need to limit the scope as much; and part of it is that it's daunting to think of trying to go back and retroactively add the unit tests needed to cover enough code that I can feel comfortable testing only a unit without the full functionality and trust that unit still works with the rest of the units.

  Read the article

• How to integrate technical line/functional manager into Scrum team?

  - by thegreendroid

  We have recently had a new line manager start who is managing our Scrum team. He is immensely experienced in our field but is relatively inexperienced at Agile/Scrum. He has extensive technical expertise in embedded software (the team's domain) that would go to waste if not utilised properly. However, the team is wary of making a line manager part of the Scrum team. The general consensus is that the line manager should not be part of the Scrum team at all. There are a number of issues that may crop up, e.g. the team may start "reporting" to the manager (i.e. a daily status update!), the manager may start to micro-manage team members etc etc. As it currently stands, he has already said that he feels like an outsider within the team. We really want to make use of his technical skills, we'd be foolish if we didn't because we are a relatively inexperienced and young team of twenty somethings. What would be the best approach to integrate a senior "technical" line manager in a Scrum team and make him feel like he is part of the team?

  Read the article

• Do functional generics exist and what is the correct name for them if they do?

  - by voroninp

  Consider the following generic class: public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map: public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question: how can this be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the shortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<>: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structure should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exists in any programming language?

  Read the article

• Do functional generics exist or what is the correct name for them if they do?

  - by voroninp

  Consider the following generic class public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question how this can be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the sortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structrue should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exist in any programming language?

  Read the article

• Youtube controls (sound, etc) not functional in full-screen mode: is that normal?

  - by mlvljr

  When playing youtube videos full-screen, I can't mouse-interact with the player controls, except for the slider (only single-clicking on the video works as play/pause, but not double-click, interestingly, so the only way to leave full-screen mode is via Escape). Is this behavior known? What can I do about it? I'm on Ubuntu 12.04, using Google's Chrome browser. P.S. If that matters, some other flash players I've tried also display the same problem, so this may be an issue with Google-supplied Flash plugin. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Silverlight unit testing. Error while running tests.

  - by 1gn1ter

  I'm using VS2010. Silverlight 4, NUnit 2.5.5, and TypeMock TypemockIsolatorSetup6.0.3.619.msi In the test project MVVM is implemented, PeopleViewModel is a ViewModel which I want to test. Please advise if you use other products for unit testing of MVVM Silverlight. Or please help to win this TypeMock. TIA This is the code of the test: [Test] [SilverlightUnitTest] public void SomeTestAgainstSilverlight() { PeopleViewModel o = new PeopleViewModel(); var res = o.People; Assert.AreEqual(15, res.Count()); } While running the test in ReSharper i get the following error: TestA.SomeTestAgainstSilverlight : Failed****************************************** *Loading Silverlight Isolation Aspects...* ****************************************** TEST RESULTS: --------------------------------------------- System.MissingMethodException : Method not found: 'hv TypeMock.ArrangeActAssert.Isolate.a(System.Delegate)'. at a4.a(ref Delegate A_0) at a4.a(Boolean A_0) at il.b() at CThru.Silverlight.SilverlightUnitTestAttribute.Init() at CThru.Silverlight.SilverlightUnitTestAttribute.Execute() at TypeMock.MockManager.a(String A_0, String A_1, Object A_2, Object A_3, Boolean A_4, Object[] A_5) at TypeMock.InternalMockManager.getReturn(Object that, String typeName, String methodName, Object methodParameters, Boolean isInjected) at Tests.TestA.SomeTestAgainstSilverlight() in TestA.cs: line 21 While running test in NUnit i get: Tests.TestA.SomeTestAgainstSilverlight: System.DllNotFoundException : Unable to load DLL 'agcore': The specified module could not be found. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007007E) at MS.Internal.XcpImports.Application_GetCurrentNative(IntPtr context, IntPtr& obj) at MS.Internal.XcpImports.Application_GetCurrent(IntPtr& pApp) at System.Windows.Application.get_Current() at ViewModelExample.ViewModel.ViewModelBase.get_IsDesignTime() in C:\Documents and Settings\USER\Desktop\ViewModelExample\ViewModelExample\ViewModel\ViewModelBase.cs:line 20 at ViewModelExample.ViewModel.PeopleViewModel..ctor(IServiceAgent serviceAgent) in C:\Documents and Settings\USER\Desktop\ViewModelExample\ViewModelExample\ViewModel\PeopleViewModel.cs:line 28 at ViewModelExample.ViewModel.PeopleViewModel..ctor() in C:\Documents and Settings\USER\Desktop\ViewModelExample\ViewModelExample\ViewModel\PeopleViewModel.cs:line 24 at Tests.TestA.SomeTestAgainstSilverlight() in C:\Documents and Settings\USER\Desktop\ViewModelExample\Tests\TestA.cs:line 22

  Read the article

• ClassCleanup in MSTest is static, but the build server uses nunit to run the unit tests. How can i a

  - by Kettenbach

  Hi All, MSTest has a [ClassCleanup()] attribute, which needs to be static as far as I can tell. I like to run through after my unit tests have run,and clean up my database. This all works great, however when I go to our build server and use our Nant build script, it seems like the unit tests are run with NUnit. NUnit doesn't seem to like the cleanup method to be static. It therefore ignores my tests in that class. What can I do to remedy this? I prefer to not use [TestCleanUp()] as that is run after each test. Does anyone have any suggestions? I know [TestCleanup()] aids in decoupling, but I really prefer the [ClassCleanup()] in this situation. Here is some example code. ////Use ClassCleanup to run code after all tests have run [ClassCleanup()] public static void MyFacadeTestCleanup() { UpdateCleanup(); } private static void UpdateCleanup() { DbCommand dbCommand; Database db; try { db = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase(TestConstants.DB_NAME); int rowsAffected; dbCommand = db.GetSqlStringCommand("DELETE FROM tblA WHERE biID=@biID"); db.AddInParameter(dbCommand, "biID", DbType.Int64, biToDelete); rowsAffected = db.ExecuteNonQuery(dbCommand); Debug.WriteLineIf(rowsAffected == TestConstants.ONE_ROW, string.Format("biId '{0}' was successfully deleted.", biToDelete)); } catch (SqlException ex) { } finally { dbCommand = null; db = null; biDelete = 0; } } Thanks for any pointers and yes i realize I'm not catching anything. I need to get passed this hurdle first. Cheers, ~ck in San Diego

  Read the article

• SQL University: What and why of database testing

  - by Mladen Prajdic

  This is a post for a great idea called SQL University started by Jorge Segarra also famously known as SqlChicken on Twitter. It’s a collection of blog posts on different database related topics contributed by several smart people all over the world. So this week is mine and we’ll be talking about database testing and refactoring. In 3 posts we’ll cover: SQLU part 1 - What and why of database testing SQLU part 2 - What and why of database refactoring SQLU part 2 – Tools of the trade With that out of the way let us sharpen our pencils and get going. Why test a database The sad state of the industry today is that there is very little emphasis on testing in general. Test driven development is still a small niche of the programming world while refactoring is even smaller. The cause of this is the inability of developers to convince themselves and their managers that writing tests is beneficial. At the moment they are mostly viewed as waste of time. This is because the average person (let’s not fool ourselves, we’re all average) is unable to think about lower future costs in relation to little more current work. It’s orders of magnitude easier to know about the current costs in relation to current amount of work. That’s why programmers convince themselves testing is a waste of time. However we have to ask ourselves what tests are really about? Maybe finding bugs? No, not really. If we introduce bugs, we’re likely to write test around those bugs too. But yes we can find some bugs with tests. The main point of tests is to have reproducible repeatability in our systems. By having a code base largely covered by tests we can know with better certainty what a small code change can break in other parts of the system. By having repeatability we can make code changes with confidence, since we know we’ll see what breaks in other tests. And here comes the inability to estimate future costs. By spending just a few more hours writing those tests we’d know instantly what broke where. Imagine we fix a reported bug. We check-in the code, deploy it and the users are happy. Until we get a call 2 weeks later about a certain monthly process has stopped working. What we don’t know is that this process was developed by a long gone coworker and for some reason it relied on that same bug we’ve happily fixed. There’s no way we could’ve known that. We say OK and go in and fix the monthly process. But what we have no clue about is that there’s this ETL job that relied on data from that monthly process. Now that we’ve fixed the process it’s giving unexpected (yet correct since we fixed it) data to the ETL job. So we have to fix that too. But there’s this part of the app we coded that relies on data from that exact ETL job. And just like that we enter the “Loop of maintenance horror”. With the loop eventually comes blame. Here’s a nice tip for all developers and DBAs out there: If you make a mistake man up and admit to it. All of the above is valid for any kind of software development. Keeping this in mind the database is nothing other than just a part of the application. But a big part! One reason why testing a database is even more important than testing an application is that one database is usually accessed from multiple applications and processes. This makes it the central and vital part of the enterprise software infrastructure. Knowing all this can we really afford not to have tests? What to test in a database Now that we’ve decided we’ll dive into this testing thing we have to ask ourselves what needs to be tested? The short answer is: everything. The long answer is: read on! There are 2 main ways of doing tests: Black box and White box testing. Black box testing means we have no idea how the system internals are built and we only have access to it’s inputs and outputs. With it we test that the internal changes to the system haven’t caused the input/output behavior of the system to change. The most important thing to test here are the edge conditions. It’s where most programs break. Having good edge condition tests we can be more confident that the systems changes won’t break. White box testing has the full knowledge of the system internals. With it we test the internal system changes, different states of the application, etc… White and Black box tests should be complementary to each other as they are very much interconnected. Testing database routines includes testing stored procedures, views, user defined functions and anything you use to access the data with. Database routines are your input/output interface to the database system. They count as black box testing. We test then for 2 things: Data and schema. When testing schema we only care about the columns and the data types they’re returning. After all the schema is the contract to the out side systems. If it changes we usually have to change the applications accessing it. One helpful T-SQL command when doing schema tests is SET FMTONLY ON. It tells the SQL Server to return only empty results sets. This speeds up tests because it doesn’t return any data to the client. After we’ve validated the schema we have to test the returned data. There no other way to do this but to have expected data known before the tests executes and comparing that data to the database routine output. Testing Authentication and Authorization helps us validate who has access to the SQL Server box (Authentication) and who has access to certain database objects (Authorization). For desktop applications and windows authentication this works well. But the biggest problem here are web apps. They usually connect to the database as a single user. Please ensure that that user is not SA or an account with admin privileges. That is just bad. Load testing ensures us that our database can handle peak loads. One often overlooked tool for load testing is Microsoft’s OSTRESS tool. It’s part of RML utilities (x86, x64) for SQL Server and can help determine if our database server can handle loads like 100 simultaneous users each doing 10 requests per second. SQL Profiler can also help us here by looking at why certain queries are slow and what to do to fix them.   One particular problem to think about is how to begin testing existing databases. First thing we have to do is to get to know those databases. We can’t test something when we don’t know how it works. To do this we have to talk to the users of the applications accessing the database, run SQL Profiler to see what queries are being run, use existing documentation to decipher all the object relationships, etc… The way to approach this is to choose one part of the database (say a logical grouping of tables that go together) and filter our traces accordingly. Once we’ve done that we move on to the next grouping and so on until we’ve covered the whole database. Then we move on to the next one. Database Testing is a topic that we can spent many hours discussing but let this be a nice intro to the world of database testing. See you in the next post.

  Read the article

• Continuous Integration for SQL Server Part II – Integration Testing

  - by Ben Rees

  My previous post, on setting up Continuous Integration for SQL Server databases using GitHub, Bamboo and Red Gate’s tools, covered the first two parts of a simple Database Continuous Delivery process: Putting your database in to a source control system, and, Running a continuous integration process, each time changes are checked in. However there is, of course, a lot more to to Continuous Delivery than that. Specifically, in addition to the above: Putting some actual integration tests in to the CI process (otherwise, they don’t really do much, do they!?), Deploying the database changes with a managed, automated approach, Monitoring what you’ve just put live, to make sure you haven’t broken anything. This post will detail how to set up a very simple pipeline for implementing the first of these (continuous integration testing). NB: A lot of the setup in this post is built on top of the configuration from before, so it might be difficult to implement this post without running through part I first. There’ll then be a third post on automated database deployment followed by a final post dealing with the last item – monitoring changes on the live system. In the previous post, I used a mixture of Red Gate products and other 3rd party software – GitHub and Atlassian Bamboo specifically. This was partly because I believe most people work in an heterogeneous environment, using software from different vendors to suit their purposes and I wanted to show how this could work for this process. For example, you could easily substitute Atlassian’s BitBucket or Stash for GitHub, depending on your needs, or use an alternative CI server such as TeamCity, TFS or Jenkins. However, in this, post, I’ll be mostly using Red Gate products only (other than tSQLt). I would do this, firstly because I work for Red Gate. However, I also think that in the area of Database Delivery processes, nobody else has the offerings to implement this process fully – so I didn’t have any choice!   Background on Continuous Delivery For me, a great source of information on what makes a proper Continuous Delivery process is the Jez Humble and David Farley classic: Continuous Delivery – Reliable Software Releases through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation This book is not of course, primarily about databases, and the process I outline here and in the previous article is a gross simplification of what Jez and David describe (not least because it’s that much harder for databases!). However, a lot of the principles that they describe can be equally applied to database development and, I would argue, should be. As I say however, what I describe here is a very simple version of what would be required for a full production process. A couple of useful resources on handling some of these complexities can be found in the following two references: Refactoring Databases – Evolutionary Database Design, by Scott J Ambler and Pramod J. Sadalage Versioning Databases – Branching and Merging, by Scott Allen In particular, I don’t deal at all with the issues of multiple branches and merging of those branches, an issue made particularly acute by the use of GitHub. The other point worth making is that, in the words of Martin Fowler: Continuous Delivery is about keeping your application in a state where it is always able to deploy into production.   I.e. we are not talking about continuously delivery updates to the production database every time someone checks in an amendment to a stored procedure. That is possible (and what Martin calls Continuous Deployment). However, again, that’s more than I describe in this article. And I doubt I need to remind DBAs or Developers to Proceed with Caution!   Integration Testing Back to something practical. The next stage, building on our set up from the previous article, is to add in some integration tests to the process. As I say, the CI process, though interesting, isn’t enormously useful without some sort of test process running. For this we’ll use the tSQLt framework, an open source framework designed specifically for running SQL Server tests. tSQLt is part of Red Gate’s SQL Test found on http://www.red-gate.com/products/sql-development/sql-test/ or can be downloaded separately from www.tsqlt.org - though I’ll provide a step-by-step guide below for setting this up. Getting tSQLt set up via SQL Test Click on the link http://www.red-gate.com/products/sql-development/sql-test/ and click on the blue Download button to download the Red Gate SQL Test product, if not already installed. Follow the install process for SQL Test to install the SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) plugin on to your machine, if not already installed. Open SSMS. You should now see SQL Test under the Tools menu:   Clicking this link will give you the basic SQL Test dialogue: As yet, though we’ve installed the SQL Test product we haven’t yet installed the tSQLt test framework on to any particular database. To do this, we need to add our RedGateApp database using this dialogue, by clicking on the + Add Database to SQL Test… link, selecting the RedGateApp database and clicking the Add Database link:   In the next screen, SQL Test describes what will be installed on the database for the tSQLt framework. Also in this dialogue, uncheck the “Add SQL Cop tests” option (shown below). SQL Cop is a great set of pre-defined tests that work within the tSQLt framework to check the general health of your SQL Server database. However, we won’t be using them in this particular simple example: Once you’ve clicked on the OK button, the changes described in the dialogue will be made to your database. Some of these are shown in the left-hand-side below: We’ve now installed the framework. However, we haven’t actually created any tests, so this will be the next step. But, before we proceed, we’ve made an update to our database so should, again check this in to source control, adding comments as required:   Also worth a quick check that your build still runs with the new additions!: (And a quick check of the RedGateAppCI database shows that the changes have been made).   Creating and Testing a Unit Test There are, of course, a lot of very interesting unit tests that you could and should set up for a database. The great thing about the tSQLt framework is that you can write these in SQL. The example I’m going to use here is pretty Mickey Mouse – our database table is going to include some email addresses as reference data and I want to check whether these are all in a correct email format. Nothing clever but it illustrates the process and hopefully shows the method by which more interesting tests could be set up. Adding Reference Data to our Database To start, I want to add some reference data to my database, and have this source controlled (as well as the schema). First of all I need to add some data in to my solitary table – this can be done a number of ways, but I’ll do this in SSMS for simplicity: I then add some reference data to my table: Currently this reference data just exists in the database. For proper integration testing, this needs to form part of the source-controlled version of the database – and so needs to be added to the Git repository. This can be done via SQL Source Control, though first a Primary Key needs to be added to the table. Right click the table, select Design, then right-click on the first “id” row. Then click on “Set Primary Key”: NB: once this change is made, click Save to save the change to the table. Then, to source control this reference data, right click on the table (dbo.Email) and selecting the following option:   In the next screen, link the data in the Email table, by selecting it from the list and clicking “save and close”: We should at this point re-commit the changes (both the addition of the Primary Key, and the data) to the Git repo. NB: From here on, I won’t show screenshots for the GitHub side of things – it’s the same each time: whenever a change is made in SQL Source Control and committed to your local folder, you then need to sync this in the GitHub Windows client (as this is where the build server, Bamboo is taking it from). An interesting point to note here, when these changes are committed in SQL Source Control (right-click database and select “Commit Changes to Source Control..”): The display gives a warning about possibly needing a migration script for the “Add Primary Key” step of the changes. This isn’t actually necessary in this case, but this mechanism would allow you to create override scripts to replace the default change scripts created by the SQL Compare engine (which runs underneath SQL Source Control). Ignoring this message (!), we add a comment and commit the changes to Git. I then sync these, run a build (or the build gets run automatically), and check that the data is being deployed over to the target RedGateAppCI database:   Creating and Running the Test As I mention, the test I’m going to use here is a very simple one - are the email addresses in my reference table valid? This isn’t of course, a full test of email validation (I expect the email addresses I’ve chosen here aren’t really the those of the Fab Four) – but just a very basic check of format used. I’ve taken the relevant SQL from this Stack Overflow article. In SSMS select “SQL Test” from the Tools menu, then click on + New Test: In the next screen, give your new test a name, and also enter a name in the Test Class box (test classes are schemas that help you keep things organised). Also check that the database in which the test is going to be created is correct – RedGateApp in this example: Click “Create Test”. After closing a couple of subsequent dialogues, you’ll see a dummy script for the test, that needs filling in:   We now need to define the SQL for our test. As mentioned before, tSQLt allows you to write your unit tests in T-SQL, and the code I’m going to use here is as below. This needs to be copied and pasted in to the query window, to replace the default given by tSQLt: –  Basic email check test ALTER PROCEDURE [MyChecks].[test Check Email Addresses] AS BEGIN SET NOCOUNT ON         Declare @Output VarChar(max)     Set @Output = ”       SELECT  @Output = @Output + Email +Char(13) + Char(10) FROM dbo.Email WHERE email NOT LIKE ‘%_@__%.__%’       If @Output > ”         Begin             Set @Output = Char(13) + Char(10)                           + @Output             EXEC tSQLt.Fail@Output         End   END;   Once this script is entered, hit execute to add the Stored Procedure to the database. Before committing the test to source control,  it’s worth just checking that it works! For a positive test, click on “SQL Test” from the Tools menu, then click Run Tests. You should see output like the following: - a green tick to indicate success! But of course, what we also need to do is test that this is actually doing something by showing a failed test. Edit one of the email addresses in your table to an incorrect format: Now, re-run the same SQL Test as before and you’ll see the following: Great – we now know that our test is really doing something! You’ll also see a useful error message at the bottom of SSMS: (leave the email address as invalid for now, for the next steps). The next stage is to check this new test in to source control again, by right-clicking on the database and checking in the changes with a commit message (and not forgetting to sync in the GitHub client):   Checking that the Tests are Running as Integration Tests After the changes above are made, and after a build has run on Bamboo (manual or automatic), looking at the Stored Procedures for the RedGateAppCI, the SPROC for the new test has been moved over to the database. However this is not exactly what we were after. We didn’t want to just copy objects from one database to another, but actually run the tests as part of the build/integration test process. I.e. we’re continuously checking any changes we make (in this case, to the reference data emails), to ensure we’re not breaking a test that we’ve set up. The behaviour we want to see is that, if we check in static data that is incorrect (as we did in step 9 above) and we have the tSQLt test set up, then our build in Bamboo should fail. However, re-running the build shows the following: - sadly, a successful build! To make sure the tSQLt tests are run as part of the integration test, we need to amend a switch in the Red Gate CI config file. First, navigate to file sqlCI.targets in your working folder: Edit this document, make the following change, save the document, then commit and sync this change in the GitHub client: <!-- tSQLt tests --> <!-- Optional --> <!-- To run tSQLt tests in source control for the database, enter true. --> <enableTsqlt>true</enableTsqlt> Now, if we re-run the build in Bamboo (NB: I’ve moved to a new server here, hence different address and build number): - superb, a broken build!! The error message isn’t great here, so to get more detailed info, click on the full build log link on this page (below the fold). The interesting part of the log shown is towards the bottom. Pulling out this part:   21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 Build FAILED. 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 "C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj" (default target) (1) -> 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 (sqlCI target) -> 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: RedGate.Deploy.SqlServerDbPackage.Shared.Exceptions.InvalidSqlException: Test Case Summary: 1 test case(s) executed, 0 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 errored. [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj] 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: [MyChecks].[test Check Email Addresses] failed: [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj] 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: ringo.starr@beatles [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj] 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj] 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: +----------------------+ [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj] 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: |Test Execution Summary| [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj]   As a final check, we should make sure that, if we now fix this error, the build succeeds. So in SSMS, I’m going to correct the invalid email address, then check this change in to SQL Source Control (with a comment), commit to GitHub, and re-run the build:   This should have fixed the build: It worked! Summary This has been a very quick run through the implementation of CI for databases, including tSQLt tests to test whether your database updates are working. The next post in this series will focus on automated deployment – we’ve tested our database changes, how can we now deploy these to target sites?  

  Read the article

• Unit tests only run automatically when active SDK is "simulator"?

  - by Steve Madsen

  I have followed the instructions Apple publishes for unit testing applications on iPhone and things work great when I set the active SDK to "iPhone Simulator". I have it configured to always build and run my tests as part of building the application itself. Apple implies (by omission) that this should work all of the time, but the tests are skipped when I set the active SDK to "iPhone Device". I am also linking with OCMock, and instead of a failing test, this warning is in the build log: ld: warning: in .../build/Debug-iphoneos/OCMock.framework/OCMock, missing required architecture arm in file It's very nice to make the unit test bundle a dependency of the main application, so these tests run at every build, but its utility is greatly diminished if it doesn't work during device builds. Is this a known, but undocumented, limitation?

  Read the article

• How to run unit tests with DSSS and GDC?

  - by Benoit Vidis

  I am very new to D and still battling trying to configure my toolchain. I am running Ubuntu Karmic and would like to use DSSS with GDC and Tango or TangoBos. Till now, I installed GDC from Ubuntu repositories, DSSS, Tango and TangoBos from these repositories and I can compile using dsss + gdc + tangobos. According to DSSS documentation, it should be possible to run the unit tests using $ dsss build --test but on my system, the --test argument is ignored. I have dsss last version (0.78) and its inline help does not include anything about unit tests. Running ldc --unittest works fine (though I do not know exactly which libray it picks up). Is there a way to run my unit tests using the same compiler & library than for compilation? If so, is there a way to automate the testing or will I have to run it module per module?

  Read the article

• How do I run JUnit tests from inside my java application?

  - by corgrath

  Is it possible to run JUnit tests from inside my java application? Are there test frameworks I can use (such as JUnit.jar?), or am I force to find the test files, invoke the methods and track the exceptions myself? The reason why I am asking is my application requires a lot of work to start launch (lots of dependencies and configurations, etc) and using an external testing tool (like JUnit Ant task) would require a lot of work to set up. It is easier to start the application and then inside the application run my tests. Is there an easy test framework that runs tests and output results from inside a java application or am I forced to write my own framework?

  Read the article

• How to disable translations during unit tests in django?

  - by Denilson Sá

  I'm using Django Internationalization tools to translate some strings from my application. The code looks like this: from django.utils.translation import ugettext as _ def my_view(request): output = _("Welcome to my site.") return HttpResponse(output) Then, I'm writing unit tests using the Django test client. These tests make a request to the view and compare the returned contents. How can I disable the translations while running the unit tests? I'm aiming to do this: class FoobarTestCase(unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): # Do something here to disable the string translation. But what? # I've already tried this, but it didn't work: django.utils.translation.deactivate_all() def testFoobar(self): c = Client() response = c.get("/foobar") # I want to compare to the original string without translations. self.assertEquals(response.content.strip(), "Welcome to my site.")

  Read the article

• Can I have code that executes before and after tests are run by NUnit?

  - by Billy ONeal

  I've got a bunch of tests in NUnit which create garbage data on the filesystem (bad, I know, but I have little control over this). Currently we have a cleanup tool that removes these temporaries and such, but I'd like to be able to run that cleanup tool automatically. I'd have to be able to run it after all tests have finished running. I have similar checking that I'd like to do at the beginning, to ensure that there are none of these temporaries left from previous runs that might change the outcome of the tests. Is such a thing simple or am I going to have to implement a whole new test runner for such a thing?

  Read the article

• What is the role of asserts in C++ programs that have unit tests?

  - by lhumongous

  Greetings, I've been adding unit tests to some legacy C++ code, and I've run into many scenarios where an assert inside a function will get tripped during a unit test run. A common idiom that I've run across is functions that take pointer arguments and immediately assert if the argument is NULL. I could easily get around this by disabling asserts when I'm unit testing. But I'm starting to wonder if unit tests are supposed to alleviate the need for runtime asserts. Is this a correct assessment? Are unit tests supposed to replace runtime asserts by happening sooner in the pipeline (ie: the error is caught in a failing test instead of when the program is running). On the other hand, I don't like adding soft fails to code (eg: if(param == NULL) return false;). A runtime assert at least makes it easier to debug a problem in case a unit test missed a bug. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Do You Know How OUM defines the four, basic types of business system testing performed on a project? Why not test your knowledge?

  - by user713452

  Testing is perhaps the most important process in the Oracle® Unified Method (OUM). That makes it all the more important for practitioners to have a common understanding of the various types of functional testing referenced in the method, and to use the proper terminology when communicating with each other about testing activities. OUM identifies four basic types of functional testing, which is sometimes referred to as business system testing.  The basic functional testing types referenced by OUM include: Unit Testing Integration Testing System Testing, and  Systems Integration Testing See if you can match the following definitions with the appropriate type above? A.  This type of functional testing is focused on verifying that interfaces/integration between the system being implemented (i.e. System under Discussion (SuD)) and external systems functions as expected. B.     This type of functional testing is performed for custom software components only, is typically performed by the developer of the custom software, and is focused on verifying that the several custom components developed to satisfy a given requirement (e.g. screen, program, report, etc.) interact with one another as designed. C.  This type of functional testing is focused on verifying that the functionality within the system being implemented (i.e. System under Discussion (SuD)), functions as expected.  This includes out-of-the -box functionality delivered with Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) applications, as well as, any custom components developed to address gaps in functionality.  D.  This type of functional testing is performed for custom software components only, is typically performed by the developer of the custom software, and is focused on verifying that the individual custom components developed to satisfy a given requirement  (e.g. screen, program, report, etc.) functions as designed.   Check your answers below: (D) (B) (C) (A) If you matched all of the functional testing types to their definitions correctly, then congratulations!  If not, you can find more information in the Testing Process Overview and Testing Task Overviews in the OUM Method Pack.

  Read the article

• Will SRS be sufficient enough for the programmers to do their work, without the additional overhead of FS?

  - by SixSickSix

  We always make 2 documents the SRS (Software Requirement Specification) and the FS (Functional Specifications) documents for the coders aka programmers. As I have examined the SRS is more like containing both functional and non-functional requirements as compared to the FS that deals only with the functional requirements. To cut it short will the SRS be sufficient enough for the programmers to do their work? and not make any FS anymore?

  Read the article

• Software RS vs. FS

  - by SixSickSix

  We always make 2 documents the SRS (Software Requirement Specification) and the FS (Functional Specifications) documents for the coders aka programmers. As I have examined the SRS is more like containing both functional and non-functional requirements as compared to the FS that deals only with the functional requirements. To cut it short will the SRS be sufficient enough for the programmers to do their work? and not make any FS anymore?

  Read the article

• Selenium: Automated Integration Testing for Java Web Apps

  Use the Selenium web application testing system to develop integration tests, export those tests as JUnit tests, and automate test execution.

  Read the article

• Selenium: Automated Integration Testing for Java Web Apps

  Use the Selenium web application testing system to develop integration tests, export those tests as JUnit tests, and automate test execution.

  Read the article

• Unit Testing with NUnit and Moles Redux

  - by João Angelo

  Almost two years ago, when Moles was still being packaged alongside Pex, I wrote a post on how to run NUnit tests supporting moled types. A lot has changed since then and Moles is now being distributed independently of Pex, but maintaining support for integration with NUnit and other testing frameworks. For NUnit the support is provided by an addin class library (Microsoft.Moles.NUnit.dll) that you need to reference in your test project so that you can decorate yours tests with the MoledAttribute. The addin DLL must also be placed in the addins folder inside the NUnit installation directory. There is however a downside, since Moles and NUnit follow a different release cycle and the addin DLL must be built against a specific NUnit version, you may find that the release included with the latest version of Moles does not work with your version of NUnit. Fortunately the code for building the NUnit addin is supplied in the archive (moles.samples.zip) that you can found in the Documentation folder inside the Moles installation directory. By rebuilding the addin against your specific version of NUnit you are able to support any version. Also to note that in Moles 0.94.51023.0 the addin code did not support the use of TestCaseAttribute in your moled tests. However, if you need this support, you need to make just a couple of changes. Change the ITestDecorator.Decorate method in the MolesAddin class: Test ITestDecorator.Decorate(Test test, MemberInfo member) { SafeDebug.AssumeNotNull(test, "test"); SafeDebug.AssumeNotNull(member, "member"); bool isTestFixture = true; isTestFixture &= test.IsSuite; isTestFixture &= test.FixtureType != null; bool hasMoledAttribute = true; hasMoledAttribute &= !SafeArray.IsNullOrEmpty( member.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(MoledAttribute), false)); if (!isTestFixture && hasMoledAttribute) { return new MoledTest(test); } return test; } Change the Tests property in the MoledTest class: public override System.Collections.IList Tests { get { if (this.test.Tests == null) { return null; } var moled = new List<Test>(this.test.Tests.Count); foreach (var test in this.test.Tests) { moled.Add(new MoledTest((Test)test)); } return moled; } } Disclaimer: I only tested this implementation against NUnit 2.5.10.11092 version. Finally you just need to run the NUnit console runner through the Moles runner. A quick example follows: moles.runner.exe [Tests.dll] /r:nunit-console.exe /x86 /args:[NUnitArgument1] /args:[NUnitArgument2]

  Read the article

• Where’s my MD.050?

  - by Dave Burke

  A question that I’m sometimes asked is “where’s my MD.050 in OUM?” For those not familiar with an MD.050, it serves the purpose of being a Functional Design Document (FDD) in one of Oracle’s legacy Methods. Functional Design Documents have existed for many years with their primary purpose being to describe the functional aspects of one or more components of an IT system, typically, a Custom Extension of some sort. So why don’t we have a direct replacement for the MD.050/FDD in OUM? In simple terms, the disadvantage of the MD.050/FDD approach is that it tends to lead practitioners into “Design mode” too early in the process. Whereas OUM encourages more emphasis on gathering, and describing the functional requirements of a system ahead of the formal Analysis and Design process. So that just means more work up front for the Business Analyst or Functional Consultants right? Well no…..the design of a solution, particularly when it involves a complex custom extension, does not necessarily take longer just because you put more thought into the functional requirements. In fact, one could argue the complete opposite, in that by putting more emphasis on clearly understanding the nuances of functionality requirements early in the process, then the overall time and cost incurred during the Analysis to Design process should be less. In short, as your understanding of requirements matures over time, it is far easier (and more cost effective) to update a document or a diagram, than to change lines of code. So how does that translate into Tasks and Work Products in OUM? Let us assume you have reached a point on a project where a Custom Extension is needed. One of the first things you should consider doing is creating a Use Case, and remember, a Use Case could be as simple as a few lines of text reflecting a “User Story”, or it could be what Cockburn1 describes a “fully dressed Use Case”. It is worth mentioned at this point the highly scalable nature of OUM in the sense that “documents” should not be produced just because that is the way we have always done things. Some projects may well be predicated upon a base of electronic documents, whilst other projects may take a much more Agile approach to describing functional requirements; through “User Stories” perhaps. In any event, it is quite common for a Custom Extension to involve the creation of several “components”, i.e. some new screens, an interface, a report etc. Therefore several Use Cases might be required, which in turn can then be assembled into a Use Case Package. Once you have the Use Cases attributed to an appropriate (fit-for-purpose) level of detail, and assembled into a Package, you can now create an Analysis Model for the Package. An Analysis Model is conceptual in nature, and depending on the solution being developing, would involve the creation of one or more diagrams (i.e. Sequence Diagrams, Collaboration Diagrams etc.) which collectively describe the Data, Behavior and Use Interface requirements of the solution. If required, the various elements of the Analysis Model may be indexed via an Analysis Specification. For Custom Extension projects that follow a pure Object Orientated approach, then the Analysis Model will naturally support the development of the Design Model without any further artifacts. However, for projects that are transitioning to this approach, then the various elements of the Analysis Model may be represented within the Analysis Specification. If we now return to the original question of “Where’s my MD.050”. The full answer would be: Capture the functional requirements within a Use Case Group related Use Cases into a Package Create an Analysis Model for each Package Consider creating an Analysis Specification (AN.100) as a index to each Analysis Model artifact An alternative answer for a relatively simple Custom Extension would be: Capture the functional requirements within a Use Case Optionally, group related Use Cases into a Package Create an Analysis Specification (AN.100) for each package 1 Cockburn, A, 2000, Writing Effective Use Case, Addison-Wesley Professional; Edition 1

  Read the article

• F# and the rose-tinted reflection

  - by CliveT

  We're already seeing increasing use of many cores on client desktops. It is a change that has been long predicted. It is not just a change in architecture, but our notions of efficiency in a program. No longer can we focus on the asymptotic complexity of an algorithm by counting the steps that a single core processor would take to execute it. Instead we'll soon be more concerned about the scalability of the algorithm and how well we can increase the performance as we increase the number of cores. This may even lead us to throw away our most efficient algorithms, and switch to less efficient algorithms that scale better. We might even be willing to waste cycles in order to speculatively execute at the algorithm rather than the hardware level. State is the big headache in this parallel world. At the hardware level, main memory doesn't necessarily contain the definitive value corresponding to a particular address. An update to a location might still be held in a CPU's local cache and it might be some time before the value gets propagated. To get the latest value, and the notion of "latest" takes a lot of defining in this world of rapidly mutating state, the CPUs may well need to communicate to decide who has the definitive value of a particular address in order to avoid lost updates. At the user program level, this means programmers will need to lock objects before modifying them, or attempt to avoid the overhead of locking by understanding the memory models at a very deep level. I think it's this need to avoid statefulness that has led to the recent resurgence of interest in functional languages. In the 1980s, functional languages started getting traction when research was carried out into how programs in such languages could be auto-parallelised. Sadly, the impracticality of some of the languages, the overheads of communication during this parallel execution, and rapid improvements in compiler technology on stock hardware meant that the functional languages fell by the wayside. The one thing that these languages were good at was getting rid of implicit state, and this single idea seems like a solution to the problems we are going to face in the coming years. Whether these languages will catch on is hard to predict. The mindset for writing a program in a functional language is really very different from the way that object-oriented problem decomposition happens - one has to focus on the verbs instead of the nouns, which takes some getting used to. There are a number of hybrid functional/object languages that have been becoming more popular in recent times. These half-way houses make it easy to use functional ideas for some parts of the program while still allowing access to the underlying object-focused platform without a great deal of impedance mismatch. One example is F# running on the CLR which, in Visual Studio 2010, has because a first class member of the pack. Inside Visual Studio 2010, the tooling for F# has improved to the point where it is easy to set breakpoints and watch values change while debugging at the source level. In my opinion, it is the tooling support that will enable the widespread adoption of functional languages - without this support, people will put off any transition into the functional world for as long as they possibly can. Without tool support it will make it hard to learn these languages. One tool that doesn't currently support F# is Reflector. The idea of decompiling IL to a functional language is daunting, but F# is potentially so important I couldn't dismiss the idea. As I'm currently developing Reflector 6.5, I thought it wise to take four days just to see how far I could get in doing so, even if it achieved little more than to be clearer on how much was possible, and how long it might take. You can read what happened here, and of the insights it gave us on ways to improve the tool.

  Read the article

• Selenium: Can I combine several commands into one command to be referenced by other tests without co

  - by Adrian Grigore

  Hi, I'm currently evaluating Selenium and I can imagine that I will have to perform certain steps in my tests over and over again. Is there any way to wrap several steps from a selenium test into one single step which can be referenced by other tests? It seems that this can be done with with custom coding as mentioned at in the UI-Element documentation, but I'd prefer to use the IDE if possible. Thanks, Adrian

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >