Search Results

Search found 49452 results on 1979 pages for 'type testing'.

Page 45/1979 | < Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >

  • Load and Web Performance Testing using Visual Studio Ultimate 2010-Part 3

    - by Tarun Arora
    Welcome back once again, in Part 1 of Load and Web Performance Testing using Visual Studio 2010 I talked about why Performance Testing the application is important, the test tools available in Visual Studio Ultimate 2010 and various test rig topologies, in Part 2 of Load and Web Performance Testing using Visual Studio 2010 I discussed the details of web performance & load tests as well as why it’s important to follow a goal based pattern while performance testing your application. In part 3 I’ll be discussing Test Result Analysis, Test Result Drill through, Test Report Generation, Test Run Comparison, Asp.net Profiler and some closing thoughts. Test Results – I see some creepy worms! In Part 2 we put together a web performance test and a load test, lets run the test to see load test to see how the Web site responds to the load simulation. While the load test is running you will be able to see close to real time analysis in the Load Test Analyser window. You can use the Load Test Analyser to conduct load test analysis in three ways: Monitor a running load test - A condensed set of the performance counter data is maintained in memory. To prevent the results memory requirements from growing unbounded, up to 200 samples for each performance counter are maintained. This includes 100 evenly spaced samples that span the current elapsed time of the run and the most recent 100 samples.         After the load test run is completed - The test controller spools all collected performance counter data to a database while the test is running. Additional data, such as timing details and error details, is loaded into the database when the test completes. The performance data for a completed test is loaded from the database and analysed by the Load Test Analyser. Below you can see a screen shot of the summary view, this provides key results in a format that is compact and easy to read. You can also print the load test summary, this is generated after the test has completed or been stopped.         Analyse the load test results of a previously run load test – We’ll see this in the section where i discuss comparison between two test runs. The performance counters can be plotted on the graphs. You also have the option to highlight a selected part of the test and view details, drill down to the user activity chart where you can hover over to see more details of the test run.   Generate Report => Test Run Comparisons The level of reports you can generate using the Load Test Analyser is astonishing. You have the option to create excel reports and conduct side by side analysis of two test results or to track trend analysis. The tools also allows you to export the graph data either to MS Excel or to a CSV file. You can view the ASP.NET profiler report to conduct further analysis as well. View Data and Diagnostic Attachments opens the Choose Diagnostic Data Adapter Attachment dialog box to select an adapter to analyse the result type. For example, you can select an IntelliTrace adapter, click OK and open the IntelliTrace summary for the test agent that was used in the load test.   Compare results This creates a set of reports that compares the data from two load test results using tables and bar charts. I have taken these screen shots from the MSDN documentation, I would highly recommend exploring the wealth of knowledge available on MSDN. Leaving Thoughts While load testing the application with an excessive load for a longer duration of time, i managed to bring the IIS to its knees by piling up a huge queue of requests waiting to be processed. This clearly means that the IIS had run out of threads as all the threads were busy processing existing request, one easy way of fixing this is by increasing the default number of allocated threads, but this might escalate the problem. The better suggestion is to try and drill down to the actual root cause of the problem. When ever the garbage collection runs it stops processing any pages so all requests that come in during that period are queued up, but realistically the garbage collection completes in fraction of a a second. To understand this better lets look at the .net heap, it is divided into large heap and small heap, anything greater than 85kB in size will be allocated to the Large object heap, the Large object heap is non compacting and remember large objects are expensive to move around, so if you are allocating something in the large object heap, make sure that you really need it! The small object heap on the other hand is divided into generations, so all objects that are supposed to be short-lived are suppose to live in Gen-0 and the long living objects eventually move to Gen-2 as garbage collection goes through.  As you can see in the picture below all < 85 KB size objects are first assigned to Gen-0, when Gen-0 fills up and a new object comes in and finds Gen-0 full, the garbage collection process is started, the process checks for all the dead objects and assigns them as the valid candidate for deletion to free up memory and promotes all the remaining objects in Gen-0 to Gen-1. So in the future when ever you clean up Gen-1 you have to clean up Gen-0 as well. When you fill up Gen – 0 again, all of Gen – 1 dead objects are drenched and rest are moved to Gen-2 and Gen-0 objects are moved to Gen-1 to free up Gen-0, but by this time your Garbage collection process has started to take much more time than it usually takes. Now as I mentioned earlier when garbage collection is being run all page requests that come in during that period are queued up. Does this explain why possibly page requests are getting queued up, apart from this it could also be the case that you are waiting for a long running database process to complete.      Lets explore the heap a bit more… What is really a case of crisis is when the objects are living long enough to make it to Gen-2 and then dying, this is definitely a high cost operation. But sometimes you need objects in memory, for example when you cache data you hold on to the objects because you need to use them right across the user session, which is acceptable. But if you wanted to see what extreme caching can do to your server then write a simple application that chucks in a lot of data in cache, run a load test over it for about 10-15 minutes, forcing a lot of data in memory causing the heap to run out of memory. If you get to such a state where you start running out of memory the IIS as a mode of recovery restarts the worker process. It is great way to free up all your memory in the heap but this would clear the cache. The problem with this is if the customer had 10 items in their shopping basket and that data was stored in the application cache, the user basket will now be empty forcing them either to get frustrated and go to a competitor website or if the customer is really patient, give it another try! How can you address this, well two ways of addressing this; 1. Workaround – A x86 bit processor only allows a maximum of 4GB of RAM, this means the machine effectively has around 3.4 GB of RAM available, the OS needs about 1.5 GB of RAM to run efficiently, the IIS and .net framework also need their share of memory, leaving you a heap of around 800 MB to play with. Because Team builds by default build your application in ‘Compile as any mode’ it means the application is build such that it will run in x86 bit mode if run on a x86 bit processor and run in a x64 bit mode if run on a x64 but processor. The problem with this is not all applications are really x64 bit compatible specially if you are using com objects or external libraries. So, as a quick win if you compiled your application in x86 bit mode by changing the compile as any selection to compile as x86 in the team build, you will be able to run your application on a x64 bit machine in x86 bit mode (WOW – By running Windows on Windows) and what that means is, you could use 8GB+ worth of RAM, if you take away everything else your application will roughly get a heap size of at least 4 GB to play with, which is immense. If you need a heap size of more than 4 GB you have either build a software for NASA or there is something fundamentally wrong in your application. 2. Solution – Now that you have put a workaround in place the IIS will not restart the worker process that regularly, which means you can take a breather and start working to get to the root cause of this memory leak. But this begs a question “How do I Identify possible memory leaks in my application?” Well i won’t say that there is one single tool that can tell you where the memory leak is, but trust me, ‘Performance Profiling’ is a great start point, it definitely gets you started in the right direction, let’s have a look at how. Performance Wizard - Start the Performance Wizard and select Instrumentation, this lets you measure function call counts and timings. Before running the performance session right click the performance session settings and chose properties from the context menu to bring up the Performance session properties page and as shown in the screen shot below, check the check boxes in the group ‘.NET memory profiling collection’ namely ‘Collect .NET object allocation information’ and ‘Also collect the .NET Object lifetime information’.    Now if you fire off the profiling session on your pages you will notice that the results allows you to view ‘Object Lifetime’ which shows you the number of objects that made it to Gen-0, Gen-1, Gen-2, Large heap, etc. Another great feature about the profile is that if your application has > 5% cases where objects die right after making to the Gen-2 storage a threshold alert is generated to alert you. Since you have the option to also view the most expensive methods and by capturing the IntelliTrace data you can drill in to narrow down to the line of code that is the root cause of the problem. Well now that we have seen how crucial memory management is and how easy Visual Studio Ultimate 2010 makes it for us to identify and reproduce the problem with the best of breed tools in the product. Caching One of the main ways to improve performance is Caching. Which basically means you tell the web server that instead of going to the database for each request you keep the data in the webserver and when the user asks for it you serve it from the webserver itself. BUT that can have consequences! Let’s look at some code, trust me caching code is not very intuitive, I define a cache key for almost all searches made through the common search page and cache the results. The approach works fine, first time i get the data from the database and second time data is served from the cache, significant performance improvement, EXCEPT when two users try to do the same operation and run into each other. But it is easy to handle this by adding the lock as you can see in the snippet below. So, as long as a user comes in and finds that the cache is empty, the user locks and starts to get the cache no more concurrency issues. But lets say you are processing 10 requests per second, by the time i have locked the operation to get the results from the database, 9 other users came in and found that the cache key is null so after i have come out and populated the cache they will still go in to get the results again. The application will still be faster because the next set of 10 users and so on would continue to get data from the cache. BUT if we added another null check after locking to build the cache and before actual call to the db then the 9 users who follow me would not make the extra trip to the database at all and that would really increase the performance, but didn’t i say that the code won’t be very intuitive, may be you should leave a comment you don’t want another developer to come in and think what a fresher why is he checking for the cache key null twice !!! The downside of caching is, you are storing the data outside of the database and the data could be wrong because the updates applied to the database would make the data cached at the web server out of sync. So, how do you invalidate the cache? Well if you only had one way of updating the data lets say only one entry point to the data update you can write some logic to say that every time new data is entered set the cache object to null. But this approach will not work as soon as you have several ways of feeding data to the system or your system is scaled out across a farm of web servers. The perfect solution to this is Micro Caching which means you cache the query for a set time duration and invalidate the cache after that set duration. The advantage is every time the user queries for that data with in the time span for which you have cached the results there are no calls made to the database and the data is served right from the server which makes the response immensely quick. Now figuring out the appropriate time span for which you micro cache the query results really depends on the application. Lets say your website gets 10 requests per second, if you retain the cache results for even 1 minute you will have immense performance gains. You would reduce 90% hits to the database for searching. Ever wondered why when you go to e-bookers.com or xpedia.com or yatra.com to book a flight and you click on the book button because the fare seems too exciting and you get an error message telling you that the fare is not valid any more. Yes, exactly => That is a cache failure! These travel sites or price compare engines are not going to hit the database every time you hit the compare button instead the results will be served from the cache, because the query results are micro cached, its a perfect trade-off, by micro caching the results the site gains 100% performance benefits but every once in a while annoys a customer because the fare has expired. But the trade off works in the favour of these sites as they are still able to process up to 30+ page requests per second which means cater to the site traffic by may be losing 1 customer every once in a while to a competitor who is also using a similar caching technique what are the odds that the user will not come back to their site sooner or later? Recap   Resources Below are some Key resource you might like to review. I would highly recommend the documentation, walkthroughs and videos available on MSDN. You can always make use of Fiddler to debug Web Performance Tests. Some community test extensions and plug ins available on Codeplex might also be of interest to you. The Road Ahead Thank you for taking the time out and reading this blog post, you may also want to read Part I and Part II if you haven’t so far. If you enjoyed the post, remember to subscribe to http://feeds.feedburner.com/TarunArora. Questions/Feedback/Suggestions, etc please leave a comment. Next ‘Load Testing in the cloud’, I’ll be working on exploring the possibilities of running Test controller/Agents in the Cloud. See you on the other side! Thank You!   Share this post : CodeProject

    Read the article

  • Testing Entity Framework applications, pt. 3: NDbUnit

    - by Thomas Weller
    This is the third of a three part series that deals with the issue of faking test data in the context of a legacy app that was built with Microsoft's Entity Framework (EF) on top of an MS SQL Server database – a scenario that can be found very often. Please read the first part for a description of the sample application, a discussion of some general aspects of unit testing in a database context, and of some more specific aspects of the here discussed EF/MSSQL combination. Lately, I wondered how you would ‘mock’ the data layer of a legacy application, when this data layer is made up of an MS Entity Framework (EF) model in combination with a MS SQL Server database. Originally, this question came up in the context of how you could enable higher-level integration tests (automated UI tests, to be exact) for a legacy application that uses this EF/MSSQL combo as its data store mechanism – a not so uncommon scenario. The question sparked my interest, and I decided to dive into it somewhat deeper. What I've found out is, in short, that it's not very easy and straightforward to do it – but it can be done. The two strategies that are best suited to fit the bill involve using either the (commercial) Typemock Isolator tool or the (free) NDbUnit framework. The use of Typemock was discussed in the previous post, this post now will present the NDbUnit approach... NDbUnit is an Apache 2.0-licensed open-source project, and like so many other Nxxx tools and frameworks, it is basically a C#/.NET port of the corresponding Java version (DbUnit namely). In short, it helps you in flexibly managing the state of a database in that it lets you easily perform basic operations (like e.g. Insert, Delete, Refresh, DeleteAll)  against your database and, most notably, lets you feed it with data from external xml files. Let's have a look at how things can be done with the help of this framework. Preparing the test data Compared to Typemock, using NDbUnit implies a totally different approach to meet our testing needs.  So the here described testing scenario requires an instance of an SQL Server database in operation, and it also means that the Entity Framework model that sits on top of this database is completely unaffected. First things first: For its interactions with the database, NDbUnit relies on a .NET Dataset xsd file. See Step 1 of their Quick Start Guide for a description of how to create one. With this prerequisite in place then, the test fixture's setup code could look something like this: [TestFixture, TestsOn(typeof(PersonRepository))] [Metadata("NDbUnit Quickstart URL",           "http://code.google.com/p/ndbunit/wiki/QuickStartGuide")] [Description("Uses the NDbUnit library to provide test data to a local database.")] public class PersonRepositoryFixture {     #region Constants     private const string XmlSchema = @"..\..\TestData\School.xsd";     #endregion // Constants     #region Fields     private SchoolEntities _schoolContext;     private PersonRepository _personRepository;     private INDbUnitTest _database;     #endregion // Fields     #region Setup/TearDown     [FixtureSetUp]     public void FixtureSetUp()     {         var connectionString = ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["School_Test"].ConnectionString;         _database = new SqlDbUnitTest(connectionString);         _database.ReadXmlSchema(XmlSchema);         var entityConnectionStringBuilder = new EntityConnectionStringBuilder         {             Metadata = "res://*/School.csdl|res://*/School.ssdl|res://*/School.msl",             Provider = "System.Data.SqlClient",             ProviderConnectionString = connectionString         };         _schoolContext = new SchoolEntities(entityConnectionStringBuilder.ConnectionString);         _personRepository = new PersonRepository(this._schoolContext);     }     [FixtureTearDown]     public void FixtureTearDown()     {         _database.PerformDbOperation(DbOperationFlag.DeleteAll);         _schoolContext.Dispose();     }     ...  As you can see, there is slightly more fixture setup code involved if your tests are using NDbUnit to provide the test data: Because we're dealing with a physical database instance here, we first need to pick up the test-specific connection string from the test assemblies' App.config, then initialize an NDbUnit helper object with this connection along with the provided xsd file, and also set up the SchoolEntities and the PersonRepository instances accordingly. The _database field (an instance of the INdUnitTest interface) will be our single access point to the underlying database: We use it to perform all the required operations against the data store. To have a flexible mechanism to easily insert data into the database, we can write a helper method like this: private void InsertTestData(params string[] dataFileNames) {     _database.PerformDbOperation(DbOperationFlag.DeleteAll);     if (dataFileNames == null)     {         return;     }     try     {         foreach (string fileName in dataFileNames)         {             if (!File.Exists(fileName))             {                 throw new FileNotFoundException(Path.GetFullPath(fileName));             }             _database.ReadXml(fileName);             _database.PerformDbOperation(DbOperationFlag.InsertIdentity);         }     }     catch     {         _database.PerformDbOperation(DbOperationFlag.DeleteAll);         throw;     } } This lets us easily insert test data from xml files, in any number and in a  controlled order (which is important because we eventually must fulfill referential constraints, or we must account for some other stuff that imposes a specific ordering on data insertion). Again, as with Typemock, I won't go into API details here. - Unfortunately, there isn't too much documentation for NDbUnit anyway, other than the already mentioned Quick Start Guide (and the source code itself, of course) - a not so uncommon problem with smaller Open Source Projects. Last not least, we need to provide the required test data in xml form. A snippet for data from the People table might look like this, for example: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <School xmlns="http://tempuri.org/School.xsd">   <Person>     <PersonID>1</PersonID>     <LastName>Abercrombie</LastName>     <FirstName>Kim</FirstName>     <HireDate>1995-03-11T00:00:00</HireDate>   </Person>   <Person>     <PersonID>2</PersonID>     <LastName>Barzdukas</LastName>     <FirstName>Gytis</FirstName>     <EnrollmentDate>2005-09-01T00:00:00</EnrollmentDate>   </Person>   <Person>     ... You can also have data from various tables in one single xml file, if that's appropriate for you (but beware of the already mentioned ordering issues). It's true that your test assembly may end up with dozens of such xml files, each containing quite a big amount of text data. But because the files are of very low complexity, and with the help of a little bit of Copy/Paste and Excel magic, this appears to be well manageable. Executing some basic tests Here are some of the possible tests that can be written with the above preparations in place: private const string People = @"..\..\TestData\School.People.xml"; ... [Test, MultipleAsserts, TestsOn("PersonRepository.GetNameList")] public void GetNameList_ListOrdering_ReturnsTheExpectedFullNames() {     InsertTestData(People);     List<string> names =         _personRepository.GetNameList(NameOrdering.List);     Assert.Count(34, names);     Assert.AreEqual("Abercrombie, Kim", names.First());     Assert.AreEqual("Zheng, Roger", names.Last()); } [Test, MultipleAsserts, TestsOn("PersonRepository.GetNameList")] [DependsOn("RemovePerson_CalledOnce_DecreasesCountByOne")] public void GetNameList_NormalOrdering_ReturnsTheExpectedFullNames() {     InsertTestData(People);     List<string> names =         _personRepository.GetNameList(NameOrdering.Normal);     Assert.Count(34, names);     Assert.AreEqual("Alexandra Walker", names.First());     Assert.AreEqual("Yan Li", names.Last()); } [Test, TestsOn("PersonRepository.AddPerson")] public void AddPerson_CalledOnce_IncreasesCountByOne() {     InsertTestData(People);     int count = _personRepository.Count;     _personRepository.AddPerson(new Person { FirstName = "Thomas", LastName = "Weller" });     Assert.AreEqual(count + 1, _personRepository.Count); } [Test, TestsOn("PersonRepository.RemovePerson")] public void RemovePerson_CalledOnce_DecreasesCountByOne() {     InsertTestData(People);     int count = _personRepository.Count;     _personRepository.RemovePerson(new Person { PersonID = 33 });     Assert.AreEqual(count - 1, _personRepository.Count); } Not much difference here compared to the corresponding Typemock versions, except that we had to do a bit more preparational work (and also it was harder to get the required knowledge). But this picture changes quite dramatically if we look at some more demanding test cases: Ok, and what if things are becoming somewhat more complex? Tests like the above ones represent the 'easy' scenarios. They may account for the biggest portion of real-world use cases of the application, and they are important to make sure that it is generally sound. But usually, all these nasty little bugs originate from the more complex parts of our code, or they occur when something goes wrong. So, for a testing strategy to be of real practical use, it is especially important to see how easy or difficult it is to mimick a scenario which represents a more complex or exceptional case. The following test, for example, deals with the case that there is some sort of invalid input from the caller: [Test, MultipleAsserts, TestsOn("PersonRepository.GetCourseMembers")] [Row(null, typeof(ArgumentNullException))] [Row("", typeof(ArgumentException))] [Row("NotExistingCourse", typeof(ArgumentException))] public void GetCourseMembers_WithGivenVariousInvalidValues_Throws(string courseTitle, Type expectedInnerExceptionType) {     var exception = Assert.Throws<RepositoryException>(() =>                                 _personRepository.GetCourseMembers(courseTitle));     Assert.IsInstanceOfType(expectedInnerExceptionType, exception.InnerException); } Apparently, this test doesn't need an 'Arrange' part at all (see here for the same test with the Typemock tool). It acts just like any other client code, and all the required business logic comes from the database itself. This doesn't always necessarily mean that there is less complexity, but only that the complexity happens in a different part of your test resources (in the xml files namely, where you sometimes have to spend a lot of effort for carefully preparing the required test data). Another example, which relies on an underlying 1-n relationship, might be this: [Test, MultipleAsserts, TestsOn("PersonRepository.GetCourseMembers")] public void GetCourseMembers_WhenGivenAnExistingCourse_ReturnsListOfStudents() {     InsertTestData(People, Course, Department, StudentGrade);     List<Person> persons = _personRepository.GetCourseMembers("Macroeconomics");     Assert.Count(4, persons);     Assert.ForAll(         persons,         @p => new[] { 10, 11, 12, 14 }.Contains(@p.PersonID),         "Person has none of the expected IDs."); } If you compare this test to its corresponding Typemock version, you immediately see that the test itself is much simpler, easier to read, and thus much more intention-revealing. The complexity here lies hidden behind the call to the InsertTestData() helper method and the content of the used xml files with the test data. And also note that you might have to provide additional data which are not even directly relevant to your test, but are required only to fulfill some integrity needs of the underlying database. Conclusion The first thing to notice when comparing the NDbUnit approach to its Typemock counterpart obviously deals with performance: Of course, NDbUnit is much slower than Typemock. Technically,  it doesn't even make sense to compare the two tools. But practically, it may well play a role and could or could not be an issue, depending on how much tests you have of this kind, how often you run them, and what role they play in your development cycle. Also, because the dataset from the required xsd file must fully match the database schema (even in parts that otherwise wouldn't be relevant to you), it can be quite cumbersome to be in a team where different people are working with the database in parallel. My personal experience is – as already said in the first part – that Typemock gives you a better development experience in a 'dynamic' scenario (when you're working in some kind of TDD-style, you're oftentimes executing the tests from your dev box, and your database schema changes frequently), whereas the NDbUnit approach is a good and solid solution in more 'static' development scenarios (when you need to execute the tests less frequently or only on a separate build server, and/or the underlying database schema can be kept relatively stable), for example some variations of higher-level integration or User-Acceptance tests. But in any case, opening Entity Framework based applications for testing requires a fair amount of resources, planning, and preparational work – it's definitely not the kind of stuff that you would call 'easy to test'. Hopefully, future versions of EF will take testing concerns into account. Otherwise, I don't see too much of a future for the framework in the long run, even though it's quite popular at the moment... The sample solution A sample solution (VS 2010) with the code from this article series is available via my Bitbucket account from here (Bitbucket is a hosting site for Mercurial repositories. The repositories may also be accessed with the Git and Subversion SCMs - consult the documentation for details. In addition, it is possible to download the solution simply as a zipped archive – via the 'get source' button on the very right.). The solution contains some more tests against the PersonRepository class, which are not shown here. Also, it contains database scripts to create and fill the School sample database. To compile and run, the solution expects the Gallio/MbUnit framework to be installed (which is free and can be downloaded from here), the NDbUnit framework (which is also free and can be downloaded from here), and the Typemock Isolator tool (a fully functional 30day-trial is available here). Moreover, you will need an instance of the Microsoft SQL Server DBMS, and you will have to adapt the connection strings in the test projects App.config files accordingly.

    Read the article

  • Unable to cast transparent proxy to type &lt;type&gt;

    - by Rick Strahl
    This is not the first time I've run into this wonderful error while creating new AppDomains in .NET and then trying to load types and access them across App Domains. In almost all cases the problem I've run into with this error the problem comes from the two AppDomains involved loading different copies of the same type. Unless the types match exactly and come exactly from the same assembly the typecast will fail. The most common scenario is that the types are loaded from different assemblies - as unlikely as that sounds. An Example of Failure To give some context, I'm working on some old code in Html Help Builder that creates a new AppDomain in order to parse assembly information for documentation purposes. I create a new AppDomain in order to load up an assembly process it and then immediately unload it along with the AppDomain. The AppDomain allows for unloading that otherwise wouldn't be possible as well as isolating my code from the assembly that's being loaded. The process to accomplish this is fairly established and I use it for lots of applications that use add-in like functionality - basically anywhere where code needs to be isolated and have the ability to be unloaded. My pattern for this is: Create a new AppDomain Load a Factory Class into the AppDomain Use the Factory Class to load additional types from the remote domain Here's the relevant code from my TypeParserFactory that creates a domain and then loads a specific type - TypeParser - that is accessed cross-AppDomain in the parent domain:public class TypeParserFactory : System.MarshalByRefObject,IDisposable { …/// <summary> /// TypeParser Factory method that loads the TypeParser /// object into a new AppDomain so it can be unloaded. /// Creates AppDomain and creates type. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> public TypeParser CreateTypeParser() { if (!CreateAppDomain(null)) return null; /// Create the instance inside of the new AppDomain /// Note: remote domain uses local EXE's AppBasePath!!! TypeParser parser = null; try { Assembly assembly = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly(); string assemblyPath = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location; parser = (TypeParser) this.LocalAppDomain.CreateInstanceFrom(assemblyPath, typeof(TypeParser).FullName).Unwrap(); } catch (Exception ex) { this.ErrorMessage = ex.GetBaseException().Message; return null; } return parser; } private bool CreateAppDomain(string lcAppDomain) { if (lcAppDomain == null) lcAppDomain = "wwReflection" + Guid.NewGuid().ToString().GetHashCode().ToString("x"); AppDomainSetup setup = new AppDomainSetup(); // *** Point at current directory setup.ApplicationBase = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory; //setup.PrivateBinPath = Path.Combine(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory, "bin"); this.LocalAppDomain = AppDomain.CreateDomain(lcAppDomain,null,setup); // Need a custom resolver so we can load assembly from non current path AppDomain.CurrentDomain.AssemblyResolve += new ResolveEventHandler(CurrentDomain_AssemblyResolve); return true; } …} Note that the classes must be either [Serializable] (by value) or inherit from MarshalByRefObject in order to be accessible remotely. Here I need to call methods on the remote object so all classes are MarshalByRefObject. The specific problem code is the loading up a new type which points at an assembly that visible both in the current domain and the remote domain and then instantiates a type from it. This is the code in question:Assembly assembly = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly(); string assemblyPath = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location; parser = (TypeParser) this.LocalAppDomain.CreateInstanceFrom(assemblyPath, typeof(TypeParser).FullName).Unwrap(); The last line of code is what blows up with the Unable to cast transparent proxy to type <type> error. Without the cast the code actually returns a TransparentProxy instance, but the cast is what blows up. In other words I AM in fact getting a TypeParser instance back but it can't be cast to the TypeParser type that is loaded in the current AppDomain. Finding the Problem To see what's going on I tried using the .NET 4.0 dynamic type on the result and lo and behold it worked with dynamic - the value returned is actually a TypeParser instance: Assembly assembly = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly(); string assemblyPath = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location; object objparser = this.LocalAppDomain.CreateInstanceFrom(assemblyPath, typeof(TypeParser).FullName).Unwrap(); // dynamic works dynamic dynParser = objparser; string info = dynParser.GetVersionInfo(); // method call works // casting fails parser = (TypeParser)objparser; So clearly a TypeParser type is coming back, but nevertheless it's not the right one. Hmmm… mysterious.Another couple of tries reveal the problem however:// works dynamic dynParser = objparser; string info = dynParser.GetVersionInfo(); // method call works // c:\wwapps\wwhelp\wwReflection20.dll (Current Execution Folder) string info3 = typeof(TypeParser).Assembly.CodeBase; // c:\program files\vfp9\wwReflection20.dll (my COM client EXE's folder) string info4 = dynParser.GetType().Assembly.CodeBase; // fails parser = (TypeParser)objparser; As you can see the second value is coming from a totally different assembly. Note that this is even though I EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED an assembly path to load the assembly from! Instead .NET decided to load the assembly from the original ApplicationBase folder. Ouch! How I actually tracked this down was a little more tedious: I added a method like this to both the factory and the instance types and then compared notes:public string GetVersionInfo() { return ".NET Version: " + Environment.Version.ToString() + "\r\n" + "wwReflection Assembly: " + typeof(TypeParserFactory).Assembly.CodeBase.Replace("file:///", "").Replace("/", "\\") + "\r\n" + "Assembly Cur Dir: " + Directory.GetCurrentDirectory() + "\r\n" + "ApplicationBase: " + AppDomain.CurrentDomain.SetupInformation.ApplicationBase + "\r\n" + "App Domain: " + AppDomain.CurrentDomain.FriendlyName + "\r\n"; } For the factory I got: .NET Version: 4.0.30319.239wwReflection Assembly: c:\wwapps\wwhelp\bin\wwreflection20.dllAssembly Cur Dir: c:\wwapps\wwhelpApplicationBase: C:\Programs\vfp9\App Domain: wwReflection534cfa1f For the instance type I got: .NET Version: 4.0.30319.239wwReflection Assembly: C:\\Programs\\vfp9\wwreflection20.dllAssembly Cur Dir: c:\\wwapps\\wwhelpApplicationBase: C:\\Programs\\vfp9\App Domain: wwDotNetBridge_56006605 which clearly shows the problem. You can see that both are loading from different appDomains but the each is loading the assembly from a different location. Probably a better solution yet (for ANY kind of assembly loading problem) is to use the .NET Fusion Log Viewer to trace assembly loads.The Fusion viewer will show a load trace for each assembly loaded and where it's looking to find it. Here's what the viewer looks like: The last trace above that I found for the second wwReflection20 load (the one that is wonky) looks like this:*** Assembly Binder Log Entry (1/13/2012 @ 3:06:49 AM) *** The operation was successful. Bind result: hr = 0x0. The operation completed successfully. Assembly manager loaded from: C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\V4.0.30319\clr.dll Running under executable c:\programs\vfp9\vfp9.exe --- A detailed error log follows. === Pre-bind state information === LOG: User = Ras\ricks LOG: DisplayName = wwReflection20, Version=4.61.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null (Fully-specified) LOG: Appbase = file:///C:/Programs/vfp9/ LOG: Initial PrivatePath = NULL LOG: Dynamic Base = NULL LOG: Cache Base = NULL LOG: AppName = vfp9.exe Calling assembly : (Unknown). === LOG: This bind starts in default load context. LOG: Using application configuration file: C:\Programs\vfp9\vfp9.exe.Config LOG: Using host configuration file: LOG: Using machine configuration file from C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\V4.0.30319\config\machine.config. LOG: Policy not being applied to reference at this time (private, custom, partial, or location-based assembly bind). LOG: Attempting download of new URL file:///C:/Programs/vfp9/wwReflection20.DLL. LOG: Assembly download was successful. Attempting setup of file: C:\Programs\vfp9\wwReflection20.dll LOG: Entering run-from-source setup phase. LOG: Assembly Name is: wwReflection20, Version=4.61.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null LOG: Binding succeeds. Returns assembly from C:\Programs\vfp9\wwReflection20.dll. LOG: Assembly is loaded in default load context. WRN: The same assembly was loaded into multiple contexts of an application domain: WRN: Context: Default | Domain ID: 2 | Assembly Name: wwReflection20, Version=4.61.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null WRN: Context: LoadFrom | Domain ID: 2 | Assembly Name: wwReflection20, Version=4.61.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null WRN: This might lead to runtime failures. WRN: It is recommended to inspect your application on whether this is intentional or not. WRN: See whitepaper http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=109270 for more information and common solutions to this issue. Notice that the fusion log clearly shows that the .NET loader makes no attempt to even load the assembly from the path I explicitly specified. Remember your Assembly Locations As mentioned earlier all failures I've seen like this ultimately resulted from different versions of the same type being available in the two AppDomains. At first sight that seems ridiculous - how could the types be different and why would you have multiple assemblies - but there are actually a number of scenarios where it's quite possible to have multiple copies of the same assembly floating around in multiple places. If you're hosting different environments (like hosting the Razor Engine, or ASP.NET Runtime for example) it's common to create a private BIN folder and it's important to make sure that there's no overlap of assemblies. In my case of Html Help Builder the problem started because I'm using COM interop to access the .NET assembly and the above code. COM Interop has very specific requirements on where assemblies can be found and because I was mucking around with the loader code today, I ended up moving assemblies around to a new location for explicit loading. The explicit load works in the main AppDomain, but failed in the remote domain as I showed. The solution here was simple enough: Delete the extraneous assembly which was left around by accident. Not a common problem, but one that when it bites is pretty nasty to figure out because it seems so unlikely that types wouldn't match. I know I've run into this a few times and writing this down hopefully will make me remember in the future rather than poking around again for an hour trying to debug the issue as I did today. Hopefully it'll save some of you some time as well in the future.© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in .NET  COM   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Constraining Generics with Where Clause

    - by James Michael Hare
    Back when I was primarily a C++ developer, I loved C++ templates.  The power of writing very reusable generic classes brought the art of programming to a brand new level.  Unfortunately, when .NET 1.0 came about, they didn’t have a template equivalent.  With .NET 2.0 however, we finally got generics, which once again let us spread our wings and program more generically in the world of .NET However, C# generics behave in some ways very differently from their C++ template cousins.  There is a handy clause, however, that helps you navigate these waters to make your generics more powerful. The Problem – C# Assumes Lowest Common Denominator In C++, you can create a template and do nearly anything syntactically possible on the template parameter, and C++ will not check if the method/fields/operations invoked are valid until you declare a realization of the type.  Let me illustrate with a C++ example: 1: // compiles fine, C++ makes no assumptions as to T 2: template <typename T> 3: class ReverseComparer 4: { 5: public: 6: int Compare(const T& lhs, const T& rhs) 7: { 8: return rhs.CompareTo(lhs); 9: } 10: }; Notice that we are invoking a method CompareTo() off of template type T.  Because we don’t know at this point what type T is, C++ makes no assumptions and there are no errors. C++ tends to take the path of not checking the template type usage until the method is actually invoked with a specific type, which differs from the behavior of C#: 1: // this will NOT compile! C# assumes lowest common denominator. 2: public class ReverseComparer<T> 3: { 4: public int Compare(T lhs, T rhs) 5: { 6: return lhs.CompareTo(rhs); 7: } 8: } So why does C# give us a compiler error even when we don’t yet know what type T is?  This is because C# took a different path in how they made generics.  Unless you specify otherwise, for the purposes of the code inside the generic method, T is basically treated like an object (notice I didn’t say T is an object). That means that any operations, fields, methods, properties, etc that you attempt to use of type T must be available at the lowest common denominator type: object.  Now, while object has the broadest applicability, it also has the fewest specific.  So how do we allow our generic type placeholder to do things more than just what object can do? Solution: Constraint the Type With Where Clause So how do we get around this in C#?  The answer is to constrain the generic type placeholder with the where clause.  Basically, the where clause allows you to specify additional constraints on what the actual type used to fill the generic type placeholder must support. You might think that narrowing the scope of a generic means a weaker generic.  In reality, though it limits the number of types that can be used with the generic, it also gives the generic more power to deal with those types.  In effect these constraints says that if the type meets the given constraint, you can perform the activities that pertain to that constraint with the generic placeholders. Constraining Generic Type to Interface or Superclass One of the handiest where clause constraints is the ability to specify the type generic type must implement a certain interface or be inherited from a certain base class. For example, you can’t call CompareTo() in our first C# generic without constraints, but if we constrain T to IComparable<T>, we can: 1: public class ReverseComparer<T> 2: where T : IComparable<T> 3: { 4: public int Compare(T lhs, T rhs) 5: { 6: return lhs.CompareTo(rhs); 7: } 8: } Now that we’ve constrained T to an implementation of IComparable<T>, this means that our variables of generic type T may now call any members specified in IComparable<T> as well.  This means that the call to CompareTo() is now legal. If you constrain your type, also, you will get compiler warnings if you attempt to use a type that doesn’t meet the constraint.  This is much better than the syntax error you would get within C++ template code itself when you used a type not supported by a C++ template. Constraining Generic Type to Only Reference Types Sometimes, you want to assign an instance of a generic type to null, but you can’t do this without constraints, because you have no guarantee that the type used to realize the generic is not a value type, where null is meaningless. Well, we can fix this by specifying the class constraint in the where clause.  By declaring that a generic type must be a class, we are saying that it is a reference type, and this allows us to assign null to instances of that type: 1: public static class ObjectExtensions 2: { 3: public static TOut Maybe<TIn, TOut>(this TIn value, Func<TIn, TOut> accessor) 4: where TOut : class 5: where TIn : class 6: { 7: return (value != null) ? accessor(value) : null; 8: } 9: } In the example above, we want to be able to access a property off of a reference, and if that reference is null, pass the null on down the line.  To do this, both the input type and the output type must be reference types (yes, nullable value types could also be considered applicable at a logical level, but there’s not a direct constraint for those). Constraining Generic Type to only Value Types Similarly to constraining a generic type to be a reference type, you can also constrain a generic type to be a value type.  To do this you use the struct constraint which specifies that the generic type must be a value type (primitive, struct, enum, etc). Consider the following method, that will convert anything that is IConvertible (int, double, string, etc) to the value type you specify, or null if the instance is null. 1: public static T? ConvertToNullable<T>(IConvertible value) 2: where T : struct 3: { 4: T? result = null; 5:  6: if (value != null) 7: { 8: result = (T)Convert.ChangeType(value, typeof(T)); 9: } 10:  11: return result; 12: } Because T was constrained to be a value type, we can use T? (System.Nullable<T>) where we could not do this if T was a reference type. Constraining Generic Type to Require Default Constructor You can also constrain a type to require existence of a default constructor.  Because by default C# doesn’t know what constructors a generic type placeholder does or does not have available, it can’t typically allow you to call one.  That said, if you give it the new() constraint, it will mean that the type used to realize the generic type must have a default (no argument) constructor. Let’s assume you have a generic adapter class that, given some mappings, will adapt an item from type TFrom to type TTo.  Because it must create a new instance of type TTo in the process, we need to specify that TTo has a default constructor: 1: // Given a set of Action<TFrom,TTo> mappings will map TFrom to TTo 2: public class Adapter<TFrom, TTo> : IEnumerable<Action<TFrom, TTo>> 3: where TTo : class, new() 4: { 5: // The list of translations from TFrom to TTo 6: public List<Action<TFrom, TTo>> Translations { get; private set; } 7:  8: // Construct with empty translation and reverse translation sets. 9: public Adapter() 10: { 11: // did this instead of auto-properties to allow simple use of initializers 12: Translations = new List<Action<TFrom, TTo>>(); 13: } 14:  15: // Add a translator to the collection, useful for initializer list 16: public void Add(Action<TFrom, TTo> translation) 17: { 18: Translations.Add(translation); 19: } 20:  21: // Add a translator that first checks a predicate to determine if the translation 22: // should be performed, then translates if the predicate returns true 23: public void Add(Predicate<TFrom> conditional, Action<TFrom, TTo> translation) 24: { 25: Translations.Add((from, to) => 26: { 27: if (conditional(from)) 28: { 29: translation(from, to); 30: } 31: }); 32: } 33:  34: // Translates an object forward from TFrom object to TTo object. 35: public TTo Adapt(TFrom sourceObject) 36: { 37: var resultObject = new TTo(); 38:  39: // Process each translation 40: Translations.ForEach(t => t(sourceObject, resultObject)); 41:  42: return resultObject; 43: } 44:  45: // Returns an enumerator that iterates through the collection. 46: public IEnumerator<Action<TFrom, TTo>> GetEnumerator() 47: { 48: return Translations.GetEnumerator(); 49: } 50:  51: // Returns an enumerator that iterates through a collection. 52: IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() 53: { 54: return GetEnumerator(); 55: } 56: } Notice, however, you can’t specify any other constructor, you can only specify that the type has a default (no argument) constructor. Summary The where clause is an excellent tool that gives your .NET generics even more power to perform tasks higher than just the base "object level" behavior.  There are a few things you cannot specify with constraints (currently) though: Cannot specify the generic type must be an enum. Cannot specify the generic type must have a certain property or method without specifying a base class or interface – that is, you can’t say that the generic must have a Start() method. Cannot specify that the generic type allows arithmetic operations. Cannot specify that the generic type requires a specific non-default constructor. In addition, you cannot overload a template definition with different, opposing constraints.  For example you can’t define a Adapter<T> where T : struct and Adapter<T> where T : class.  Hopefully, in the future we will get some of these things to make the where clause even more useful, but until then what we have is extremely valuable in making our generics more user friendly and more powerful!   Technorati Tags: C#,.NET,Little Wonders,BlackRabbitCoder,where,generics

    Read the article

  • These are few objective type questions which i was not able to find the solution [closed]

    - by Tarun
    1. Which of the following advantages does System.Collections.IDictionaryEnumerator provide over System.Collections.IEnumerator? a. It adds properties for direct access to both the Key and the Value b. It is optimized to handle the structure of a Dictionary. c. It provides properties to determine if the Dictionary is enumerated in Key or Value order d. It provides reverse lookup methods to distinguish a Key from a specific Value 2. When Implementing System.EnterpriseServices.ServicedComponent derived classes, which of the following statements are true? a. Enabling object pooling requires an attribute on the class and the enabling of pooling in the COM+ catalog. b. Methods can be configured to automatically mark a transaction as complete by the use of attributes. c. You can configure authentication using the AuthenticationOption when the ActivationMode is set to Library. d. You can control the lifecycle policy of an individual instance using the SetLifetimeService method. 3. Which of the following are true regarding event declaration in the code below? class Sample { event MyEventHandlerType MyEvent; } a. MyEventHandlerType must be derived from System.EventHandler or System.EventHandler<TEventArgs> b. MyEventHandlerType must take two parameters, the first of the type Object, and the second of a class derived from System.EventArgs c. MyEventHandlerType may have a non-void return type d. If MyEventHandlerType is a generic type, event declaration must use a specialization of that type. e. MyEventHandlerType cannot be declared static 4. Which of the following statements apply to developing .NET code, using .NET utilities that are available with the SDK or Visual Studio? a. Developers can create assemblies directly from the MSIL Source Code. b. Developers can examine PE header information in an assembly. c. Developers can generate XML Schemas from class definitions contained within an assembly. d. Developers can strip all meta-data from managed assemblies. e. Developers can split an assembly into multiple assemblies. 5. Which of the following characteristics do classes in the System.Drawing namespace such as Brush,Font,Pen, and Icon share? a. They encapsulate native resource and must be properly Disposed to prevent potential exhausting of resources. b. They are all MarshalByRef derived classes, but functionality across AppDomains has specific limitations. c. You can inherit from these classes to provide enhanced or customized functionality 6. Which of the following are required to be true by objects which are going to be used as keys in a System.Collections.HashTable? a. They must handle case-sensitivity identically in both the GetHashCode() and Equals() methods. b. Key objects must be immutable for the duration they are used within a HashTable. c. Get HashCode() must be overridden to provide the same result, given the same parameters, regardless of reference equalityl unless the HashTable constructor is provided with an IEqualityComparer parameter. d. Each Element in a HashTable is stored as a Key/Value pair of the type System.Collections.DictionaryElement e. All of the above 7. Which of the following are true about Nullable types? a. A Nullable type is a reference type. b. A Nullable type is a structure. c. An implicit conversion exists from any non-nullable value type to a nullable form of that type. d. An implicit conversion exists from any nullable value type to a non-nullable form of that type. e. A predefined conversion from the nullable type S? to the nullable type T? exists if there is a predefined conversion from the non-nullable type S to the non-nullable type T 8. When using an automatic property, which of the following statements is true? a. The compiler generates a backing field that is completely inaccessible from the application code. b. The compiler generates a backing field that is a private instance member with a leading underscore that can be programmatically referenced. c. The compiler generates a backing field that is accessible via reflection d. The compiler generates a code that will store the information separately from the instance to ensure its security. 9. Which of the following does using Initializer Syntax with a collection as shown below require? CollectionClass numbers = new CollectionClass { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 }; a. The Collection Class must implement System.Collections.Generic.ICollection<T> b. The Collection Class must implement System.Collections.Generic.IList<T> c. Each of the Items in the Initializer List will be passed to the Add<T>(T item) method d. The items in the initializer will be treated as an IEnumerable<T> and passed to the collection constructor+K110 10. What impact will using implicitly typed local variables as in the following example have? var sample = "Hello World"; a. The actual type is determined at compilation time, and has no impact on the runtime b. The actual type is determined at runtime, and late binding takes effect c. The actual type is based on the native VARIANT concept, and no binding to a specific type takes place. d. "var" itself is a specific type defined by the framework, and no special binding takes place 11. Which of the following is not supported by remoting object types? a. well-known singleton b. well-known single call c. client activated d. context-agile 12. In which of the following ways do structs differ from classes? a. Structs can not implement interfaces b. Structs cannot inherit from a base struct c. Structs cannot have events interfaces d. Structs cannot have virtual methods 13. Which of the following is not an unboxing conversion? a. void Sample1(object o) { int i = (int)o; } b. void Sample1(ValueType vt) { int i = (int)vt; } c. enum E { Hello, World} void Sample1(System.Enum et) { E e = (E) et; } d. interface I { int Value { get; set; } } void Sample1(I vt) { int i = vt.Value; } e. class C { public int Value { get; set; } } void Sample1(C vt) { int i = vt.Value; } 14. Which of the following are characteristics of the System.Threading.Timer class? a. The method provided by the TimerCallback delegate will always be invoked on the thread which created the timer. b. The thread which creates the timer must have a message processing loop (i.e. be considered a UI thread) c. The class contains protection to prevent reentrancy to the method provided by the TimerCallback delegate d. You can receive notification of an instance being Disposed by calling an overload of the Dispose method. 15. What is the proper declaration of a method which will handle the following event? Class MyClass { public event EventHandler MyEvent; } a. public void A_MyEvent(object sender, MyArgs e) { } b. public void A_MyEvent(object sender, EventArgs e) { } c. public void A_MyEvent(MyArgs e) { } d. public void A_MyEvent(MyClass sender,EventArgs e) { } 16. Which of the following scenarios are applicable to Window Workflow Foundation? a. Document-centric workflows b. Human workflows c. User-interface page flows d. Builtin support for communications across multiple applications and/or platforms e. All of the above 17. When using an automatic property, which of the following statements is true? a. The compiler generates a backing field that is completely inaccessible from the application code. b. The compiler generates a backing field that is a private instance member with a leading underscore that can be programmatically referenced. c. The compiler generates a backing field that is accessible via reflection d. The compiler generates a code that will store the information separately from the instance to ensure its security. 18 While using the capabilities supplied by the System.Messaging classes, which of the following are true? a. Information must be explicitly converted to/from a byte stream before it uses the MessageQueue class b. Invoking the MessageQueue.Send member defaults to using the System.Messaging.XmlMessageFormatter to serialize the object. c. Objects must be XMLSerializable in order to be transferred over a MessageQueue instance. d. The first entry in a MessageQueue must be removed from the queue before the next entry can be accessed e. Entries removed from a MessageQueue within the scope of a transaction, will be pushed back into the front of the queue if the transaction fails. 19. Which of the following are true about declarative attributes? a. They must be inherited from the System.Attribute. b. Attributes are instantiated at the same time as instances of the class to which they are applied. c. Attribute classes may be restricted to be applied only to application element types. d. By default, a given attribute may be applied multiple times to the same application element. 20. When using version 3.5 of the framework in applications which emit a dynamic code, which of the following are true? a. A Partial trust code can not emit and execute a code b. A Partial trust application must have the SecurityCriticalAttribute attribute have called Assert ReflectionEmit permission c. The generated code no more permissions than the assembly which emitted it. d. It can be executed by calling System.Reflection.Emit.DynamicMethod( string name, Type returnType, Type[] parameterTypes ) without any special permissions Within Windows Workflow Foundation, Compensating Actions are used for: a. provide a means to rollback a failed transaction b. provide a means to undo a successfully committed transaction later c. provide a means to terminate an in process transaction d. achieve load balancing by adapting to the current activity 21. What is the proper declaration of a method which will handle the following event? Class MyClass { public event EventHandler MyEvent; } a. public void A_MyEvent(object sender, MyArgs e) { } b. public void A_MyEvent(object sender, EventArgs e) { } c. public void A_MyEvent(MyArgs e) { } d. public void A_MyEvent(MyClass sender,EventArgs e) { } 22. Which of the following controls allows the use of XSL to transform XML content into formatted content? a. System.Web.UI.WebControls.Xml b. System.Web.UI.WebControls.Xslt c. System.Web.UI.WebControls.Substitution d. System.Web.UI.WebControls.Transform 23. To which of the following do automatic properties refer? a. You declare (explicitly or implicitly) the accessibility of the property and get and set accessors, but do not provide any implementation or backing field b. You attribute a member field so that the compiler will generate get and set accessors c. The compiler creates properties for your class based on class level attributes d. They are properties which are automatically invoked as part of the object construction process 24. Which of the following are true about Nullable types? a. A Nullable type is a reference type. b. An implicit conversion exists from any non-nullable value type to a nullable form of that type. c. A predefined conversion from the nullable type S? to the nullable type T? exists if there is a predefined conversion from the non-nullable type S to the non-nullable type T 25. When using an automatic property, which of the following statements is true? a. The compiler generates a backing field that is completely inaccessible from the application code. b. The compiler generates a backing field that is accessible via reflection. c. The compiler generates a code that will store the information separately from the instance to ensure its security. 26. When using an implicitly typed array, which of the following is most appropriate? a. All elements in the initializer list must be of the same type. b. All elements in the initializer list must be implicitly convertible to a known type which is the actual type of at least one member in the initializer list c. All elements in the initializer list must be implicitly convertible to common type which is a base type of the items actually in the list 27. Which of the following is false about anonymous types? a. They can be derived from any reference type. b. Two anonymous types with the same named parameters in the same order declared in different classes have the same type. c. All properties of an anonymous type are read/write. 28. Which of the following are true about Extension methods. a. They can be declared either static or instance members b. They must be declared in the same assembly (but may be in different source files) c. Extension methods can be used to override existing instance methods d. Extension methods with the same signature for the same class may be declared in multiple namespaces without causing compilation errors

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework 4.0: Creating objects of correct type when using lazy loading

    - by DigiMortal
    In my posting about Entity Framework 4.0 and POCOs I introduced lazy loading in EF applications. EF uses proxy classes for lazy loading and this means we have new types in that come and go dynamically in runtime. We don’t have these types available when we write code but we cannot forget that EF may expect us to use dynamically generated types. In this posting I will give you simple hint how to use correct types in your code. The background of lazy loading and proxy classes As a first thing I will explain you in short what is proxy class. Business classes when designed correctly have no knowledge about their birth and death – they don’t know how they are created and they don’t know how their data is persisted. This is the responsibility of object runtime. When we use lazy loading we need a little bit different classes that know how to load data for properties when code accesses the property first time. As we cannot add this functionality to our business classes (they may be stored through more than one data access technology or by more than one Data Access Layer (DAL)) we create proxy classes that extend our business classes. If we have class called Product and product has lazy loaded property called Customer then we need proxy class, let’s say ProductProxy, that has same public signature as Product so we can use it INSTEAD OF product in our code. ProductProxy overrides Customer property. If customer is not asked then customer is null. But if we ask for Customer property then overridden property of ProductProxy loads it from database. This is how lazy loading works. Problem – two types for same thing As lazy loading may introduce dynamically generated proxy types we don’t know in our application code which type is returned. We cannot be sure that we have Product not ProductProxy returned. This leads us to the following question: how can we create Product of correct type if we don’t know the correct type? In EF solution is simple. Solution – use factory methods If you are using repositories and you are not using factories (imho it is pretty pointless with mapper) you can add factory methods to your EF based repositories. Take a look at this class. public class Event {     public int ID { get; set; }     public string Title { get; set; }     public string Location { get; set; }     public virtual Party Organizer { get; set; }     public DateTime Date { get; set; } } We have virtual member called Organizer. This property is virtual because we want to use lazy loading on this class so Organizer is loaded only when we ask it. EF provides us with method called CreateObject<T>(). CreateObject<T>() is member of ObjectContext class and it creates the object based on given type. In runtime proxy type for Event is created for us automatically and when we call CreateObject<T>() for Event it returns as object of Event proxy type. The factory method for events repository is as follows. public Event CreateEvent() {     var evt = _context.CreateObject<Event>();     return evt; } And we are done. Instead of creating factory classes we created factory methods that guarantee that created objects are of correct type. Conclusion Although lazy loading introduces some new objects we cannot use at design time because they live only in runtime we can write code without worrying about exact implementation type of object. This holds true until we have clean code and we don’t make any decisions based on object type. EF4.0 provides us with very simple factory method that create and return objects of correct type. All we had to do was adding factory methods to our repositories.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET Create zip file for download: the compressed zipped folder is invalid or corrupted

    - by Jason Braswell
    string fileName = "test.zip"; string path = "c:\\temp\\"; string fullPath = path + fileName; FileInfo file = new FileInfo(fullPath); Response.Clear(); Response.ClearContent(); Response.ClearHeaders(); Response.Buffer = true; Response.AppendHeader("content-disposition", "attachment; filename=" + fileName ); Response.AppendHeader("content-length", file.Length.ToString()); Response.ContentType = "application/x-compressed"; Response.TransmitFile(fullPath); Response.Flush(); Response.End(); The actual zip file c:\temp\test.zip is good, valid, whatever you want to call it. When I navigate to the directory c:\temp\ and double-click on the test.zip file; it opens right up. My problem seems only to be with the download. The code above executes without any issue. A file download dialog is presented. I can chose to either save or open. If I try to open the file from the dialog, or save it and then open it. I get the following dialog message: The Compressed (zipped) Folder is invalid or corrupted. For Response.ContentType I've tried: application/x-compressed application/x-zip-compressed application/x-gzip-compresse application/octet-stream application/zip The zip file is being created with some prior code (that I'm sure is working fine due to my ability to open the created file directly) using: Ionic.zip http://www.codeplex.com/DotNetZip

    Read the article

  • not using partial mocking? do they also mean in web-app?

    - by 01
    Im learning Mockito and in chapter 16 they say you should not use partial mocking in new system. I disagree, for example in one of my actions i use partial mocking for static framework methods, sql calls, etc. I extracted the stuff into methods and then mock it in tests. Most of those methods are specific to this action and wont be call from other actions, so it not worth to extract special components. I agree that you shouldn't using partial mocking in frameworks, but not in hard to mock actions. What are minuses of using partial mocking in web-app?

    Read the article

  • How to penetrate the QA industry after layoffs, next steps...

    - by Erik
    Briefly, my background is in manual black box testing of websites and applications within the Agile/waterfall context. Over the past four years I was a member of two web development firms' small QA teams dedicated to testing the deployment of websites for national/international non profits, governmental organizations, and for profit business, to name a few: -Brookings Institution -Senate -Tyco Electronics -Blue Cross/Blue Shield -National Geographic -Discover Channel I have a very strong understanding of the: -SDLC -STLC of bugs and website deployment/development -Use Case & Test Case development In March of this year, my last firm downsized and lost my job as a QA tester. I have been networking and doing a very detailed job search, but have had a very difficult time getting my next job within the QA industry, even with my background as a manual black box QA tester in the website development context. My direct question to all of you: What are some ways I can be more competitive and get hired? Options that could get me competitive: Should I go back to school and learn some more 'hard' skills in website development and client side technologies, e.g.: -HTML -CSS -JavaScript Learn programming: -PHP -C# -Ruby -SQL -Python -Perl -?? Get Certified as a QA Tester, there are a countless numbers of programs to become a Certified Tester. Most, if not all jobs, being advertised now require Automated Testing experience, in: -QTP -Loadrunner -Selenium -ETC. Should I learn, Automated testing skills, via a paid course, or teach myself? --Learn scripting languages to understand the automated testing process better? Become a Certified "Project Management Professional" (PMP) to prove to hiring managers that I 'get' the project development life cycle? At the end of the day I need to be competitive and get hired as a QA tester and want to build upon my skills within the QA web development field. How should I do this, without reinventing the wheel? Any help in this regard would be fabulous. Thanks! .erik

    Read the article

  • How can I effectively test a scripting engine?

    - by ChaosPandion
    I have been working on an ECMAScript implementation and I am currently working on polishing up the project. As a part of this, I have been writing tests like the following: [TestMethod] public void ArrayReduceTest() { var engine = new Engine(); var request = new ExecScriptRequest(@" var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; a.reduce(function(p, c, i, o) { return p + c; }); "); var response = (ExecScriptResponse)engine.PostWithReply(request); Assert.AreEqual((double)response.Data, 15D); } The problem is that there are so many points of failure in this test and similar tests that it almost doesn't seem worth it. It almost seems like my effort would be better spent reducing coupling between modules. To write a true unit test I would have to assume something like this: [TestMethod] public void CommentTest() { const string toParse = "/*First Line\r\nSecond Line*/"; var analyzer = new LexicalAnalyzer(toParse); { Assert.IsInstanceOfType(analyzer.Next(), typeof(MultiLineComment)); Assert.AreEqual(analyzer.Current.Value, "First Line\r\nSecond Line"); } } Doing this would require me to write thousands of tests which once again does not seem worth it.

    Read the article

  • How do you do HTML form testing without real user input simulation ?

    - by justjoe
    this question is like this one, except it's for PHP testing via browser. It's about testing your form input. Right now, i have a form on a single page. It has 12 input boxes. Every time i test the form, i have write those 12 input boxes in my browser. i know it's not a specific coding question. This question is more about how to do direct testing on your form So, how to do recursive testing without consuming too much of your time ?

    Read the article

  • How do I give each test its own TestResults folder?

    - by izb
    I have a set of unit tests, each with a bunch of methods, each of which produces output in the TestResults folder. At the moment, all the test files are jumbled up in this folder, but I'd like to bring some order to the chaos. Ideally, I'd like to have a folder for each test method. I know I can go round adding code to each test to make it produce output in a subfolder instead, but I was wondering if there was a way to control the output folder location with the Visual Studio unit test framework, perhaps using an initialization method on each test class so that any new tests added automatically get their own output folder without needing copy/pasted boilerplate code?

    Read the article

  • loading fixtures for django tests

    - by alexarsh
    Hi, I want to use some fixtures in my tests. I have cms_sample app and a fixtures folder inside with cms_sample_data.xml I use the following in my test.py: class Funtionality(TestCase): fixtures = ['cms_sample_data'] I do use TestCase of django.tests and not unittest. But the fixtures are not loaded. What am I missing? Thanks, Arshavski Alexander.

    Read the article

  • How to extend WPF hit testing zone for a Path object.

    - by user275587
    Wpf hit testing is pretty good but the only method I found to extend the hit zone is to put a transparent padding area around your object. I can't find any method to add a transparent area arround a Path object. The path is very thin and I would like to enable hit testing if the user clicks near the path. I can't find any method to extend the path object with a transparent area like the image below : I tried to used a partially transparent stroke brush but I ran into the problem described here : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1412833/how-can-i-draw-a-soft-line-in-wpf-presumably-using-a-lineargradientbrush I also tried to put an adorner over my line but because of WPF anti-aliasing algorithms, the position is way off when I zoom in my canvas and interfere with other objects hit-testing in a bad way. Any suggestion to extend the hit testing zone would be highly appreciated. Thanks, Kumar

    Read the article

  • Splitting a test to a set of smaller tests

    - by mkorpela
    I want to be able to split a big test to smaller tests so that when the smaller tests pass they imply that the big test would also pass (so there is no reason to run the original big test). I want to do this because smaller tests usually take less time, less effort and are less fragile. I would like to know if there are test design patterns or verification tools that can help me to achieve this test splitting in a robust way. I fear that the connection between the smaller tests and the original test is lost when someone changes something in the set of smaller tests. Another fear is that the set of smaller tests doesn't really cover the big test. An example of what I am aiming at: //Class under test class A { public void setB(B b){ this.b = b; } public Output process(Input i){ return b.process(doMyProcessing(i)); } private InputFromA doMyProcessing(Input i){ .. } .. } //Another class under test class B { public Output process(InputFromA i){ .. } .. } //The Big Test @Test public void theBigTest(){ A systemUnderTest = createSystemUnderTest(); // <-- expect that this is expensive Input i = createInput(); Output o = systemUnderTest.process(i); // <-- .. or expect that this is expensive assertEquals(o, expectedOutput()); } //The splitted tests @PartlyDefines("theBigTest") // <-- so something like this should come from the tool.. @Test public void smallerTest1(){ // this method is a bit too long but its just an example.. Input i = createInput(); InputFromA x = expectedInputFromA(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow Output expected = expectedOutput(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow B b = mock(B.class); when(b.process(x)).thenReturn(expected); A classUnderTest = createInstanceOfClassA(); classUnderTest.setB(b); Output o = classUnderTest.process(i); assertEquals(o, expected); verify(b).process(x); verifyNoMoreInteractions(b); } @PartlyDefines("theBigTest") // <-- so something like this should come from the tool.. @Test public void smallerTest2(){ InputFromA x = expectedInputFromA(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow Output expected = expectedOutput(); // this should be the same in both tests and it should be ensured somehow B classUnderTest = createInstanceOfClassB(); Output o = classUnderTest.process(x); assertEquals(o, expected); }

    Read the article

  • Resources for Test Driven Development in Web Applications?

    - by HorusKol
    I would like to try and implement some TDD in our web applications to reduce regressions and improve release quality, but I'm not convinced at how well automated testing can perform with something as fluffy as web applications. I've read about and tried TDD and unit testing, but the examples are 'solid' and rather simple functionalities like currency converters, and so on. Are there any resources that can help with unit testing content management and publication systems? How about unit testing a shopping cart/store (physical and online products)? AJAX? Googling for "Web Test Driven Development" just gets me old articles from several years ago either covering the same examples of calculator-like function or discussions about why TDD is better than anything (without any examples).

    Read the article

  • Testing with Profiler Custom Events and Database Snapshots

    We've all had them. One of those stored procedures that is huge and contains complex business logic which may or may not be executed. These procedures make it an absolute nightmare when it comes to debugging problems because they're so complex and have so many logic offshoots that it's very easy to get lost when you're trying to determine the path that the procedure code took when it ran. Fortunately Profiler lets you define custom events that you can raise in your code and capture in a trace so you get a better window into the sub events occurring in your code. I found it very useful to use custom events and a database snapshot to debug some code recently and we'll explore both in this article. I find raising these events and running Profiler to be very useful for testing my stored procedures on my own as well as when my code is going through official testing and user acceptance. It's a simple approach and a great way to catch any performance problems or logic errors.

    Read the article

  • Django's self.client.login(...) does not work in unit tests

    - by thebossman
    I have created users for my unit tests in two ways: 1) Create a fixture for "auth.user" that looks roughly like this: { "pk": 1, "model": "auth.user", "fields": { "username": "homer", "is_active": 1, "password": "sha1$72cd3$4935449e2cd7efb8b3723fb9958fe3bb100a30f2", ... } } I've left out the seemingly unimportant parts. 2) Use 'create_user' in the setUp function (although I'd rather keep everything in my fixtures class): def setUp(self): User.objects.create_user('homer', '[email protected]', 'simpson') Note that the password is simpson in both cases. I've verified that this info is correctly being loaded into the test database time and time again. I can grab the User object using User.objects.get. I can verify the password is correct using 'check_password.' The user is active. Yet, invariably, self.client.login(username='homer', password='simpson') FAILS. I'm baffled as to why. I think I've read every single Internet discussion pertaining to this. Can anybody help? The login code in my unit test looks like this: login = self.client.login(username='homer', password='simpson') self.assertTrue(login) Thanks.

    Read the article

  • SOA Suite 11g Dynamic Payload Testing with soapUI Free Edition

    - by Greg Mally
    Overview Many web service developers use soapUI for various tests like: smoke test, unit test, and load testing because you can get a free edition that is fairly robust. However, if you need to venture into more complex testing that requires a dynamic payload, then the free edition doesn't necessarily make it easy. This feature does exist in soapUI, but for obvious reasons it is in the Pro version. In this blog I will show you how to use soapUI free edition for dynamic payloads in a simplified example. Hopefully this will open the doors for you to expand into more complex scenarios. The following assumes that you have a working knowledge of soapUI and will not go into concepts like setting up a project etc. For the basics, please review the documentation for soapUI: http://www.soapui.org/Getting-Started/. Additionally, we will be using asynchronous web services and you can review the setup for this in my blog: SOA Suite 11g Asynchronous Testing with soapUI. Features in soapUI Free Edition Relating to this Topic The soapUI test tool provides a very feature rich environment that can do many things provided you are willing to go beyond point and click. For this example, we will be leveraging just a couple features for our dynamic payload example: Test Case Properties Scripting with Groovy Basically, we will be using a property as a global variable and we will manipulate that property using a Groovy script. Setting Up Our Property Properties are available throughout soapUI and here is a snippet from the soapUI website defining the locations: Projects : for handling Project scope values, for example a subscription ID TestSuite : for handling TestSuite scoped values, can be seen as "arguments" to a TestSuite TestCases : for handling TestCase scoped values, can be seen as "arguments" to a TestCase Properties TestStep : for providing local values/state within a TestCase Local TestStep properties : several TestStep types maintain their own list of properties specific to their functionality : DataSource, DataSink, Run TestCase MockServices : for handling MockService scoped values/arguments MockResponses : for handling MockResponse scoped values Global Properties : for handling Global properties, optionally from an external source For our example, we will be defining a custom property in a TestCase called SimpleAsyncPayload. The property can be created in either the Custom Properties tab located at the bottom of the Navigator panel when the TestCase is selected in the Navigator or the Properties label in the TestCase editor: Navigator Panel TestCase Editor You will notice that I set a value of “0” for the custom property. For this simplified example, we will need to retrieve that value and manipulate it prior to making the web service request invocation. In order to accomplish this, we will need to get Groovy ;) Let's Get Groovy We will now add a new Groovy Script step to the TestCase called Manipulate Payload: TestCase Editor > Append Step > Groovy Script Once we have added the Groovy Script step to our TestCase, we can open the Groovy Script editor to add the code to: Get the current value of the property we created called SimpleAsyncPayload. Convert the value of the property to an integer. Increment the value. Store the incremented value back into the TestCase property called SimpleAsyncPayload. The script should look something like the following: Groovy Script Editor – Manipulate Payload At this point we can test the script to see if it is working by simply running the TestCase (left-click on the green triangle in the upper left-hand corner of the TestCase editor). To verify if it ran correctly, we can look at the value of the SimpleAsyncPayload property which should now be 1: TestCase Editor – Run Results All that is left to complete the TestCase is to append another step of type Test Request. The information required to append the request is a name and an operation to invoke. In this example we will use the default name and select the SimpleAsyncBPELProcessBingd -> process as the operation (any other information being requested, simply use the defaults unless you are calling an asynchronous operation then do not add any assertions). We are now in familiar ground with the Test Request editor. Depending upon the type of operation you are invoking (synchronous or asynchronous), please update the request with the necessary information (e.g., callback information for asynchronous operations). We will now tweak the Test Request payload to retrieve the value of the SimpleAsyncPayload property. The soapUI editor makes this very simple: right-click in the payload and navigate to the property (e.g., right-click > Get Data.. > TestCase: [Groovy TestCase] > Property [SimpleAsyncPayload]): Test Request Editor – Insert Property Value Your payload should now look something like the following: Test Request Editor – Inserted Property Value Just like before, we are now ready to run the TestCase. If everything goes as expected we should see a response like the following: Message Viewer – Results of TestCase Run We are now setup to be able to run a stress test where the payload will change for each request. This simple example can be expanded to include multiple payload values, complex calculations in the scripts, or whatever can be done via the soapUI scripting. Hopefully you have found this useful and happy testing to you :)

    Read the article

  • How to setup split test?

    - by John Isaacks
    I want to create a way to test different layouts on a page to see which get more conversions. For example. If I have 2 versions of a page and I send 50% to page A and 50% to page B and see which one converts more sales. So I am thinking maybe use .htaccess to rewrite half to page A and the other half to page B. But how can I do that with .htaccess is there a way? do I need to use PHP instead to do this? Also if there is a better way to do this, or any cautions I should be aware of, please let me know.

    Read the article

  • How do I get developers to treat test code as "real" code?

    - by womp
    In the last two companies I've been at, there is an overriding mentality among developers that it's okay to write unit tests in a throw-away style. Code that they would never write in the actual product suddenly becomes OK in the unit tests. I'm talking Rampant copying and pasting between tests Code styling rules not followed Hard-coded magic strings across tests No object-oriented thought or design for integration tests, mocks or helper objects (250 line single-function tests!) .. and so on. I'm highly dissatisfied with the quality of the test code. Generally we do not do code reviews on our test assemblies, and we also do not enforce style or code analysis of them on our build server. Is that the only way to overcome this inertia about test quality? I'm looking for ideas to take to our developers, without having to go to higher management saying that we need to use resources for enforcement of test quality (although I will if I have to). Any thoughts or similar experiences?

    Read the article

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