Search Results

Search found 10206 results on 409 pages for 'tooling and testing'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 48/409 | < Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >

  • How to apply verification and validation on the following example

    - by user970696
    I have been following verification and validation questions here with my colleagues, yet we are unable to see the slight differences, probably caused by language barrier in technical English. An example: Requirement specification User wants to control the lights in 4 rooms by remote command sent from the UI for each room separately. Functional specification The UI will contain 4 checkboxes labelled according to rooms they control. When a checkbox is checked, the signal is sent to corresponding light. A green dot appears next to the checkbox When a checkbox is unchecked, the signal (turn off) is sent to corresponding light. A red dot appears next to the checkbox. Let me start with what I learned here: Verification, according to many great answers here, ensures that product reflects specified requirements - as functional spec is done by a producer based on requirements from customer, this one will be verified for completeness, correctness). Then design document will be checked against functional spec (it should design 4 checkboxes..), and the source code against design (is there a code for 4 checkboxes, functions to send the signals etc. - is it traceable to requirements). Okay, product is built and we need to test it, validate. Here comes our understanding trouble - validation should ensure the product meets requirements for its specific intended use which is basically business requirement (does it work? can I control the lights from the UI?) but testers will definitely work with the functional spec, making sure the checkboxes are there, working, labelled, etc. They are basically checking whether the requirements in functional spec were met in the final product, isn't that verification? (should not be, lets stick to ISO 12207 that only validation is the actual testing)

    Read the article

  • When writing tests for a Wordpress plugin, should i run them inside wordpress or in a normal browser?

    - by Nicola Peluchetti
    I have started using BDD for a wordpress plugin i'm working on and i'm rewriting the js codebase to do tests. I've encountered a few problems but i'm going steady now, i was wondering if i had the right approach, because i'm writing test that should pass in a normal browser environment and not inside wordpress. I choose to do this because i want my plugin to be totally indipendent from the wordpress environment, i'm using requirejs in a way that i don't expose any globals and i'm loading my version of jQuery that doesn't override the one that ships with Wordpress. In this way my plugin would work the same on every wordpress version and my code would not break if they cheange the jQuery version or someone use my plugin on an old wordpress version. I wonder if this is the right approach or if i should always test inside the environment i'm working in. Since wordpress implies some globals i had to write some function purely for testing purpose, like "get_ajax_url": function() { if( typeof window.ajaxurl === "undefined" ) { return "http://localhost/wordpress/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php"; } else { return window.ajaxurl; } }, but apart from that i got everything working right. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Advice on choosing a book to read

    - by Kioshiki
    I would like to ask for some recommendations on useful books to read. Initially I had intended on posting quite a long description of my current issue and asking for advice. But I realised that I didn’t have a clear idea of what I wanted to ask. One thing that is clear to me is that my knowledge in various areas needs improving and reading is one method of doing that. Though choosing the right book to read seems like a task in itself when there are so many books out there. I am a programmer but I also deal with analysis, design & testing. So I am not sure what type of book to read. One option might be to work through two books at the same time. I had thought maybe one about design or practices and another of a more technical focus. Recently I came across one book that I thought might be useful to read: http://xunitpatterns.com/index.html It seems like an interesting book, but the comments I read on amazon.co.uk show that the book is probably longer than it needs to be. Has anyone read it and can comment on this? Another book that I already own and would probably be a good one to finish reading is this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Code-Complete-Practical-Handbook-Construction/dp/0735619670/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309438553&sr=8-1 Has anyone else read this who can comment on its usefulness? Beyond these two I currently have no clear idea of what to read. I have thought about reading a book related to OO design or the GOF design patterns. But I wonder if I am worrying too much about the process and practices and not focusing on the actual work. I would be very grateful for any suggestions or comments. Many Thanks, Kioshiki

    Read the article

  • tdd is about design not verification what does it concretely mean?

    - by sigo
    I've been wondering about this. What do we exactly mean by design and verification. Should I just apply tdd to make sure my code is SOLID and not check is correct external behaviour ? Should I use Bdd for the correct behaviour part ? Where I get confused also is regarding TDD code katas, to me they looked like more about verification than design... shouldn't they be called bdd katas instead of tdd katas? I reckon that for example uncle bob bowling kata leads in the end to a simple and nice internal design but I felt that most of the process was more around vérification than design. Design seemed to be a side effect of testing incrementally the external behaviour. I didnt feel so much that we were focusing most of our efforts on design but more on vérification. While normally we are told the contrary, that in TDD, verification is a side effect, design is the main purpose. So my question is what should i focus exactly on when i do tdd: SOLID, external Api usability, what else...? And how can I do that without being focused on verification ? What do you guys focus your energy on when you are practicing TDD ?

    Read the article

  • Are injectable classes allowed to have constructor parameters in DI?

    - by Songo
    Given the following code: class ClientClass{ public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $parser= new Parser($inputString); $result= $parser->parse(); } } class Parser{ private $inputString; public __construct($inputString){ $this->inputString=$inputString; } public function parse(){ //some code } } Now the ClientClass has dependency on class Parser. However, if I wanted to use Dependency Injection for unit testing it would cause a problem because now I can't send the input string to the parser constructor like before as its calculated inside ClientCalss itself: class ClientClass{ private $parser; public __construct(Parser $parser){ $this->parser=$parser; } public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $result= $this->parser->parse(); //--> will throw an exception since no string was provided } } The only solution I found was to modify all my classes that took parameters in their constructors to utilize Setters instead (example: setInputString()). However, I think there might be a better solution than this because sometimes modifying existing classes can cause much harm than benefit. So, Are injectable classes not allowed to have input parameters? If a class must take input parameters in its constructor, what would be the way to inject it properly? UPDATE Just for clarification, the problem happens when in my production code I decide to do this: $clientClass= new ClientClass(new Parser($inputString));//--->I have no way to predict $inputString as it is calculated inside `ClientClass` itself. UPDATE 2 Again for clarification, I'm trying to find a general solution to the problem not for this example code only because some of my classes have 2, 3 or 4 parameters in their constructors not only one.

    Read the article

  • Access a PLESK website before propagation?

    - by RCNeil
    My web host uses Plesk and I want to know if there is anyway to access and view a website (with PHP and other processes being functional) without propagation of the domain name? I have found countless forums on this but they are all pretty old (circa 01-04) and involve either tricking your localhost or SSH commands and some even result in terrible security risks. I would like to access a web page directory through a browser and see it's contents while having the PHP processes carry out... before I propagate it's potential domain name. People claim this is pointless but during a site migration why on earth would you not test a site before propagating it? I'm looking for something similar to what cPanel offers i.e. http://IP.ADDRESS./~mydomain.com The only solution I could think of is storing the site in a new directory of an already functional site and then setting up databases and testing the site once it's complete. Once tested and working I should be easily be able to migrate the files to the "new" domain name's root directory and just setup a new databases and then propagate the domain name. I can't believe that Plesk V10+ still does not have a site preview method that includes PHP, JS, and Flash ability.

    Read the article

  • "TDD is about design, not verification"; concretely, what does that mean?

    - by sigo
    I've been wondering about this. What do we exactly mean by design and verification. Should I just apply TDD to make sure my code is SOLID and not check if it's external behaviour is correct? Should I use BDD for verifying the behaviour is correct? Where I get confused also is regarding TDD code Katas, to me they looked like more about verification than design; shouldn't they be called BDD Katas instead of TDD Katas? I reckon that for example the Uncle Bob bowling Kata leads in the end to a simple and nice internal design but I felt that most of the process was centred more around verification than design. Design seemed to be a side effect of testing the external behaviour incrementally. I didn't feel so much that we were focusing most of our efforts on design but more on verification. While normally we are told the contrary, that in TDD, verification is a side effect, design is the main purpose. So my question is what should I focus on exactly, when I do TDD: SOLID, external API usability, or something else? And how can I do that without being focused on verification? What do you guys focus your energy on when you are practising TDD?

    Read the article

  • Please recommend the best tools to build a test plan management tool

    - by fzkl
    I have mostly worked on hardware testing in my professional career and would like to get onto the software development side. I thought working on a practically usable project will help motivate me and help acquire some skills. I have decided to build a test plan management tool for the QA team I work in (We use excel sheets!). The test plan management tool should be browser based and should support this: There would be many test plans, each test plan having test sets, test sets having test cases and test cases having instructions, attachments and Pass/fail status marking and bug info in case of failure. It should also have an export to excel option. I have a visual picture of the tool I am looking to build but I don't have enough experience to figure our where to start. My current programming skills are limited to C and shell programming and I want to pick up python. What tools (programming language, database and anything else?) would you recommend for me to get this done? Also what are the key concepts in the recommended programming language that I should focus on to build a browser based tool like this?

    Read the article

  • How to implement isValid correctly?

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to provide a mechanism for validating my object like this: class SomeObject { private $_inputString; private $_errors=array(); public function __construct($inputString) { $this->_inputString = $inputString; } public function getErrors() { return $this->_errors; } public function isValid() { $isValid = preg_match("/Some regular expression here/", $this->_inputString); if($isValid==0){ $this->_errors[]= 'Error was found in the input'; } return $isValid==1; } } Then when I'm testing my code I'm doing it like this: $obj = new SomeObject('an INVALID input string'); $isValid = $obj->isValid(); $errors=$obj->getErrors(); $this->assertFalse($isValid); $this->assertNotEmpty($errors); Now the test passes correctly, but I noticed a design problem here. What if the user called $obj->getErrors() before calling $obj->isValid()? The test will fail because the user has to validate the object first before checking the error resulting from validation. I think this way the user depends on a sequence of action to work properly which I think is a bad thing because it exposes the internal behaviour of the class. How do I solve this problem? Should I tell the user explicitly to validate first? Where do I mention that? Should I change the way I validate? Is there a better solution for this? UPDATE: I'm still developing the class so changes are easy and renaming functions and refactoring them is possible.

    Read the article

  • How to use lists in equivalence partitioning?

    - by KhDonen
    I have read that equivalence partitioning can be used typically for intervals or lists, e.g. I assume it can be used for every set of inputs. Anyway if the requirement says that allowed colors are (RED,BLUE,BLACK, GREEN), I cannot treat them like a list, right? I mean, testing one of them would not be enough because developers most likely used some switch-case and thus it is not real "set" where one could represent also the others. So how it is meant with lists? Also what is not that clear to me, I do not think it is always possible to do the initial partioning and then design the test cases. What about checking two lines intersection: Y=MX+C. (two inputs) 1) The lines are paraller. M1=M1 but C1 must be different from C2. 2) Lines are intersecting. M1 must be different from M2. 3) Coincident. The are the same. How can I use partitioning here? THis is actually taken from a book and it says that these sets are eq.classes.

    Read the article

  • Tips for Making this Code Testable [migrated]

    - by Jesse Bunch
    So I'm writing an abstraction layer that wraps a telephony RESTful service for sending text messages and making phone calls. I should build this in such a way that the low-level provider, in this case Twilio, can be easily swapped without having to re-code the higher level interactions. I'm using a package that is pre-built for Twilio and so I'm thinking that I need to create a wrapper interface to standardize the interaction between the Twilio service package and my application. Let us pretend that I cannot modify this pre-built package. Here is what I have so far (in PHP): <?php namespace Telephony; class Provider_Twilio implements Provider_Interface { public function send_sms(Provider_Request_SMS $request) { if (!$request->is_valid()) throw new Provider_Exception_InvalidRequest(); $sms = \Twilio\Twilio::request('SmsMessage'); $response = $sms->create(array( 'To' => $request->to, 'From' => $request->from, 'Body' => $request->body )); if ($this->_did_request_fail($response)) { throw new Provider_Exception_RequestFailed($response->message); } $response = new Provider_Response_SMS(TRUE); return $response; } private function _did_request_fail($api_response) { return isset($api_response->status); } } So the idea is that I can write another file like this for any other telephony service provided that it implements Provider_Interface making them swappable. Here are my questions: First off, do you think this is a good design? How could it be improved? Second, I'm having a hard time testing this because I need to mock out the Twilio package so that I'm not actually depending on Twilio's API for my tests to pass or fail. Do you see any strategy for mocking this out? Thanks in advance for any advice!

    Read the article

  • How to test chrome extensions?

    - by swampsjohn
    Is there a good way to do this? I'm writing an extension that interacts with a website as a content script and saves data using localstorage. Are there any tools, frameworks, etc. that I can use to test this behavior? I realize there are some generic tools for testing javascript, but are those sufficiently power to test an extension? Unit testing is most important, but I'm also interested in other types of testing (such as integration testing).

    Read the article

  • Testing HTTP status codes

    - by amusero
    I'm running an Apache Tomcat server. Making some security testing I'd noticed than my server is returning a 200 HTTP status code of the default error page when I try to access to a non-existent element instead of return a 404 status code and redirect me to the default error page. I suspect that this is not the only fail with this issue. Anyone can suggest me a process to chech the most common HTTP status codes?

    Read the article

  • Plugins stopped working in Chromium in Debian Testing

    - by Jan Hudec
    Short time ago plugins stopped working in chromium. Neither of kpartsplugin, mozplugger nor flashplayer-nonfree seem to work. Neither comes up in chrome://plugins page (only "Chromoting Viewer" does). Was there recently any change that would require reconfiguration? And if, of what? I have Debian Testing (Jessie) amd64, recently updated, with chromium 35.0.1916.114-2, flashplugin-nonfree 1:3.4, kpartsplugin 20120605-1 and mozplugger 1.14.5-2.

    Read the article

  • Library to fake intermittent failures according to tester-defined policy?

    - by crosstalk
    I'm looking for a library that I can use to help mock a program component that works only intermittently - usually, it works fine, but sometimes it fails. For example, suppose I need to read data from a file, and my program has to avoid crashing or hanging when a read fails due to a disk head crash. I'd like to model that by having a mock data reader function that returns mock data 90% of the time, but hangs or returns garbage otherwise. Or, if I'm stress-testing my full program, I could turn on debugging code in my real data reader module to make it return real data 90% of the time and hang otherwise. Now, obviously, in this particular example I could just code up my mock manually to test against a random() routine. However, I was looking for a system that allows implementing any failure policy I want, including: Fail randomly 10% of the time Succeed 10 times, fail 4 times, repeat Fail semi-randomly, such that one failure tends to be followed by a burst of more failures Any policy the tester wants to define Furthermore, I'd like to be able to change the failure policy at runtime, using either code internal to the program under test, or external knobs or switches (though the latter can be implemented with the former). In pig-Java, I'd envision a FailureFaker interface like so: interface FailureFaker { /** Return true if and only if the mocked operation succeeded. Implementors should override this method with versions consistent with their failure policy. */ public boolean attempt(); } And each failure policy would be a class implementing FailureFaker; for example there would be a PatternFailureFaker that would succeed N times, then fail M times, then repeat, and a AlwaysFailFailureFaker that I'd use temporarily when I need to simulate, say, someone removing the external hard drive my data was on. The policy could then be used (and changed) in my mock object code like so: class MyMockComponent { FailureFaker faker; public void doSomething() { if (faker.attempt()) { // ... } else { throw new RuntimeException(); } } void setFailurePolicy (FailureFaker policy) { this.faker = policy; } } Now, this seems like something that would be part of a mocking library, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's been done before. (In fact, I got the idea from Steve Maguire's Writing Solid Code, where he discusses this exact idea on pages 228-231, saying that such facilities were common in Microsoft code of that early-90's era.) However, I'm only familiar with EasyMock and jMockit for Java, and neither AFAIK have this function, or something similar with different syntax. Hence, the question: Do such libraries as I've described above exist? If they do, where have you found them useful? If you haven't found them useful, why not?

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to repeat code for unit tests?

    - by Pete
    I wrote some sorting algorithms for a class assignment and I also wrote a few tests to make sure the algorithms were implemented correctly. My tests are only like 10 lines long and there are 3 of them but only 1 line changes between the 3 so there is a lot of repeated code. Is it better to refactor this code into another method that is then called from each test? Wouldn't I then need to write another test to test the refactoring? Some of the variables can even be moved up to the class level. Should testing classes and methods follow the same rules as regular classes/methods? Here's an example: [TestMethod] public void MergeSortAssertArrayIsSorted() { int[] a = new int[1000]; Random rand = new Random(DateTime.Now.Millisecond); for(int i = 0; i < a.Length; i++) { a[i] = rand.Next(Int16.MaxValue); } int[] b = new int[1000]; a.CopyTo(b, 0); List<int> temp = b.ToList(); temp.Sort(); b = temp.ToArray(); MergeSort merge = new MergeSort(); merge.mergeSort(a, 0, a.Length - 1); CollectionAssert.AreEqual(a, b); } [TestMethod] public void InsertionSortAssertArrayIsSorted() { int[] a = new int[1000]; Random rand = new Random(DateTime.Now.Millisecond); for (int i = 0; i < a.Length; i++) { a[i] = rand.Next(Int16.MaxValue); } int[] b = new int[1000]; a.CopyTo(b, 0); List<int> temp = b.ToList(); temp.Sort(); b = temp.ToArray(); InsertionSort merge = new InsertionSort(); merge.insertionSort(a); CollectionAssert.AreEqual(a, b); }

    Read the article

  • Is it reasonable to insist on reproducing every defect before diagnosing and fixing it?

    - by amphibient
    I work for a software product company. We have large enterprise customers who implement our product and we provide support to them. For example, if there is a defect, we provide patches, etc. In other words, It is a fairly typical setup. Recently, a ticket was issued and assigned to me regarding an exception that a customer found in a log file and that has to do with concurrent database access in a clustered implementation of our product. So the specific configuration of this customer may well be critical in the occurrence of this bug. All we got from the customer was their log file. The approach I proposed to my team was to attempt to reproduce the bug in a similar configuration setup as that of the customer and get a comparable log. However, they disagree with my approach saying that I should not need to reproduce the bug (as that is overly time-consuming and will require simulating a server cluster on VMs) and that I should simply "follow the code" to see where the thread- and/or transaction-unsafe code is and put the change working off of a simple local development, which is not a cluster implementation like the environment from which the occurrence of the bug originates. To me, working out of an abstract blueprint (program code) rather than a concrete, tangible, visible manifestation (runtime reproduction) seems like a difficult working environment (for a person of normal cognitive abilities and attention span), so I wanted to ask a general question: Is it reasonable to insist on reproducing every defect and debug it before diagnosing and fixing it? Or: If I am a senior developer, should I be able to read (multithreaded) code and create a mental picture of what it does in all use case scenarios rather than require to run the application, test different use case scenarios hands on, and step through the code line by line? Or am I a poor developer for demanding that kind of work environment? Is debugging for sissies? In my opinion, any fix submitted in response to an incident ticket should be tested in an environment simulated to be as close to the original environment as possible. How else can you know that it will really remedy the issue? It is like releasing a new model of a vehicle without crash testing it with a dummy to demonstrate that the air bags indeed work. Last but not least, if you agree with me: How should I talk with my team to convince them that my approach is reasonable, conservative and more bulletproof?

    Read the article

  • Speed up MySQL for inserts (for testing purposes)

    - by Alex N
    I have a bit of software that needs to do a lot of INSERTs. In production environment there'll be some serious tweaking and testing and stuff like that, but now when I need to test it I'd like to speed up inserts as much as possible. Hence my question - is there a way to tweak mysql such that it doesn't do much disk I/O but keeps everything in RAM and syncs with disk rarely(like once n-seconds say?)

    Read the article

  • Using NSpec at various architectural layers

    - by nono
    Having read the quick start at nspec.org, I realized that NSpec might be a useful tool in a scenario which was becoming a bit cumbersome with NUnit alone. I'm adding an OAuth (or, DotNetOpenAuth) to a website and quickly made a mess of writing test methods such as [Test] public void UserIsLoggedInLocallyPriorToInvokingExternalLoginAndExternalLoginSucceedsAndExternalProviderIdIsNotAlreadyAssociatedWithUserAccount() { ... } ... and I wound up with maybe a dozen permutations of this theme, for the user already being logged in locally and not locally, the external login succeeding or failing, etc. Not only were the method names unwieldy, but every test needed a setup that contained parts in common with a different set of other tests. I realized that NSpec's incremental setup capabilities would work great for this, and for a while I was trucking a long wonderfully, with code like act = () => { actionResult = controller.ExternalLoginCallback(returnUrl); }; context["The user is already logged in"] = () => { before = () => identity.Setup(x => x.IsAuthenticated).Returns(true); context["The external login succeeds"] = () => { before = () => oauth.Setup(x => x.VerifyAuthentication(It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(new AuthenticationResult(true, providerName, "provideruserid", "username", new Dictionary<string, string>())); context["External login already exists for current user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Should add 'login sucessful' alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("Login successful"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Success); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; context["External login already exists for another user"] = () => { before = () => authService.Setup(x => x.ExternalLoginExistsForAnyOtherUser(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>())).Returns(true); it["Adds an error alert"] = () => { var alerts = (IList<Alert>)controller.TempData[TempDataKeys.AlertCollection]; alerts[0].Message.should_be_same("The external login you requested is already associated with a different user account"); alerts[0].AlertType.should_be(AlertType.Error); }; it["Should return a redirect result"] = () => actionResult.should_cast_to<RedirectToRouteResult>(); }; This approach seemed to work magnificently until I prepared to write test code for my ApplicationServices layer, to which I delegate viewmodel manipulation from my MVC controllers, and which coordinates the operations of the lower data repository layer: public void CreateUserAccountFromExternalLogin(RegisterExternalLoginModel model) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void AssociateExternalLoginWithUser(string userName, string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public string GetLocalUserName(string provider, string providerUserId) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } I have no idea what in the world to name the test class, the test methods, or even if I should perhaps include the testing for this layer into the test class from my large code snippet above, so that a single feature or user action could be tested without regard to architectural layering. I can't find any tutorials or blog posts which cover more than simple examples, so I would appreciate any recommendations or pointing in the right direction. I would even welcome "your question is invalid"-type answers as long as some explanation is provided.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >