Search Results

Search found 11400 results on 456 pages for 'automated testing'.

Page 49/456 | < Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >

  • SFTP (or similar) server automated setup for group spaces

    - by spikeheap
    I need to build a dedicated machine which will be used to allow our clients to upload and download files in a secure manner. Each client has multiple users, and I would rather not hand out generic client users which are used by multiple people. Each client should have access to their files only, and no others. There is no use-case (yet) for multiple clients interacting with a single file or space. Is there an existing solution to automating the creation and maintenance of these accounts, preferably with a view to integration with LDAP? Currently it looks like if we want to use SFTP with chrooted spaces they will need to be set up manually (or an automation hand-rolled). If a solution exists for a different (but still secure) transfer method, such as FTPS, I'm all ears.

    Read the article

  • T-4 Templates for ASP.NET Web Form Databound Control Friendly Logical Layers

    - by joycsharp
    I just released an open source project at codeplex, which includes a set of T-4 templates to enable you to build logical layers (i.e. DAL/BLL) with just few clicks! The logical layers implemented here are  based on Entity Framework 4.0, ASP.NET Web Form Data Bound control friendly and fully unit testable. In this open source project you will get Entity Framework 4.0 based T-4 templates for following types of logical layers: Data Access Layer: Entity Framework 4.0 provides excellent ORM data access layer. It also includes support for T-4 templates, as built-in code generation strategy in Visual Studio 2010, where we can customize default structure of data access layer based on Entity Framework. default structure of data access layer has been enhanced to get support for mock testing in Entity Framework 4.0 object model. Business Logic Layer: ASP.NET web form based data bound control friendly business logic layer, which will enable you few clicks to build data bound web applications on top of ASP.NET Web Form and Entity Framework 4.0 quickly with great support of mock testing. Download it to make your web development productive. Enjoy!

    Read the article

  • How to search for a tester?

    - by MainMa
    As a freelance developer, a few times I tried to find some testers to be able to let them test my software/web applications. If I try to find them, it's because most of the customers are not intended to hire external testers and don't see why this can benefit to them, so products are UI-untested and buggy. I tried lots of things. Discussion boards for IT people, specific websites for people who search for a job. Every time I clearly precise that I'm looking for product testers. I completely failed to find anybody for this job. I found instead two types of people: Non IT people who try to qualify as testers, but don't have enough skills for that, and don't really know what testing is and how to do it, Programmers, who are skilled as programmers, but not as testers, and who mostly don't understand neither what testing is about (or think it's the same thing as code review, or it consists in writing unit tests). Of course, they submit general programmers resumes, where they describe their high experience in Assembler and C++, but don't tell anything about anything related to the job of a tester. What I'm doing wrong? Isn't it called "tester"? Is there at least a tester job, different from general programming job? Is there any precise requirement to require from each candidate which can eliminate non IT people and general programmers?

    Read the article

  • Have unit test generators helped you when working with legacy code?

    - by Duncan Bayne
    I am looking at a small (~70kLOC including generated) C# (.NET 4.0, some Silverlight) code-base that has very low test coverage. The code itself works in that it has passed user acceptance testing, but it is brittle and in some areas not very well factored. I would like to add solid unit test coverage around the legacy code using the usual suspects (NMock, NUnit, StatLight for the Silverlight bits). My normal approach is to start working through the project, unit testing & refactoring, until I am satisfied with the state of the code. I've done this many times in the past, and it's worked well. However, this time I'm thinking of using a test generator (in particular Pex) to create the test framework, then manually fleshing it out. My question is: have you used unit test generators in the past when commencing work on a legacy codebase, and if so, would you recommend them? My fear is that the generated tests will miss the semantic nuances of the code-base, leading to the dreaded situation of having tests for the sake of the coverage metric, rather than tests which clearly express the intended behaviour in code.

    Read the article

  • System testing - making sure the system conforms to specification. Validation?

    - by user970696
    After weeks of research I have nearly completed my thesis, yet I am unable to clear up my confusion contained in all previous threads here (and in many books): During system testing, we check the system function against system analysis (functional system design) - but that would fit to a definition of verification according to many books. But I follow ISO12207, which considers all testing as validation (making sure work product meets requirement for intended use). How can I justify that unit testing or system testing is validation, even though when I check it against specification? Which fullfils the definiton of verification? When testing that e.g. "Save button" works, is it validation? This picture shows my understanding of V&V, so different from many other sources, including ISTQB etc. Essential problem I have is that a book using the same picture also states on another place that: test activities in the area of validation are usability, alpha and beta testing. For verification, testable system requirements are defined whose correct implementation can be tested through system tests. Isn't that the opposite of what the picture says? Most books present the following picture, where validation is just making sure that customer needs are satisfied. Mind you that according to ISO, validation activity is testing.

    Read the article

  • How can I reduce the amount of time it takes to fully regression test an application ready for release?

    - by DrLazer
    An app I work on is being developed with a modified version of scrum. If you are not familiar with scrum, it's just an alternative approach to a more traditional watefall model, where a series of features are worked on for a set amount of time known as a sprint. The app is written in C# and makes use of WPF. We use Visual C# 2010 Express edition as an IDE. If we work on a sprint and add in a few new features, but do not plan to release until a further sprint is complete, then regression testing is not an issue as such. We just test the new features and give the app a good once over. However, if a release is planned that our customers can download - a full regression test is factored in. In the past this wasn't a big deal, it took 3 or 4 days and the devs simply fix up any bugs found in the regression phase, but now, as the app is getting larger and larger and incorporating more and more features, the regression is spanning out for weeks. I am interested in any methods that people know of or use that can decrease this time. At the moment the only ideas I have are to either start writing Unit Tests, which I have never fully tried out in a commercial environment, or to research the possibilty of any UI Automation API's or tools that would allow me to write a program to perform a series of batch tests. I know literally nothing about the possibilities of UI automation so any information would be valuable. I don't know that much about Unit testing either, how complicated can the tests be? Is it possible to get Unit tests to use the UI? Are there any other methods I should consider? Thanks for reading, and for any advice in advance. Edit: Thanks for the information. Does anybody know of any alternatives to what has been mentioned so far (NUnit, RhinoMocks and CodedUI)?

    Read the article

  • How would you TDD the functionality of getting the corresponding process of a running windows service?

    - by Matt Spinelli
    Purpose Over the last year or more I've been learning unit testing via books I've read recently like The Art of Unit Testing, Working Effectively with Legacy Code, and others. I've also been using unit tests, mocking frameworks, and the like, periodically at work and definitely see the value. However, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around TDD (as opposed to TAD) when the situation calls for code that is gong to mostly use external API calls. Problem to solve Get the process associated with a windows service using the service name. example: Function GetProcess(ByVal serviceName As String) As Process Rules Show each major iteration in production & test code using TDD No need to see any other code or configuration that is required to get things to run. Just curious about the interfaces, concrete classes, and test methods. C# or VB.NET Must use the .Net framework regarding services/processes (i.e. System.Diagnostics.Process) Test Frameworks: Nunit or MSTest Isolation Frameworks: Moq, Rhino Mock, or Microsoft Moles Must write true unit tests (no integration tests) Additional notes As far as I can tell there are two approaches design wise. Use an Inversion of Control approach along with using the Adapter and/or Facade patterns to wrap the underlying .net framework objects dealing with processes and services. Keep the .net framework code in the class containing the Get Process method and use code detouring (interception) via Microsoft Moles to isolate the hard dependencies from the method under test.

    Read the article

  • Copy-and-Pasted Test Code: How Bad is This?

    - by joshin4colours
    My current job is mostly writing GUI test code for various applications that we work on. However, I find that I tend to copy and paste a lot of code within tests. The reason for this is that the areas I'm testing tend to be similar enough to need repetition but not quite similar enough to encapsulate code into methods or objects. I find that when I try to use classes or methods more extensively, tests become more cumbersome to maintain and sometimes outright difficult to write in the first place. Instead, I usually copy a big chunk of test code from one section and paste it to another, and make any minor changes I need. I don't use more structured ways of coding, such as using more OO-principles or functions. Do other coders feel this way when writing test code? Obviously I want to follow DRY and YAGNI principles, but I find that test code (automated test code for GUI testing anyway) can make these principles tough to follow. Or do I just need more coding practice and a better overall system of doing things? EDIT: The tool I'm using is SilkTest, which is in a proprietary language called 4Test. As well, these tests are mostly for Windows desktop applications, but I also have tested web apps using this setup as well.

    Read the article

  • How to refactor a myriad of similar classes

    - by TobiMcNamobi
    I'm faced with similar classes A1, A2, ..., A100. Believe it or not but yeah, there are roughly hundred classes that almost look the same. None of these classes are unit tested (of course ;-) ). Each of theses classes is about 50 lines of code which is not too much by itself. Still this is way too much duplicated code. I consider the following options: Writing tests for A1, ..., A100. Then refactor by creating an abstract base class AA. Pro: I'm (near to totally) safe by the tests that nothing goes wrong. Con: Much effort. Duplication of test code. Writing tests for A1, A2. Abstracting the duplicated test code and using the abstraction to create the rest of the tests. Then create AA as in 1. Pro: Less effort than in 1 but maintaining a similar degree of safety. Con: I find generalized test code weird; it often seems ... incoherent (is this the right word?). Normally I prefer specialized test code for specialized classes. But that requires a good design which is my goal of this whole refactoring. Writing AA first, testing it with mock classes. Then inheriting A1, ..., A100 successively. Pro: Fastest way to eliminate duplicates. Con: Most Ax classes look very much the same. But if not, there is the danger of changing the code by inheriting from AA. Other options ... At first I went for 3. because the Ax classes are really very similar to each other. But now I'm a bit unsure if this is the right way (from a unit testing enthusiast's perspective).

    Read the article

  • Do you write unit tests for all the time in TDD?

    - by mcaaltuntas
    I have been designing and developing code with TDD style for a long time. What disturbs me about TDD is writing tests for code that does not contain any business logic or interesting behaviour. I know TDD is a design activity more than testing but sometimes I feel it's useless to write tests in these scenarios. For example I have a simple scenario like "When user clicks check button, it should check file's validity". For this scenario I usually start writing tests for presenter/controller class like the one below. @Test public void when_user_clicks_check_it_should_check_selected_file_validity(){ MediaService service =mock(MediaService); View view =mock(View); when(view.getSelectedFile).thenReturns("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); MediaController controller =new MediaController(service,view); controller.check(); verify(service).check("c:\\Dir\\file.avi"); } As you can see there is no design decision or interesting code to verify behaviour. I am testing values from view passed to MediaService. I usually write but don't like these kind of tests. What do yo do about these situations ? Do you write tests for all the time ? UPDATE : I have changed the test name and code after complaints. Some users said that you should write tests for the trivial cases like this so in the future someone might add interesting behaviour. But what about “Code for today, design for tomorrow.” ? If someone, including myself, adds more interesting code in the future the test can be created for it then. Why should I do it now for the trivial cases ?

    Read the article

  • Is wrapping a third party code the only solution to unit test its consumers? [closed]

    - by Songo
    I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Now some people argue that if a library is stable enough and won't change often then there is no need to wrap it. So assuming that Zend_Mail is stable and won't change and it fits my needs entirely, then I won't need a wrapper for it. Now take a look at my class Logger that depends on Zend_Mail: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Now is wrapping Zend_Mail the only solution or is there a better approach to this problem? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

    Read the article

  • How can I reduce the amount of time it takes to fully regression test an application ready for release?

    - by DrLazer
    An app I work on is being developed with a modified version of scrum. If you are not familiar with scrum, it's just an alternative approach to a more traditional watefall model, where a series of features are worked on for a set amount of time known as a sprint. The app is written in C# and makes use of WPF. We use Visual C# 2010 Express edition as an IDE. If we work on a sprint and add in a few new features, but do not plan to release until a further sprint is complete, then regression testing is not an issue as such. We just test the new features and give the app a good once over. However, if a release is planned that our customers can download - a full regression test is factored in. In the past this wasn't a big deal, it took 3 or 4 days and the devs simply fix up any bugs found in the regression phase, but now, as the app is getting larger and larger and incorporating more and more features, the regression is spanning out for weeks. I am interested in any methods that people know of or use that can decrease this time. At the moment the only ideas I have are to either start writing Unit Tests, which I have never fully tried out in a commercial environment, or to research the possibilty of any UI Automation API's or tools that would allow me to write a program to perform a series of batch tests. I know literally nothing about the possibilities of UI automation so any information would be valuable. I don't know that much about Unit testing either, how complicated can the tests be? Is it possible to get Unit tests to use the UI? Are there any other methods I should consider? Thanks for reading, and for any advice in advance.

    Read the article

  • Acceptance tests done first...how can this be accomplished?

    - by Crazy Eddie
    The basic gist of most Agile methods is that a feature is not "done" until it's been developed, tested, and in many cases released. This is supposed to happen in quick turnaround chunks of time such as "Sprints" in the Scrum process. A common part of Agile is also TDD, which states that tests are done first. My team works on a GUI program that does a lot of specific drawing and such. In order to provide tests, the testing team needs to be able to work with something that at least attempts to perform the things they are trying to test. We've found no way around this problem. I can very much see where they are coming from because if I was trying to write software that targeted some basically mysterious interface I'd have a very hard time. Although we have behavior fairly well specified, the exact process of interacting with various UI elements when it comes to automation seems to be too unique to a feature to allow testers to write automated scripts to drive something that does not exist. Even if we could, a lot of things end up turning up later as having been missing from the specification. One thing we considered doing was having the testers write test "scripts" that are more like a set of steps that must be performed, as described from a use-case perspective, so that they can be "automated" by a human being. This can then be performed by the developer(s) writing the feature and/or verified by someone else. When the testers later get an opportunity they automate the "script" for regression purposes mainly. This didn't end up catching on in the team though. The testing part of the team is actually falling behind us by quite a margin. This is one reason why the apparently extra time of developing a "script" for a human being to perform just did not happen....they're under a crunch to keep up with us developers. If we waited for them, we'd get nothing done. It's not their fault really, they're a bottle neck but they're doing what they should be and working as fast as possible. The process itself seems to be set up against them. Very often we end up having to go back a month or more in what we've done to fix bugs that the testers have finally gotten to checking. It's an ugly truth that I'd like to do something about. So what do other teams do to solve this fail cascade? How can we get testers ahead of us and how can we make it so that there's actually time for them to write tests for the features we do in a sprint without making us sit and twiddle our thumbs in the meantime? As it's currently going, in order to get a feature "done", using agile definitions, would be to have developers work for 1 week, then testers work the second week, and developers hopefully being able to fix all the bugs they come up with in the last couple days. That's just not going to happen, even if I agreed it was a reasonable solution. I need better ideas...

    Read the article

  • Flash-based Document Viewer/Converter (FlashPaper alternative, but with automated converter support)

    - by Mauricio
    Hey stackoverflow community, I am looking for a Document Viewer application that I can embed in a Flash/Flex application that supports Microsoft Office documents as well as PDF. I have looked into print2flash as a possibility, but their automated converter executable requires access to the files and directories. Does anyone know of other alternatives which would have .NET/Java/Other libraries to convert these files to a SWF that can do it based on the download stream, as opposed to the actual files? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Doubt about adopting CI (Hudson) into an existing automated Build Process (phing, svn)

    - by maraspin
    OUR CURRENT BUILD PROCESS We're a small team of developers (2 to 4 people depending on project) who currently use Phing to deploy code to a staging environment, before going live. We keep our code in a SVN repo, where the trunk holds current active development and, at certain times, we do make branches that we test and then (if successful), tag and export to the staging env. If everything goes well there too, we finally deploy'em in production servers. Actions are highly automated, but always triggered by human intervention. THE DOUBT We'd now like to introduce Continuous Integration (with Hudson) in the process; unfortunately we have a few doubts about activity syncing, since we're afraid that CI could somewhat interfere with our build process and cause certain problems. Considering that an automated CI cycle has a certain frequency of automatically executed actions, we in fact only see 2 possible cases for "integration", each with its own problems: Case A: each CI cycle produces a new branch with its own name; we do use such a name to manually (through phing as it happens now) export the code from the SVN to the staging env. The problem I see here is that (unless specific countermeasures are taken) the number of branches we have can grow out of control (let's suppose we commit often, so that we have a fresh new build/branch every N minutes). Case B: each CI cycle creates a new branch named 'current', for instance, which is tagged with a unique name only when we manually decide to export it to staging; the current branch, at any case is then deleted, as soon as the next CI cycle starts up. The problem we see here is that a new cycle could kick in while someone is tagging/exporting the 'current' branch to staging thus creating an inconsistent build (but maybe here I'm just too pessimist, since I confess I don't know whether SVN offers some built-in protection against this). With all this being said, I was wondering if anyone with similar experiences could be so kind to give us some hints on the subject, since none of the approaches depicted above looks completely satisfing to us. Is there something important we just completely left off in the overall picture? Thanks for your attention &, in advance, for your help!

    Read the article

  • .NET Automated Build Server Software

    - by KevinDeus
    What good .NET Continous Integration and Automated Build and Deployment Software is out there? We have been using CruiseControl.NET but it is really starting to get on our nerves with the amount of maintenance it needs. We're looking for something that virtually anybody can manage, and it would also really be good to not have to write a NAnt build script. We use Subversion for Source Controll

    Read the article

  • python django automated data addition

    - by zubin71
    I have a script which reads data from a csv file. I need to store the data into a database which has already been created as $ python manage.py syncdb so, that automated data entry is possible in an easier manner, as available in the django shell.

    Read the article

  • Programming Concepts That Were "Automated" By Modern Languages

    - by Ygam
    Weird question but here it is. What are the programming concepts that were "automated" by modern languages? What I mean are the concepts you had to manually do before. Here is an example: I have just read that in C, you manually do garbage collection; with "modern" languages however, the language itself takes care of it. Do you know of any other, or there aren't any more?

    Read the article

  • Convert from Procedural to Object Oriented Code

    - by Anthony
    I have been reading Working Effectively with Legacy Code and Clean Code with the goal of learning strategies on how to begin cleaning up the existing code-base of a large ASP.NET webforms application. This system has been around since 2005 and since then has undergone a number of enhancements. Originally the code was structured as follows (and is still largely structured this way): ASP.NET (aspx/ascx) Code-behind (c#) Business Logic Layer (c#) Data Access Layer (c#) Database (Oracle) The main issue is that the code is procedural masquerading as object-oriented. It virtually violates all of the guidelines described in both books. This is an example of a typical class in the Business Logic Layer: public class AddressBO { public TransferObject GetAddress(string addressID) { if (StringUtils.IsNull(addressID)) { throw new ValidationException("Address ID must be entered"); } AddressDAO addressDAO = new AddressDAO(); return addressDAO.GetAddress(addressID); } public TransferObject Insert(TransferObject addressDetails) { if (StringUtils.IsNull(addressDetails.GetString("EVENT_ID")) || StringUtils.IsNull(addressDetails.GetString("LOCALITY")) || StringUtils.IsNull(addressDetails.GetString("ADDRESS_TARGET")) || StringUtils.IsNull(addressDetails.GetString("ADDRESS_TYPE_CODE")) || StringUtils.IsNull(addressDetails.GetString("CREATED_BY"))) { throw new ValidationException( "You must enter an Event ID, Locality, Address Target, Address Type Code and Created By."); } string addressID = Sequence.GetNextValue("ADDRESS_ID_SEQ"); addressDetails.SetValue("ADDRESS_ID", addressID); string syncID = Sequence.GetNextValue("SYNC_ID_SEQ"); addressDetails.SetValue("SYNC_ADDRESS_ID", syncID); TransferObject syncDetails = new TransferObject(); Transaction transaction = new Transaction(); try { AddressDAO addressDAO = new AddressDAO(); addressDAO.Insert(addressDetails, transaction); // insert the record for the target TransferObject addressTargetDetails = new TransferObject(); switch (addressDetails.GetString("ADDRESS_TARGET")) { case "PARTY_ADDRESSES": { addressTargetDetails.SetValue("ADDRESS_ID", addressID); addressTargetDetails.SetValue("ADDRESS_TYPE_CODE", addressDetails.GetString("ADDRESS_TYPE_CODE")); addressTargetDetails.SetValue("PARTY_ID", addressDetails.GetString("PARTY_ID")); addressTargetDetails.SetValue("EVENT_ID", addressDetails.GetString("EVENT_ID")); addressTargetDetails.SetValue("CREATED_BY", addressDetails.GetString("CREATED_BY")); addressDAO.InsertPartyAddress(addressTargetDetails, transaction); break; } case "PARTY_CONTACT_ADDRESSES": { addressTargetDetails.SetValue("ADDRESS_ID", addressID); addressTargetDetails.SetValue("ADDRESS_TYPE_CODE", addressDetails.GetString("ADDRESS_TYPE_CODE")); addressTargetDetails.SetValue("PUBLIC_RELEASE_FLAG", addressDetails.GetString("PUBLIC_RELEASE_FLAG")); addressTargetDetails.SetValue("CONTACT_ID", addressDetails.GetString("CONTACT_ID")); addressTargetDetails.SetValue("EVENT_ID", addressDetails.GetString("EVENT_ID")); addressTargetDetails.SetValue("CREATED_BY", addressDetails.GetString("CREATED_BY")); addressDAO.InsertContactAddress(addressTargetDetails, transaction); break; } << many more cases here >> default: { break; } } // synchronise SynchronisationBO synchronisationBO = new SynchronisationBO(); syncDetails = synchronisationBO.Synchronise("I", transaction, "ADDRESSES", addressDetails.GetString("ADDRESS_TARGET"), addressDetails, addressTargetDetails); // commit transaction.Commit(); } catch (Exception) { transaction.Rollback(); throw; } return new TransferObject("ADDRESS_ID", addressID, "SYNC_DETAILS", syncDetails); } << many more methods are here >> } It has a lot of duplication, the class has a number of responsibilities, etc, etc - it is just generally 'un-clean' code. All of the code throughout the system is dependent on concrete implementations. This is an example of a typical class in the Data Access Layer: public class AddressDAO : GenericDAO { public static readonly string BASE_SQL_ADDRESSES = "SELECT " + " a.address_id, " + " a.event_id, " + " a.flat_unit_type_code, " + " fut.description as flat_unit_description, " + " a.flat_unit_num, " + " a.floor_level_code, " + " fl.description as floor_level_description, " + " a.floor_level_num, " + " a.building_name, " + " a.lot_number, " + " a.street_number, " + " a.street_name, " + " a.street_type_code, " + " st.description as street_type_description, " + " a.street_suffix_code, " + " ss.description as street_suffix_description, " + " a.postal_delivery_type_code, " + " pdt.description as postal_delivery_description, " + " a.postal_delivery_num, " + " a.locality, " + " a.state_code, " + " s.description as state_description, " + " a.postcode, " + " a.country, " + " a.lock_num, " + " a.created_by, " + " TO_CHAR(a.created_datetime, '" + SQL_DATETIME_FORMAT + "') as created_datetime, " + " a.last_updated_by, " + " TO_CHAR(a.last_updated_datetime, '" + SQL_DATETIME_FORMAT + "') as last_updated_datetime, " + " a.sync_address_id, " + " a.lat," + " a.lon, " + " a.validation_confidence, " + " a.validation_quality, " + " a.validation_status " + "FROM ADDRESSES a, FLAT_UNIT_TYPES fut, FLOOR_LEVELS fl, STREET_TYPES st, " + " STREET_SUFFIXES ss, POSTAL_DELIVERY_TYPES pdt, STATES s " + "WHERE a.flat_unit_type_code = fut.flat_unit_type_code(+) " + "AND a.floor_level_code = fl.floor_level_code(+) " + "AND a.street_type_code = st.street_type_code(+) " + "AND a.street_suffix_code = ss.street_suffix_code(+) " + "AND a.postal_delivery_type_code = pdt.postal_delivery_type_code(+) " + "AND a.state_code = s.state_code(+) "; public TransferObject GetAddress(string addressID) { //Build the SELECT Statement StringBuilder selectStatement = new StringBuilder(BASE_SQL_ADDRESSES); //Add WHERE condition selectStatement.Append(" AND a.address_id = :addressID"); ArrayList parameters = new ArrayList{DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("addressID", OracleDbType.Decimal, addressID)}; // Execute the SELECT statement Query query = new Query(); DataSet results = query.Execute(selectStatement.ToString(), parameters); // Check if 0 or more than one rows returned if (results.Tables[0].Rows.Count == 0) { throw new NoDataFoundException(); } if (results.Tables[0].Rows.Count > 1) { throw new TooManyRowsException(); } // Return a TransferObject containing the values return new TransferObject(results); } public void Insert(TransferObject insertValues, Transaction transaction) { // Store Values string addressID = insertValues.GetString("ADDRESS_ID"); string syncAddressID = insertValues.GetString("SYNC_ADDRESS_ID"); string eventID = insertValues.GetString("EVENT_ID"); string createdBy = insertValues.GetString("CREATED_BY"); // postal delivery string postalDeliveryTypeCode = insertValues.GetString("POSTAL_DELIVERY_TYPE_CODE"); string postalDeliveryNum = insertValues.GetString("POSTAL_DELIVERY_NUM"); // unit/building string flatUnitTypeCode = insertValues.GetString("FLAT_UNIT_TYPE_CODE"); string flatUnitNum = insertValues.GetString("FLAT_UNIT_NUM"); string floorLevelCode = insertValues.GetString("FLOOR_LEVEL_CODE"); string floorLevelNum = insertValues.GetString("FLOOR_LEVEL_NUM"); string buildingName = insertValues.GetString("BUILDING_NAME"); // street string lotNumber = insertValues.GetString("LOT_NUMBER"); string streetNumber = insertValues.GetString("STREET_NUMBER"); string streetName = insertValues.GetString("STREET_NAME"); string streetTypeCode = insertValues.GetString("STREET_TYPE_CODE"); string streetSuffixCode = insertValues.GetString("STREET_SUFFIX_CODE"); // locality/state/postcode/country string locality = insertValues.GetString("LOCALITY"); string stateCode = insertValues.GetString("STATE_CODE"); string postcode = insertValues.GetString("POSTCODE"); string country = insertValues.GetString("COUNTRY"); // esms address string esmsAddress = insertValues.GetString("ESMS_ADDRESS"); //address/GPS string lat = insertValues.GetString("LAT"); string lon = insertValues.GetString("LON"); string zoom = insertValues.GetString("ZOOM"); //string validateDate = insertValues.GetString("VALIDATED_DATE"); string validatedBy = insertValues.GetString("VALIDATED_BY"); string confidence = insertValues.GetString("VALIDATION_CONFIDENCE"); string status = insertValues.GetString("VALIDATION_STATUS"); string quality = insertValues.GetString("VALIDATION_QUALITY"); // the insert statement StringBuilder insertStatement = new StringBuilder("INSERT INTO ADDRESSES ("); StringBuilder valuesStatement = new StringBuilder("VALUES ("); ArrayList parameters = new ArrayList(); // build the insert statement insertStatement.Append("ADDRESS_ID, EVENT_ID, CREATED_BY, CREATED_DATETIME, LOCK_NUM "); valuesStatement.Append(":addressID, :eventID, :createdBy, SYSDATE, 1 "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("addressID", OracleDbType.Decimal, addressID)); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("eventID", OracleDbType.Decimal, eventID)); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("createdBy", OracleDbType.Varchar2, createdBy)); // build the insert statement if (!StringUtils.IsNull(syncAddressID)) { insertStatement.Append(", SYNC_ADDRESS_ID"); valuesStatement.Append(", :syncAddressID"); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("syncAddressID", OracleDbType.Decimal, syncAddressID)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(postalDeliveryTypeCode)) { insertStatement.Append(", POSTAL_DELIVERY_TYPE_CODE"); valuesStatement.Append(", :postalDeliveryTypeCode "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("postalDeliveryTypeCode", OracleDbType.Varchar2, postalDeliveryTypeCode)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(postalDeliveryNum)) { insertStatement.Append(", POSTAL_DELIVERY_NUM"); valuesStatement.Append(", :postalDeliveryNum "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("postalDeliveryNum", OracleDbType.Varchar2, postalDeliveryNum)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(flatUnitTypeCode)) { insertStatement.Append(", FLAT_UNIT_TYPE_CODE"); valuesStatement.Append(", :flatUnitTypeCode "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("flatUnitTypeCode", OracleDbType.Varchar2, flatUnitTypeCode)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(lat)) { insertStatement.Append(", LAT"); valuesStatement.Append(", :lat "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("lat", OracleDbType.Decimal, lat)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(lon)) { insertStatement.Append(", LON"); valuesStatement.Append(", :lon "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("lon", OracleDbType.Decimal, lon)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(zoom)) { insertStatement.Append(", ZOOM"); valuesStatement.Append(", :zoom "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("zoom", OracleDbType.Decimal, zoom)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(flatUnitNum)) { insertStatement.Append(", FLAT_UNIT_NUM"); valuesStatement.Append(", :flatUnitNum "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("flatUnitNum", OracleDbType.Varchar2, flatUnitNum)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(floorLevelCode)) { insertStatement.Append(", FLOOR_LEVEL_CODE"); valuesStatement.Append(", :floorLevelCode "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("floorLevelCode", OracleDbType.Varchar2, floorLevelCode)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(floorLevelNum)) { insertStatement.Append(", FLOOR_LEVEL_NUM"); valuesStatement.Append(", :floorLevelNum "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("floorLevelNum", OracleDbType.Varchar2, floorLevelNum)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(buildingName)) { insertStatement.Append(", BUILDING_NAME"); valuesStatement.Append(", :buildingName "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("buildingName", OracleDbType.Varchar2, buildingName)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(lotNumber)) { insertStatement.Append(", LOT_NUMBER"); valuesStatement.Append(", :lotNumber "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("lotNumber", OracleDbType.Varchar2, lotNumber)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(streetNumber)) { insertStatement.Append(", STREET_NUMBER"); valuesStatement.Append(", :streetNumber "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("streetNumber", OracleDbType.Varchar2, streetNumber)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(streetName)) { insertStatement.Append(", STREET_NAME"); valuesStatement.Append(", :streetName "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("streetName", OracleDbType.Varchar2, streetName)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(streetTypeCode)) { insertStatement.Append(", STREET_TYPE_CODE"); valuesStatement.Append(", :streetTypeCode "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("streetTypeCode", OracleDbType.Varchar2, streetTypeCode)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(streetSuffixCode)) { insertStatement.Append(", STREET_SUFFIX_CODE"); valuesStatement.Append(", :streetSuffixCode "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("streetSuffixCode", OracleDbType.Varchar2, streetSuffixCode)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(locality)) { insertStatement.Append(", LOCALITY"); valuesStatement.Append(", :locality"); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("locality", OracleDbType.Varchar2, locality)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(stateCode)) { insertStatement.Append(", STATE_CODE"); valuesStatement.Append(", :stateCode"); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("stateCode", OracleDbType.Varchar2, stateCode)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(postcode)) { insertStatement.Append(", POSTCODE"); valuesStatement.Append(", :postcode "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("postcode", OracleDbType.Varchar2, postcode)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(country)) { insertStatement.Append(", COUNTRY"); valuesStatement.Append(", :country "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("country", OracleDbType.Varchar2, country)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(esmsAddress)) { insertStatement.Append(", ESMS_ADDRESS"); valuesStatement.Append(", :esmsAddress "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("esmsAddress", OracleDbType.Varchar2, esmsAddress)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(validatedBy)) { insertStatement.Append(", VALIDATED_DATE"); valuesStatement.Append(", SYSDATE "); insertStatement.Append(", VALIDATED_BY"); valuesStatement.Append(", :validatedBy "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("validatedBy", OracleDbType.Varchar2, validatedBy)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(confidence)) { insertStatement.Append(", VALIDATION_CONFIDENCE"); valuesStatement.Append(", :confidence "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("confidence", OracleDbType.Decimal, confidence)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(status)) { insertStatement.Append(", VALIDATION_STATUS"); valuesStatement.Append(", :status "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("status", OracleDbType.Varchar2, status)); } if (!StringUtils.IsNull(quality)) { insertStatement.Append(", VALIDATION_QUALITY"); valuesStatement.Append(", :quality "); parameters.Add(DBUtils.CreateOracleParameter("quality", OracleDbType.Decimal, quality)); } // finish off the statement insertStatement.Append(") "); valuesStatement.Append(")"); // build the insert statement string sql = insertStatement + valuesStatement.ToString(); // Execute the INSERT Statement Dml dmlDAO = new Dml(); int rowsAffected = dmlDAO.Execute(sql, transaction, parameters); if (rowsAffected == 0) { throw new NoRowsAffectedException(); } } << many more methods go here >> } This system was developed by me and a small team back in 2005 after a 1 week .NET course. Before than my experience was in client-server applications. Over the past 5 years I've come to recognise the benefits of automated unit testing, automated integration testing and automated acceptance testing (using Selenium or equivalent) but the current code-base seems impossible to introduce these concepts. We are now starting to work on a major enhancement project with tight time-frames. The team consists of 5 .NET developers - 2 developers with a few years of .NET experience and 3 others with little or no .NET experience. None of the team (including myself) has experience in using .NET unit testing or mocking frameworks. What strategy would you use to make this code cleaner, more object-oriented, testable and maintainable?

    Read the article

  • What issues tend to arise when working with HL7 messages?

    - by Ethel Evans
    I'm testing a product for health care businesses, and we're working with HL7 messages. I saw people groaning on another question about the issues with HL7 but not mentioning specifics. Can someone give me some ideas of what issues or classes of problems we should specifically be looking for? We are using some well-used libraries for the parsing. If specifics about these or what we're doing would be helpful please let me know in the comments and I'll add to the question if I can.

    Read the article

  • Quality Assurance & Quality Control = verification & validation?

    - by user970696
    According to a book (page below), reviewing e.g. design (verification activity) is quality assurance. I would not agree, I would say its quality control because we are checking the conformance to specification, plans and detecting deviations (defects) as we do in quality control. But what would be an example of QA then? Could you give me a clear example that proves/disproves what is this book saying? Software Testing: Srinisvasan Desikan, Gopalaswamy Ramesh

    Read the article

  • Introducing QuickUnit

    - by RoyOsherove
    A friend of mine, Ariel, just finished up his latest project, in the unit testing world – called QuickUnit. From the site: QuickUnit significantly reduces the time needed to design and generate high-quality unit tests. I see it as an interactive unit test generator with all the options for isolation included. give it a whirl

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >