Search Results

Search found 30894 results on 1236 pages for 'best practice'.

Page 5/1236 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • SVN best practice - checking out root folder

    - by Stephen Dolier
    Hi all, quick question about svn checkout best practice. Once the structure of a repository is set up, ie trunk, branches, tags, is it normal to have the root checked out to our local machines. Or should you only check out the trunk if that's what you are working on or a branch if we so choose to create one. The reason i ask is that every time someone creates a branch or tag we all get a copy when we do an update. btw, we're recently migrated from vss.

    Read the article

  • Best practice for installing python modules from an arbitrary VCS repository

    - by fmark
    I'm newish to the python ecosystem, and have a question about module editing. I use a bunch of third-party modules, distributed on PyPi. Coming from a C and Java background, I love the ease of easy_install <whatever>. This is a new, wonderful world, but the model breaks down when I want to edit the newly installed module for two reasons: The egg files may be stored in a folder or archive somewhere crazy on the file system. Using an egg seems to preclude using the version control system of the originating project, just as using a debian package precludes development from an originating VCS repository. What is the best practice for installing modules from an arbitrary VCS repository? I want to be able to continue to import foomodule in other scripts.

    Read the article

  • Best practice Unit testing abstract classes?

    - by Paul Whelan
    Hello I was wondering what the best practice is for unit testing abstract classes and classes that extend abstract classes. Should I test the abstract class by extending it and stubbing out the abstract methods and then test all the concrete methods? Then only test the methods I override and the abstract methods in the unit tests for objects that extend my abstract class. Should I have an abstract test case that can be used to test the methods of the abstract class and extend this class in my test case for objects that extend the abstract class? EDIT: My abstract class has some concrete methods. I would be interested to see what people are using. Thanks Paul

    Read the article

  • Scaffold default files are the best practice?

    - by antpaw
    Hey, i have some experience with MVC. but I'm new to rails. I'm using the scaffold command to generate some default files. The model looks clean and nice, but the controller and the views aren't really dry. The contents of new.html.erb and edit.html.erb are almost the same and the methods new/edit and create/update are doing almost the same thing. In other frameworks i've used only one view for updating and creating new entries and also the same method in my controller by setting the id as an optional parameter. Do they use this structure to keep things RESTful (i have not much of a clue about rest :()? Is it the best practice to use this default stuff for crud?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for Google app engine and Git.

    - by systempuntoout
    I'm developing a small pet project on Google App Engine and i would like to keep code under source control using github; this will allow a friend of mine to checkout and modify the sources. I just have a directory with all sources (call it PetProject) and Google App Engine development server points to that directory. Is it correct to create a Repo directly from PetProject directory or is it preferable to create a second directory (mirror of the develop PetProject directory); in this case, anytime my friend will release something new, i need to pull from Git and then copy the modified files to the develop PetProject directory. If i decide to keep the Repo inside the develop directory, skippin .git on yaml is enough? What's the best practice here?

    Read the article

  • Best practice with respect to NPE and multiple expressions on single line

    - by JRL
    I'm wondering if it is an accepted practice or not to avoid multiple calls on the same line with respect to possible NPEs, and if so in what circumstances. For example: getThis().doThat(); vs Object o = getThis(); o.doThat(); The latter is more verbose, but if there is an NPE, you immediately know what is null. However, it also requires creating a name for the variable and more import statements. So my questions around this are: Is this problem something worth designing around? Is it better to go for the first or second possibility? Is the creation of a variable name something that would have an effect performance-wise? Is there a proposal to change the exception message to be able to determine what object is null in future versions of Java ?

    Read the article

  • c# object initializer complexity. best practice

    - by Andrew Florko
    I was too excited when object initializer appeared in C#. MyClass a = new MyClass(); a.Field1 = Value1; a.Field2 = Value2; can be rewritten shorter: MyClass a = new MyClass { Field1 = Value1, Field2 = Value2 } Object initializer code is more obvious but when properties number come to dozen and some of the assignment deals with nullable values it's hard to debug where the "null reference error" is. Studio shows the whole object initializer as error point. Nowadays I use object initializer for straightforward assignment only for error-free properties. How do you use object initializer for complex assignment or it's a bad practice to use dozen of assigments at all? Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • Best Practice: Software Versioning

    - by Sebi
    I couldn't find a similar question here on SO, but if you find one please link. Is there any guideline or standard best practice how to version a software you develop in your spare time for fun, but nevertheless will be used by some people? I think it's necessary to version such software so that you know about with version one is talking about (e.g. for bug fixing, support, and so on). But where do I start the versioning? 0.0.0? or 0.0? And then how to I increment the numbers? major release.minor change? and should'nt any commit to a version control system be another version? or is this only for versions which are used in a productive manner?

    Read the article

  • best-practice on for loop's condition

    - by guest
    what is considered best-practice in this case? for (i=0; i<array.length(); ++i) or for (i=array.length(); i>0; --i) assuming i don't want to iterate from a certain direction, but rather over the bare length of the array. also, i don't plan to alter the array's size in the loop body. so, will the array.length() become constant during compilation? if not, then the second approach should be the one to go for..

    Read the article

  • highlite text parts with jquery, best practice

    - by helle
    Hey guys, i have a list of items containig names. then i have a eventlistener, which ckecks for keypress event. if the user types i.g. an A all names starting with an A should be viewed with the A bold. so all starting As should be bold. what is the best way using jquery to highlite only a part of a string? thanks for your help

    Read the article

  • Nested Routes and Parameters for Rails URLs (Best Practice)

    - by viatropos
    Hey there, I have a decent understanding of RESTful urls and all the theory behind not nesting urls, but I'm still not quite sure how this looks in an enterprise application, like something like Amazon, StackOverflow, or Google... Google has urls like this: http://code.google.com/apis/ajax/ http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/staticmaps/ https://www.google.com/calendar/render?tab=mc Amazon like this: http://www.amazon.com/books-used-books-textbooks/b/ref=sa_menu_bo0?ie=UTF8&node=283155&pf_rd_p=328655101&pf_rd_s=left-nav-1&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=507846&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1PK4ZKN4YWJJ9B86ANC9 http://www.amazon.com/Ruby-Programming-Language-David-Flanagan/dp/0596516177/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258755625&sr=1-1 And StackOverflow like this: http://stackoverflow.com/users/169992/viatropos http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/html http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged?tagnames=html&sort=newest&pagesize=15 So my question is, what is best practice in terms of creating urls for systems like these? When do you start storing parameters in the url, when don't you? These big companies don't seem to be following the rules so hotly debated in the ruby community (that you should almost never nest URLs for example), so I'm wondering how you go about implementing your own urls in larger scale projects because it seems like the idea of not nesting urls breaks down at anything larger than a blog. Any tips?

    Read the article

  • Can this be considered Clean Code / Best Practice?

    - by MRFerocius
    Guys, How are you doing today? I have the following question because I will follow this strategy for all my helpers (to deal with the DB entities) Is this considered a good practice or is it going to be unmaintainable later? public class HelperArea : AbstractHelper { event OperationPerformed<Area> OnAreaInserting; event OperationPerformed<Area> OnAreaInserted; event OperationPerformed<Area> OnExceptionOccured; public void Insert(Area element) { try { if (OnAreaInserting != null) OnAreaInserting(element); DBase.Context.Areas.InsertOnSubmit(new AtlasWFM_Mapping.Mapping.Area { areaDescripcion = element.Description, areaNegocioID = element.BusinessID, areaGUID = Guid.NewGuid(), areaEstado = element.Status, }); DBase.Context.SubmitChanges(); if (OnAreaInserted != null) OnAreaInserted(element); } catch (Exception ex) { LogManager.ChangeStrategy(LogginStrategies.EVENT_VIEWER); LogManager.LogError(new LogInformation { logErrorType = ErrorType.CRITICAL, logException = ex, logMensaje = "Error inserting Area" }); if (OnExceptionOccured != null) OnExceptionOccured(elemento); } } I want to know if it is a good way to handle the event on the Exception to let subscribers know that there has been an exception inserting that Area. And the way to log the Exception, is is OK to do it this way? Any suggestion to make it better?

    Read the article

  • Best practice when using WebMethods and session

    - by Abdel Olakara
    Hi all, I want to reduce postback in one of my application page and use ajax instead. I used the WebMethod to do so.. I have a static WebMethod that needs to access the session variables and modify. and on the client side, i am calling this method using jQuery. I tried accessing the session as follows: [WebMethod] public static void TestWebMethod() { if (HttpContext.Current.Session["pitems"] != null) { log.Debug("Using the existing list"); Product prod = (Product)HttpContext.Current.Session["pitems"]; List<Configs> confs = cart.GetConfigs(); foreach (Configs citem in confis) { log.Info(citem.Description); } } log.Info("Inside the method!"); } The values are displayed correctly and seems to work.. but i would like to know if this practice is allowed as the method is a static methods and would like to know how it will behave if multiple people access the application. I would also like to know how developers do these kind of tasks in ASP if this is not the right method. Thanks in advance for your suggestions and ideas, Abdel Olakara

    Read the article

  • PHP Database connection practice

    - by Phill Pafford
    I have a script that connects to multiple databases (Oracle, MySQL and MSSQL), each database connection might not be used each time the script runs but all could be used in a single script execution. My question is, "Is it better to connect to all the databases once in the beginning of the script even though all the connections might not be used. Or is it better to connect to them as needed, the only catch is that I would need to have the connection call in a loop (so the database connection would be new for X amount of times in the loop). Yeah Example Code #1: // Connections at the beginning of the script $dbh_oracle = connect2db(); $dbh_mysql = connect2db(); $dbh_mssql = connect2db(); for ($i=1; $i<=5; $i++) { // NOTE: might not use all the connections $rs = queryDb($query,$dbh_*); // $dbh can be any of the 3 connections } Yeah Example Code #2: // Connections in the loop for ($i=1; $i<=5; $i++) { // NOTE: Would use all the connections but connecting multiple times $dbh_oracle = connect2db(); $dbh_mysql = connect2db(); $dbh_mssql = connect2db(); $rs_oracle = queryDb($query,$dbh_oracle); $rs_mysql = queryDb($query,$dbh_mysql); $rs_mssql = queryDb($query,$dbh_mssql); } now I know you could use a persistent connection but would that be one connection open for each database in the loop as well? Like mysql_pconnect(), mssql_pconnect() and adodb for Oracle persistent connection method. I know that persistent connection can also be resource hogs and as I'm looking for best performance/practice.

    Read the article

  • Is Assert.Fail() considered bad practice?

    - by Mendelt
    I use Assert.Fail a lot when doing TDD. I'm usually working on one test at a time but when I get ideas for things I want to implement later I quickly write an empty test where the name of the test method indicates what I want to implement as sort of a todo-list. To make sure I don't forget I put an Assert.Fail() in the body. When trying out xUnit.Net I found they hadn't implemented Assert.Fail. Of course you can always Assert.IsTrue(false) but this doesn't communicate my intention as well. I got the impression Assert.Fail wasn't implemented on purpose. Is this considered bad practice? If so why? @Martin Meredith That's not exactly what I do. I do write a test first and then implement code to make it work. Usually I think of several tests at once. Or I think about a test to write when I'm working on something else. That's when I write an empty failing test to remember. By the time I get to writing the test I neatly work test-first. @Jimmeh That looks like a good idea. Ignored tests don't fail but they still show up in a separate list. Have to try that out. @Matt Howells Great Idea. NotImplementedException communicates intention better than assert.Fail() in this case @Mitch Wheat That's what I was looking for. It seems it was left out to prevent it being abused in another way I abuse it.

    Read the article

  • Best practice for debug Asserts during Unit testing

    - by Steve Steiner
    Does heavy use of unit tests discourage the use of debug asserts? It seems like a debug assert firing in the code under test implies the unit test shouldn't exist or the debug assert shouldn't exist. "There can be only one" seems like a reasonable principle. Is this the common practice? Or do you disable your debug asserts when unit testing, so they can be around for integration testing? Edit: I updated 'Assert' to debug assert to distinguish an assert in the code under test from the lines in the unit test that check state after the test has run. Also here is an example that I believe shows the dilema: A unit test passes invalid inputs for a protected function that asserts it's inputs are valid. Should the unit test not exist? It's not a public function. Perhaps checking the inputs would kill perf? Or should the assert not exist? The function is protected not private so it should be checking it's inputs for safety.

    Read the article

  • Will Google treat this JavaScript code as a bad practice?

    - by Mathew Foscarini
    I have a website that provides a custom UX experience implemented via JavaScript. When JavaScript is disabled in the browser the website falls back to CSS for the layout. To make this possible I've added a noJS class to the <body> and quickly remove it via JavaScript. <body class="noJS layout-wide"> <script type="text/javascript">var b=document.getElementById("body");b.className=b.className.replace("noJS","");</script> This caused a problem when the page loads and JavaScript is enabled. The body immediately has it's noJS class removed, and this causes the layout to appear messed up until the JavaScript code for layout is executed (at bottom of the page). To solve this I hide each article via JavaScript by adding a CSS class fix which is display:none as each article is loaded. <article id="q-3217">....</article> <script type="text/javascript">var b=document.getElementById("q-3217");b.className=b.className+" fix";</script> After the page is ready I show all the articles in the correct layout. I've read many times in Google's documentation not to hide content. So I'm worried that the Google will penalize my website for doing this.

    Read the article

  • beginner - best way to do a 'Confirm' page? [closed]

    - by W_P
    I am a beginning web app developer, wondering about the best way to implement a "Confirm Page" upon form submission. I have heard that it's best for the script that a form POSTs to to be implemented by handling the POST data and then redirecting to another page, so the user isn't directly viewing the page that was POSTed to. My question is about the best way to implement a "Confirm before data save" page. Do I Have my form POST to a script, which marshals the data, puts in a GET, and redirects to the confirm page, which unmarshals and displays the data in another form, where the user can then either confirm (which causes another POST to a script that actually saves the data) or deny (which causes the user to be redirected back to the original form, with their input added)? Have my form POST directly to the confirm page, which is displayed to the user and then, like #1, gives the user the option to confirm or deny? Have my form GET the confirm page, which then does the expected behavior? I feel like there is a common-sense answer to this question that I am just not getting.

    Read the article

  • Best practice in setting return value (use else or?)

    - by Deckard
    Whenever you want to return a value from a method, but whatever you return depends on some other value, you typically use branching: int calculateSomething() { if (a == b) { return x; } else { return y; } } Another way to write this is: int calculateSomething() { if (a == b) { return x; } return y; } Is there any reason to avoid one or the other? Both allow adding "else if"-clauses without problems. Both typically generate compiler errors if you add anything at the bottom. Note: I couldn't find any duplicates, although multiple questions exist about whether the accompanying curly braces should be on their own line. So let's not get into that.

    Read the article

  • Is it good practice to use functions just to centralize common code?

    - by EpsilonVector
    I run across this problem a lot. For example, I currently write a read function and a write function, and they both check if buf is a NULL pointer and that the mode variable is within certain boundaries. This is code duplication. This can be solved by moving it into its own function. But should I? This will be a pretty anemic function (doesn't do much), rather localized (so not general purpose), and doesn't stand well on its own (can't figure out what you need it for unless you see where it is used). Another option is to use a macro, but I want to talk about functions in this post. So, should you use a function for something like this? What are the pros and cons?

    Read the article

  • Is good practice to optimize FPS even when it's above the lower limit to give illusion of movement?

    - by rraallvv
    I started over 50 FPS on the iPhone, but now I'm bellow 30 PFS, I've seen most iPhone games clamped to either 60 or 30 FPS, even when 24 or less would give the illusion of movement. I've concidered my limit to be a little bit over 15 FPS, in fact my physics simulation is updated at that rate (15.84 steps/s) as that is the lowest that still give fluid movement, a bit lower gives jerky motion. Is there a practical reason why to clamp FPS way above the lower limit? Update: The following image could help to clarify I can independently set the physic simulation step, frame rate, and simulation interval update. My concern is why should I clamp any of those to values greater than the minimum? For instance to conserve battery life I could just to choose the lower limits, but it seems that 60 or 30 FPS are the most used values.

    Read the article

  • JUnit Best Practice: Different Fixtures for each @Test

    - by Juri Glass
    Hi I understand that there are @Before and @BeforeClass, which are used to define fixtures for the @Test's. But what should I use if I need different fixtures for each @Test? Should I define the fixture in the @Test? Should I create a test class for each @Test? I am asking for the best practices here, since both solutions aren't clean in my opinion. With the first solution, I would test the initialization code. And with the second solution I would break the "one test class for each class" pattern.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >