Search Results

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

Page 50/274 | < Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >

• organizing unit test

  - by soulmerge

  I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewing developers?

  Read the article

• SQL Server with XML and selecting child nodes

  - by Zenox

  I have the following XML: <tests> <test>1</test> <test>2</test> <test>3</test> </tests> And I am trying the following query: CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[test] @Tests xml=null AS BEGIN SELECT doc.col.value('(test)[1]', 'nvarchar(50)') FROM @Tests.nodes('//tests') AS doc(col) END But it only returns me a value from the first What am I missing here?

  Read the article

• Passthrough Objects – Duck Typing++

  - by EltonStoneman

  [Source: http://geekswithblogs.net/EltonStoneman] Can't see a genuine use for this, but I got the idea in my head and wanted to work it through. It's an extension to the idea of duck typing, for scenarios where types have similar behaviour, but implemented in differently-named members. So you may have a set of objects you want to treat as an interface, which don't implement the interface explicitly, and don't have the same member names so they can't be duck-typed into implicitly implementing the interface. In a fictitious example, I want to call Get on whichever ICache implementation is current, and have the call passed through to the relevant method – whether it's called Read, Retrieve or whatever: A sample implementation is up on github here: PassthroughSample. This uses Castle's DynamicProxy behind the scenes in the same way as my duck typing sample, but allows you to configure the passthrough to specify how the inner (implementation) and outer (interface) members are mapped:       var setup = new Passthrough();     var cache = setup.Create("PassthroughSample.Tests.Stubs.AspNetCache, PassthroughSample.Tests")                             .WithPassthrough("Name", "CacheName")                             .WithPassthrough("Get", "Retrieve")                             .WithPassthrough("Set", "Insert")                             .As<ICache>(); - or using some ugly Lambdas to avoid the strings :     Expression<Func<ICache, string, object>> get = (o, s) => o.Get(s);     Expression<Func<Memcached, string, object>> read = (i, s) => i.Read(s);     Expression<Action<ICache, string, object>> set = (o, s, obj) => o.Set(s, obj);     Expression<Action<Memcached, string, object>> insert = (i, s, obj) => i.Put(s, obj);       ICache cache = new Passthrough<ICache, Memcached>()                     .Create()                     .WithPassthrough(o => o.Name, i => i.InstanceName)                     .WithPassthrough(get, read)                     .WithPassthrough(set, insert)                     .As();   - or even in config:   ICache cache = Passthrough.GetConfigured<ICache>(); ...  <passthrough>     <types>       <typename="PassthroughSample.Tests.Stubs.ICache, PassthroughSample.Tests"             passesThroughTo="PassthroughSample.Tests.Stubs.AppFabricCache, PassthroughSample.Tests">         <members>           <membername="Name"passesThroughTo="RegionName"/>           <membername="Get"passesThroughTo="Out"/>           <membername="Set"passesThroughTo="In"/>         </members>       </type>   Possibly useful for injecting stubs for dependencies in tests, when your application code isn't using an IoC container. Possibly it also has an alternative implementation using .NET 4.0 dynamic objects, rather than the dynamic proxy.

  Read the article

• Getting from a user-story to code while using TDD (scrum)

  - by Ittai

  I'm getting into scrum and TDD and I think I have some confusion which I'd like to get your feedback about. Let's assume I have a user-story in my backlog, in order for me to start developing it as part of TDD I need to have requirements, right so far? Is it true to say that the product manager and the QA should be responsible for taking the user-story and breaking it down to acceptance tests? I think the above is true since the acceptance tests need to be formal, so they can be used as tests, but also human readable so that the product can approve they are the requirements, right? Is it also true that I later take these acceptance tests and use them as my requirements, i.e. they are a set of use-cases which I implement (through TDD)? I hope I'm not making too much of a mess but that's the current flow I have in mind right now. Update I think my initial intentions were unclear so I'll try to rephrase. I want to know more details about the scrum flow of turning a user-story into code while using TDD. The starting point is obvious, a user surfaces a need (or the user's representative as the product) which is a short 1-2 lines description in the known format and that is added to the product backlog. When there is a spring planning meeting user-stories are taken from the backlog and assigned to developers. In order for a developer to write code they need requirements (especially in TDD since the requirements are what the tests are derived from). When, by whom and to which format are the requirements compiled? What I had in mind was that the product and QA define the requirements via acceptance tests (I'm thinking of automatic using FitNesse or the sort but that's not the core I think) which help to serve 2 purposes at the same time: They define "Done" properly. They give a developer something to derive tests from. I wasn't sure when these were written (before the sprint they're picked then that might be a waste since additional information will arrive or the story won't be picked, during the iteration then the developer might get stuck waiting for them...)

  Read the article

• Microsoft F#

  - by Aamir Hasan

  F# brings you type safe, succinct, efficient and expressive functional programming language on the .NET platform. It is a simple and pragmatic language, and has particular strengths in data-oriented programming, parallel I/O programming, parallel CPU programming, scripting and algorithmic development. F# cannot solve any problem C# could. F# is a functional language, statically typed. F# is a functional language that supports O-O-Programming References:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/fsharp/cc835246.aspx http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/projects/fsharp/

  Read the article

• windows 2003 server : can't join domain

  - by phill

  I originally tried to rejoin a computer to a network which led to a "cannot find domain" error. The username/password box don't even come up. some tests i ran: I can ping the server, however I can't ping the domain name domain1.local. nslookup can't find the domain either. It looks to the isp's dns instead of my own to resolve the local machines. So i go to the dns and run netdiag.exe and gives me this error. DNS test . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Failed [WARNING] Cannot find a primary authoritative DNS server for the name 'stmartinsrv.stmartin.local.'. [RCODE_SERVER_FAILURE] The name 'srv.domain1.local.' may not be registered in DNS. [WARNING] The DNS entries for this DC are not registered correctly on DNS se rver '68.94.156.1'. Please wait for 30 minutes for DNS server replication. [WARNING] The DNS entries for this DC are not registered correctly on DNS se rver '68.94.157.1'. Please wait for 30 minutes for DNS server replication. [FATAL] No DNS servers have the DNS records for this DC registered. Redir and Browser test . . . . . . : Passed List of NetBt transports currently bound to the Redir NetBT_Tcpip_{04BB0F6B-06AE-4D60-80C8-2A7A24C1D87B} The redir is bound to 1 NetBt transport. List of NetBt transports currently bound to the browser NetBT_Tcpip_{04BB0F6B-06AE-4D60-80C8-2A7A24C1D87B} The browser is bound to 1 NetBt transport. then running dcdiag C:\Program Files\Support Toolsdcdiag Domain Controller Diagnosis Performing initial setup: Done gathering initial info. Doing initial required tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\SRV Starting test: Connectivity The host 1c99f63c-49ec-40db-b3d3-6265c00fbd3e._msdcs.domain1.local cou ld not be resolved to an IP address. Check the DNS server, DHCP, server name, etc Although the Guid DNS name (1c99f63c-49ec-40db-b3d3-6265c00fbd3e._msdcs.domain1.local) couldn't be resolved, the server name (srv.domain1.local) resolved to the IP address (192.168.1.21) and was pingable. Check that the IP address is registered correctly with the DNS server. ......................... SRV failed test Connectivity Doing primary tests Testing server: Default-First-Site-Name\SRV Skipping all tests, because server SRV is not responding to directory service requests Running partition tests on : ForestDnsZones Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... ForestDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... ForestDnsZones passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : DomainDnsZones Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... DomainDnsZones passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... DomainDnsZones passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : Schema Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Schema passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Schema passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : Configuration Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... Configuration passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... Configuration passed test CheckSDRefDom Running partition tests on : domain1 Starting test: CrossRefValidation ......................... domain1 passed test CrossRefValidation Starting test: CheckSDRefDom ......................... domain1 passed test CheckSDRefDom Running enterprise tests on : domain1.local Starting test: Intersite ......................... domain1.local passed test Intersite Starting test: FsmoCheck ......................... domain1.local passed test FsmoCheck from previous postings, I've tried adding the domain suffix to the nic ip properties to both the client machine and the dc server which didn't help. note: there is only one nic on the server any ideas? thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Thoughts on Thoughts on TDD

  Brian Harry wrote a post entitled Thoughts on TDD that I thought I was going to let lie, but I find that I need to write a response. I find myself in agreement with Brian on many points in the post, but I disagree with his conclusion. Not surprisingly, I agree with the things that he likes about TDD. Focusing on the usage rather than the implementation is really important, and this is important whether you use TDD or not. And YAGNI was a big theme in my Seven Deadly Sins of Programming series. Now, on to what he doesnt like. He says that he finds it inefficient to have tests that he has to change every time he refactors. Here is where we part company. If you are having to do a lot of test rewriting (say, more than a couple of minutes work to get back to green) *often* when you are refactoring your code, I submit that either you are testing things that you dont need to test (internal details rather than external implementation), your code perhaps isnt as decoupled as it could be, or maybe you need a visit to refactorers anonymous. I also like to refactor like crazy, but as we all know, the huge downside of refactoring is that we often break things. Important things. Subtle things. Which makes refactoring risky. *Unless* we have a set of tests that have great coverage. And TDD (or Example-based Design, which I prefer as a term) gives those to us. Now, I dont know what sort of coverage Brian gets with the unit tests that he writes, but I do know that for the majority of the developers Ive worked with and I count myself in that bucket the coverage of unit tests written afterwards is considerably inferior to the coverage of unit tests that come from TDD. For me, it all comes down to the answer to the following question: How do you ensure that your code works now and will continue to work in the future? Im willing to put up with a little efficiency on the front side to get that benefit later. Its not the writing of the code thats the expensive part, its everything else that comes after. I dont think that stepping through test cases in the debugger gets you what you want. You can verify what the current behavior is, sure, and do it fairly cheaply, but you dont help the guy in the future who doesnt know what conditions were important if he has to change your code. His second part that he doesnt like backing into an architecture (go read to see what he means). Ive certainly had to work with code that was like this before, and its a nightmare the code that nobody wants to touch. But thats not at all the kind of code that you get with TDD, because if youre doing it right youre doing the write a failing tests, make it pass, refactor approach. Now, you may miss some useful refactorings and generalizations for this, but if you do, you can refactor later because you have the tests that make it safe to do so, and your code tends to be easy to refactor because the same things that make code easy to write unit tests for make it easy to refactor. I also think Brian is missing an important point. We arent all as smart as he is. Im reminded a bit of the lesson of Intentional Programming, Charles Simonyis paradigm for making programming easier. I played around with Intentional Programming when it was young, and came to the conclusion that it was a pretty good thing if you were as smart as Simonyi is, but it was pretty much a disaster if you were an average developer. In this case, TDD gives you a way to work your way into a good, flexible, and functional architecture when you dont have somebody of Brians talents to help you out. And thats a good thing.Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• Mozilla Thunderbird Portable Edition

  A fully functional edition of Mozilla Thunderbird optimized for use on a USB key drive

  Read the article

• 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

• generic programming- where did it originate?

  - by user997112

  Im trying to work out if generic programming was a functional programming feature which was then introduced into Java, C++ and C# or did the latter copy it from the functional programming languages like Haskell, Lisp, OCaml etc? Google is giving me lots on what generic programming is, but not where it originated. All I can see is that Ada implemented it early on. Would you class it as a functional programming technique?

  Read the article

• Mozilla Firefox Portable Edition 3

  A fully functional edition of Firefox 3 optimized for use on a USB key drive

  Read the article

• Implementing a Web Server in Java

  An article on how to implement a functional web server in Java

  Read the article

• Emacs equivalent of this Vim command to run my tests?

  - by eightbitraptor

  I'm using Emacs at the moment and experimenting with it for my Rails development and there is one thing that I do quite regularly in Vim and I'd like to know if an equivalent exists in Emacs, or an alternative workflow to achieve the behavior that I need. The command in Vim is :map ;t :!rspec --no-color %<cr> Essentially this maps a key combination to run a bash/shell command on the file represented by the current buffer (% expands to the filename at runtime, the <cr> is just a carriage return at the end to execute the command). I map all sorts of random little commands as and when I need them and I really miss the immediacy of this approach. How can I achieve something similar?

  Read the article

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

  - by thebossman

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

  Read the article

• PHP unit tests for controller returns no errors and no success message.

  - by Mallika Iyer

  I'm using the zend modular director structure, i.e. application modules users controllers . . lessons reports blog I have a unit test for a controller in 'blog' that goes something like the below section of code: I'm definitely doing something very wrong, or missing something - as when i run the test, i get no error, no success message (that goes usually like ...OK (2 tests, 2 assertions)). I get all the text from layout.phtml, where i have the global site layout. This is my first endeavor writing a unittest for zend-M-V-C structure so probably I'm missing something important? Here goes.... require_once '../../../../public/index.php'; require_once '../../../../application/Bootstrap.php'; require_once '../../../../application/modules/blog/controllers/BrowseController.php'; require_once '../../../TestConfiguration.php'; class Blog_BrowseControllerTest extends Zend_Test_PHPUnit_ControllerTestCase { public function setUp() { $this->bootstrap = array($this, 'appBootstrap'); Blog_BrowseController::setUp(); } public function appBootstrap() { require_once dirname(__FILE__) . '/../../bootstrap.php'; } public function testAction() { $this->dispatch('/'); $this->assertController('browse'); $this->assertAction('index'); } public function tearDown() { $this->resetRequest(); $this->resetResponse(); Blog_BrowseController::tearDown(); } }

  Read the article

• Why should I bother with unit testing if I can just use integration tests?

  - by CodeGrue

  Ok, I know I am going out on a limb making a statement like that, so my question is for everyone to convince me I am wrong. Take this scenario: I have method A, which calls method B, and they are in different layers. So I unit test B, which delivers null as a result. So I test that null is returned, and the unit test passes. Nice. Then I unit test A, which expects an empty string to be returned from B. So I mock the layer B is in, an empty string is return, the test passes. Nice again. (Assume I don't realize the relationship of A and B, or that maybe two differente people are building these methods) My concern is that we don't find the real problem until we test A and B togther, i.e. Integration Testing. Since an integration test provides coverage over the unit test area, it seems like a waste of effort to build all these unit tests that really don't tell us anything (or very much) meaningful. Why am I wrong?

  Read the article

• How to keep your unit tests simple and isolated and still guarantee DDD invariants ?

  - by ian31

  DDD recommends that the domain objects should be in a valid state at any time. Aggregate roots are responsible for guaranteeing the invariants and Factories for assembling objects with all the required parts so that they are initialized in a valid state. However this seems to complicate the task of creating simple, isolated unit tests a lot. Let's assume we have a BookRepository that contains Books. A Book has : an Author a Category a list of Bookstores you can find the book in These are required attributes : a book has to have an author, a category and at least a book store you can buy the book from. There's likely to be a BookFactory since it is quite a complex object, and the Factory will initialize the Book with at least all the mentioned attributes. Now we want to unit test a method of the BookRepository that returns all the Books. To test if the method returns the books, we have to set up a test context (the Arrange step in AAA terms) where some Books are already in the Repository. If the only tool at our disposal to create Book objects is the Factory, the unit test now also uses and is dependent on the Factory and inderectly on Category, Author and Store since we need those objects to build up a Book and then place it in the test context. Would you consider this is a dependency in the same way that in a Service unit test we would be dependent on, say, a Repository that the Service would call ? How would you solve the problem of having to re-create a whole cluster of objects in order to be able to test a simple thing ? How would you break that dependency and get rid of all these attributes we don't need in our test ? By using mocks or stubs ? If you mock up things a Repository contains, what kind of mock/stubs would you use as opposed to when you mock up something the object under test talks to or consumes ?

  Read the article

• Talend Enterprise Data Integration overperforms on Oracle SPARC T4

  - by Amir Javanshir

  The SPARC T microprocessor, released in 2005 by Sun Microsystems, and now continued at Oracle, has a good track record in parallel execution and multi-threaded performance. However it was less suited for pure single-threaded workloads. The new SPARC T4 processor is now filling that gap by offering a 5x better single-thread performance over previous generations. Following our long-term relationship with Talend, a fast growing ISV positioned by Gartner in the “Visionaries” quadrant of the “Magic Quadrant for Data Integration Tools”, we decided to test some of their integration components with the T4 chip, more precisely on a T4-1 system, in order to verify first hand if this new processor stands up to its promises. Several tests were performed, mainly focused on: Single-thread performance of the new SPARC T4 processor compared to an older SPARC T2+ processor Overall throughput of the SPARC T4-1 server using multiple threads The tests consisted in reading large amounts of data --ten's of gigabytes--, processing and writing them back to a file or an Oracle 11gR2 database table. They are CPU, memory and IO bound tests. Given the main focus of this project --CPU performance--, bottlenecks were removed as much as possible on the memory and IO sub-systems. When possible, the data to process was put into the ZFS filesystem cache, for instance. Also, two external storage devices were directly attached to the servers under test, each one divided in two ZFS pools for read and write operations. Multi-thread: Testing throughput on the Oracle T4-1 The tests were performed with different number of simultaneous threads (1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 32, 48 and 64) and using different storage devices: Flash, Fibre Channel storage, two stripped internal disks and one single internal disk. All storage devices used ZFS as filesystem and volume management. Each thread read a dedicated 1GB-large file containing 12.5M lines with the following structure: customerID;FirstName;LastName;StreetAddress;City;State;Zip;Cust_Status;Since_DT;Status_DT 1;Ronald;Reagan;South Highway;Santa Fe;Montana;98756;A;04-06-2006;09-08-2008 2;Theodore;Roosevelt;Timberlane Drive;Columbus;Louisiana;75677;A;10-05-2009;27-05-2008 3;Andrew;Madison;S Rustle St;Santa Fe;Arkansas;75677;A;29-04-2005;09-02-2008 4;Dwight;Adams;South Roosevelt Drive;Baton Rouge;Vermont;75677;A;15-02-2004;26-01-2007 […] The following graphs present the results of our tests: Unsurprisingly up to 16 threads, all files fit in the ZFS cache a.k.a L2ARC : once the cache is hot there is no performance difference depending on the underlying storage. From 16 threads upwards however, it is clear that IO becomes a bottleneck, having a good IO subsystem is thus key. Single-disk performance collapses whereas the Sun F5100 and ST6180 arrays allow the T4-1 to scale quite seamlessly. From 32 to 64 threads, the performance is almost constant with just a slow decline. For the database load tests, only the best IO configuration --using external storage devices-- were used, hosting the Oracle table spaces and redo log files. Using the Sun Storage F5100 array allows the T4-1 server to scale up to 48 parallel JVM processes before saturating the CPU. The final result is a staggering 646K lines per second insertion in an Oracle table using 48 parallel threads. Single-thread: Testing the single thread performance Seven different tests were performed on both servers. Given the fact that only one thread, thus one file was read, no IO bottleneck was involved, all data being served from the ZFS cache. Read File ? Filter ? Write File: Read file, filter data, write the filtered data in a new file. The filter is set on the “Status” column: only lines with status set to “A” are selected. This limits each output file to about 500 MB. Read File ? Load Database Table: Read file, insert into a single Oracle table. Average: Read file, compute the average of a numeric column, write the result in a new file. Division & Square Root: Read file, perform a division and square root on a numeric column, write the result data in a new file. Oracle DB Dump: Dump the content of an Oracle table (12.5M rows) into a CSV file. Transform: Read file, transform, write the result data in a new file. The transformations applied are: set the address column to upper case and add an extra column at the end, which is the concatenation of two columns. Sort: Read file, sort a numeric and alpha numeric column, write the result data in a new file. The following table and graph present the final results of the tests: Throughput unit is thousand lines per second processed (K lines/second). Improvement is the % of improvement between the T5140 and T4-1. Test T4-1 (Time s.) T5140 (Time s.) Improvement T4-1 (Throughput) T5140 (Throughput) Read/Filter/Write 125 806 645% 100 16 Read/Load Database 195 1111 570% 64 11 Average 96 557 580% 130 22 Division & Square Root 161 1054 655% 78 12 Oracle DB Dump 164 945 576% 76 13 Transform 159 1124 707% 79 11 Sort 251 1336 532% 50 9 The improvement of single-thread performance is quite dramatic: depending on the tests, the T4 is between 5.4 to 7 times faster than the T2+. It seems clear that the SPARC T4 processor has gone a long way filling the gap in single-thread performance, without sacrifying the multi-threaded capability as it still shows a very impressive scaling on heavy-duty multi-threaded jobs. Finally, as always at Oracle ISV Engineering, we are happy to help our ISV partners test their own applications on our platforms, so don't hesitate to contact us and let's see what the SPARC T4-based systems can do for your application! "As describe in this benchmark, Talend Enterprise Data Integration has overperformed on T4. I was generally happy to see that the T4 gave scaling opportunities for many scenarios like complex aggregations. Row by row insertion in Oracle DB is faster with more than 650,000 rows per seconds without using any bulk Oracle capabilities !" Cedric Carbone, Talend CTO.

  Read the article

• Generic unit test scheduling

  - by Raphink

  Hello, I'm (re)writing a program that does generic unit test scheduling. The current program is a mono-threaded Perl program, but I'm willing to modularize it and parallelize the tests. I'm also considering rewriting it in Python. Here is what I need to do: I have a list of tests, with the following attributes: uri: a URI to test (could be HTTP/HTTPS/SSH/local) ; depends: an associative array of tests/values that this test depends on ; join: a list of DB joints to be added when selecting items to process in this test ; depends_db: additional conditions to add to the DB request when selecting items to process in this test. The program builds a dependency tree, beginning with the tests that have no dependencies ; for each test: a list of items is selected from the database using the conditions (results of depending tests, joints and depends_db) ; the list of items is sent to the URI (using POST or stdin) ; the result is retrived as a YAML file listing the state and comments for the test for each tested item ; the results are stored in the DB ; the test returns, allowing depending tests to be performed. the program generates reports (CSV, DB, graphviz) of the performed tests. The primary use of this program currently is to test a fleet of machines against services such as backup, DNS, etc. The tests can then be: - backup: hosted on the backup machine(s), called through HTTP, checks if the machines' backup went well ; - DNS: hosted on the local machine, called via stdin, checks if the machines' fqdn have a valid DNS entry. Does such a tool/module already exist? What would be the best implementation to achieve this (using Perl or Python)?

  Read the article

• Split large repo into multiple subrepos and preserve history (Mercurial)

  - by Andrew

  We have a large base of code that contains several shared projects, solution files, etc in one directory in SVN. We're migrating to Mercurial. I would like to take this opportunity to reorganize our code into several repositories to make cloning for branching have less overhead. I've already successfully converted our repo from SVN to Mercurial while preserving history. My question: how do I break all the different projects into separate repositories while preserving their history? Here is an example of what our single repository (OurPlatform) currently looks like: /OurPlatform ---- Core ---- Core.Tests ---- Database ---- Database.Tests ---- CMS ---- CMS.Tests ---- Product1.Domain ---- Product1.Stresstester ---- Product1.Web ---- Product1.Web.Tests ---- Product2.Domain ---- Product2.Stresstester ---- Product2.Web ---- Product2.Web.Tests ==== Product1.sln ==== Product2.sln All of those are folders containing VS Projects except for the solution files. Product1.sln and Product2.sln both reference all of the other projects. Ideally, I'd like to take each of those folders, and turn them into separate Hg repos, and also add new repos for each project (they would act as parent repos). Then, If someone was going to work on Product1, they would clone the Product1 repo, which contained Product1.sln and subrepo references to ReferenceAssemblies, Core, Core.Tests, Database, Database.Tests, CMS, and CMS.Tests. So, it's easy to do this by just hg init'ing in the project directories. But can it be done while preserving history? Or is there a better way to arrange this?

  Read the article

• missing rake tasks ??

  - by richard moss

  hi I have ran gem install rails and am running 2.3.4 but i am missing some rake tasks like 'db' and 'gems' if i run rake -T i get the following tasks. How can i get all the others ? rake apache2 # Build Apache 2 module rake clean # Remove compiled files rake clobber # Remove all generated files rake default # Build everything rake doc # Generate all documentation rake doxygen # Generate Doxygen C++ API documentation if ... rake doxygen:clobber # Remove generated Doxygen C++ API documenta... rake doxygen:force # Force generation of Doxygen C++ API docume... rake fakeroot # Create a fakeroot, useful for building nat... rake nginx # Build Nginx helper server rake package # Build all the packages rake package:clean # Remove package products rake package:debian # Create a Debian package rake package:force # Force a rebuild of the package files rake package:gem # Build the gem file passenger-2.2.4.gem rake rdoc # Build the rdoc HTML Files rake rdoc:clobber # Remove rdoc products rake rdoc:force # Force a rebuild of the RDOC files rake sloccount # Run 'sloccount' to see how much code Passe... rake test # Run all unit tests and integration tests rake test:cxx # Run unit tests for the Apache 2 and Nginx ... rake test:integration # Run all integration tests rake test:integration:apache2 # Run Apache 2 integration tests rake test:integration:nginx # Run Nginx integration tests rake test:oxt # Run unit tests for the OXT library rake test:rcov # Run coverage tests for the Ruby libraries rake test:restart # Run the 'restart' integration test infinit... rake test:ruby If anyone knows why this has happened, how i can fix it or anything else that could help, please let me know thanks alot rick

  Read the article

• Nose2 multiprocess error on Windows7

  - by tt293

  I was looking into nose2 as a way to get around the restrictions of having both xunit output and multiprocessing in nose1.3. However, when always-on is set to False in the [multiprocess] section, I can only get a single process running, while when running with always-on set to True, I get the following error: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ran 0 tests in 0.043s OK Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\dev\testing\Tests\PythonTests\venv\Scripts\nose2-script.py", line 8, in <module> load_entry_point('nose2==0.4.7', 'console_scripts', 'nose2')() File "C:\dev\testing\Tests\PythonTests\venv\lib\site-packages\nose2-0.4.7-py2. 7.egg\nose2\main.py", line 284, in discover return main(*args, **kwargs) File "C:\dev\testing\Tests\PythonTests\venv\lib\site-packages\nose2-0.4.7-py2. 7.egg\nose2\main.py", line 98, in __init__ super(PluggableTestProgram, self).__init__(**kw) File "C:\dev\testing\Tests\PythonTests\venv\lib\site-packages\unittest2-0.5.1- py2.7.egg\unittest2\main.py", line 98, in __init__ self.runTests() File "C:\dev\testing\Tests\PythonTests\venv\lib\site-packages\nose2-0.4.7-py2. 7.egg\nose2\main.py", line 260, in runTests self.result = runner.run(self.test) File "C:\dev\testing\Tests\PythonTests\venv\lib\site-packages\nose2-0.4.7-py2. 7.egg\nose2\runner.py", line 53, in run executor(test, result) File "C:\dev\testing\Tests\PythonTests\venv\lib\site-packages\nose2-0.4.7-py2. 7.egg\nose2\plugins\mp.py", line 60, in _runmp ready, _, _ = select.select(rdrs, [], [], self.testRunTimeout) select.error: (10038, 'An operation was attempted on something that is not a soc ket') This is running python 2.7.5 (32bit) on Windows 7 in a virtualenv with six-1.1.0, unittest2-0.5.1 and nose2-0.4.7 (I get the same behavior outside of the venv, so I don't think that is the issue here).

  Read the article

• Execute JavaScript from within a C# assembly

  - by ScottKoon

  I'd like to execute JavaScript code from within a C# assembly and have the results of the JavaScript code returned to the calling C# code. It's easier to define things that I'm not trying to do: I'm not trying to call a JavaScript function on a web page from my code behind. I'm not trying to load a WebBrowser control. I don't want to have the JavaScript perform an AJAX call to a server. What I want to do is write unit tests in JavaScript and have then unit tests output JSON, even plain text would be fine. Then I want to have a generic C# class/executible that can load the file containing the JS, run the JS unit tests, scrap/load the results, and return a pass/fail with details during a post-build task. I think it's possible using the old ActiveX ScriptControl, but it seems like there ought to be a .NET way to do this without using SilverLight, the DLR, or anything else that hasn't shipped yet. Anyone have any ideas? update: From Brad Abrams blog namespace Microsoft.JScript.Vsa { [Obsolete("There is no replacement for this feature. Please see the ICodeCompiler documentation for additional help. http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=14202")] Clarification: We have unit tests for our JavaScript functions that are written in JavaScript using the JSUnit framework. Right now during our build process, we have to manually load a web page and click a button to ensure that all of the JavaScript unit tests pass. I'd like to be able to execute the tests during the post-build process when our automated C# unit tests are run and report the success/failure alongside of out C# unit tests and use them as an indicator as to whether or not the build is broken.

  Read the article

• What steps to take when CPAN installation fails?

  - by pythonic metaphor

  I have used CPAN to install perl modules on quite a few occasions, but I've been lucky enough to just have it work. Unfortunately, I was trying to install Thread::Pool today and one of the required dependencies, Thread::Converyor::Monitored failed the test: Test Summary Report ------------------- t/Conveyor-Monitored02.t (Wstat: 65280 Tests: 89 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 255 Parse errors: Tests out of sequence. Found (2) but expected (4) Tests out of sequence. Found (4) but expected (5) Tests out of sequence. Found (5) but expected (6) Tests out of sequence. Found (3) but expected (7) Tests out of sequence. Found (6) but expected (8) Displayed the first 5 of 86 TAP syntax errors. Re-run prove with the -p option to see them all. Files=3, Tests=258, 6 wallclock secs ( 0.07 usr 0.03 sys + 4.04 cusr 1.25 csys = 5.39 CPU) Result: FAIL Failed 1/3 test programs. 0/258 subtests failed. make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 255 ELIZABETH/Thread-Conveyor-Monitored-0.12.tar.gz /usr/bin/make test -- NOT OK //hint// to see the cpan-testers results for installing this module, try: reports ELIZABETH/Thread-Conveyor-Monitored-0.12.tar.gz Running make install make test had returned bad status, won't install without force Failed during this command: ELIZABETH/Thread-Conveyor-Monitored-0.12.tar.gz: make_test NO What steps do you take to start seeing why an installation failed? I'm not even sure how to begin tracking down what's wrong.

  Read the article

• Is there a fully-functional dropdown replacement for HTML SELECT that works in IE?

  - by Ken Paul

  We determined in a previous question that many features of HTML SELECTs are not supported in IE. Is there an alternative widget that you would recommend from your experience that meets the following requirements? Respects the contentEditable property (does not allow selection changes if true) Respects the disabled property of individual OPTIONs (shows them "grayed out" or with strike-through font, and makes them un-selectable) Supports Option Groups (OPTGROUP elements) Supports style options such as border and margin in the SELECT and all sub-elements Supports dynamic add and delete of OPTION and OPTGROUP elements Supports the above in IE version 6 and above EDIT: As noted by @Joel Coehoorn, items 3 and 5 above are currently supported in IE. They are included here to make sure they are not overlooked in a replacement widget.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >