Search Results

Search found 10170 results on 407 pages for 'regression testing'.

Page 56/407 | < Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

  • Olympic clock stops after a few hours: can this even be a software problem? [closed]

    - by mvexel
    I fail to understand how something uncomplicated as a countdown clock can fail - to much public humiliation of sponsor and renowned clock maker Omega - after only a few hours of operation. The clock, which was 'developed by our experts and fully tested' according to a spokesperson who goes on to say that is 'not immediately apparent what has caused the problem'. Can this even be a software problem? What has gone wrong here?

    Read the article

  • Does it make sense to write tests for legacy code when there is no time for a complete refactoring?

    - by is4
    I usually try to follow the advice of the book Working Effectively with Legacy Code. I break dependencies, move parts of the code to @VisibleForTesting public static methods and to new classes to make the code (or at least some part of it) testable. And I write tests to make sure that I don't break anything when I'm modifying or adding new functions. A colleague says that I shouldn't do this. His reasoning: The original code might not work properly in the first place. And writing tests for it makes future fixes and modifications harder since devs have to understand and modify the tests too. If it's GUI code with some logic (~12 lines, 2-3 if/else block, for example), a test isn't worth the trouble since the code is too trivial to begin with. Similar bad patterns could exist in other parts of the codebase, too (which I haven't seen yet, I'm rather new); it will be easier to clean them all up in one big refactoring. Extracting out logic could undermine this future possibility. Should I avoid extracting out testable parts and writing tests if we don't have time for complete refactoring? Is there any disadvantage to this that I should consider?

    Read the article

  • Need help understanding Mocks and Stubs

    - by Theomax
    I'm new to use mocking frameworks and I have a few questions on the things that I am not clear on. I'm using Rhinomocks to generate mock objects in my unit tests. I understand that mocks can be created to verify interactions between methods and they record the interactions etc and stubs allow you to setup data and entities required by the test but you do not verify expectations on stubs. Looking at the recent unit tests I have created, I appear to be creating mocks literally for the purpose of stubbing and allowing for data to be setup. Is this a correct usage of mocks or is it incorrect if you're not actually calling verify on them? For example: user = MockRepository.GenerateMock<User>(); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid()); user.Stub(x => x.Name = "User1"); In the above code I generate a new user mock object, but I use a mock so I can stub the properties of the user because in some cases if the properties do not have a setter and I need to set them it seems the only way is to stub the property values. Is this a correct usage of stubbing and mocking? Also, I am not completely clear on what the difference between the following lines is: user.Stub(x => x.Id).Return(new Guid()); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid());

    Read the article

  • Point line collision reaction

    - by user4523
    I am trying to program point line segment collision detection and reaction. I am doing this for fun and to learn. The point moves (it has a velocity, and can be controlled by the user), whilst the lines are strait and stationary. The lines are not axis aligned. Everything is in 2D. It is quite straight forward to work out if a collision has occurred. For each frame, the point moves from A to B. AB is a line, and if it crosses the line segment, a collision has occurred (or will occur) and I am able to work out the point of intersection (poi). The problem I am having is with the reaction. Ideally I would like the point to be prevented from moving across the line. In one frame, I can move the point back to the poi (or only alow it to move as far as the poi), and alter the velocity. The problem I am having with this approach (I think) is that, next frame the user may try to cross the line again. Although the point is on the poi, the point may not be exactly on the line. Since it is not axis aligned, I think there is always some subtle rounding issue (A float representation of a point on a line might be rounded to a point that is slightly on one side or the other). Because of this, next frame the path might not intersect the line (because it can start on the other side and move away from it) and the point is effectively allowed to cross the line. Firstly, does the analysis sound correct? Having accepted (maybe) that I cannot always exactly position the point on the line, I tried to move the point away from the line slightly (either along the normal to the line, or along the path vector). I then get a problem at edges. Attempting to fix one collision by moving the point away from the line (even slightly) can cause it to cross another line (one shape I am dealing with is a star, with sharp corners). This can mean that the solution to one collision inadvertently creates another collision, which is ignored. Again, does this sound correct? Anyway, whatever I try, I am having difficulty with edges, and the point is occasionally able to penetrate the polygons and cross lines, which is undesirable. Whilst I can find a lot of information about collision detection on the web (and on this site) I can find precious little information on collision reaction. Does any one know of any good point line collision reaction tutorials? Or is my approach too flawed/over complicated?

    Read the article

  • How can you write tests for Selenium (or similar) which don't fail because of minor or cosmetic changes?

    - by Sam
    I've been spending the last week or so learning selenium and building a series of web tests for a website we're about to launch. it's been great to learn, and I've picked up some xpath and css location techniques. the problem for me though, is seeing little changes break the tests - any change to a div, an id, or some autoid number that helps identify widgets breaks any number of tests - it just seems to be very brittle. so have you written selenium (or other similar) tests, and how do you deal with the brittle nature of the tests (or how do you stop them being brittle), and what sort of tests do you use selenium for?

    Read the article

  • Not assigning Bugs to a specific user

    - by user2977817
    My question: Is there a benefit to NOT assigning a Bug to a particular developer? Leaving it to the team as-a-whole? Our department has decided to be more Agile by not assigning Bugs/Defects to individuals. Using Team Foundation Server 2012, we'll place all Bugs in a development team's "Area" but leave the "Assigned To" field blank. The idea is that the team will create a Task work item which will be assigned to an individual and the Task will link to the Bug. The Team as a whole will therefore take responsibility for the Bug, not an individual, aligning to Scrum - apparently. I see the down side. The reporting tools built into TFS become less useful when you cannot sort by assigned vs unassigned, let alone sorting by which user Bugs are assigned. Is there a benefit I'm not seeing? Besides encouraging teamwork by putting the responsibility on the team-as-a-whole instead of an individual?

    Read the article

  • Is there any way to simulate a slow connection between my server and an iPad (without installing anything on the server)?

    - by Clay Nichols
    Some of our webapp users have difficulty on slower connections. I"m trying to get a better idea of what that "speed barrier is" so I'd like to be able to test a variety of connection speeds. I've found ways to do this on Windows but no on the iPad, so I'm looking more for some sort of proxy service that'll work with any device (not running ON that device) I did find an article about using the CharlesProxy and providing a connection to another device, but I was hoping for something simpler (need not be free) Constraints * We are on a shared server so we can't install anything and we are limited in our control over that server. * I'd like to test an iPad, Android Tablet, Windows PC.

    Read the article

  • How to separate production and test assets during development?

    - by bcsanches
    Hi Folks, this is like a complement for Assets Management, database or versioning system?. I am wondering about how to separate development, specially programmers assets from production assets? For example, if we keep all the assets on the same repository, how do you keep with programmers assets and final game assets? Do you keep a separate directory for each of those, allowing duplicates? Or do you use some fancy scheme for striping out the "development" and "test" assets from final build?

    Read the article

  • FxCop / Code Analysis with VS2010 Ultimate

    - by Cuartico
    I've getting some information about this, but I still can find a proper answer, I was asked recently in my company for this : "run a fxcop analysis on that code and tell me the results". Ok, I have VS2010 Ultimate which has code analysis, but before making any comment, I browse it on the internet cause I want to implement the best choice... So, let's say I'm gonna use the same rules on both analyzers: Should I recommend using one above the other? Should I say "hey, thats kinda old, let's use code analysis!" Should I get the same results on different computers? (for what I undersand, fxcop gives you some "points" and for what I've read, sometimes it gives you diff points on diff computers, I don't know about this with code analysis Thanks, any help would be appreciated

    Read the article

  • How do functional languages handle a mocking situation when using Interface based design?

    - by Programmin Tool
    Typically in C# I use dependency injection to help with mocking; public void UserService { public UserService(IUserQuery userQuery, IUserCommunicator userCommunicator, IUserValidator userValidator) { UserQuery = userQuery; UserValidator = userValidator; UserCommunicator = userCommunicator; } ... public UserResponseModel UpdateAUserName(int userId, string userName) { var result = UserValidator.ValidateUserName(userName) if(result.Success) { var user = UserQuery.GetUserById(userId); if(user == null) { throw new ArgumentException(); user.UserName = userName; UserCommunicator.UpdateUser(user); } } ... } ... } public class WhenGettingAUser { public void AndTheUserDoesNotExistThrowAnException() { var userQuery = Substitute.For<IUserQuery>(); userQuery.GetUserById(Arg.Any<int>).Returns(null); var userService = new UserService(userQuery); AssertionExtensions.ShouldThrow<ArgumentException>(() => userService.GetUserById(-121)); } } Now in something like F#: if I don't go down the hybrid path, how would I test workflow situations like above that normally would touch the persistence layer without using Interfaces/Mocks? I realize that every step above would be tested on its own and would be kept as atomic as possible. Problem is that at some point they all have to be called in line, and I'll want to make sure everything is called correctly.

    Read the article

  • How to define implementation details?

    - by woni
    In our project, an assembly combines logic for the IoC-Container, the project internals and the communication layer. The current version evolved to have only internal classes in addin assemblies. My main problem with this approach is, that the entry point is only available over the IoC-Container. It is not possible to use anything else than reflection to initialize the assembly. Everything behind the IoC-Interface is defined as implementation detail and therefore not intended for usages outside. It is well known that you should not test implementation detail (such as private and internal methods), because they should be tested through the public interface. It is also well known, that your tests should not use the IoC-Container to setup the SUTs, because that would result in too much dependencies. So we are using the InternalsVisibleTo-Attribute to make internals visible to our test assemblies and test the so called implementation details. I recognized that one problem could be the mixup between different concerns in that assembly, changing this would make this discussion useless, because classes have to be defined public. Ignoring my concerns with this, isn't the need to test a class enough reason to make it public, the usages of InternalsVisibleTo seems unintended, and a little bit "hacky". The approach to test only against the publicly available IoC-Container is too costly and would result in integration style tests. The pros of using internals are, that the usages are well known and do not have to be implemented like a public method would have to be (documentation, completeness, versioning,...). Is there a solution, to not test against internals, but keep their advantages over public classes, or do we have to redefine what an implementation detail is.

    Read the article

  • What to do as a new team lead on a project with maintainability problems?

    - by Mr_E
    I have just been put in charge of a code project with maintainability problems. What things can I do to get the project on a stable footing? I find myself in a place where we are working with a very large multi-tiered .NET system that is missing a lot of the important things such as unit tests, IOC, MEF, too many static classes, pure datasets etc. I'm only 24 but I've been here for almost three years (this app has been in development for 5) and mostly due to time constraints we've been just adding in more crap to fit the other crap. After doing a number of projects in my free time I have begun to understand just how important all those concepts are. Also due to employee shifting I find myself to now be the team lead on this project and I really want to come up with some smart ways to improve this app. Ways where the value can be explained to management. I have ideas of what I would like to do but they all seem so overwhelming without much upfront gain. Any stories of how people have or would have dealt with this would be a very interesting read. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Need an engine for MMO mockup

    - by Kayle
    What I don't need is an MMORPG engine, at the moment. What I do need is a flexible easy-to-use engine that I can make a mock-up with. I don't need support for more than 10 players in an instance, so any multiplayer platform is probably fine. I need an engine with which I can create the following core features: Waves of simple AI enemies that have specific objectives (move to point A, destroy target, move to point B). The units present can be between 50-200 in number. An over-the-shoulder view and the ability to control a team of 3 (like Mass Effect or the latest Dragon Age) Functioning inventory system Right now, all I can really think of is Unreal or Source. Any other suggestions? Again, this is a proving mock-up, not an actual MMO. I'm not terribly worried about the visual aspects as we just want to test mechanics. Note: Can write some scripts in Python, Ruby, or Lua, if necessary.

    Read the article

  • How to install correctly another Linux flavour (in my case PCLinuxOS) together with installed Ubuntu 10.10 ?

    - by Vincenzo
    Hello everybody and Prosperous and Productive Year 2011 !!! I have Ubuntu 10.10 (32bit) installed on my laptop. I would like to install PCLinuxOS (KDE or LXDE version, I don't know yet) on the same computer across with Ubuntu 10.10. I would like to test 'in real conditions' a new PCLinuxOS as well as to resolve my question regarding Audio CD playback issue (mounting DBus timeout error). I would be grateful if somebody can advise me how to perform the installation of another Linux flavour without breakdown :) of existing Ubuntu system ? Thank you in advance for advices and recommendations. Here is my current partitioning:

    Read the article

  • setup test domain ready for site launch

    - by nextyear
    I'm about to launch a site on a live server, after developing it with xampp on localhost. I first want to test the site before i make it live. How do i setup this up so I have it in a subdomain (i.e. test.livesite.com)? Is it just set it up on the server and only add the cname dns setting? Or is there a better way? All i am trying to do is add my site to the server, so i can edit it and look at it before I set it as live.

    Read the article

  • I don't understand how TDD helps me get a good design if I need a design to start testing it

    - by Michael Stum
    I'm trying to wrap my head around TDD, specifically the development part. I've looked at some books, but the ones I found mainly tackle the testing part - the History of NUnit, why testing is good, Red/Green/Refactor and how to create a String Calculator. Good stuff, but that's "just" Unit Testing, not TDD. Specifically, I don't understand how TDD helps me get a good design if I need a Design to start testing it. To illustrate, imagine these 3 requirements: A catalog needs to have a list of products The catalog should remember which products a user viewed Users should be able to search for a product At this points, many books pull a magic rabbit out of a hat and just dive into "Testing the ProductService", but they don't explain how they came to the conclusion that there is a ProductService in the first place. That is the "Development" part in TDD that I'm trying to understand. There needs to be an existing design, but stuff outside of entity-services (that is: There is a Product, so there should be a ProductService) is nowhere to be found (e.g., the second requirement requires me to have some concept of a User, but where would I put the functionality to remind? And is Search a feature of the ProductService or a separate SearchService? How would I know which I should choose?) According to SOLID, I would need a UserService, but if I design a system without TDD, I might end up with a whole bunch of Single-Method Services. Isn't TDD intended to make me discover my design in the first place? I'm a .net developer, but Java resources would also work. I feel that there doesn't seem to be a real sample application or book that deals with a real line of business application. Can someone provide a clear example that illustrates the process of creating a design using TDD?

    Read the article

  • What is the value of checking in failing unit tests?

    - by user20194
    While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in failing unit tests? I will use a simple example: Case Sensitivity. The current code is case sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests have found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

    Read the article

  • Unittest test case only touches the file name

    - by Chen OT
    I was told that unittest is fast and the tests which touches DB, across network, and touches FileSystem are not unittest. In one of my testcases, its input are the file names (amount about 300~400) under a specific folder. Although these input are part of file system, the execution time of this test is very fast. Should I moved this test, which is fast but touches file system, to higher level test?

    Read the article

  • Is doing AB Tests using site redirection a bad practice?

    - by user40358
    I'm developing hotels websites here in Brazil. When the site is done, we do an AB test with the old version to measure conversion and show to the hotel owner how good our site is. Due to the fact that I cannot put the old site inside the new one as a subresource (newone.com/old), currently I'm doing those AB test as follows: 1) I create 2 Google Analytics accounts, one for each site (old and new); 2) I put the GA tags in the old website pages (changing its possibly existent GA ID to the just created one); 3) I put an Javascript code that redirects the user to the old website (in a different URL and different domain) with 50% of probability. So I compare all the metrics, events and goals between those two GA accounts. How bad is it? How Google can interpretate the fact of being, sometimes redirected, sometimes don't? The experiment usually runs for 2 weeks. Is there any other alternative for doing this in a better way?

    Read the article

  • How will I know when my company is ready to receive an investment? [migrated]

    - by gunshor
    How will I know when my company is ready to receive an investment? I am starting a company and have bootstrapped it so far. I have produced four versions of the demo. The first fully-working version is underway. Getting this to a beta phase product will require capital, which requires an investment, which requires an investor, which requires I stop working on the product and go out and talk to people about it. The last time I raised money from investors, it took a while but I was successful. I don't want it to take a while. I want it to be brain dead simple for an investor to understand the value so that I can optimize the time I spend with the product. Is my logic flawed? What is the best way to approach raising money, while limiting both my time and risk? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why not write all tests at once when doing TDD?

    - by RichK
    The Red - Green - Refactor cycle for TDD is well established and accepted. We write one failing unit test and make it pass as simply as possible. What are the benefits to this approach over writing many failing unit tests for a class and make them all pass in one go. The test suite still protects you against writing incorrect code or making mistakes in the refactoring stage, so what's the harm? Sometimes it's easier to write all the tests first as a form of 'brain dump' to quickly write down all the expected behavior in one go.

    Read the article

  • Mimicking a bluetooth disconnection

    - by user2529672
    I've written a program to control a bluetooth device. I'm trying to test cases when the bluetooth disconnects, i.e. if its out of range. Physically taking the device out of range is one possibility, but its quite cumbersome and I have to go outside my office to achieve this. What can I do to trigger a disconnection? Is there, for example, an interferer I can setup, say with an Android phone, that would make the connection drop? Or limit the Bluetooth transmit power? Any other possibilities?

    Read the article

  • How do people maintain their test suite?

    - by Ida
    In particular, I'm curious about the following aspects: How do you know that your test cases are wrong (or out-of-date) and needed to be repaired (or discarded)? I mean, even if a test case became invalid, it might still pass and remain silent, which could let you falsely believe that your software works okay. So how do you realize such problems of your test suite? How do you know that your test suite is no longer sufficient and that new test cases should be added? I guess this has something to do with the requirement changes, but is there any systematic approach to check the adequacy of test suite?

    Read the article

  • Bug severity classification issues

    - by KyleMinn
    In a book I have, there is a following classification of defect: Critical : A defect receives a “critical” severity level if one or more critical system functionalities are impaired by a defect with is impaired and there is no workaround. High: A defect receives a “high” severity level if some fundamental system functionalities are impaired but a workaround exists. Medium: A defect receives a “medium” severity level if no critical functionality is impaired and a workaround exists for the defect. Low: A defect receives a “low” severity level if the problem involves a cosmetic feature of the system. To be honest, I do not get it.. For example point 2. What if fundamental but not critical feature is impaired and there is NOT a workaround. The same for point 3: what if no critical functionality is affected but there is no workaround? E.g. optional field in the registration form does not work. No workaround but barely an issue.

    Read the article

  • Is there a better way to organize my module tests that avoids an explosion of new source files?

    - by luser droog
    I've got a neat (so I thought) way of having each of my modules produce a unit-test executable if compiled with the -DTESTMODULE flag. This flag guards a main() function that can access all static data and functions in the module, without #including a C file. From the README: -- Modules -- The various modules were written and tested separately before being coupled together to achieve the necessary basic functionality. Each module retains its unit-test, its main() function, guarded by #ifdef TESTMODULE. `make test` will compile and execute all the unit tests, producing copious output, but importantly exitting with an appropriate success or failure code, so the `make test` command will fail if any of the tests fail. Module TOC __________ test obj src header structures CONSTANTS ---- --- --- --- -------------------- m m.o m.c m.h mfile mtab TABSZ s s.o s.c s.h stack STACKSEGSZ v v.o v.c v.h saverec_ f.o f.c f.h file ob ob.o ob.c ob.h object ar ar.o ar.c ar.h array st st.o st.c st.h string di di.o di.c di.h dichead dictionary nm nm.o nm.c nm.h name gc gc.o gc.c gc.h garbage collector itp itp.c itp.h context osunix.o osunix.c osunix.h unix-dependent functions It's compile by a tricky bit of makefile, m:m.c ob.h ob.o err.o $(CORE) itp.o $(OP) cc $(CFLAGS) -DTESTMODULE $(LDLIBS) -o $@ $< err.o ob.o s.o ar.o st.o v.o di.o gc.o nm.o itp.o $(OP) f.o where the module is compiled with its own C file plus every other object file except itself. But it's creating difficulties for the kindly programmer who offered to write the Autotools files for me. So the obvious way to make it "less weird" would be to bust-out all the main functions into separate source files. But, but ... Do I gotta?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >