Search Results

Search found 19211 results on 769 pages for 'ui automated testing'.

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

Page 6/769 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • web application load / stress testing services

    - by Booji Boy
    Can you recommend reputable companies that offer help (consulting services, etc) in load testing (ASP.NET) web applications? We have a client looking to load test an ASP.NET application and we don't have any expertise in load testing web applications. The client is located in central Massachusetts. My employer http://www.goADNET.com was looking for an option besides, “I can figure out how to do it”.

    Read the article

  • What should come first: testing or code review?

    - by Silver Light
    Hello! I'm quite new to programming design patterns and life cycles and I was wondering, what should come first, code review or testing, regarding that those are done by separate people? From the one side, why bother reviewing code if nobody checked if it even works? From the other, some errors can be found early, if you do the review before testing. Which approach is recommended and why? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-First

    - by Timothy Klenke
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-first.aspxThis is the second of two posts on some common strategies for approaching the job of writing tests.  The previous post covered test-after workflows where as this will focus on test-first.  Each workflow presented is a method of attack for adding tests to a project.  The more tools in your tool belt the better.  So here is a partial list of some test-first methodologies. Ping Pong Ping Pong is a methodology commonly used in pair programing.  One developer will write a new failing test.  Then they hand the keyboard to their partner.  The partner writes the production code to get the test passing.  The partner then writes the next test before passing the keyboard back to the original developer. The reasoning behind this testing methodology is to facilitate pair programming.  That is to say that this testing methodology shares all the benefits of pair programming, including ensuring multiple team members are familiar with the code base (i.e. low bus number). Test Blazer Test Blazing, in some respects, is also a pairing strategy.  The developers don’t work side by side on the same task at the same time.  Instead one developer is dedicated to writing tests at their own desk.  They write failing test after failing test, never touching the production code.  With these tests they are defining the specification for the system.  The developer most familiar with the specifications would be assigned this task. The next day or later in the same day another developer fetches the latest test suite.  Their job is to write the production code to get those tests passing.  Once all the tests pass they fetch from source control the latest version of the test project to get the newer tests. This methodology has some of the benefits of pair programming, namely lowering the bus number.  This can be good way adding an extra developer to a project without slowing it down too much.  The production coder isn’t slowed down writing tests.  The tests are in another project from the production code, so there shouldn’t be any merge conflicts despite two developers working on the same solution. This methodology is also a good test for the tests.  Can another developer figure out what system should do just by reading the tests?  This question will be answered as the production coder works there way through the test blazer’s tests. Test Driven Development (TDD) TDD is a highly disciplined practice that calls for a new test and an new production code to be written every few minutes.  There are strict rules for when you should be writing test or production code.  You start by writing a failing (red) test, then write the simplest production code possible to get the code working (green), then you clean up the code (refactor).  This is known as the red-green-refactor cycle. The goal of TDD isn’t the creation of a suite of tests, however that is an advantageous side effect.  The real goal of TDD is to follow a practice that yields a better design.  The practice is meant to push the design toward small, decoupled, modularized components.  This is generally considered a better design that large, highly coupled ball of mud. TDD accomplishes this through the refactoring cycle.  Refactoring is only possible to do safely when tests are in place.  In order to use TDD developers must be trained in how to look for and repair code smells in the system.  Through repairing these sections of smelly code (i.e. a refactoring) the design of the system emerges. For further information on TDD, I highly recommend the series “Is TDD Dead?”.  It discusses its pros and cons and when it is best used. Acceptance Test Driven Development (ATDD) Whereas TDD focuses on small unit tests that concentrate on a small piece of the system, Acceptance Tests focuses on the larger integrated environment.  Acceptance Tests usually correspond to user stories, which come directly from the customer. The unit tests focus on the inputs and outputs of smaller parts of the system, which are too low level to be of interest to the customer. ATDD generally uses the same tools as TDD.  However, ATDD uses fewer mocks and test doubles than TDD. ATDD often complements TDD; they aren’t competing methods.  A full test suite will usually consist of a large number of unit (created via TDD) tests and a smaller number of acceptance tests. Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) BDD is more about audience than workflow.  BDD pushes the testing realm out towards the client.  Developers, managers and the client all work together to define the tests. Typically different tooling is used for BDD than acceptance and unit testing.  This is done because the audience is not just developers.  Tools using the Gherkin family of languages allow for test scenarios to be described in an English format.  Other tools such as MSpec or FitNesse also strive for highly readable behaviour driven test suites. Because these tests are public facing (viewable by people outside the development team), the terminology usually changes.  You can’t get away with the same technobabble you can with unit tests written in a programming language that only developers understand.  For starters, they usually aren’t called tests.  Usually they’re called “examples”, “behaviours”, “scenarios”, or “specifications”. This may seem like a very subtle difference, but I’ve seen this small terminology change have a huge impact on the acceptance of the process.  Many people have a bias that testing is something that comes at the end of a project.  When you say we need to define the tests at the start of the project many people will immediately give that a lower priority on the project schedule.  But if you say we need to define the specification or behaviour of the system before we can start, you’ll get more cooperation.   Keep these test-first and test-after workflows in your tool belt.  With them you’ll be able to find new opportunities to apply them.

    Read the article

  • Automated Website Testing/Sanity/Quality

    - by Jeff
    I am thinking about building a tool that starts from the root of a webpage and traverses the entire website gathering a list of resources such as CSS/HTML/Javascript files and then runs CSS/Javascript Lint + HTML Validator + Broken Link Finder. Before I start building something like this, I was wondering if this exists already? Thanks. I already searched Google quite a bit and couldn't find much.

    Read the article

  • JQuery UI Autocomplete showing as bullets

    - by awshepard
    The JQuery UI Demo page for autocomplete (link) has a nice looking search box and drop down with nice colors and highlights and such. When I implement it for myself, I end up with a bulleted list. How do I get my drop down of suggestions to look like theirs? A few notes/code fragments: I'm working in .NET land, so I'm using the <asp:ScriptManager> tag with <asp:ScriptReference>s inside it to get the hosted jquery.min.js (1.4.2) and jquery-ui.min.js (1.8.1) files from Google. My input box is fairly simple: <div class='ui-widget'> <label for="terms">Term: </label> <input id="terms" class="ui-autocomplete-input"> </div> My autocomplete looks like: $(""#terms"").autocomplete({source:""GetAttributesJSON.aspx"",minLength:2}); I get the correct data back, so that's not the issue. I just want fancy graphics. Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Formatting Parameters for Ajax POST request to Rails Controller - for jQuery-UI sortable list

    - by Hung Luu
    I'm using the jQuery-UI Sortable Connected Lists. I'm saving the order of the connected lists to a Rails server. My approach is to grab the list ID, column ID and index position of each list item. I want to then wrap this into an object that can be passed as a parameter back to the Rails Controller to be saved into the database. So ideally i'm looking to format the parameter like this: Parameters: {"Activity"=>[{id:1,column:2,position:1},{id:2,column:2,position:2} ,...]} How do I properly format my parameters to be passed in this Ajax POST request? Right now, with the approach below, I'm passing on Parameters: {"undefined"=>""} This is my current jQuery code (Coffeescript) which doesn't work: jQuery -> $('[id*="day"]').sortable( connectWith: ".day" placeholder: "ui-state-highlight" update: (event, ui) -> neworder = new Array() $('[id*="day"] > li').each -> column = $(this).attr("id") index = ui.item.index() + 1 id = $("#" + column + " li:nth-child(" + index + ") ").attr('id') passObject={} passObject.id = id passObject.column = column passObject.index = index neworder.push(passObject) alert neworder $.ajax url: "sort" type: "POST" data: neworder ).disableSelection() My apologies because this seems like a really amateur question but I'm just getting started with programming jQuery and Javascript.

    Read the article

  • jquery-ui autocomplete with ASP MVC suggestions not displaying

    - by adamnickerson
    I have been trying to get a simple example of the jquery-ui autocomplete to work. I have a controller setup to handle the query, and it returns the json that looks to be in order, but I am getting no suggestions showing up. Here are the js libraries I am including: <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="/Scripts/jquery-1.4.1.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="/Scripts/jquery-ui-1.8.1.custom.min.js"></script> <link href="/Content/jquery-ui-1.8.1.custom.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> and here is the javascript and the form tags: <script type="text/javascript"> $(function () { $("#organization").autocomplete({ source: function (request, response) { $.ajax({ url: '/Organization/OrganizationLookup', dataType: "json", data: { limit: 12, q: request.term } }) }, minLength: 2 }); }); </script> <div class="ui-widget"> <label for="organization">Organization: </label> <input id="organization" /> </div> I get back a json response that looks reasonable from my controller: [{"id":"Sector A","value":"Sector A"},{"id":"Sector B","value":"Sector B"},{"id":"Sector C","value":"Sector C"}] id and value seem to be the default naming that autocomplete is looking for. But I get no joy at all. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How to stop SWF inside of a jQuery UI tab from reloading

    - by Raul Agrait
    I have a SWF movie inside of a jQuery UI tab, and the problem I'm having is that the SWF gets reloaded everytime I click away from the tab, onto another tab, and then click back. I can inspect the DOM and see that the div containing the SWF is still in the DOM when I click away, so I don't know why this it seems to reload it when I click back to the tab. I added the following CSS rules to try to prevent the display being set to: none, but the Flash movie is still reloading: .ui-tabs .ui-tabs-hide { display: block !important; position: absolute; left: -10000px; }

    Read the article

  • Separate Database for Integration Testing

    - by john doe
    I am performance integration testing where I fire up the ASPX pages using WatiN and fill the fields and insert into the database. There are couple of problems that I am facing. 1) Should I use a completely separate database for integration testing? I already gave db_test and db_dev. db_test is for unit testing and is cleared after each test. db_dev is for developers. 2) When I run WatiN test which are contained in a separate assembly (not separate from unit test assembly which should be better since WatiN test take so much time to run). So WatiN test fire up the WebApps project and uses their web.config which is pointing to the dev database. Is there anyway I can tell WatiN to use a separate web.config which contains a different database name?

    Read the article

  • how to precompile a jquery ui autocomplete widget?

    - by Alex
    Hello, I have a jquery ui autocomplete widget in a form and I'd like to preselect its value from a database. My autocomplete works in the following way: the id is a number, tha label and the value are the same and are a concatenation of id + " - " + description. When a value from the autocomplete is selected, a hidden field's value is set to the value of id. Then, the hidden field value is saved to the db when the form is submitted. When the user comes back on the page for editing, I need to reload the value from the db: I set the idden field value again and then I would like to precompile the value of the autocomplete widget with the concatenation of id + " - " + description taken form the db. I think I should trigger the event of selecting a row in the autocomplete, but I don't know how to do. Do you have any ideas? Thank you Here is the code of the autocomplete: $('#codice_contratto').autocomplete({ source: 'do_contratto.php', select: function(event, ui) { $('#id_contratto').val(ui.item.id); } });

    Read the article

  • How does the workflow between testers doing testing and coders doing the coding for pending testing

    - by dotnetdev
    In a large company that does software development, they often have dedicated teams for build management, testing, development, and so forth. Agile or not, how does this workflow amongst teams work? I mean would the test team write unit tests and then the dev team write code to adhere to these tests (basically TDD)? And then the test team may write tests for a completely different project or have a slight quiet period until the dev team have done their coding. What possible workflows are there? This is something that interests me greatly. I know that in my current company we are doing it incorrectly (we have 1 tester about 5 devs, which is small scale) but I am not sure how exactly to draw out the ideal workflow. Many (ok, an ex-Project Manager) have tried, but all failed.

    Read the article

  • Web Performance testing using VS2010 "Testing a file download"

    - by cheedep
    Hi All, I am trying out the VS 2010 testing tools for the first time. And I tried recording a web performance test and my actions had a file download implemented as in the KB article here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/812406 by streaming chunks of 10000 bytes. However my test is failing at the download saying "The response stream has been closed". Please help me understand why it is happening this way also any suggestions how you would test such a file download. My main aim was to see how the download was performing for a load test with Intercontinental 350kbps connection on files of about 30-50 MB. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to get access under testing

    - by Friedrich
    This question is related to: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3027705/experiences-with-language-converters I just can tell I searched the web for quite a few days but hardly found anything about somewhat "proper" test in access. I found some framworks like accessunit but that's Unit testing, what abouut the forms? What about the different reports etc. A counter-example in "testing" is e.g the rails or Seaside or Smalltalk area. Where testing is thought of as integral part. But I have not found anything comparable for Access based solutions. Maybe some of you know better?

    Read the article

  • When is type testing OK?

    - by svidgen
    Assuming a language with some inherent type safety (e.g., not JavaScript): Given a method that accepts a SuperType, we know that in most cases wherein we might be tempted to perform type testing to pick an action: public void DoSomethingTo(SuperType o) { if (o isa SubTypeA) { o.doSomethingA() } else { o.doSomethingB(); } } We should usually, if not always, create a single, overridable method on the SuperType and do this: public void DoSomethingTo(SuperType o) { o.doSomething(); } ... wherein each subtype is given its own doSomething() implementation. The rest of our application can then be appropriately ignorant of whether any given SuperType is really a SubTypeA or a SubTypeB. Wonderful. But, we're still given is a-like operations in most, if not all, type-safe languages. And that seems suggests a potential need for explicit type testing. So, in what situations, if any, should we or must we perform explicit type testing? Forgive my absent mindedness or lack of creativity. I know I've done it before; but, it was honestly so long ago I can't remember if what I did was good! And in recent memory, I don't think I've encountered a need to test types outside my cowboy JavaScript.

    Read the article

  • Reclaim Vertical UI Space by Moving Your Tabs to the Side in Firefox

    - by Asian Angel
    Are you looking for a way to move your tabs to the side in Firefox and gain access to more vertical UI space? The Vertical Tabs extension for Firefox lets you accomplish both in a matter of moments. As soon as you install the extension and restart Firefox the Tab Bar will be automatically converted into a shiny new Vertical Tabs Sidebar. All that you have to do is start enjoying the extra vertical UI space. Some things to keep in mind when using the extension are: You can easily adjust the width of the sidebar to suit your needs using the mouse (very nice!) The Firefox Menu Button, Panorama Button, and Tab Control controls move to the bottom of the sidebar (see screenshot above) You can group tabs if needed or desired There is no option available to move the sidebar to the right side of the browser at the moment The use of Personas themes (or other themes) may affect how the text for the tabs will look (i.e. a slightly fuzzy shadow effect when not selected as seen in the screenshot above) Note: Works with Firefox 4.0b7 – 4.0.* Install the Vertical Tabs Extension [Mozilla Add-ons] Latest Features How-To Geek ETC Should You Delete Windows 7 Service Pack Backup Files to Save Space? What Can Super Mario Teach Us About Graphics Technology? Windows 7 Service Pack 1 is Released: But Should You Install It? How To Make Hundreds of Complex Photo Edits in Seconds With Photoshop Actions How to Enable User-Specific Wireless Networks in Windows 7 How to Use Google Chrome as Your Default PDF Reader (the Easy Way) Reclaim Vertical UI Space by Moving Your Tabs to the Side in Firefox Wind and Water: Puzzle Battles – An Awesome Game for Linux and Windows How Star Wars Changed the World [Infographic] Tabs Visual Manager Adds Thumbnailed Tab Switching to Chrome Daisies and Rye Swaying in the Summer Wind Wallpaper Read On Phone Pushes Data from Your Desktop to the Appropriate Android App

    Read the article

  • White box testing with Google Test

    - by Daemin
    I've been trying out using GoogleTest for my C++ hobby project, and I need to test the internals of a component (hence white box testing). At my previous work we just made the test classes friends of the class being tested. But with Google Test that doesn't work as each test is given its own unique class, derived from the fixture class if specified, and friend-ness doesn't transfer to derived classes. Initially I created a test proxy class that is friends with the tested class. It contains a pointer to an instance of the tested class and provides methods for the required, but hidden, members. This worked for a simple class, but now I'm up to testing a tree class with an internal private node class, of which I need to access and mess with. I'm just wondering if anyone using the GoogleTest library has done any white box testing and if they have any hints or helpful constructs that would make this easier. Ok, I've found the FRIEND_TEST macro defined in the documentation, as well as some hints on how to test private code in the advanced guide. But apart from having a huge amount of friend declerations (i.e. one FRIEND_TEST for each test), is there an easier idion to use, or should I abandon using GoogleTest and move to a different test framework?

    Read the article

  • White box testing with Google Test

    - by Daemin
    I've been trying out using GoogleTest for my C++ hobby project, and I need to test the internals of a component (hence white box testing). At my previous work we just made the test classes friends of the class being tested. But with Google Test that doesn't work as each test is given its own unique class, derived from the fixture class if specified, and friend-ness doesn't transfer to derived classes. Initially I created a test proxy class that is friends with the tested class. It contains a pointer to an instance of the tested class and provides methods for the required, but hidden, members. This worked for a simple class, but now I'm up to testing a tree class with an internal private node class, of which I need to access and mess with. I'm just wondering if anyone using the GoogleTest library has done any white box testing and if they have any hints or helpful constructs that would make this easier. Ok, I've found the FRIEND_TEST macro defined in the documentation, as well as some hints on how to test private code in the advanced guide. But apart from having a huge amount of friend declerations (i.e. one FRIEND_TEST for each test), is there an easier idion to use, or should I abandon using GoogleTest and move to a different test framework?

    Read the article

  • unit/integration testing web service proxy client

    - by cori
    I'm rewriting a PHP client/proxy library that provides an interface to a SOAP-based .Net webservice, and in the process I want to add some unit and integration tests so future modifications are less risky. The work the library I'm working on performs is to marshall the calls to the web service and do a little reorganizing of the responses to present a slightly more -object-oriented interface to the underlying service. Since this library is little else than a thin layer on top of web service calls, my basic assumption is that I'll really be writing integration tests more than unit tests - for example, I don't see any reason to mock away the web service - the work that's performed by the code I'm working on is very light; it's almost passing the response from the service right back to its consumer. Most of the calls are basic CRUD operations: CreateRole(), CreateUser(), DeleteUser(), FindUser(), &ct. I'll be starting from a known database state - the system I'm using for these tests is isolated for testing purposes, so the results will be more or less predictable. My question is this: is it natural to use web service calls to confirm the results of operations within the tests and to reset the state of the application within the scope of each test? Here's an example: One test might be createUserReturnsValidUserId() and might go like this: public function createUserReturnsValidUserId() { // we're assuming a global connection to the service $newUserId = $client->CreateUser("user1"); assertNotNull($newUserId); assertNotNull($client->FindUser($newUserId); $client->deleteUser($newUserId); } So I'm creating a user, making sure I get an ID back and that it represents a user in the system, and then cleaning up after myself (so that later tests don't rely on the success or failure of this test w/r/t the number of users in the system, for example). However this still seems pretty fragile - lots of dependencies and opportunities for tests to fail and effect the results of later tests, which I definitely want to avoid. Am I missing some options of ways to decouple these tests from the system under test, or is this really the best I can do? I think this is a fairly general unit/integration testing question, but if it matters I'm using PHPUnit for the testing framework.

    Read the article

  • Node.JS testing with Jasmine, databases, and pre-existing code

    - by Jim Rubenstein
    I've recently built the start of a core system which is likely going turn into a monster product. I'm building the system with node.js, and decided after I got a small base built, that It'd be a great idea to start using some sort of automated test suite to test the application. I decided to use jasmine, as it seems pretty solid and has a lot of features for stubbing spying and mocking methods and classes. The application has a lot of external data stores and api access (kestrel, mysql, mongodb, facebook, and more). My issue is, I've got a good amount of code written that I want to start testing - as it represents the underpinnings of the application. What are the best practices for testing methods/classes that access external APIs that I may or may not have control over? As an example, I have a data structure that fetches a bunch of data from a MySQL database. I want to test the method that retrieves the data; and I'm not sure how to go about it. I could test the fetch method which is supposed to return an array of objects, but to isolate the method from the database, I need to define my own fixture data. So what I end up doing is stubbing the mysql execution, and returning a static dataset. So, I end up writing a function that returns the dataset that makes my test pass. That doesn't seem to actually test the code, other than verifying a method is being called. I know this is kind of abstract and vague, it seems that the idea of testing is very much abstract though, so hopefully someone has some experience and can guide me in the right direction. Any advice, or reading I can do is more than welcomed. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing to prove balanced tree

    - by Darrel Hoffman
    I've just built a self-balancing tree (red-black) in Java (language should be irrelevant for this question though), and I'm trying to come up with a good means of testing that it's properly balanced. I've tested all the basic tree operations, but I can't think of a way to test that it is indeed well and truly balanced. I've tried inserting a large dictionary of words, both pre-sorted and un-sorted. With a balanced tree, those should take roughly the same amount of time, but an unbalanced tree would take significantly longer on the already-sorted list. But I don't know how to go about testing for that in any reasonable, reproducible way. (I've tried doing millisecond tests on these, but there's no noticeable difference - probably because my source data is too small.) Is there a better way to be sure that the tree is really balanced? Say, by looking at the tree after it's created and seeing how deep it goes? (That is, without modifying the tree itself by adding a depth field to each node, which is just wasteful if you don't need it for anything other than testing.)

    Read the article

  • Implementing unit testing at a company that doesn't do it

    - by Pete
    My company's head of software development just "resigned" (i.e. fired) and we are now looking into improving the development practices at our company. We want to implement unit testing in all software created from here on out. Feedback from the developers is this: We know testing is valuable But, you are always changing the specs so it'd be a waste of time And, your deadlines are so tight we don't have enough time to test anyway Feedback from the CEO is this: I would like our company to have automated testing, but I don't know how to make it happen We don't have time to write large specification documents How do developers get the specs now? Word of mouth or PowerPoint slide. Obviously, that's a big problem. My suggestion is this: Let's also give the developers a set of test data and unit tests That's the spec. It's up to management to be clear and quantitative about what it wants. The developers can put it whatever other functionality they feel is needed and it need not be covered by tests Well, if you've ever been in a company that was in this situation, how did you solve the problem? Does this approach seem reasonable?

    Read the article

  • Testing When Correctness is Poorly Defined?

    - by dsimcha
    I generally try to use unit tests for any code that has easily defined correct behavior given some reasonably small, well-defined set of inputs. This works quite well for catching bugs, and I do it all the time in my personal library of generic functions. However, a lot of the code I write is data mining code that basically looks for significant patterns in large datasets. Correct behavior in this case is often not well defined and depends on a lot of different inputs in ways that are not easy for a human to predict (i.e. the math can't reasonably be done by hand, which is why I'm using a computer to solve the problem in the first place). These inputs can be very complex, to the point where coming up with a reasonable test case is near impossible. Identifying the edge cases that are worth testing is extremely difficult. Sometimes the algorithm isn't even deterministic. Usually, I do the best I can by using asserts for sanity checks and creating a small toy test case with a known pattern and informally seeing if the answer at least "looks reasonable", without it necessarily being objectively correct. Is there any better way to test these kinds of cases?

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >