Search Results

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

Page 62/456 | < Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Recognizing text fields according to their label value

  - by Pierpaolo Bagnasco

  I have an application who has text fields (not select, not checkbox or other types) where an user can enter some value, like this: ISBN and E-Mail are the label of each input. Now I have to automatically test these inputs according to their label. The question is: how to recognize that, for example, the first input requires an ISBN code? I programmed something like this: turn the label value to lowercase check if the label value contains isbn if so set the field value to a random ISBN code (i.e.: 1234567890), else set it to a random value (default) For the email field: turn the label value to lowercase check if the label value contains e-mail or email or mail if so set the field value to a random email (i.e.: [email protected]), else set it to a random value (default) And so on for each text field I encounter. Is that reliable? How can I improve the "recognizing part"? I know only the label value and the field value (what is already written in the field by default) for each text input.

  Read the article

• Is the test, which touches the filenames under directory, a kind of unittest? [on hold]

  - 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

• Coded UI Test Method failed inconsistently

  - by Sunitha M

  The following exception failing my UI automation test. Message: Test method CodedUITestMethod1 throw exception: The playback failed to find the control with the given search properties. Additional Details: TechnologyName: 'UIA' ControlType: 'MenuItem' Name: 'MyViewModel' ---> system.runtime.interopservices.comexception error hresult e_fail has been returned from a call to a COM component please any one give me a solution for these type of exceptions.

  Read the article

• How to open-source a project whose git repository has copyrighted media in the history?

  - by phyzome

  I want to release an audio fingerprinting software project under a free license, but the repository contains copyrighted audio files. The test cases also currently use these files. How do I release the code to the public with maximum version history but without violating copyright? Details: The code is versioned under git. We will collapse it all back into one branch before release. There are 400 MB of audio data. Some files are free-licensed music from e.g. Jamendo, others are MP3s from our personal collections. No matter what approach we take, we'll always keep an immutable copy of the original repo, so as not to destroy project history. Main question: How to handle the public release? Expunge all history of the files in question from the git repository and release the altered repo. (v64 pointed out a way to do this.) Alternatively, take a snapshot of the current state of the code and don't even bother having a public history of the pre-release code. Side question: How could we have avoided this dilemma in the first place, given that sometimes private code or media is needed for the early stages of a project?

  Read the article

• Is testable code actually more stable? [closed]

  - by Xodarap

  A google scholar search turns up numerous papers on testability, including models for computing testability, recommendations for how ones code can be more testable, etc. They all come with the assertion that more testable code is more stable, however I can't find any studies which actually demonstrate this. I tried looking for studies evaluating the effect of testable code vs. quality, however the closest I can find is Improving the Testability of Object Oriented Systems, which discusses the relationship between design flaws and testability. Is testable code is actually more stable? And why, or why not? Please back up your answers with references or evidence to back up your claim.

  Read the article

• Is a functional spec a part of the System requirement spec?

  - by user970696

  I wonder, sources like wikipedia or templates I found shows that Functional spec is a part of System requirement documents. I always thought that SRD is just overall decsription of the system, with all functional and non functional requirements. Yet I thought that Functional spec is more detailed and it is a separate document, while SRD is high level customer-created description (how is this one called then?) Could anyone help to make this clear for me?

  Read the article

• How best to construct our test subjects in unit tests?

  - by Liath

  Some of our business logic classes require quite a few dependencies (in our case 7-10). As such when we come to unit test these the creation become quite complex. In most tests these dependencies are often not required (only some dependencies are required for particular methods). As a result unit tests often require a significant number of lines of code to mock up these useless dependencies (which can't be null because of null checks). For example: [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = new Sut(new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, new Mock<IDependency3>().Object, new Mock<IDependency4>().Object, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } In this example almost half the test is taken up creating dependencies which aren't used. I've investigated an approach where I have a helper method. [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = CreateSut(null, null, null, null, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } private Sut CreateSut(IDependency1 d1, IDependency2 d2...) { return new Sut(d1 ?? new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, d2 ?? new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, } But these often grow very complicated very quickly. What is the best way to create these BLL classes in test classes to reduce complexity and simplify tests?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >